Thematic analysis phase 6 involves producing a report

The write-up of a thematic analysis should provide a “concise, coherent, logical, non- repetitive and interesting account of the story the data tell” (Braun and Clarke 2006, p.93) as well as demonstrating the merit and validity of the analysis. It should

include data extracts as evidence for themes, making an argument in relation to the research questions. The reason for following these thematic analysis procedures is to be able to produce a report that goes beyond mere description of the data, to a deeper level of interpretative analysis. For this project, the thematic analysis of data collected from pupils and teachers aims to identify, from their perspectives, the factors that need to be addressed to offer an adequate answer to research question 1: How can academic language development be integrated into mainstream curriculum lessons to the benefit of all pupils in a multilingual post-primary context?

Chapter 7 – Findings

This chapter presents three different types of findings: linguistic, descriptive and thematic. It begins with findings resulting from linguistic analysis, providing a description of post-primary academic English specific to this particular research context: the transition year Biology and Religion classes taught by the co-researching teachers of this study. The data this description is based upon is comprised of texts from the Junior Certificate examination papers for Science and Religion which these pupils took in their public examinations in 2011; texts chosen by the teachers for use in the classroom during research lessons; and texts written by the pupils during or subsequent to research lessons.

The second section of findings (pp.168-196) is based upon data collected from teachers in audio-recorded conversations, from pupils in their research notebooks and focus discussion groups and from the researcher diary. This second section presents a detailed thick description of the reactions of pupils and teachers to the three interventions of this study, thus offering an answer to research question 2: What are pupils’ and teachers’ attitudes towards classroom interventions designed to integrate academic language development into lessons? Four snapshots of extraordinary pupils augment this thick description, elucidating the diversity encompassed in this pupil cohort. Where pupils’ written contributions are quoted, spelling and other errors have been retained.

The third section (pp.196-226) presents the findings of an in-depth thematic analysis of the same sets of data as section 2. As a report produced by thematic analysis, this section goes beyond a surface description of the data to make an argument in relation to the research questions (Braun and Clarke 2006, p.93). In this study, three themes were identified: academic language, learning, and classroom interactions.

Post-primary academic English specific to this study

The Junior Certificate public examinations that the participant pupils of this study took at the end of their first three years in post-primary school probably represent the most immediately significant academic English that they had encountered in their lives by the time of the research. Third year teaching schemes tend to focus on examination preparation, which may include familiarizing pupils with the form of both the expected examination questions and the answers they are intended to elicit. An analysis of the relevant Junior Certificate 2011 examination papers provides an insight into post-primary level academic English, as prescribed by the State Examination Commission (SEC) and encountered by the participant pupils as important for their progression in education. Examination questions, however, generally do not include extended text. This is provided by classroom texts, chosen by the participant teachers for the pupils to read in research lessons implementing intervention 1. These are examples of longer pieces of writing, intended to be read for educational purposes. The pupils’ written classwork, produced during interventions 1 and 2, displays a range in the level of academic English the participant pupils can produce. I offer the following analyses of these three types of text to exemplify in real terms the post-primary academic English discussed in chapter 3 and also to portray the academic English that is familiar to the participant pupils, whether they are consciously aware of it or not.

Junior Certificate examination questions

The next two sections provide a detailed analysis of the form, particularly the linguistic form, of the relevant public examinations taken by the participant pupils at the end of the academic year preceding their transition year. The purpose of this is to explore the extent to which pupils’ English language proficiency was tested in the subjects Biology and Religion, as well as to exemplify academic English that has been significant for the participant pupils. There are different levels of SEC examinations and choices of subjects, but the same SEC papers are taken by all pupils at the same level, irrespective of their language of instruction or their mother tongue.

Biology in Science Junior Certificate 2011

The Biology section of Science (ordinary level) Junior Certificate examination 2011 contains six pages (State Examination Commission 2011b). There are three questions made up of multiple groups of sub-questions, all of which are compulsory. Question 1 is worth 52 marks, which is 40% of the marks, questions 2 and 3 are worth 39 marks each (30%). Many of the answers involve writing one word or phrase on a short line, or in a table provided for this purpose. Where extended text is required, more space is given. Other questions require indicating a choice of word from a list by writing a letter next to the chosen word in a table, which corresponds to a label on a diagram. The letter to be written may be an arbitrarily assigned “A”, “B” or “X”, or a letter with significance, for example the letter “W” signifying “waste”, “A” signifying “animal” and “W” signifying “wind”. Scientific conventions appropriate to Biology, such as labelling items in diagrams and presenting information in table form, are used throughout the Biology section. However, the convention of entitling diagrams and tables is not used; instead some sub-questions begin with a sentence fulfilling the same function as a title, for example “The diagram shows a microscope”, while other sub-questions do not explain the image they are associated with in any way. Headings are used in question 2, section (d) where candidates are asked to describe an investigation (see below, p.146). Most of the instructions use imperative verb forms, for example “Write” and “Name”. The instructions include words highlighted using bold font, although it is difficult to pinpoint the reason for this. Overall the questions have a lexical density of 61%, with the individual pages ranging in lexical density from 57% to 65%.

Question 1 contains eight sections with sub-questions; seven of these sections are based on an image, such as a photograph of a microscope or a diagram of a human skeleton. The eighth sub-question requires the candidate to draw a diagram of a piece of equipment as well as to name it and explain its use. On the first page 29% of the words are in bold font. The reason for this liberal use of bold font is not clear. For example, in the opening sub-question:

“Write” is probably highlighted because it is the main instruction. “B” is probably highlighted to distinguish it from “A”, which is used earlier in the question. “function” is probably highlighted to indicate that the question is about functions, for example “magnifying”, and does not ask for the names of the parts of the microscope, for example “lens”. So, in one sentence, bold seems to be used to highlight words for three different reasons. Other sentences do not follow these three criteria. For example the previous instruction is identical apart from that the letter is “A” instead of “B” and “Write” is not in bold. The use of bold font does not appear to follow any consistent or useful pattern. Another aspect of the instructions is their high lexical density, indicating that the questions bear characteristics of academic English. Despite this linguistic density, many questions ask for a simple action to be performed, such as writing one letter in a choice of three boxes in a table. This is a form of multiple choice question, using a table instead of the familiar A, B, C options, however the instructions that accompany the question are linguistically complex and potentially confusing:

In the table write the letter X beside the name of the part labelled X

If this question is designed to test the candidates’ ability to follow instructions to write in a box in a table, this is not made explicit. If this question is intended to test only candidates’ knowledge of the subject specific term labelled X in a diagram, there are other, simpler ways of testing this knowledge, without involving sentences with successive prepositional phrases, for example the standard multiple choice question form. The eighth sub-question refers to a piece of equipment the candidate has used personally; this personalisation is expressed using the passive form “used by you”. Later in the same sub-question the fact that the candidate has used the equipment is lost altogether in another impersonal passive voice sentence:

Explain how it was set up or used.

Question 2 is presented in two parts. The first half of question 2 is based around four more tables, with accompanying instructions that follow a similar pattern to that quoted above, sometimes omitting the opening phrase “In the table” and sometimes including it. Other instructions include to “answer the (following) questions”, although the associated directions are not in the form of a question, but rather have imperative verbs, directing the candidates’ actions. This might be a source of

confusion for a candidate who expects questions to be marked by auxiliary verbs and question marks. In fact there are no question marks anywhere in question 2. The second half of question 2 is section (d), which asks candidates to describe an investigation. No main heading is given or required for this, but the headings “Equipment”, “Procedure” and “Result” are given, with four, seven and four lines respectively provided as space for candidates to write their answer. This is preceded by the only instruction in the entire Biology section that uses a modal verb: “The headings below may be helpful”. This seems confusing, as the layout clearly directs candidates to write under each heading and to choose different headings would involve crossing out or ignoring part of the printed rubric. An instruction “Use the headings below” would be consistent with the pattern of the rest of the instructions. Question 3 has three sections, all of which include grammatical questions ending with a question mark, but displaying a range of grammatical forms in terms of verb tense and voice. Some of these questions, in sections (a) and (b) begin “Which part . . .” and so there is no auxiliary verb, but a third person present simple tense verb form: “forms”, “controls”, and “takes in”. Section (b) contains a question form quite different from the rest of the examination: “What would you expect to happen . . .” followed by a string of four prepositional phrases. Section (c), describes a Biology investigation, including a diagram showing four test tubes. There is no title, but the question opens with “A student investigated the conditions needed for germination”, a sentence with an active voice verb, in a context where the convention is to use a passive voice verb. The choice of “A student” as the Theme of this sentence seems somewhat surprising in this scientific context, where the candidates are likely to be familiar with the passive voice. The question continues with three sentences describing the investigation, the first using past passive verbs and the second and third using active voice past verb forms. The third sentence conveys a negative meaning, but uses a positive form of the verb “fail”, which has a negative meaning, with the infinitive verb “to germinate”. As well as other instructions, there are three past simple tense questions, all referring to the investigation, beginning with “Why” and ending with a question mark. Two of these questions are in the active voice, using the auxiliary verb “did” with the main verb “fail”, (again the positive form verb, with a negative meaning), followed with the infinitive form “to germinate”. The third question is in the passive voice, using the auxiliary verb “was” and the past

participle “used”. This passive voice question, in particular, seems unnecessarily confusing as it also contains two other words which end in “ed”, which could be confused as the past participle acting as the main verb, rather than as an adjective:

Why was cooled boiled water used in test tube D?

Overall, there is an inconsistent use of active and passive voice and a confusing variety of question forms in question 3. The level of mastery of English grammar required to understand the questions is above the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages B1 level (see p.28). Another confusing inconsistency concerns the case: upper case or lower case, of words given for candidates to choose from and then write (copy) as their answer. Question 3, section (a), includes a box with a list of six subject specific lexical items written in upper case (and in bold), the only instance of whole words being written in upper case in the whole Biology section of the examination. A different list of three subject specific technical terms is included in question 3, section (b); in this case only the first letter of each term is capitalized. The instruction reads,

“Choose a word from the list on the right, to correctly complete the statement below.

The layer of oil is used to prevent . . .”

This question seems to be intended to test candidates’ lexical knowledge of the three terms. It is probably not intended to test whether or not pupils change the upper case first letter of the word with which they choose to complete the statement into lower case, nor to disadvantage pupils whose mother tongue capitalizes the first letter of all nouns. It is not made explicit whether this linguistic aspect is part of the test.

To summarize, there are a number of linguistic aspects of the Biology section of the Science Junior Certificate examination 2011 which indicate that the examination is testing English language proficiency, as well as subject knowledge. The inconsistent use of the passive voice is confusing, particularly in question 1, section (h) which involves personalisation (referring to equipment that the candidate has used), as the passive conveys a sense of distance, essentially the opposite effect to personalisation. Along with this, the range of grammatical structures demands English proficiency well above the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages B1 level,

at which EAL pupils are no longer entitled to language support in school. Another source of confusion, particularly for EAL candidates, is the repeated reference to “questions” when there is no grammatical question form, but instead the imperative form is used to instruct pupils how to answer. Similarly, the use of the verb “fail” instead of using “not” and the accompanying pattern with an auxiliary verb to convey negative meaning, may confuse candidates. The rubric has a high lexical density, reflecting language that overcomplicates instructions which could be much simpler. The inconsistent use of bold font and upper case may also contribute to candidates’ confusion.

Religious Education Junior Certificate 2011

The Religious Education ordinary level Junior Certificate examination 2011 (State Examination Commission 2011a) comprises fifteen pages, including space given for candidates to write their answers. There are guidelines and instructions for candidates, although in some of the questions how to answer is not explicitly stated (see pp.151-152 below). Overall the guidelines and instructions have a lexical density of 57%, with the lexical density of the individual pages ranging from 50% to 59%. The “postcard” text of section 3 has a lexical density of 45%. The Religious Education Junior Certificate examination 2011 is divided into four compulsory sections; involving a choice of questions within sections 1, 2 and 4. The instructions use a mixture of declarative directions using modal auxiliaries, for example “You should” and “You must”, and imperative form commands, for example “Read . . . and answer . . .”

Section 1 uses various question forms:

• read a sentence to decide if it is true or false

• read the beginning of a sentence and complete it, explaining a reference • read two lists to match one term from each, with each other

• read an example of something and then write a second example • multiple choice to indicate a correct definition of a term

The grammatical complexity of these questions varies. For example, the matching questions all follow the same highly complex pattern, involving a passive present perfect verb “has been matched”, a relative clause introduced with “with whose/with

which” followed by another passive voice verb form “is associated”. The performer of the action of the passive verbs “matched” and “associated” are not the same person.

One location has been matched to the world religion

with whose founding story it is most associated as an example for you. One prayer

with which One sacred text

A grammatically simpler form of this question could be:

Match one

location

with one world religion. Here is an example. prayer

sacred text

The form of these matching questions in the 2011 examination are another example of the intention of a question, in this case to test subject knowledge about world religions, being hindered by the potentially bewildering linguistic form of the question. Compare these matching exercises with the section 1 question which has a much more familiar grammatical form:

Jesus was born in Jericho. True/False

This also contains a passive verb, but it is one that is used in conversational as well as academic English. Most fourteen-year-old pupils taking public examinations in Ireland, whether native English speakers or not, would be able to produce the sentence “I was born in . . .” so this is an example of a question testing subject knowledge, unimpeded by unfamiliar language. The fact that the pattern of the matching exercise given above is used for all three matching questions suggests that the SEC has intentionally standardised this form for this type of question, despite the implications of its linguistic complexity.

In section 2, all the questions are based on a visual prompt. Each question has three parts; they ask for: identification of one aspect of a photograph, another example of the subject of the photograph and a reason for behaviour associated with the

photograph. Limited space is given for the answers, with no indication of the form the answer should take, for example a full sentence or a single phrase. The imperative verbs of the questions are: “pick”, “give” or “name”, and “state”.

Section 3 is based on a textual prompt, presented as the text of a postcard. It is an unusual example of a postcard in that its objective tone conveys an inappropriate sense of formality. It begins with “Hi Jo, Greetings from . . .” but has no closing formula, such as “lots of love” or “see you soon”. The text is long for a postcard (222 words), typed rather than hand-written, and consists of full, grammatically correct sentences. Compared to section 2, more space is provided for the answers to the questions in section 3. Two questions again ask for reasons using the imperative verb “explain”, rather than “state” used in section 2. Other instructions include “describe