The Primary Strategy Framework: Listening and Responding - Research Paper Example

 Literacy is declining or stagnating in the UK (BBC News, 2005; Shepherd, 2010; Jones, 2002). There is bipartisan consensus on this topic: “[T]here have been "marked improvements" in England's schools. But a fifth of 11-year-old pupils, particularly boys, still fail to reach the expected level for English. Schools Minister Jacqui Smith said the government would be addressing the need to help pupils who were falling behind. Even though the number not reaching the expected literacy levels has been slowly falling over recent years, the inspectors warn of the impact on secondary schools” (BBC News, 2005). Not only is literacy falling in absolute terms, but in relative terms. “The highly respected Programme for International Student Assessment study (Pisa) showed the UK had slumped to 25th place in reading. Three years ago, we came 17th, although just 54 countries were included then. We are now on a par with Hungary and below Japan, the US, France and Germany” (Shepherd, 2010). Left advocates blame poverty and class segregation, while others blame the BBC (Shepherd, 2010; Jones, 2002). Another obvious factor is demographic changes and immigration issues, which changes cultural learning patterns and leads to different types of literacy. But no matter the cause, the problem has to be dealt with. Millions of pounds have been spent already, and yet the problem is only slowing down, not stopping or reversing. This is why the Primary Strategy Framework was created. The PSF focuses on the “strands” of speaking, listening and responding, group discussion and interaction, drama, word recognition, word structure, understanding texts, engaging and responding to texts, creating and shaping texts, text structure and organisation, sentence structure and punctuation and presentation (National Strategies, 2010). Analyzing how it does so and the pedagogical justification for the framework is essential to understanding how the UK will bridge the literacy gap. The PSF began in 1997 (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2006). But it was intended as a provisional program. It had to be renewed recently because of the declining literacy standards, however, and is likely to be funded and pushed for the near future. The PSF has proven tremendously successful (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2006). The Framework has pushed the learning time for multiplication up by a year and has been largely responsible for the reduction in the literacy stagnation (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2006).”Substantial and sustained improvement” has been made. The first two strands of the PSF are about speaking, listening and responding. Why? How does listening and talking, inherently verbal skills, help in learning how to read and write? In Whole-school language development, the Department for Education explains: Language is an integral part of most learning and oral language in particular has a key role in teaching and learning. Whole-school approaches to the learning of language, both mother tongue (first language) and a new language, and the processes of teaching and learning are vital to the coherence of children’s experiences during their life in school. The ability to communicate coherently and effectively is increasingly important and children need to be aware of the range of circumstances in which communication is initiated. Access to a range of languages and the motivation to value and use language are key to all pupils. In addition to language being essential to access future learning opportunities, language learning stimulates children’s creativity. Children enjoy taking an active part in language lessons, joining in with singing, reciting rhymes and poems, and responding to stories. They create mimes, sketches and role-play, imitating accurate intonation and pronunciation. They play games, take turns, make things, take the role of the teacher and experiment creatively with language (2009). This is based on a growing psychological literature which ties together speaking, listening, reading and writing. “Active listening” improves comprehension the same way reading does: There is a commonality between the process of truly listening to someone else and understanding what they say, and the process of reading a book or article and following its logic. This theory in philosophy is called “emergent literacy”. The argument is simple: Language skills are learned from birth, and literacy stems naturally from language skill, an emergent consequence of it (Roth, Paul and Pierotti). The experiences with talking and listening gained during the preschool period prepare children to learn to read and write during the early elementary school years. This means that children who enter school with weaker verbal abilities are much more likely to experience difficulties learning literacy skills than those who do not. One spoken language skill that is strongly connected to early reading and writing is phonological awareness-the recognition that words are made up of separate speech sounds, for example, that the word dog is composed of three sounds: d, aw, g. There are a variety of oral language activities that show children's natural development of phonological awareness, including rhyming (e.g., "cat-hat") and alliteration (e.g., "big bears bounce on beds"), and isolating sounds ("Mom, f is the first sound in the word fish"). As children playfully engage in sound play, they eventually learn to segment words into their separate sounds, and "map" sounds onto printed letters, which allows them to begin to learn to read and write. Children who perform well on sound awareness tasks become successful readers and writers, while children who struggle with such tasks often do not. Phonological focus is especially important because it has proven multicultural efficacy. Haya and Everett's study in Dyslexia found that, “[Arabic] Children [in Bahrain] were tested on their literacy skills (single word reading and spelling), their ability to decode letter strings (non-word reading) and measures of phonological awareness, short-term memory, speed of processing and non-verbal ability. These tests were included to identify the best predictors of literacy skills amongst Arabic young readers. The results were consistent with the literature based on tests of English-speaking children in that measures of phonological skills (decoding and awareness) were the best predictors of variability in reading and spelling among the Bahraini children” (2005). Students whose primary language isn't English will need to learn first on the phonic and speaking level before they're able to learn how to read and write. Another justification for a focus on speaking, reading and listening is to prepare students to deploy what they read. In the adult world, most relevant reading isn't just read or e-mailed. People will need to be able to verbalize what they've learned, present it and discuss it orally. Understanding the text is another surprising one. Obviously, students in the late prepubescent and pubescent period will be doing a lot of work understanding, relating to and comprehending texts. But small children? How much understanding and processing can there really be in reading a Roald Dahl book or engaging in story-time? As it turns out, quite a lot. Story-telling in the PSF focuses on “developing familiarity with language patterns, grammar and prediction skills” (Department for Education, 2009). Story-telling has the following key elements for young students. It teaches them pattern recognition. Childrens' books follow relatively predictable story patterns with simple plots. This is a good thing: Children start to learn how to see patterns, make predictions, guess where things are coming, and have those skills be rewarded. Being able to make those predictions is a key part of reading and writing. Story-telling shows students creative ways of arranging words and syntaxes. Learning how to write simplistic sentences with no artistry like, “The dog chased the ball”, is essential to basic grammar, but knowing how to use words and sentence structures creatively establishes children's long-term ability to think and write creatively. Many children's stories have simple parallel structures and repetitious sentences. This is a good way for children to learn parallel structure for paragraphs. It also helps them learn how to think grammatically, realizing that “The dog chased the ball” is similar in form if not in meaning to “The dog chased the postman”. Similarly, music is part of the PSF. Children are engaged in learning and singing songs, listening to music, and so forth (Department for Education, 2009). Music and songs may not seem to be essential to language learning, but once again the PSF is based on an emerging psychological literature (Halpern, 1999; Harwood, 1998; Brown, 1994; Ostrander and Schroender, 1979). It's not just the famous Mozart effect, where children listening to classical music develop higher intelligence indicators in general (Campbell, 2003). It is also the neurophysiology of the brain. Medina's study, for example, found that students learned identically whether or not they were sung to or read to (1990; 1991). Further, music ties the language centers of the brain to the creative centers of the brain, forming better left-right brain connections and making the language learning more permanent (Blood et al, 1999). In general, music flows neurological processing between the two hemispheres of the brain, since the primary actuator for the music connection is the acoustic cranial nerve, one of the major switching nerves for multiple other cranial nerves (Thompson and Andrews, 2000). Music and songs also help teach children about poetic and musical forms for sentences, and shows them that language can be used in unorthodox ways above and beyond sentences and stories. It emphasizes, just as story-telling does, creativity and skillful use of language. Another factor is the deployment of schema. People in general use schema for memory recall. The more things that can be used to recall a technique, skill or memory, the more likely that memory is to be recalled and the higher fidelity the recall. Music and songs tie literacy in with mnemonic devices that are easy to remember. Students struggling to remember how to read, or how to spell a word, or how to arrange a sentence, can use mnemonic songs, but they can also use any song that was associated with learning those language skills to help remember the skill. This, combined with the entertainment value of singing and music, helps keep children focused and attentive and accounts for the limited attention span of children. Focusing simply on reading and mathematics endlessly, hammering those skills in, will alienate and bore children. The PSF takes this into account and provides techniques that will make children feel that they are getting a break from literacy skills and drills while they are actually developing those skills. Further, there is a body of literature that shows that ESL students learn better when music, especially music connected to or inspired by their native culture, is used (Whittaker, 1981; Christison, 1996; Brown and Perry, 1991). Group interaction is obviously an important part of education in general and is pedagogically used in many contexts and environments as it is yet another way of mixing up educational approaches and presentations. But it also has specific uses for language learning (Department for Education, 2009). King-Sears views this as so important that she presents a specific schedule for reading and writing small-group instruction (2005). Again, part of the reason is that children like to learn and play with each other. Just reading on their own is likely to bore children: They can't be “cool”, low-activity or quiet for that long consecutively. Small groups let children work together to accomplish learning goals. Small-group learning also teaches children that other students might have different ways of thinking and relating to the text. Relating to, processing and interpreting the text is one of the major parts of the PSF. But two people can read the same book or story and have very different understandings, interpretations and beliefs about what it means and how to relate to it. Learning this early on helps children build critical reasoning and interpretation skills, learning to justify their interpretation of the text. Small-group learning also let them practice key skills that begin at Year 3: “Engage well orally with their peers and familiar adults, talking coherently and sustaining conversations with others” and “Use talk functionally in groups to get things done in different subject areas”. Taking turns to speak and learning active listening and participation rules is also an important pedagogical role, and teaches patience skills essential for reading. Children learn in small groups how to respect other peoples' opinion. The PSF also has a focus on teaching children speaking and presentation skills. Small-group skills help children learn how to develop confidence in their ideas, present them confidently and engage with others with different opinions. Another part of the PSF design, part #2 of the CLL Framework, is to cause children to “enjoy listening to and using spoken and written language, and readily turn to it in their play and learning” (Department for Education, 2009). The objectives that the DfE proposes for adults to adopt are “Provide time and opportunities to develop spoken language through conversations between children and adults, both one to one and in small groups, with particular awareness of, and sensitivity to, the needs of children learning EAL, using their first language when appropriate Plan opportunities for all children to become aware of languages and writing systems other than English, and communication systems such as signing and Braille Provide opportunities for children who use alternative communication systems to develop ways of recording and accessing texts to develop their skills in these methods Share stories, rhymes and songs and refer to them across children’s experiences. Model using the language of books in play Provide story and rhyme sacks with books, objects, tapes, CD-ROMs, etc. Use puppets to talk, discuss and ask questions with children Use ICT tools to record, reflect on and extend children’s play, for example video the making of a construction and share with the children, noting features of spoken or written language” (2009) This variety indicates that the PSF attempts to bring children on board and get them interested is first and foremost on their objectives. The PSF's focuses on word, sentence and paragraph learning also deserves commentary and analysis. In Year 3, the focus is on phonemes, words, sounds, rhyming and spelling. The idea is simple: Words form sentences which form paragraphs. Year 3 children are too young to meaningfully relate to long sentences and learn how to construct them whole hog, but they can start to master individual words, learning how to spell them correctly and connect them properly. Year 3 connects language to its social use and implications (Department for Education, 2009). Students learn politeness and the idea of different languages, recognizing that English is spoken differently across the world and that other languages besides English exist and have different rules, norms and standards. This is important for learning. Students need to understand in a changing demography that people speak differently and think differently. Further, students learning language without an idea for how language is interpreted is irresponsible. By now, children are old enough and have done enough language practice to realize that words have impacts. Children have learned many words, but now they need to learn not to speak, that there are more social conventions and norms for words than just the spelling and grammar. Year 4 graduates to question forms, recognition of word classes and functions, and simple tense and number agreement, as well as applying phonic knowledge (Department for Education, 2009). Understanding what words are and how they work is impossible without recognizing that words are classified: Nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc., as well as other classifications. Further, not all sentences are the same. The meaning of a sentence that's a question is sharply different from an exclamation, a rhetorical question, a statement, etc. Further, students will need to learn that the same word is said many ways to construct sentences. “Cat” and “cats” are based off the same concept and root, but their use in sentences and implications for verbs are different. Politeness and multicultural awareness is now tied in with pedagogical necessity as well. Year 4's knowledge focus includes recognizing that texts in different languages will often have some commonalities of layout and style. Teaching the universality of style, format, structure and writing teaches children how to relate to language and write properly. Year 5 finally graduates to sentences. Its objectives include “•Plan and prepare – analyse what needs to be done to carry out a task • Integrate new languages into previously learned language • Apply grammatical knowledge to make sentences • Use actions and rhymes to aid memorisation • Ask for repetition and clarification • Use context and previous knowledge to help understanding • Practise new language with a friend and outside the classroom • Look and listen for visual and aural clues • Use a dictionary or a word list • Pronounce/read aloud unknown words” (Department for Education, 2009). The previous years' connections are clear here. Knowing both how words are constructed and deployed and grammar now finally allows students to create sentences with full mastery with a wide range of constructions. Using a dictionary and a word list is an important skill as well. Students can't learn words arbitrarily or randomly: They need to learn how to be able to learn new words on their own, not just regurgitate old ones. Year 6 continues on in this vein, moving on from mere sentence construction to the creation of paragraphs and short texts (Department for Education, 2009). Further, students will learn to “use knowledge of word order and sentence construction to support the understanding of the written text”. Tying together knowing how to write with how writing is done is a good skill to develop literacy. Students will understand texts better if they know how they themselves would write, and students will write better if they understand texts. With all of this, planning and support is clearly essential. The Department for Education has many provisions for planning, implementation and assessing success and objectives. The National Strategies provided by the Department for Education provides numerous objective and training manuals and extensive information. Consider the following assessment section of the Whole-school language development article. Assessment provides information about what a pupil knows, understands, is able to do and where they go next. It is part of the teaching and learning process, and as such is a part of everyday classroom practice. The school also uses appropriate materials to provide summative judgements each term and ensure pupil progress. The role of the subject leader is to: • develop, promote and ensure implementation of the whole-school language policy • keep up to date with local and national developments and initiatives • monitor, evaluate and support planning, teaching and learning of the development of language, curriculum continuity and progression • monitor and track progress and attainment in line with national expectations, identifying and implementing targets and next steps to ensure all pupils achieve their potential • lead professional development of staff through training, support and example • establish resource and staff requirements in accordance with the budget to achieve the aims of the policy. (2009). Thus, one of the major assessment elements provided by the PSF is the subject leader, the teacher. But the PSF recognizes that it takes a village to raise a child. In Development of communication, language and literacy, the DfE develops fourteen objectives for adult participation and assessment. Britain is facing major changes as it comes into the 21st century. Globalization and immigration are transforming the nation. The Internet and television have changed the way people communicate and relate to each other. In the coming years, literacy is likely to be more useful and necessary for students, not less: As more and more material comes online, and more and more of life is handle through text messages, e-mail and online correspondence, writing and reading will be more important. Britain will need to continue to expand its literacy focus, and the PSF is a framework for that. It is far from perfect, of course. Community leaders and business will need to make sure that critical thinking, independent thought and real knowledge are rewarded rather than punished or ignored. Multi-cultural sensitivity is a constantly changing process, and the PSF will need to expand and change as we learn more and more about how to teach ESL students. But the PSF is in general well-planned and designed, and is the right framework to close the UK's literacy gap. Works Cited Acredolo, L., & Goodwyn, S. (1988). Symbolic gesturing in normal infants. Child Development. 59, 450-466. al Mannai, H. and Everett, J. (November 2005). “Phonological Processing Skills as Predictors of Literacy amongst Arabic Speaking Bahraini Children”. Dyslexia. v11 n4 p269-291 Bancroft, W. J. (1985). Music therapy and education. Journal of the Society for Accelerative Learning and Teaching, 10 (1), 3-16. BBC. (October 5, 2005). “Urgent need to improve literacy”. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4309802.stm . Accessed 1/4/2011. Beaton (1995). The importance of music in the early childhood language curriculum. International Schools Journal, 15(1), 28-38. Blood, A.J., Zatorre, R.J., Bermudez, P., and Evans, A.C. (1999) Emotional responses to pleasant and unpleasant music correlate with activity in paralimbic brain regions. Brodkey, Dean and Shore, Howard. (1976) Student personality and success in an English language program, Language Learning, n.26, pp. 153-159 Brown, Douglas H. (1994) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Brown, T. & Perry, F. (1991). A comparison of three learning strategies for ESL vocabulary acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 655-70.   Bullfinch, Thomas (1913) Mythology. The Age of Fable. Campbell, P. (1998) The musical cultures of children. Research Studies in Music Education, n.11, pp.42-51. Campbell, D. (2003). The Mozart Effect for Parents: Unlocking the potential of your child. Penguin publishers, New York. Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chen-Hafteck, L. (1997). Music and language development in early childhood:         Integrating past research in the two domains. ECDC, 130, 85-97. Christison, M.A. (1996). Teaching and learning languages through multiple intelligences. TESOL Journal, Aug., 10-14. Commonwealth Secretariat (2006). Commonwealth Education Partnerships. Nexus Strategic Partnerships, Ltd.: UK. Department for Education (2009). The National Strategies. Dickinson, G. L. (1909). The Greek view of life. New York. Gardner, H. (1993) Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Britain. Fontana Press. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York. Basic Books. Gardner, Robert C. and Lambert, Wallace, E. (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language learning, Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Gfeller, K.E. (1986). Musical mnemonics for learning disabled children. Teaching         exceptional children. Fall, 28-30. Guglielmino, L.M. (1986) "The Affective Edge: Using songs and music in foreign         language instruction." Adult literacy and basic education 10(1) 19-26. Harwood, E. (1998) Music learning in context: a playground tale. Research Studies in Music Education, n.11 , pp.52-60. Heyde, A. (1979) The relationship between Self-esteem and the Oral-production of a Second Language, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. Halpern, S. (1999) Sound education: creating the optimal learning environment. http:www.soundrx.com/monthly/sound_education.htm. Jones, G. (October 10, 2002). “Falling literacy blamed on BBC”. The Telegraph. King-Sears, M.E. (2005). Scheduling for Reading and Writing Small-Group Instruction Using Learning Center Designs. V21 n4 p 401-405 Oct-Dec. Lipson, J. (1984) Combining researcher, clinical and personal roles. Human Organisation, v.43, n.4, pp.348-352. Lozano, Georgie (1979) Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers. Medina, S.L. (1990). The effects of music upon second language vocabulary acquisition. Paper presented at the TESOL conference. San Francisco, CA. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED352834) Medina, S.L. (1991). The effect of a musical medium on the vocabulary acquisition of limited English speakers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 360. Mora, C.F. (2000). Foreign language acquisition and melody singing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 146-152. Murphey, T. (1990) The song stuck in my head phenomenon: A melodic Din in the              LAD? System, 18(1), 53-64. National Strategies. (2010). “Primary Framework for literacy: Learning objectives”. http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/110237 Neuenfeldt, Karl (1998) Aboriginal didjeriduists in Australian education: cultural workers and border crossers. Journal of Intercultural Studies, vo 19, n.1, pp.5-15. Ostrander, S. & Schroender, L. (1979) Superlearning. New York: Dell Publishing Company. Palmer, C., & Kelly, M. (1992). Linguistic prosody and musical meter in song. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 525-541. Peretz, I. (2002). Brain Specialization for Music. Neuroscientist 8(4):374–382. Rauscher, F. H., Shaw, G. L. & Ky, K. N. (1995). Listening to Mozart enhances spatial-         temporal reasoning: Towards a neurophysiological basis. Neuroscience Letters, 185,         1995, 44-47. Richards, R.G. (1993). Music and rhythm in the classroom. In Learn: Playful techniques to accelerated learning, 109-113. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED379071) Roth, F. P., Paul, D. and Pierotti, A-M. “Let's Talk”. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/public/speech/emergent-literacy.htm . Accessed 1/4/2011. Shepherd, J. (December 12, 2010). “UK brought to book over our teenagers' lack of literacy skills”. The Guardian. Schunk, H. A. (1999). The effect of singing paired with signing on receptive vocabulary skills of elementary ESL students. Journal of Music Therapy, 36, 110-124. Smith, R. 1998. Indigenous Australian music and dance in West-centrically oriented primary classrooms. Dawin: Northern Territory University Steinke, W.R, Cuddy, L.L., & Holden, R.R. (1997). Dissociation of musical tonality and pitch memory from nonmusical cognitive abilities. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51(4), 316-334. Thompson, B. M., Andrews, S. R. (2000). An historical commentary on the   physiological effects of music: Tomatis, Mozart and neuropsychology. Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science, 35(3) 174-188. Van Riper, C. (1984) Speech correction: An introduction to speech pathology and audiology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Watkins, David; Biffs, John, and Regmi, Murari. (1991) Does confidence in the language of instruction influence a student's approach to learning? Instructional Scienc,e, no.20, pp. 331-339 Whittaker, F. (1981). Singing in ESL with songs for the grammar class. Honolulu, HI: (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED207336) Wilcox, W.B. (1995). Music cues from classroom singing for second language acquisition: Prosodic memory for pronunciation of target vocabulary by adult non-native English speakers. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International 45, 332.   Zatorre, R.J. (2000). Sound Work. [Review of the book Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy: How Music Captures Our Imagination] Retrieved March 18, 2001 from         http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Zatorre_on_Jourdain_97.html. Zatorre, R.J., Evans, A.C., Meyer, E., and Gjedde, A. (1992). Lateralization of phonetic and pitch processing in speech perception. Science, 256, 846-849.      Read More