See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242545518

SCHOOL-BASED READING INNOVATION PROJECT

Article · January 2009

CITATIONS READS

3 13,989

1 author:

Chitra Shegar
National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore
4 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Chitra Shegar on 10 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 RESEARCH BRIEF
No. 09-004

SCHOOL-BASED READING INNOVATION PROJECT

Chitra Shegar

IN 2006 AND 2007, a School-based Reading Innovation

Project was carried out in a neighbourhood primary school
with the aim of mapping out the reading instruction programme
in the school, comparing it against international standards,
and introducing innovations that would enhance it. The
findings of the project revealed that reading instruction in the
selected school lacked some fundamental components of a
goodw reading programme. Implementation of innovation
procedures over the 2 years showed that there was an
improvement not only in teacher development but also in the
students’ reading and comprehension abilities. The research
experience gained at this school can also be utilized in other
Singapore schools seeking to enhance reading instruction. KEY IMPLICATIONS
 A shift of teacher practice in
reading instruction is needed
BACKGROUND to encourage students to
comprehend text at a deeper
One of the main aims of Singapore’s English Language Syllabus
and more critical level.
2001 has been to prime students to become readers who will be able
to “respond creatively and critically to literary texts, [and] relate them  This shift in practice requires
a negotiation of school culture
to personal experience, culture and society” (Curriculum Planning
and a scaffolding of teacher
and Development Division [CPDD], 2001a, p. 5). The Ministry of development.
Education’s (MOE) Guide to the English Language Syllabus 2001
also states that primary school reading programmes should provide  Teacher “buy in” is critical for the
success of a school-based
pupils with enjoyable reading experiences (CPDD, 2001b). reading instruction programme.

The above objectives clearly suggest that the MOE’s vision for  Changes should be customized
to the needs of the school
reading instruction in Singapore is in alignment with international
and weaved into its existing
notions of good reading instruction (Devine, 1986). But to what programme, rather than a
extent has this been achieved in schools? total revamp.

www.nie.edu.sg
Initial research projects carried out by the Centre Of these 80 students, 35 of them were reading below
for Research in Pedagogy and Practice (CRPP) their age level (the Lively readers), 27 were reading
seemed to suggest that there were major shortfalls. at their age level (the Merry readers), and 18 were
Observations of reading lessons in schools (Lin, reading above their age level (the Happy readers).
2004) have shown that they are mostly an exercise in
information extraction; students are not encouraged Project Procedures
to wander beyond the text and explore alternative
1. Collection of baseline data to map the nature of
answers. Students are also not taught comprehension
reading instruction in the project school.
strategies, encouraged to read critically, nor prompted
2. Collection of baseline data on the reading and
to question what is purported in the texts. Many
comprehension abilities of students.
programmes have had limited success in fostering the
3. Presentation of the findings to ensure that the
love of reading among students, resulting in students
data captured was an accurate representation of
having to be coerced to read (Wolf, 2005).
their reading instruction programme.
4. Discussion of the gaps in the reading instruction
These findings signalled the need for an in-depth
programme with the school.
study evaluating the state of reading instruction in
5. Negotiation with teachers about areas for
Singapore. A School-based Reading Innovation
enhancement.
Project was therefore proposed.
6. Joint planning of innovation procedures and
implementation via workshops, lesson planning,
The aims of the project were: (a) to give a detailed
lesson observations and conferencing.
description of reading instruction as it is implemented in
7. Evaluation of the innovation procedures on both
a school in Singapore, and (b) to evaluate it according
teacher and student development.
to international standards. The project also aimed to
implement innovation procedures that would enhance
reading instruction, in negotiation with the school.
Instruments Used
Subsequently, the effectiveness of the innovations To document existing classroom procedures and to
on teacher development and students’ reading and subsequently evaluate the innovation procedures
comprehension abilities was evaluated. implemented in the school, the following instruments
were used:
1. Ethnographic notes, video recordings
RESEARCH DESIGN and transcripts of reading lessons, to assist
The project school was selected based on two criteria: teachers in engaging in reflective practice and
(1) its receptiveness to the objectives of the project, also to document the nature of reading lessons.
and (2) the socioeconomic diversity of its student 2. Coding instruments to code the nature of reading
population. instruction before and after the implementation of
the innovation procedures.
Participants 3. PM Benchmark Kit 2 (Nelley & Smith, 2002)
scores to map the reading and comprehension
Eighteen teachers were recruited for the project:
abilities of the students at intervals of 6 months
9 teachers each from the Primary 1 (P1) and Primary
over a period of 2 years.
2 (P2) levels. These teachers had been working
collectively as a team to design the SEED (Strategies
Data Collection and Analysis
for Effective and Engaged Development of Pupils in
Primary Schools) curriculum. Teachers
Baseline data was collected of the 9 P1 teachers as
A total of 270 lower primary students participated in they carried out a unit of SEED lessons. They were
the project. Out of this group, the reading progress of evaluated on the basis of (1) a read-aloud period, (2)
80 P1 students was mapped over a period of 2 years. a shared book approach (SBA) period, and (3) the

NIE Research Brief No. 09-004  |  p. 2

reading period. Post-innovation data was collected the overall post-innovation scores for SBA showed a
after the innovation plans had been implemented. significant improvement.

To determine the teachers’ development over the With the implementation of the innovation procedures,
course of the project, the pre- and post-intervention the teachers became more knowledgeable about the
data were evaluated by three independent coders who essential principles of SBA, and this was evident in
were trained to evaluate classroom videos according their practice.
to the coding instruments set. The lessons were rated
according to a 5-point scale: 0 (Not applicable), 1 (Nil), Reading
2 (Fair), 3 (Good), and 4 (Excellent). The three coders For the instruction in reading and comprehension, the
rated the data independently. The coded data was pre data revealed that the teachers had an average
then subjected to statistical analyses so that patterns rating of 3 (Good) in phonics instruction but fared
of shifts in classroom practices could be discerned. poorly in all other components. However, the post-
innovation results showed a significant improvement
Students in practice on the whole.
The 80 P1 students had their reading and
comprehension abilities mapped at 6-monthly Students’ Progress
intervals over the course of the 2 years, using the Figure 1 shows that the average decoding scores from
Benchmark Kit. the Lively and Merry groups increased dramatically
between Tests 1 and 2. The scores then plateaued
The tests measured the students’ ability to decode, out between Tests 2 and 4. The scores for the Happy
comprehend and retell the text. The difficulty levels group dropped slightly between Tests 1 and 2, but also
of the tests were progressively increased. To plateaued out thereafter.
determine the students’ progression in reading and
1.00
comprehension, the pre-test scores were compared
0.90
to the post-test scores.
0.80
0.70
Average Scores

0.60
RESULTS 0.50
Lively
Merry
Teacher Development 0.40
Happy
0.30
Read Aloud
0.20
An examination of reading aloud in the pre-innovation
0.10
period showed that most teachers scored ratings of
0.00
1 (Nil) to 2 (Fair) for most of the components of the Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4
read-aloud exercise. However, results for the post-
Figure 1. Average decoding scores over time.
innovation period showed a significant improvement,
indicating that the innovation procedures significantly
The retelling scores showed a different pattern over
improved the ability of the teachers to conduct read-
the four tests, as can be seen in Figure 2. Average
aloud lessons effectively.
retelling scores increased for all three groups from
Test 1 to Test 2, but dropped subsequently in Test 3.
Shared Book Approach
However, the scores rose again in Test 4.
Similarly, the pre-innovation data for the SBA lesson
showed that the teachers generally did not conduct
their lesson according to the fundamental principles
of the SBA. Almost all of their scores hovered around
ratings of 1 (Nil) to 2 (Fair). However, once again,

School-based Reading Innovation Project  |  p. 3

 10.0 One of the first factors is that there was “buy in” for the
9.00 project. The school and its teachers were looking to
8.00 improve reading instruction. As such, there was great
Lively
7.00 commitment to the project. Added to this was that the
Average Scores

Merry
6.00 project was customized to the needs of the school
Happy
5.00 and the personal development needs of the teachers
4.00 (Hargreaves, 1998).
3.00
2.00 A third factor was that the project did not seek to
1.00 revamp the existing reading instruction programme in
0.00 the school. Rather, it aimed to weave in changes while
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4
retaining the original configuration. This was well
Figure 2. Average retelling scores over time.
received by the teachers as the curricular changes
were not overwhelming. And since the teachers were
As seen in Figure 3, the Merry group of students
working as a team, the shift at the curricular level was
showed an improvement in comprehension scores as
manageable as the burden did not fall on only one
they progressed from Tests 1 to 4. Happy students
teacher to develop resources for the entire year.
maintained their results, while Lively students
showed a drop in scores from Test 1 to Test 2 but an According to Taylor, Pearson, Peterson and Rodriguez
improvement from Tests 2 to 4. (2005) and Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999), in
a successful teacher development programme,
2.00
teachers need to be given content knowledge as well
1.75
as pedagogical content knowledge. This was one of
1.50
the key factors that contributed to the success of the
Average Scores

1.25
project. In addition, a scaffolded approach to teacher
1.00
development (Cazden, 2001) was taken.
0.75
Lively
0.50
Merry Another key feature of the project was that conferencing
0.25
Happy sessions were conducted to surface teachers’ beliefs,
0.00
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 social histories and biographies. Where there were
conflicts with the changes, resolutions were found. This
Figure 3. Average comprehension scores over time.
was important because understanding teacher beliefs
and reconciling their beliefs with the materials being
DISCUSSION disseminated are essential for success in improving
classroom materials (Almarza, 1996; Johnson, 1994;
Teacher Development
Kagan, 1992).
The results show that the School-based Reading
Innovation Project was generally successful in A shift in school practice requires negotiation of the
bringing about a significant shift in teacher practice in school culture (Finnan & Levin, 2000; Groundwater-
reading instruction. This shift, though not substantial, Smith & Dadds, 2004; Grundy & Robison, 2004;
is significant as research indicates that it takes about Hargreaves, 1995). This was certainly the case in this
5 years for shifts in practice to take place. What then project. At various stages of the project, discussions
are some of the factors that contributed to the positive had to be held with the school management so that
teacher development shown in this project? the teachers’ development could be facilitated.

NIE Research Brief No. 09-004  |  p. 4

Students’ Reading and Comprehension Abilities REFERENCES
When the decoding scores of the students are Almarza, G. G. (1996). Student foreign language
examined (see Figure 1), we see an initial increase teacher’s knowledge growth. In D. Freeman & J.
from Test 1 to Test 2 and then a plateauing of the C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in
scores. This should not be interpreted as a deterioration language teaching (pp. 50–78). Cambridge, UK:
in performance, as it is important to keep in mind that Cambridge University Press.
the texts were becoming more difficult. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The
language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth,
Where retelling scores are concerned, there was a UK: Heinemann.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999).
dip for Test 3 before the scores rose again in Test 4
Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
(Figure 2). This dip in scores could be attributed to two
learning in communities. Review of Research in
possible factors: a lack of familiarity with the content
Education, 24, 249–305.
of the text, and the increased difficulty level of the text.
Curriculum Planning and Development Division.
This is especially plausible given that the Benchmark (2001a). English language syllabus 2001: For
Kit has not been normed in Singapore. primary and secondary schools. Retrieved June
10, 2009, from Ministry of Education, Singapore,
For comprehension, it may be argued that all three Web site: http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/sylla
groups showed improvement on all the tests. Though buses/languages-and-literature/files/english-pri
the Lively group scores dipped between Tests 1 and mary-secondary.pdf
2, this was inevitable given the fact that the group Curriculum Planning and Development Division.
comprised of students who were delayed readers. (2001b). Guide to the English language syllabus
2001: Primary 1–4. Singapore: Ministry of
And while the results might give the impression Education.
that the comprehension scores of Happy readers Devine, T. G. (1986). Teaching reading
were relatively unaffected by the enhanced reading comprehension: From theory to practice. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
instruction programme, this is clearly not the case when
Finnan, C., & Levin, H. M. (2000). Changing school
the texts’ difficulty levels are taken into consideration.
cultures. In H. Altrichter & J. Elliot (Eds.), Images
The readers maintained their scores even though the
of educational change (pp. 86–98). Buckingham,
difficulty level of the texts increased over time. On the
UK: Open University Press.
whole, these scores are commendable given that the Groundwater-Smith, S., & Dadds, M. (2004). Critical
duration of the project was only 2 years and the first practitioner inquiry: Towards responsible
year was spent revising the curriculum. professional communities of practice. In C. Day
& J. Sachs (Eds.), International handbook on the
continuing professional development of teachers
CONCLUSION (pp. 238–263). Maidenhead, UK: Open University
Press.
On the whole, the School-based Reading Innovation
Grundy, S., & Robison, J. (2004). Teacher
Project was had a positive impact on teacher
professional development: Themes and
development, reading instruction, and students’
trends in the recent Australian experience. In C.
reading and comprehension abilities. Day & J. Sachs (Eds.), International handbook on
the continuing professional development
Although the project was carried out in only one of teachers (pp. 146–166). Maidenhead, UK:
neighbourhood school, the results here and in other Open University Press.
CRPP projects indicates that there is scope for the Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of
project to be replicated in other schools that have teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14,
similar problems with reading instruction. 835–854.

School-based Reading Innovation Project  |  p. 5

 Hargreaves, D. H. (1995). School culture, school
effectiveness and school improvement. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6,
23–46.
Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and
instructional practices of preservice English
as a Second Language teachers. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 10, 439–452.
Lin, A. (2004) [Describing the teaching of reading
in Singapore primary schools.] Draft technical
report.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implication of research on
teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27,
65–90.
Nelley, E., & Smith, A. (2002). PM Benchmark Kit
2. Southbank, Australia: Nelson Thomson
Learning.
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S.,
& Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). The CIERA
school change framework: An evidence-
based approach to professional development
and school reading improvement. Reading
Research Quarterly, 40, 40–69.
Wolf, J. (2005, May). Co-constructing a school-
based formative evaluation: Issues to
consider. Paper presented at the international
conference on Redesigning Pedagogy,
National Institute of Education, Singapore.
Retrieved June 8, 2009, from http://
conference.nie.edu.sg/paper/Converted%20
Pdf/ab00240.pdf

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Chitra SHEGAR is an Assistant Professor at the National Institute of
Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Contact Chitra at
[email protected] for more information about the project.

>> More information about our research centres and publications can be
found at: http://www.nie.edu.sg

View publication stats