I. General Information
School Name: Mouse Mountain Elementary School
School District: SD#91 Nechako Lakes
Inquiry Team Members: Cherilyn Sandback: csandback@sd91.bc.ca, Lilly Schulz: lschulz@sd91.bc.ca, Justine Anderson: janderson@sd91.bc.ca, Katie Thiffault: kthiffault@sd91.bc.ca, Candace Beier: cbeier@sd91.bc.ca, Helana Driedger: hdriedger@sd91.bc.ca, Roberta Toth: rtoth@sd91.bc.ca, Penny Eisert: peisert@sd91.bc.ca, Sabina Dennis: sdennis@sd91.bc.ca, Crystal Parsons: cparsons@sd91.bc.ca, Cholette Lelond: clelond@sd91.bc.ca
Inquiry Team Contact Email: csandback@sd91.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, Language Arts – Oral Language, Language Arts – Reading, Language Arts – Writing
Focus Addressed: Literacy
In one sentence, what was your focus for the year? We are continuing to focus on literacy in a broader sense of the literacy programs and interventions that are being used within the classrooms, which involves small groups, multi-sensory and multi-modal learning tasks and a structured scope and sequence.
III. Spirals of Inquiry Details
Scanning: After asking the questions, we realized that many students need direct instruction on what they are learning about. We need to teach them how to talk about their learning with modelling and classroom conversations. The guiding questions help us teach them to think about their learning and take ownership of their learning.
Focus: We were continuing our inquiry from last year on the Structured Literacy program and expanding it to include more literacy programs, tools and structures. Using a variety of strategies can help us look at the most effective ways of moving learners along the continuum from emerging, to developing, to proficient.
Hunch: Our hunch is that our students that are emerging or developing have lower attendance, difficulties focusing and/or learning disabilities. By having structure in literacy, it seems to help students know the routine and focus on the learning. By assessing frequently, we can adjust the needs and learning of every student.
New Professional Learning: We continued to use collaboration time and professional development days to focus on literacy instruction. We continued our learning about Structured Literacy and expanded to include new learning in literacy including looking deeper into the learning progressions and how it aligns with what we are teaching.
We also got new resources including Syllasense readers, UFLI manual and readers aligned with the UFLI curriculum, and Eagle Crest novels.
Taking Action: We did a blend of whole class instruction and literacy centres. Most classes did literacy centres 4 to 5 days a week for 1 hour, where students were grouped based on the skills they were working on. We really worked to ensure there were as many adults supporting our literacy times as possible by having different times for literacy for different classes. The K, K/1, 1 classes would do literacy first thing in the morning and the two grade 2/3 classes would be right after lunch. This allowed the Inclusive Ed teacher, and the Indigenous Advocates to be available to push in to classes for both times. Most of the tables would have an adult to support the learning.
The literacy centres included various activities. Each centre was small group targeted instruction, and the students would rotate through the groups. Learning focused on all different types of literacy skills – letter sound recognition, phonological awareness, phonics, decoding, high frequency words, guided reading, structured literacy, story work/comprehension, spelling instruction, and fluency.
Teachers completed continuous assessment, and adjusted/changed groups or students depending on learning needs. The assessment also adjusted the instructional focus depending on the needs shown in the assessment.
Checking: Overall, we were satisfied. All students made growth, some more than others. Classroom and inclusive ed interventions showed improvement for students that were in the emerging/developing area. We used various assessment tools for data: PMs, Anecdotal information on confidence and skills, EYE – DA, Structured Literacy assessments, Letter ID assessments, Sight word assessments.
Reflections/Advice: This inquiry solidified our hunches that frequent, targeted, systematic reading instruction supports all students, especially emerging/developing learners. Pulling in as much staff to support the literacy centers has been hugely beneficial to ensure the learners at the table are working on the expectations. In rooms where adults were not available, those students were not always on task and the learning was not as focused. Incorporating many aspects of literacy, as the children were ready, in our teaching instruction was highly effective to support students’ learning. Using multi-modal ways for children to learn the skills supported students that have a harder time learning concepts. Being able to buy resources that support the learning the children are doing was very helpful to support the teachers in their instruction.
Next steps will be to continue using supported literacy time with as many adults as available and ensuring the adults have the tools needed to support the learning.
As a result of our learning through the NOIIE inquiry process, we will continue to strengthen literacy instruction by providing intentional, evidence-informed learning opportunities that respond to the needs of our K–3 students. Our focus will remain on building strong literacy skills through explicit instruction in phonological awareness, phonics, oral language, reading comprehension, and written expression. We will continue to use small-group instruction, targeted interventions, decodable texts, and ongoing assessment to identify student strengths and areas for growth. We will also create meaningful opportunities for students to share their thinking, build confidence as readers and writers, and connect literacy learning to their experiences, cultures, and communities.
Through collaborative inquiry, regular reflection on student evidence, and responsive instructional planning, we will continue to refine our practices to improve outcomes for all learners.