I. General Information
School Name: Bayview Elementary
School District: SD#68 Nanaimo-Ladysmith
Inquiry Team Members: Thea Miscavish: thea.miscavish@sd68.bc.ca, Sue DeRosa: sderosa@sd68.bc.ca,Chelsey Flood: cflood@sd68.bc.ca, Mark Douglas: mark.douglas@sd68.bc.ca, Janice Wilson: janice.wilson@sd68.bc.ca, Jody Glanfield: jody.glanfield@sd68.bc.ca, Samantha Pecht: sam.pecht@sd68.bc.ca, Tracy Sannes: tracy.sannes@sd68.bc.ca
Inquiry Team Contact Email: thea.miscavish@sd68.bc.ca
II. Inquiry Project Information
Type of Inquiry: NOIIE Case Study
Grade Levels Addressed Through Inquiry: Primary (K-3)
Curricular Areas Addressed: Language Arts – Literacy
Focus Addressed: Literacy
In one sentence, what was your focus for the year? Our focus is on building emergent, developed, and proficient literacy skills, specifically in phonics, through engagement and connection with our primary students by small-group, hands-on learning.
III. Spirals of Inquiry Details
Scanning: All students from grades 1-3 in four divisions were assessed with a phonics reading screener to determine appropriate leveled groupings for primary Tier 1 intervention and instruction at each child’s instructional level. Students were arranged in instructional leveled groups for hands-on, intentional learning opportunities to learn decoding and encoding skills, along with fluency and fine motor/letter formation instruction.
A portion of Indigenous learners were then asked the Four Key Questions that Matter, outlined through the NOIIE Scanning and Checking framework. Some students could give specific examples of how they learned best, and others struggled, providing simple, often superficial, answers to the questions. A goal of increased metacognitive and understanding of developmental learning stages and approaches will be considered, along with trauma-informed practice and an interest in integrating Indigenous students’ traditions into the inquiry.
Focus: Bayview Elementary is a focus school enriched with diversity and trauma-informed practice. Over the past two years, primary teachers have both introduced and collaborated to provide evidence-based phonics instruction to primary students. To implement, students were placed into fluid, instructional-leveled, multi-aged groupings where they were supported in various locations within our school.
Hunch: Prior to starting with the school-wide primary-UFLI project, it was suspected that students would benefit for multiple reasons:
- Students would be in appropriate groupings where UDL could be implemented for stamina and behaviour, and less for academic progress
- Students would benefit from small-group instruction and a diverse group of teachers
- Students who missed lessons would benefit from the review at the beginning of each lesson
- Students who were at an emerging level (i.e., learning letter names and sounds) would need a substantial amount of time to get through the initial three steps of the program (Lessons 1-41), but once they were fluent in the alphabetic principle, regardless of their grade level, the next step of blending sounds to make words would be a natural and efficient process.
New Professional Learning: Adult participants/instructional leaders were mentored and reflected on skills and comfort while using UFLI (University of Florida Literacy Institute) across the primary grades. Intentional data collection took place three times to determine growth and needs in learning groups, which initiated collaboration within the group.
Taking Action:
- Initial Assessments given – by Literacy Coordinator, Co-Teacher, and IST to determine pre-existing phonics skills using a nonsense word screener which was developed with the scope and sequence of UFLI program.
- Group meetings took place to ensure students were in the right groups, which were fluid for skill development and behaviour/attention.
- Support people were involved to enhance the program and focus learners.
- In January, students were assessed again by the screener. At this time, we shuffled students accordingly and created an additional group of vulnerable grade 3 students to increase focus. This would have been considered Tier 2 intervention.
- Scheduled lessons ended at the beginning of May and follow-up assessment commenced. It was determined that a more thorough assessment was needed to ensure that the application of the program (decoding words within decodable texts through implementation of skills learned) would be valuable. One teacher did the nonsense words assessment, and another did the decodable running records.
- Data was compiled again, and specific observations and strategies were given for each learner, to classroom teachers.
Click here to check out our Bayview UFLI Data PDF. PDF Description: Four classrooms were involved in the program, thirty of which were of Indigenous descent. Indigenous learners’ results were consistent to non-Indigenous learners’ growth. Note: Pink (Sept data), Orange (Dec/Jan data), Yellow (May/June data) – all using nonsense words assessment. Green (below each learner) is June decodable reading data.
Checking: Students grew in fundamental ways. Our greatest population of growth was the students who already had strong knowledge of phonics – knowing the letter/sound connections. Much of their success was attributed to consistent practice with decodable reading materials and explicit instruction. In addition, we noticed that those who had been exposed to more opportunities to practice decoding within the context of the decodables, emerged as readers and were able to read decodable materials beyond the concepts taught in their group.
Reflections/Advice: As a group of keen educators, we drew a few conclusions:
- Pre-assessment and continued re-assessment were vital for appropriate placements of students in their instructional reading levels.
- A fast-paced, fun, predictable approach keeps students engaged.
- Many students can handle learning the material by applying phonics ‘rules’ to their reading and writing.
- Students who miss moderate instructions can be ‘caught up’ because of the repetitiveness of the UFLI program.
- Assessing some students was difficult, primarily those on the Autism spectrum, as the use of decodable nonsense words seemed irrelevant to them.
- Allowing students to ‘play’ with words was important for motivation and stamina.
- Thirty minutes was adequate instructional time; support was provided for TTOCs as needed.
- Booklets were helpful, however each instructor used them in different ways, which allowed for autonomy. They also were useful for guest teachers, quick reading assessments, and flexibility with limited space in the school.
- Implementing a 3-day, non-negotiable 30-minute literacy time was key.
- Having consistent people doing assessments allowed for data to be collected in meaningful ways, with fidelity.
- All students developed skills, regardless of where they started. Many gained confidence and connections with their “UFLI teacher”, which enhanced a positive community throughout the school.
Moving forward to a new school year, we intend to:
- Increase written encoding of words
- Increase parent communication of skills and suggestions for practice
- Support older, vulnerable readers, specifically those who are ELL
- Continue with a minimum of 3x a week; suggest a fourth day, in-class review/running record/play time, to ensure classroom teachers still maintain awareness of student growth and needs.
- Focus data collection on English Language Learners and consider (depending on the instruction team and space available) a Tier Two level program for older emerging readers at a separate time.