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, Emily Weber: eweber@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, Valerie Welsh: vwelsh@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
Focus Addressed: Literacy
In one sentence, what was your focus for the year? We focused on implementing a literacy intervention approach across most classrooms in our primary school, which involved small groups, multi-sensory and multi-modal learning tasks, and a structured scope and sequence.
III. Spirals of Inquiry Details
Scanning: This is an area of focus for next year. We noticed that many of our learners did not have answers for the questions. Many students could not put into words what they were learning and how they were doing with their learning.
Focus: In partnership with our district Psychologist (also a literacy specialist) and the SD91 Indigenous Education Department, our focus has become to achieve consistency using Structured Literacy interventions, and regular classroom literacy instruction. We were hoping to have more consistency across classes and within literacy interventions that the inclusive ed and support staff implement. Having a consistent way to do lessons allows for the students to focus on the learning and not the ‘how to’ of the lesson. It also contributes to consistency across all staff implementing literacy interventions.
Hunch: In the past, many of the interventions were focused on students in higher grades. This year we also supported students in lower grades to have more of a proactive approach. We also noticed a disconnect between reading and writing, with many students struggling with the writing aspect even if they were strong readers.
New Professional Learning: The teachers, Indigenous Advocates, and support worker all participated in a 4-day training for the Structured Literacy program. Throughout the year, we participated in various pro-d opportunities that were continuing learning for Structured Literacy. We also supported our learning through collaboration time, sharing and trying new strategies to report back about. The district psychologist, also the Structured Literacy trainer, came into the school to support staff with observing and giving feedback, as well as doing lessons with the students for staff to observe.
Taking Action: The Structured Literacy program follows a specific scope and sequence, as well as a specific lesson plan for teaching letter sounds, sight words, and phonics rules. The lesson plans incorporate visual and auditory identification in various ways, and tactile practice with a poem or phrase. Review lessons reinforce the practice of new learning. The inclusive ed teacher, Indigenous Advocates, and support staff did both a push in model, working with groups in the classroom, and a pull out model, working with groups in another area depending on how literacy was structured in each classroom.
Checking: All students showed growth in their learning. After completing the initial assessment early in the school year, we used various ways of data tracking. We tracked student learning and mastery within groups, by classroom, as well as whole school tracking. Having the whole school data tracking allowed for pull outs of students to fill in the areas that they needed. Discussions with staff showed that they were very pleased with results and felt that the Structured Literacy program was helping their students both in reading and in writing.
Reflections/Advice: Using the Structured Literacy program really focused on the needs of the students. By completing initial assessments and continuing with data tracking, we knew exactly what the students had mastered and what skills they needed to learn. As we worked through the learning, we knew exactly where the students were at in their learning, what they needed, and when to move on to new learning. By having lesson plans that are the same structure, the students knew what to expect and could focus on the new learning as the format of the lesson became automatic. We had worried that the students would get bored of the same structure, but it seemed to build confidence for them.
Next year, we will be continuing with the Structured Literacy program. We will be continuing to support our younger learners as a proactive approach and doing interventions with our older learners and those needing more time to master their learning. We will continue to build our reinforcement activities to support student learning. Also, we will continue to participate in professional learning related to Structured Literacy.