From reading-writing research to practice 9781119610724, 1119610729, 9781119610731, 1119610737, 9781119610793, 1119610796, 9781786303554

Teachers regularly seek to update their practice with newly-developed tools from the realm of research, with the aim of

184 36 3MB

English Pages 171 Year 2019

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

From reading-writing research to practice
 9781119610724, 1119610729, 9781119610731, 1119610737, 9781119610793, 1119610796, 9781786303554

Table of contents :
Content: Cover
Half-Title Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Contents
Introduction
I.1 Bibliography
1. Teaching Reading Comprehension Strategies: A Research Program Combining Partners from A to Z
1.1. Introduction
1.2. Problematic and conceptual framework
1.3. Presentation of the project and the stages of dissemination and appropriation
1.3.1. Step 1: appropriation through collaboration, training and
1.3.2. Step 2: dissemination in professional conferences
1.3.3. Step 3: the creation of a guide and internet tools
1.4. Reflections and conclusions
1.5. Bibliography 2. Scientific Project: Creating a Website Dedicated to French Didactics2.1. Introduction
2.2. Problem and theoretical framework
2.3. Presenting the research project
2.4. Work carried out between September 2016 and June 2017
2.4.1. Construction of the first organization website (plan) based on the sections already listed
2.4.2. A questionnaire survey
2.4.3. An interview survey
2.5. Work carried out since September 2017
2.6. Conclusion
2.7. Appendices
2.8. Bibliography
3. Teacher-researcher Dialogue in Differentiated Support to Develop Students' Skills in Syntax and Punctuation 3.1. Introduction3.2. Problem and conceptual framework
3.3. Methodology
3.3.1. Participants
3.3.2. Context of the research
3.3.3. Collection instruments and procedures
3.3.4. Assessment protocol
3.4. Results
3.4.1. Characteristics of effective support methods
3.4.2. Personal dimensions related to professional development
3.4.3. Dialog between teachers and researchers
3.5. Discussion
3.5.1. Limitations of our study and future perspectives
3.6. Conclusion
3.7. Appendices
3.8. Bibliography 4. The Learning Community Mobilized to Raise the Reading Levels of Adolescents with Intellectual Disabilities4.1. Introduction
4.2. Theoretical frameworks
4.2.1. From knowledge to action: the process of channelling
4.2.2. The learning community
4.3. From production to knowledge transfer: the activities carried out
4.3.1. Funneling knowledge into action
4.3.2. Development of the learning community (action cycle)
4.4. Discussion
4.5. Conclusion
4.6. Bibliography
5. Teaching Practices that Promote the Development of Reading Skills in Inclusive Secondary Schools
5.1. Introduction 5.2. Question and perspective adopted5.3. Reference framework
5.4. Methodology
5.5. Results
5.6. Conclusion
5.7. Bibliography
6. Supporting the Professional Development of Elementary School Teachers: Action Research in an Aboriginal Context1
6.1. Introduction
6.2. General context, problem and research objective
6.3. Theoretical framework
6.3.1. Literary training and reading/appreciation
6.3.2. Means of evaluating the reading/appreciation of literary
6.4. Methodology
6.5. Some results of the interventions in teaching and reading assessment

Citation preview

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Series Editor Renaud Fabre

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Edited by

Sophie Briquet-Duhazé Catherine Turcotte

First published 2019 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address: ISTE Ltd 27–37 St George’s Road London SW19 4EU UK

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street Hoboken, NJ 07030 USA

www.iste.co.uk

www.wiley.com

© ISTE Ltd 2019 The rights of Sophie Briquet-Duhazé and Catherine Turcotte to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Library of Congress Control Number: 2019932254 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-78630-355-4

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sophie BRIQUET-DUHAZÉ and Catherine TURCOTTE Chapter 1. Teaching Reading Comprehension Strategies: A Research Program Combining Partners from A to Z . . . . . . . . . Catherine TURCOTTE and Marie-Julie GODBOUT 1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Problematic and conceptual framework . . . . . . . . . 1.3. Presentation of the project and the stages of dissemination and appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1. Step 1: appropriation through collaboration, training and support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2. Step 2: dissemination in professional conferences 1.3.3. Step 3: the creation of a guide and internet tools . 1.4. Reflections and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 2

. . . . . . . . . .

3

. . . . .

. . . . .

3 7 7 8 9

Chapter 2. Scientific Project: Creating a Website Dedicated to French Didactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sophie BRIQUET-DUHAZÉ

13

. . . . .

. . . . .

2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Problem and theoretical framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Presenting the research project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Work carried out between September 2016 and June 2017 . 2.4.1. Construction of the first organization website (plan) based on the sections already listed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2. A questionnaire survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3. An interview survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

13 14 15 18

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18 19 20

vi

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

2.5. Work carried out since September 2017 . 2.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7. Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

Chapter 3. Teacher-researcher Dialogue in Differentiated Support to Develop Students’ Skills in Syntax and Punctuation . . Marie-Hélène GIGUÈRE, Marie NADEAU, Carole FISHER, Rosianne ARSENEAU and Claude QUEVILLON LACASSE 3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Problem and conceptual framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1. Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2. Context of the research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3. Collection instruments and procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4. Assessment protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1. Characteristics of effective support methods . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2. Personal dimensions related to professional development . 3.4.3. Dialog between teachers and researchers . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1. Limitations of our study and future perspectives . . . . . . 3.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7. Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 4. The Learning Community Mobilized to Raise the Reading Levels of Adolescents with Intellectual Disabilities . . . . . Céline CHATENOUD, Catherine TURCOTTE, Rebeca ALDAMA and Sabine CODIO 4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Theoretical frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1. From knowledge to action: the process of channelling knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2. The learning community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3. From production to knowledge transfer: the activities carried out . 4.3.1. Funneling knowledge into action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2. Development of the learning community (action cycle) . . . . 4.4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21 24 24 31 33

33 34 38 38 40 41 41 42 42 46 51 52 54 55 56 58 61

. . . . . .

61 62

. . . . . . . .

62 63 64 64 66 68 69 70

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

Contents

Chapter 5. Teaching Practices that Promote the Development of Reading Skills in Inclusive Secondary Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . France DUBÉ, Chantal OUELLET, France DUFOUR, Marie-Jocya PAVIEL, Olivier BRUCHESI, Émilie CLOUTIER and Marc LANDRY 5.1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. Question and perspective adopted 5.3. Reference framework . . . . . . . . 5.4. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

Chapter 6. Supporting the Professional Development of Elementary School Teachers: Action Research in an Aboriginal Context . . . . . Christiane BLASER and Martin LÉPINE 6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2. General context, problem and research objective. . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3. Theoretical framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1. Literary training and reading/appreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2. Means of evaluating the reading/appreciation of literary works 6.4. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5. Some results of the interventions in teaching and reading assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.1. The impact of the training offered in reading and evaluation . . 6.5.2. The benefits of the material offered: books, document cameras, reading corners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.3. The benefits of the book fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.4. The impact on students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

73

73 74 76 77 80 84 85 89

. . . . . .

89 90 94 94 97 98

. . . .

101 101

. . . . .

102 103 104 104 105

. . . . .

Chapter 7. When Researchers Discover that Organizational and Collaboration Models that are Still Not Very Explicit for School Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nathalie PRÉVOST and Catherine TURCOTTE 7.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2. Context and issues . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3. Reference framework . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1. Educational continuity . . . . . . 7.3.2. Learning object: written French 7.4. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

109 109 110 111 111 112 113

viii

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

7.4.1. Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.2. Instrument and procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5. Analysis of the interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.1. Key factor 1: initiating dialog and engaging transition-friendly practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.2. Key factor 2: developing a transition plan . . . . . . . . . 7.6.3. Key factor 3: giving importance to oral and written language in the school and classroom . . . . . . . . 7.6.4. Key factor 4: providing leadership during this transition. 7.6.5. Key factor 5: planning student follow-up between kindergarten and Grade 1 of elementary school . . . . . . . . . . 7.7. Dissemination of results to the school community . . . . . . . 7.8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

114 114 115 115

. . . . . . . . . . . .

116 116

. . . . . . . . . . . .

117 117

. . . .

. . . .

118 118 119 119

Chapter 8. Encouraging the Appropriation of Research Results on Morphological Knowledge by School Stakeholders . . . Rachel BERTHIAUME

125

8.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2. Question and theoretical framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3. Presentation of a research project aiming for the evaluation of the morphological knowledge of elementary school students . 8.4. Challenges and obstacles in translating research results into a didactic book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1. The weaving of links between authors (or how to write with several hands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.2. The creation of the material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.3. External obstacles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

125 126

. . . . . .

129

. . . . . .

132

. . . . .

. . . . .

132 134 137 138 139

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sophie BRIQUET-DUHAZÉ and Catherine TURCOTTE

145

List of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

147

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

149

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

Introduction

As early as 2002, Étévé and Rayou raised the question of transferring research results to practice in the field of reading/writing (Étévé and Rayou 2002). They associated the poor dissemination of these results with the problem of delimiting the fields of intervention between researchers, practitioners and political specialists, while pointing to the lack of training engineering. In this regard, approaches suggested by researchers or any other external stakeholder may be considered ineffective or insufficiently specific and supported to satisfy a school or class (Fullan 2007). In a study examining the disparity between what the research suggests and teachers’ practices, Vanderlinde et al. (2010) interviewed principals, teachers and researchers and concluded, in particular, that the relationship between research and practice was a complex phenomenon. According to these researchers, a collaborative research model between researchers and teachers should include a dissemination phase that would highlight teachers’ expertise, knowledge and responsibilities. In Quebec and France, teachers are trained in the research process, and many feel the need to obtain research tools that are directly applicable in the classroom, particularly in the didactics of reading and writing. Thus, the problem is not only the dissemination of research results, but also the role that continuous professional development can have in the appropriation of these results. Our book addresses this issue by presenting research projects Introduction written by Sophie BRIQUET-DUHAZÉ and Catherine TURCOTTE.

x

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

in Quebec and France that have attempted to address it through a variety of means, including engaging teachers in the research process. The authors of this book have taken this question on board, even if it was not the primary objective of their studies. This suggests that this stage of dissemination and appropriation is indeed part of the stages of research, as well as the problem, the theoretical framework, the methodology and the analysis. The eight chapters in this book can be grouped according to common axes that can be defined in different ways: – If the reader is interested in the sub-domains of French, he or she may refer to Chapters 1 and 4 on reading comprehension, Chapter 3 on syntax and comprehension, Chapter 6 on speaking, reading and writing, Chapter 7 on the start of writing, Chapter 8 on morphology and Chapter 5 on reading. – If the reader’s interest is more concerned with the level of education, it should be noted that Chapter 7 deals with kindergarten, Chapters 1, 2, 6 and 8 are devoted to elementary school (Grades 1–6), Chapters 3 and 4 deal with the end of elementary and the beginning of secondary education (Grades 7– 11), then Chapter 5 is dedicated to secondary school. – If the reader wishes to acquire knowledge about teachers, Chapters 3, 5, 6 are particularly insightful. If they would rather learn more about the teams of school workers and other partners and actors, Chapters 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 are more appropriate. Each of the eight chapters is also of particular interest in regards to the theme of this book: the dissemination of research results in practice settings. Chapter 1 by Catherine Turcotte and Marie-Julie Godbout focuses on teaching reading strategies. Reading an informative text is a demanding activity, because it involves processing information while understanding its structure. But one thing is clear: teaching the act of comprehension is rather complex in informative texts. Teachers do not always know how to choose strategies to teach, or how to achieve them. The project described in this chapter has highlighted an approach that supports this teaching. Chapter 2 by Sophie Briquet-Duhazé explores the issue of websites consulted by elementary school teachers when they prepare their French lessons. These data are used to support a project to build websites dedicated to French didactics, combining scientific research and tools that can be used directly in the classroom.

Introduction

xi

Chapter 3 by Marie-Hélène Giguère, Marie Nadeau, Carole Fisher, Rosianne Arseneau and Claude Quevillon Lacasse discusses syntax and punctuation, the forgotten concepts of grammar in Quebec and France. Support is an innovative activity and teachers have learned that regular and formative feedback can support learning. By confronting the class and the responses of students and teachers, the researchers were able to better understand the learning objectives. Chapter 4 by Céline Chatenoud, Catherine Turcotte, Rebeca Aldama and Sabine Codio discusses the reading levels of young people with intellectual disabilities. The best way to promote the educational and academic success of these students is to bring together different actors to work in a learning community: identifying needs, defining objectives, choosing knowledge, using this knowledge, supporting the use of this knowledge, identifying resistance, adjusting for transfer, etc. These are all challenges for this audience, as scientific data are so few. Chapter 5 by France Dubé, Chantal Ouellet, France Dufour, Marie-Jocya Paviel, Olivier Bruchesi, Émilie Cloutier and Marc Landry questions practices that promote the development of reading and writing skills, particularly in inclusive education at secondary school level. The corpus studied consists of summaries from the scientific databases analyzed using N’Vivo software. Chapter 6 by Christiane Blaser and Martin Lépine aims to support teaching and assessment practices in reading and writing in an Aboriginal context in order to improve them. How should we choose a literary work for kindergarten students and elementary school students; provide literature areas; understand and interpret, educate judgment and taste; appreciate literary works... these are some of the challenges addressed by this research. How should we encourage a stimulating start to writing, for students from disadvantaged backgrounds? This is the question addressed in Chapter 7 by Nathalie Prévost and Catherine Turcotte. The objective of the research is to describe organization and collaboration models of exemplary school teams that prevent academic difficulties during the transition from kindergarten to the first year of elementary school. Key factors for a successful transition are emerging.

xii

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Rachel Berthiaume’s Chapter 8 studies morphology, as morphological knowledge helps us to better understand the meaning of words, in addition to improving reading and writing levels. This chapter reports on an experience that encourages a back and forth between research and practice to design a book that is useful for teachers, while being based on rigorous scientific knowledge. Many lessons can be learned from it! I.1 Bibliography Étévé, C., Rayou, P. (2002). “La démarche de transfert des résultats de la recherche. Présentation de quelques problèmes et points de vue”. Recherche et Formation, 40(1), 27–41. Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change, 4th edition. Teachers College Press, New York. Vanderlinde, R., Braak, J., Fullan, M. (2010). “The New Meaning of Educational Change”. British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 299–316.

1 Teaching Reading Comprehension Strategies: A Research Program Combining Partners from A to Z

1.1. Introduction In Quebec, starting in Grades 3 and 4 of elementary school, informative texts become more dense and complex in all disciplines, requiring the mobilization of new skills and strategies among students. According to Dockrell et al. (2015), this is a very cognitively demanding reading activity, since it requires both processing new information of understanding its structure. Thus, since reading these texts requires the articulation of knowledge about a subject, knowledge of syntactic skills (consistency between sentences), and knowledge and skills in information structure (text macrostructure), teachers face a major challenge. In order to find solutions, researchers and teachers have developed an approach to teaching strategies for reading comprehension of informative texts, as part of action research training. This chapter describes the stages of this project, which took place between 2010 and 2014, as well as the various initiatives aimed at the appropriation and dissemination of the knowledge resulting from this project.

Chapter written by Catherine TURCOTTE and Marie-Julie GODBOUT.

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice, First Edition. Edited by Sophie Briquet-Duhazé and Catherine Turcotte. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

2

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

1.2. Problematic and conceptual framework Teaching reading comprehension across different school subjects requires high-level and specific knowledge and skills from teachers. Gajria et al.’s (2007) research synthesis, on the effectiveness of teaching approaches to understanding informative texts, states that explicit teaching of strategies is the intervention method that has the most positive effects on students’ understanding of these said texts. Approaches have, in this sense, proposed the explicit teaching of strategies to support understanding (Cervetti et al. 2007; Scharlach 2008). Among these strategies, those targeting the formulation of inferences, the identification of main ideas and the recognition of the text structure are the most complex, but also the most crucial strategies to support the understanding of informative texts (Hogan 2011; Williams 2014). Indeed, to generate a mental representation of the text, the reader must go beyond the literal understanding at the basic level of the text (Kintsch 2013). Inferential understanding and understanding of the macrostructure of the text, which is not based solely on what is explicitly revealed by the author, requires an articulation of knowledge, skills and strategies that must be taught to a very large number of students (Blouet and Marin 2010; Jitendra and Gajria 2011). However, although this teaching method is interesting for promoting the learning of comprehension strategies, at the end of elementary and beginning of secondary school, teaching reading comprehension is not always a priority (Scharlach 2008). Indeed, teachers say they do not always know what reading strategies to teach, and then how to approach this teaching. They also report a lack of material support and guidance to structure their implementation (Alvermann et al. 2013; Denti and Guérin 2004). Moreover, according to the Conseil supérieur de l’éducation du Québec (Quebec’s higher education council) (Conseil 2014), in-class support, which could facilitate the improvement of their comprehension teaching practices, is not governed by a common framework. Thus, on the one hand, reading comprehension strategies are complex to master and, on the other hand, they are difficult to teach. This dual problem of professional development and the complex teaching of comprehension strategies for informative texts is at the heart of the project presented in this chapter.

Teaching Reading Comprehension Strategies

3

1.3. Presentation of the project and the stages of dissemination and appropriation The project presented in this chapter followed several steps, some of which were planned from the beginning and others which were added as they progressed. The first phase of the project consisted of action research training on teaching comprehension strategies. The subsequent steps, which are part of a transfer and dissemination process, are conducive to the results and fruits of this research. 1.3.1. Step 1: appropriation through collaboration, training and support Since this project focused on the professional development of teachers over a long period of time, it was necessary to maintain a dynamic relationship with the various actors involved. In this regard, Bissonnette and Richard (2010) surveyed more than 5,000 Francophone school stakeholders to determine the factors considered most beneficial for professional development. Three categories emerged from this study: personal factors, professional factors and relational factors. The collaboration project between researchers and teachers is based in particular on these factors. 1.3.1.1. The personal dimension The first factor is the personal dimension. Professional development activities must correspond to teachers’ values and needs, and be in line with their recent requests for training or support. This personal dimension of development and training for practitioners is crucial. Indeed, when the needs and problems are those that teachers have identified themselves from their practice, the professional development attached to them is likely to make much more sense than when the problem and needs come from outside. With regard to this first dimension, the collaborative project was initiated following a discussion with teachers who had worked with students in late elementary and early secondary school stages (ages 10 to 14). According to them, students’ comprehension strategies were not consolidated when they entered secondary school, which did not allow everyone to read independently in all subjects. It is in this context that the project was designed on the basis of a possible solution: to start teaching strategies for

4

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

understanding informative texts earlier and in a more structured way. Teachers invited to participate in the project later on therefore already had an interest in experimenting with new ways of doing things that would meet these expressed needs. 1.3.1.2. The professional dimension The second factor is the professional dimension. According to Bissonnette and Richard (2010), professional development activities must allow new practices to be tested quickly with a minimum of new resources being created. This professional dimension of activities implies not wanting to disrupt teachers’ practices and knowledge, but rather provoking imbalances and questions. It is therefore not only a question of exchanging practices, but of taking the means to improve them through an approach aimed at continuous experimentation, monitoring and reflection. In terms of the professional dimension, this project has articulated a diversity of modalities allowing teachers to receive training, both at a theoretical and practical level. Some training was given during the school year in sub-groups to encourage exchanges and the sharing of experiences, while at other times, teachers could request individual support in the classroom. To structure this support and encourage teachers to discuss their experiences together, the team developed activity sheets that proposed teaching certain comprehension strategies based on a common text. The following eight strategies were specifically taught: predicting, activating knowledge on the subject of the text, identifying the structure of the text, making inferences, asking questions when reading, understanding substitute words, understanding new words in use, using context and morphological cues, identifying the main idea, both explicit and implicit. Each week, a strategy was introduced to the students; the teacher explained its usefulness, modeled its use and proposed many guided and autonomous practices in order to encourage the strategy to be used in various contexts for reading informative texts. Every three weeks, reading activities were planned to use all the strategies previously seen. These sheets were also subject to major revisions and modifications based on teachers’ comments and the reviews of students who had used them. In addition, at the beginning and end of the school year, reading

Teaching Reading Comprehension Strategies

5

comprehension tests were developed to see students’ progress in their skills and strategies for understanding informative texts. The test items all corresponded to the strategies taught, which made it possible to observe to what extent the development of a strategy, for example, useful for understanding an unknown word in a text, had borne fruit after its teaching. All these steps allowed teachers to take action and take risks, while benefiting from the support of their peers or researchers. 1.3.1.3. The relational dimension The third factor is the relational dimension. As stated in Bissonnette and Richard (2010), professional development activities must include follow-up and support over time in order to be considered beneficial. According to them, facilitators, researchers and coaches, must have expertise and great dynamism when they offer training and direct support. Finally, when several teachers from the same school are involved, the exchanges are even more beneficial. In our project, at least three teachers from each of the four schools participated in order to engage collaboration and exchanges, both formal and informal, on the strategies taught. In addition, this relational dimension was provided by a team composed of a researcher, a pedagogical advisor and a master’s degree level remedial teacher. These three participants with complementary expertise proposed a schedule of sub-group meetings and classroom support, as well as content based on a theoretical model (Irwin 2006). Training was carefully thought out and planned, concrete examples were provided, and activities involving new knowledge were designed so that teachers would take ownership of the knowledge and strategies before teaching them. As mentioned previously in this chapter, at the beginning and end of the school year, students were tested, which allowed them to view their progress. In addition, these results were presented to teachers in order to allow them to reflect on the scope of the new practices developed. Classes of students not participating in the project had also agreed to complete the assessments at the beginning and end of the year, which allowed for comparative analyses and a better understanding of the project’s impacts on student learning. This gave rise to rich reflections among the team of researchers and teachers, who had data to share.

6

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Among these results, several have been published (Giguère et al. 2016; Turcotte 2015). In summary, the analyses reveal that the students who participated in the project (and were among the weakest readers in their school board) significantly improved their results between the beginning and end of the school year. This group of students has practically closed the gap between them and the students who took the tests without having received the interventions proposed in the project, for students in Grades 4 and 5. The Grade 6 students not only closed this gap, but they performed better than the group that did not come into contact with the project. Moreover, the most successful questions at the end of the school year by the students in the intervention groups were almost all related to a high level of comprehension of informative texts, which was a major focus of this project. In addition, participating teachers and teachers in classes that had not experienced this collaboration recorded information on their reading instruction practices three times throughout the school year. These data, which are mainly aimed at better understanding the impacts of the project on teachers’ knowledge and practices, revealed that teachers in the nonexperimental group had a less precise vocabulary on the strategies to be taught than teachers involved in the project. The participating teachers expressed the strategies in a precise way, based on a theoretical model presented at the very beginning of the project (Irwin 2006). In addition, the analysis of the reflections and comments in the logbooks shows that the professional perspective of the project teachers is also more accurate. Their comments focused on strategies, challenges and issues in relation to a specific teaching activity. In contrast, teachers in groups without access to the experiment often expressed stagnation, lack of time and resources, then general ideas about reading strategies, and did not focus on a specific experience or teaching activity. These results, published in scientific journals, were first formally presented to the project’s teachers. A report was written for each school and a close-out-meeting was held to present these results and complete the loop of this collaborative experience. This project, which included community identification of a problem, training, meetings, assessments, analysis and presentation of results to teachers, allowed teachers to understand how their participation in the project had affected them and students, as well as participating in the conduct of a research project through to the end.

Teaching Reading Comprehension Strategies

7

These stages of the project, based on factors identified by Bissonnette and Richard (2010) as being beneficial for continuing education, have also inspired a series of initiatives aimed at the dissemination and transfer of the knowledge and approaches developed. Thus, when this action research training project was completed, the results were the subject of a few presentations at professional conferences, which prompted the development of a website and field training to support environments similar to the one encountered during the project. 1.3.2. Step 2: dissemination in professional conferences Although a very short training time (less than 14 hours) rarely allows for a transformation of pedagogical practices that has an impact on student outcomes (Yoon 2007), we decided to present the concepts and features of the project at conferences attended by practitioners. Through this experience, we wanted to examine how a collaborative project resonates with teachers who have not been involved in the project. In addition, we wanted to see if any pedagogical advisors were interested in this form of support and collaboration. It was during this dissemination stage that we encountered several school environments with the same needs as those mentioned by the teachers participating in the project. Our approach, but also the materials developed to teach and evaluate students, has been the subject of many requests. However, we were aware that these means of dissemination do not lead to a very active appropriation of content and approaches. Indeed, oneoff conferences or training sessions, as well as the simple sharing of documents, do not make it possible to ensure follow-up in the classroom and with teachers; the risk was that few elements of content would be reinvested in their practices (Hamel 2013). It seemed to us that it was of little use to transfer documents without explanation or specific guidance. 1.3.3. Step 3: the creation of a guide and internet tools In order to guide teachers who wish to use the results of our work, we have decided to develop an accompanying guide containing a history of the project, the presentation of theoretical elements, strategies and tests, as well as indications on how to use this material. Although recreating an approach as rich as that experienced during the action research training process is unlikely to be possible with the help of a simple support guide, this tool

8

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

allows at least trainers such as pedagogical advisors, or teachers providing some leadership in their schools, to understand the project’s foundations, its development and the possibilities and limits of the material offered. To complete this guide, we have also created short animated capsules (short video sequences) in which each reading strategy is explained and modeled using texts. Thus, teachers who do not have access to in-service training on the subject, but who wish to learn more about a strategy and how to teach it, can view a capsule that lasts approximately eight minutes. In addition, these same capsules can be presented to students in class and to parents, who have little knowledge of the reading comprehension strategies taught in school. To be able to distribute these documents, a website has been developed which allows the documents to be downloaded or viewed free of charge1. In addition, two or three days of in-service training, accompanied by individual support for teachers, are offered by a research officer, when requested by schools. Finally, a last opportunity to disseminate our project came from an organization outside our team and our institution. The Centre de transfert pour la réussite éducative du Québec (CTREQ), whose mission is to promote innovation and knowledge transfer in order to increase educational success in Quebec, proposed to our team to produce two short videos focusing mainly on the experience between researchers and practitioners involved in research. These videos2 focus less on the content of the project itself than on the approach and benefits of the partnership. 1.4. Reflections and conclusions The development of such an action research training project was carried out from A to Z with specific partners. The needs arose from the school environment, and the approaches were designed in collaboration with a pedagogical advisor and were reviewed by all participating stakeholders. In addition, the results of the analyses were discussed and exchanged, making it possible to nuance and better contextualize the project’s scope.

1 Available at www.adel.uqam.ca. 2 Available at www.ctreq.qc.ca/mille-reussites.

Teaching Reading Comprehension Strategies

9

Once completed, such a project should be able to contribute to the progress of knowledge and practices. It is not easy to plan every step of the dissemination of a research project. It is rarely possible to know the results that will emerge from a project and the level of transferability of results to more or less similar environments. This is why the dissemination steps that followed this action research training project were not thought of at the beginning of the experiment, but along the way. We had not anticipated such a broad interest from teachers and other education stakeholders in the materials and approaches developed. Thus, although the project’s objectives have already been achieved for us, the dissemination and transfer stages represented almost as much work as the research project itself. As for the forms of dissemination and appropriation, it seems clear to us that all the reflection and readjustments developed throughout the action research project are difficult to transfer to a teaching guide or any other form of presentation. The few years spent with practitioners reflecting on strategies for understanding and reading informative texts, and then on teaching approaches, can neither be reproduced in an accompanying guide, nor for a training course. It appeared to us that long-term support and exchanges are unparalleled, even when a special effort is devoted to careful dissemination based on guidance documents such as our support guide. Future research would benefit from examining the quality of this transfer, since it is inconceivable that any practitioner should be accompanied as intensively as those involved in action research training. Moreover, since the opportunities and media for dissemination sometimes depend on what has been developed in the research project, it is unlikely that a researcher could anticipate exactly all the forms that this crucial step will take. The funding agencies could then set aside a complementary budget allocated to researchers who find themselves with unexpected data to disseminate or with forms of dissemination that are not planned in advance, but which are well suited to the scope of the work being carried out. 1.5. Bibliography Alvermann, D.E., Gillis, V.R., Phelps, S.F. (2013). Content Area Reading and Literacy: Succeeding in Today’s Diverse Classrooms. Pearson, Boston. Bissonnette, S., Richard, M. (2010). “Les modalités d’efficacité de la formation continue”. Vivre le primaire, 23(3), 34–36.

10

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Blouet, N., Marin, B. (2010). “Des effets d’une pédagogie explicite sur l’élaboration d’inférences par des élèves faibles lecteurs”. La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation, 52(4), 31–46. Cervetti, G.N., Pearson, P.D., Barber, J., Hiebert, E.H., Bravo, M.A. (2007). “Integrating literacy and science: The research we have, the research we need”. In Shaping Literacy Achievement, Pressley, M., Billman, A.K., Perry, K. et al. (eds). Guilford Press, New York, 157–174. Conseil supérieur de l’éducation, Le développement professionnel, un enrichissement pour toute la profession enseignante, Notice to the Minister of Education, Leisure and Sport and the Minister of Higher Education, Research and Science, Government of Quebec, Quebec, 2014. Denti, L., Guérin, G. (2004). “Confronting the problem of poor literacy: Recognition and action”. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20(2), 113–122. Dockrell, J.E., Connelly, V., Walter, K., Critten, S. (2015). “Assessing children’s writing products: The role of curriculum based measures”. British Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 575–595. Gajria, M., Jitendra, A.K., Sood, S., Sacks, G. (2007). “Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225. Giguère, M.-H., Turcotte, C., Godbout, M.-J. (2016). “Une démarche d’accompagnement pour structurer l’enseignement des stratégies de compréhension en lecture”. La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation, 76(4), 141–160. Hamel, C., Laferrière, T., Turcotte, S., Allaire, S. (2013). “Un regard rétrospectif sur le développement professionnel des enseignants dans le modèle de l’École éloignée en réseau”. Science et technologies de l’information et de la communication pour l’éducation et la formation, vol. 20. Available at: http://sticef.univ-lemans.fr/num/vol2013/20-hamel-cren/sticef_2013_NS_hamel_ 20.htm. Hogan, T.P., Bridges, M.S., Justice, L.M., Cain, K. (2011). “Increasing higher level language skills to improve reading comprehension”. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(3), 1–20. Irwin, J., (2006). Teaching Reading Comprehension Processes, 3rd edition. Allyn & Bacon, Boston (MA). Jitendra, A.K., Gajria, M. (2011). “Main idea and summarization instruction to improve reading comprehension”. In Handbook of Reading Interventions, O’Connor, R.E., Vadasy, P.F. (eds). Guilford Press, New York, 198–219,

Teaching Reading Comprehension Strategies

11

Kintsch, W. (2013). “Revisiting the construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction”. In Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 6th edition, Alvermann, D.E., Unrau, N.J., Ruddell, R.B. (eds). International Reading Association, Newark, 807–839. Scharlach, T.D. (2008). “START: Comprehending Students and Teachers Actively Reading Text”. The Reading Teacher, 62(1), 20–30. Shanahan, T., Shanahan, C. (2008). “Teaching Disciplinary Literacy to Adolescents: Rethinking Content-Area Literacy”. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59. Turcotte, C., Giguère, M.H., Godbout, M.J. (2015). “Une approche d’enseignement des stratégies de compréhension de lecture de textes courants auprès de jeunes lecteurs à risque d’échouer”. Language and Literacy, 17(1), 106–125. Williams, J.P., Pollini, S., Nubla-Kung, A.M., Snyder, A.E., Garcia, A., Ordynans, J.G., Atkins, J.G. (2014). “An intervention to improve comprehension of cause/effect through expository text structure instruction”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 1–17. Yoon, K.S., Duncan, T., Lee, S.W.-Y., Scarloss, B., Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007, no. 033, US Department of Education, Washington (DC).

2 Scientific Project: Creating a Website Dedicated to French Didactics

2.1. Introduction The large Norman research network, DIDACFRAN, is a French project developed by a team of 17 people: teachers-researchers, doctoral students, ESPE trainers, master trainers, inspectors from the French Ministry of Education, educational advisors and design engineers (see Appendix 1). Funded by the Normandy region of France, it aims to reduce the difficulties encountered by elementary school students. It combines the production of scientific knowledge and the production of tools that can be used in the classroom, but also in training. The objective is to feed the reflection of professionals, to question the possible transposition of the results of this research into teaching practices and to feed teacher training. The creation of a dedicated website to search and act according to French didactics aims to provide all researchers and professionals with sources and resources, research and information on the French language, for example: – opportunities to read scientific articles by professionals; – research whose results could be transposed to the classroom; – the creation of classroom-based tools based on research results; – official documents from the National Education Department. Chapter written by Sophie BRIQUET-DUHAZÉ.

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice, First Edition. Edited by Sophie Briquet-Duhazé and Catherine Turcotte. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

14

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

We present the successive steps and choices made, as well as the data collection methodologies that enabled us to develop a model of the website and then implement it. 2.2. Problem and theoretical framework Our general problem questions how elementary school teachers appropriate the research results and practical tools they use in the classroom. As Fluckiger et al. pointed out in 2014 (Fluckiger et al. 2014), there are three elements to be taken into account since the advent of digital technology: the increasing number of resources; the need to make a choice according to discipline; the constant evolution of content and new technologies. Similarly, the authors note that there is little research on professional teacher preparation literature. Following Gueudet and Trouche (2010), Fluckiger et al. (2014, p. 6–7) define a resource as: “ – what a teacher consults for the purpose of preparing a lesson: textbook, website, preparation sheet, audio, video or photo document, newspaper article, student sheet or teacher sheet, directly for the students or themselves, authentic or constructed documents...   – what it creates/modifies/adapts in order to allow the teacher to prepare lessons, and a resource that can be qualified as document; – we exclude what is not consciously intended to be used in the classroom (general teacher culture, information... unless teachers designate them as a resource [see below on the subjective position adopted]).” Félix (2014) recounts the design of the [email protected] platform, a digital training environment, with particular emphasis on the processes of transforming teaching work situations in the field into training resources. Her article informs us about an issue that we have not taken into account in this chapter, namely the transformation of resources into documents by teachers (Aldon 2017).

Scientific Project: Creating a Website Dedicated to French Didactics

15

For Paquin (2012), in Canada, digital educational resources are used by teachers in French-language minority schools because they are free, but also because teachers do not have other resources. It seems that in several countries, teachers frequently use computers to prepare their lessons, but do not integrate them into the classroom with their students. Finally, in a survey of 907 school teachers, Ravestein and Ladage (2014, p. 15) stated that: “When practicing their profession, the use of the Internet seems to divide the teacher population because the answers are strongly contrasted. Indeed, while 35% propose to have students work with the Internet, the others do not seem to support it and while 42% often use educational resource sites, the others claim never or rarely to use them. The divide remains strong when asked whether it would be desirable in the future to communicate directly with students via the Internet to regulate their learning: 72% are reluctant to do so while the others are in favor. More than half of the population say they frequently use information from the Internet (54%) to prepare for their class, compared to 46% who say they use little or no information.” According to the authors, female teachers used the Internet the most to prepare lessons. 2.3. Presenting the research project The DIDACFRAN project, a research network in French-language didactics brings together researchers and professionals specializing in the teaching-learning of oral and written language in one or other of the subthemes: reading, writing, writing production, lexicon, difficulties, children’s literature, problems in these fields, allophone students, etc. With a view to research focused more specifically on the school grounds of the Normandy region, researchers from the Universities of RouenNormandie and Le Havre-Normandie and professionals from the departments of Eure and Seine-Maritime have shown an interest in the proposed co-construction. This network is in accordance with report no. 2014-071 (see Appendix 2) and the Order of August 27, 2013 outlining the

16

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

procedures for the accreditation of ESPEs, which stipulates that it is necessary to: “ – mobilize all the potentials present, such as common services and training and research units as well as institutions, schools, supervisory bodies, the various professional bodies of school education, resource centers and services dedicated to educational missions, all under the Ministry of National Education; – conduct training activities for other education professionnals; – be an actor in pedagogical innovation; – be a promoter of educational research and mobilize research results more widely in reflections on training content.” It is in this context of the ESPE’s mission as a player in educational research and innovation that the DIDACFRAN project was born. Indeed, mastering oral and written language is a long-term objective of the Ministry of National Education and all the associations that work for them; it therefore is a major societal issue. This mastery of language is reaffirmed in the new preschool curricula (BO no.. 2 of March 26, 2015) applicable since the beginning of the September 2015 academic year (see Appendix 3) and in those of elementary school (BO Special no. 11 of November 26, 2015) applicable since the beginning of the September 2016 academic year (see Appendix 4). Similarly, oral and written language are part of domain 1 of the common core of knowledge, skills and culture, which entered into force at the beginning of the 2016 academic year (see Appendix 5). At local level, in 2014, 14% of young people in the Upper Normandy region were identified as having very serious reading difficulties (data from the Defending Citizenship Day, Ministry of Defense). At the national level, assessment in reading comprehension as part of the international PIRLS (Programme international de recherche en lecture scolaire) survey (Colman 2017), it was found that French fourth graders (9 years old) scores were higher than average for all countries, but below the European average:

Scientific Project: Creating a Website Dedicated to French Didactics

17

“With a score of 511 points, France is above the international average (500 points) but below the European average (540 points) and the OECD average (541 points). Since PIRLS 2001, France’s overall performance has gradually declined with each evaluation. In 2016, the gap was significant and represented -14 points over the 15-year period. Performance based on understanding informative texts decreases more (-22 points) than narrative texts (-6 points). The most complex comprehension processes (‘Interpreting’ and ‘Appreciating’) decrease further (-21 points) than the simplest (‘Deduct’ and ‘Infer’, 8 points). Fewer French teachers than their European colleagues report that they offer their students weekly activities that can develop their strategies and reading skills.” As noted by the DEPP in the introduction to the background note in June 2017 (Arzoumanian et al. 2017): “In 2016, around one in ten young people participating in the Journée défense et citoyenneté, JDC, (defence and citizenship day) encountered difficulties in reading. For half of them, these difficulties were severe. One in ten had a low reading ability. On the other hand, nearly eight in ten were effective readers, and among girls, around nine in ten were efficient readers. Boys’ performance improved with their level of education. Overall, performances were higher for girls than for boys. In metropolitan France, it is north of the Loire that reading difficulties were most encountered.” The ANLCI1 reports that 8% of illiterate people aged 18 to 65 in Upper Normandy (7% at national level – data from the 2011–2012 IVQ survey), and 19% have great or severe difficulties in at least one of the four basic skill areas (mastery of writing, reading, simple text comprehension and simple calculation). With regards to the younger generation, in 2015, 4.5% of them were illiterate in Upper Normandy (ANLCI website). This research project aims to reduce the difficulties encountered by elementary school students at the regional level, primarily in this area. Its originality lies in the fact that it combines both the production of scientific 1 Agence nationale de lutte contre l’illettrisme (French national agency to combat illiteracy).

18

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

knowledge and the production of tools that can be used not only in the classroom but also in training (initial or continuous professional development and training of tutors). The objectives are: – to reduce the French language difficulties encountered by Norman students; – design a reference website for French didactics to provide teachers, trainers and researchers with a tool in this domain; – to affirm a strong link between scientific research and pedagogical applications in the classroom, but not exclusively. 2.4. Work carried out between September 2016 and June 2017 2.4.1. Construction of the first organization website (plan) based on the sections already listed Two main entries were possible in order to organize the sections, but above all to make a relevant choice for the reader: by the sub-domains of French didactics or by the document categories. However, if the first option were chosen, we would address more professionals in the field, and if we chose the second option, we would address more researchers. The discussion therefore began on this point, since the objective of the DIDACFRAN website was to bring together these two “milieus”. The group agreed that the home page would include two entries. The first concerns the sub-domains of French, as they are widely used in documentary research by scientists, trainers and teachers. On the other hand, we did not use the “type of documents” but rather the “actors”, which is the preferred entry when searching by keywords. Finally, it was agreed that the banner at the top of the site would include the official texts and what makes this site so special, namely, research and tools for the classroom. Once the website’s framework had been outlined, the team began a scientific research project to better understand the digital resources used by teachers to prepare their French lessons. A subgroup was therefore invested

Scientific Project: Creating a Website Dedicated to French Didactics

19

in this study with teachers with professional experience by questioning them via an online questionnaire. Another subgroup focused on ESPE trainees and their practices by using interviews and a questionnaire. 2.4.2. A questionnaire survey This is a survey on the use of digital technology for teaching purposes, with the aim of developing French proficiency among elementary school teachers in the Rouen Academy. The working group was led by Véronique Miguel Addisu (lecturer in language sciences) and had as members: Catherine Fenault and Armelle Sébille (educational advisors in the Eure department) and Gosia Jaskula (doctoral student in language sciences). School teachers use digital resources to design their lessons, especially those in French. Nevertheless, online resources recommended by the Ministry of National Education already exist, but do not seem to be used or usable by all. This raises the question of identifying the digital resources actually consulted by professionals and the uses they make of them in their different educational contexts. Two additional questions arise: – concerning resources: which are they? Which didactic objectives do they meet (language as a medium of instruction, language as a subject of instruction)? – concerning users: are these resources the same according to the school teacher’s experience (experienced school teacher, student before the competitive exam, trainee having completed the exam, teacher-training school teachers, etc.)? What use or didactic processes do they make of it in the classroom? These two questions intersect in the field: existing sites can inform about their use, but do not tell us what teachers do with them; teachers can inform us about what they do with the resources they use, but may not be aware of the existence of some digital resources currently available online from the Rouen Academy. The methodology was initially carried out using a questionnaire intended for a small sample, for validation, then, from April 6 to June 20, 2017, among the population of teachers in schools in the departments of Eure and Seine-Maritime. In addition, a description of institutional sites at district

20

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

level, departmental level (Eure, Seine-Maritime) and regional education level is provided, including more informal sites cited by teachers as being useful. The objective of transposition is to identify the didactic and professional interest in a website dedicated to French didactics for the Rouen regional education authority, and: – specify the objectives according to the needs identified among professionals; – define the role of the latter according to the existing websites; – decide on the form and content of a website dedicated to French didactics for the Rouen  Academy; – identify perspectives in terms of professional development and continued education. The results obtained at the end of the questionnaire are being processed. A total of 213 questionnaires were returned, mainly from teachers with no specific training or management responsibility (84%), spread over the entire 21–60 age group. Trainee teachers are under-represented (less than 1%) and principals are over-represented (9%). 2.4.3. An interview survey The interview survey sub-group led by Sophie Briquet-Duhazé (HDR lecturer in education sciences) has as members: Marie-Laure Devillers, Catherine Fenault and Armelle Sébille (pedagogical advisors in the Eure) and Odile Fleury (pedagogical advisor in Seine-Maritime). The survey questions the websites and resources that ESPE trainees consult when they wish to teach French lessons or sequences (reading, grammar, spelling, etc.). Which entry method do they prefer: keywords, email addresses and/or website names; is it professional, academic, private (created by teachers), ministerial? The hypothesis is that trainee teachers would frequent more teachercreated sites and blogs in order to gain access to previously taught lessons, which would correspond to an entry by activity rather than by skills and objectives.

Scientific Project: Creating a Website Dedicated to French Didactics

21

To test this hypothesis, we produced an interview guide whose starting sentence was: “can you tell me about the resources you use to prepare for the French lessons (reading, grammar, spelling, etc.)?” Some reminders were anticipated, particularly concerning the link between research and classroom tools: – do you use digital resources? – what do you prefer to use: computer, phone, tablet, etc., to design your French lessons? – can you name the websites you visit to write your preparation  sheets; or can you specify about that? – do you go to the laboratory research websites? – how much time do you spend searching, reading, choosing lessons and exercises? – for which French sub-domains are you looking for resources on websites? – which keywords do you use most often and on which search engines? – do you find what you are looking for, is anything missing? The aim was to collect data on the use of digital resources by trainee teachers in work-related training (part-time training and responsibility in a part-time classroom) when they prepare their French sessions. The team conducted six interviews in June 2017 with volunteer trainees following a Master’s Program 2 MEEF2 course, of the ESPEs in the Rouen Academy. As these were interviews conducted at the end of their training, we agreed that other trainees could be interviewed at the mid-point of the training the following year, that is with a new cohort. 2.5. Work carried out since September 2017 A student following the Master 1 MEEF honors program was recruited as a temporary employee in December 2017 in order to carry out the 2 Métiers de l’enseignement, de l’éducation et de la formation (French acronym for teaching, education and training occupations).

22

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

transcriptions and analyze some of the data as part of the thesis carried out in their Master 2 research program: “Langages à école” (languages at school) and under our supervision. The interviews are currently being transcribed. As the group wished to conduct further interviews in January–February 2018 in order to obtain answers at this other time of the year, it requested all the ESPE’s trainees in rotation, but did not receive any answer from them despite a reminder. We deduced from this that the period was not conducive to a positive response from the trainees, due to the validation files they had to write. The interview guide was transformed into a questionnaire, so that the same framework and objectives could be maintained. This questionnaire was sent by email to the same trainees and we received 36 responses. But we also sent it to Master 2 students who were doing supervised internships, and not autonomously, in order to be able to compare the uses according to the mode of internship. We received 59 responses. The 95 questionnaires are currently being processed. At the same time, all our research and practice documents are posted in advance (i.e. before they are posted on the website) on the Huma - Num3 digital platform, which is a very large research infrastructure designed to support digital research projects in the humanities and social sciences research communities. Several data storage tools are available, including Sharedocs, which we used because it also allows the sharing of secure documents, updating of files and exchanging of files between researchers as needed. A reflection has begun on the existence of a scientific committee to validate the submission of the documents proposed by the group. We agreed that each document produced by a member had to be proofread, eventually formatted and validated by the team. In order to avoid setting up a permanent reading committee and the only one empowered to make decisions, we proposed that each document be sent to two people in the group: a teacher-researcher and a practitioner, so that our entire team would be involved in this proofreading and validation work.

3 www.huma-num.fr.

Scientific Project: Creating a Website Dedicated to French Didactics

23

Finally, we discussed the possibility of soliciting all the teachers of the schools in the Rouen regional education authority (Eure and Seine-Maritime) so that they could submit documents produced in their class combining research and experiments. We agreed that the call would be made to all, but that a reading committee would be formed to review the proposals and validate their implementation on site. In January 2018, we completed a web hosting form for the DIDACFRAN site with the IT services of the University of Rouen Normandy. Thibaut Guichard (design engineer) is the technical manager, and Sophie BriquetDuhazé is in charge of the site4. The fields have been created, but can still be modified depending on the addition of documents. Appendix 5 presents the website’s home page. The top banner lists the topics: presentation, our team, official texts, research, classroom tools and useful links. The central part is devoted to the sub-domains of French: conjugation, cursive writing, grammar, graphics/writing, reading, children’s literature, spelling, poetry, writing, vocabulary/ lexicon. The bottom part gathers the actors: pupils with special educational needs including disabled pupils, allophone pupils, pupils experimenting difficulties, teachers, trainee teachers, trainers, parents and other professionals. Our discussion is still focused on the categories concerning students, because the names used in France may not be the same in other Francophone countries, or even the same but not cover the same definitions. Thus, in France, pupils with special educational needs include disabled pupils, intellectually precocious, those having recently arrived in France, in great difficulty, sick and travelling children. In Quebec, the Ministry of Education provides the following definition (MELS 2007): “Special needs students are any student who experiences difficulties in his or her academic progress with respect to the school’s triple mission of educating, socializing and qualifying. This is the case for students with learning difficulties and students with disabilities within the meaning of acting to ensure the exercise of the rights of persons with disabilities for the 4 The website address is: didacfran.univ-rouen.fr.

24

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

purpose of their academic, professional and social integration, as well as students with special needs: students at risk, students with disabilities or students with social maladjustments or learning disabilities.” 2.6. Conclusion The DIDACFRAN site is a resource website generated from the practical world and scientific communities. It aims to meet the expectations of trainee teachers and those following continuous professional development but also of trainers when they are looking for documents enabling them to teach and/or to learn about the latest research in one or many sub-domains of French. Thus, our team itself is made up of people from these two backgrounds, having exercised these said backgrounds one after the other or exercising them at the same time. All resources are currently listed and posted as they are being constructed on the site, which is scheduled to be online in June 2019. At the same time, we are continuing to analyze all the data collected during our surveys via questionnaires and interviews in order to gain a better understanding of the uses and needs of teachers with regard to the digital resources required to prepare their lessons in French-language didactics. 2.7. Appendices Appendix 1. Members of the DIDACFRAN network NAME Sophie 1

BRIQUET-DUHAZÉ Stéphanie

2

CASTEL Jean-Louis

3

CLERO

Status/Role HDR lecturer in Educational Sciences CIRNEF laboratory of the University of Rouen. ESPE of the Rouen education authority Precinct Pedagogical Advisor, Lillebonne (SeineMaritime)

PRCE-PRAG Modern Languages. Teacher at the ESPE in Rouen

Scientific Project: Creating a Website Dedicated to French Didactics

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Marie-Laure

Precinct Education Advisor

DEVILLERS

Évreux (Eure)

Catherine FENAULT Odile FLEURY

Laurence GRUNINGER

Thibault GUICHARD

Sylviane GUIHARD-LEPETIT Fabrice HAUZAY Sophie HENON Malgorzata JASKULA Isabelle MAILLOCHON

25

Precinct Pedagogical Counselor, Évreux 2 (Eure) Precinct education advisor, Dieppe Est (SeineMaritime) Inspector of pre-elementary school national education (Direction des services départmentementaux de l’Éducation nationale de la Seine-Maritime), with an academic mission for language proficiency and prevention of 1st degree illiteracy prevention. Computer Engineering studies and Development Engineer at IRIHS (Institut de recherche interdisciplinaire homme société) at the University of Rouen Pedagogical Coordinator in the teaching  unit; Specialized Teacher, doctoral student at the CIRNEF laboratory Trainer at the ESPE of the Rouen regional education authority Departmental Pedagogical Advisor in language proficiency (Direction des services départementaux de l’Éducation nationale de l’Eure) Doctoral student, Language Sciences at the DyLis laboratory, University of Rouen Lecturer in Psychology at the Laboratoire Structures formelles du langage (Université Paris 8 – CNRS)

26

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

14

15

16

17

Veronica MIGUEL ADDISU Dalila MOREL Stéphanie OVID Armelle SEBILLA

Lecturer in Language Sciences at the DyLis laboratory, University of Rouen Inspector of National Education, Darnétal district (Seine-Maritime) Professor of Schools, master trainer in preschool education in Mont-Saint-Aignan (Seine-Maritime) Precinct Pedagogical Advisor, Pont-Audemer (Eure) Table 2.1.

Appendix 2. Implementation of ESPEs, Report no 2014-071 submitted to the Minister of National Education, Higher Education and Research, p. 23–24 “The credibility of ESPEs depends on their ability to stimulate and federate research in the field of education. The question of ‘how’ is fundamental, bearing in mind that if coordination at national level seems to be necessary, it must be part of a university landscape where research is organized in accordance with the principle of autonomy. Several ways are possible: the creation of specific laboratories within the ESPEs or, on the contrary, the structuring around the ESPEs of a network of laboratories constructed in other departments or establishments, since the role of the ESPE involves stimulating, uniting, organizing what exists, launching calls for projects on unifying themes. Most often, reflection remains to be carried out in ESPEs on what could constitute a ‘foundation’ based on a few unifying research themes likely to mobilize teachers – researchers; these themes are also the ones that appear most often in accreditation dossiers and now need to invest (didactics and training engineering, pathways and learning, digital environments for learning, etc.). To achieve this objective, ESPEs must not limit their research activity to the didactic and pedagogical aspects of elementary and secondary school teacher training alone, but must position themselves more as an essential

Scientific Project: Creating a Website Dedicated to French Didactics

27

interface for the proper articulation between research, training and its implementation in the field in order to produce research results that are useful for all those involved in training. Indeed, we can only note the small proportion currently reserved for the dissemination of educational research findings in MEEF master’s models [...]. The research report on the training provided to future teachers will indeed be one of the major elements of the success of the reform and must constitute for all stakeholders one of the priority areas for the 2014–2015 academic year, taking into account all the dimensions of the new model under construction: diversity of teaching professions, characteristics of professional university training, work-related training, digital uses, innovation... ” Appendix 3. Mobilizing language in all its dimensions: excerpt from the kindergarten curricula, special Bulletin officiel5 no. 2 of March 26, 2015 “1.3. What is expected of children at the end of preschool. – Communicate with adults and other children through language, making yourself understood. – Express yourself in a syntactically correct and precise language. Rewording to make yourself better understood. – Practice various uses of oral language: tell, describe, evoke, explain, question, propose solutions and discuss a point of view. – To recall from memory and in an expressive way several nursery rhymes and poems. – Understand written texts without any help other than the language understood. – Demonstrate curiosity about the written word. To be able to repeat the words of a sentence written after it has been read by the adult, the words of the known title of a book or text.

5 The Bulletin Officiel de l’Education Nationale provides information on all texts voted on in France in regards to education. It is published once a week, every Thursday.

28

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

– Participate verbally in the production of a written document. Knowing that you do not write as you speak. – Identify regularities in the oral language in French (possibly in another language). – Manipulate syllables. – Discriminate sounds (syllables, vowel sounds; some consonant-sounds outside occlusive consonants). – Recognize the letters of the alphabet and know the correspondences between the three ways of writing them: cursive, script, block capitals. Copy using a keyboard. – Write your first name in cursive script, without a model. – Write a word alone using letters or groups of letters borrowed from known words.” Appendix 4. Elementary school and secondary school curricula, special bulletin officiel November 26, 2015 Educational cycle 2: “In cycle 2, the French language is the central learning object. The construction of meaning and automatization are two dimensions necessary for language fluency. Mastering the functioning of the phonographic code, which goes from sounds to letters and vice versa, is an essential part of learning French in Cycle 2. However, learning to read also requires understanding narrative or documentary texts, starting to interpret and appreciate texts, understanding what is sometimes not quite explicit. This learning is conducted in writing and reading simultaneously and in a complementary way. The central position given to the French language cannot be acquired at the expense of other forms of learning. On the contrary, language is also a tool for all the learning in the cycle in fields that each have their own language. To appropriate a field of learning involves being able to identify and then gradually use specific vocabularies. This identification begins in Cycle 2, continues and intensifies in subsequent cycles. The versatility of the teachers makes it possible to favor situations of transversality, with regular feedback on fundamental learning. It makes it possible to develop projects where students use the French language as a communication tool, with real recipients, by reporting on visits, experiences and research. Language is a

Scientific Project: Creating a Website Dedicated to French Didactics

29

means of giving more meaning to learning, since it builds a link between the different teachings and makes it possible to integrate lived experiences into the language.” Educational cycle 3: “Cycle 2 enabled the acquisition of tools for reading and writing the French language. Cycle 3 must consolidate these acquisitions in order to put them at the service of other learning in a broad and diversified use of reading and writing. Oral language, which also conditions all learning, continues to be the subject of constant attention and specific work. In general, language proficiency remains a central objective of Cycle 3, which must ensure that all pupils have sufficient autonomy in reading and writing to approach Cycle 4 with the necessary skills to continue their schooling.” Appendix 5. The common foundation of knowledge, skills and culture, bulletin officiel no. 17 of April 23, 2015 “Domain 1: languages for thinking and communicating. The field of languages for thinking and communicating covers four types of language, which are both objects of knowledge and tools: the French language; foreign and regional living languages; mathematical, scientific and computer language; the languages of the arts and the body. This domain provides access to other knowledge and a culture that makes it possible to exercise the critical mind; it involves mastering codes, rules, sign systems and representations. It involves knowledge and skills that are solicited as tools of thought, communication, expression and work and that are used in all fields of knowledge and in most activities. Knowledge and skills objectives for mastering the common foundation: understanding, expressing oneself using the French language both orally and in writing. The student speaks, communicates and argues orally in a clear and organized manner; they adapt their language level and speech to the situation, listen and take into account their fellow interlocutors. The student adapts their reading and the module according to the nature and difficulty of the text. To construct or verify the meaning of what he or she reads, the student combines explicit and implicit information from their reading with relevance and criticism. They discover the pleasure of reading.

30

From m Reading–Writting Research to Practice

The student exprresses themsselves in wriiting to tell, describe, exxplain or argue inn a clear andd organized way. w When necessary, n thhey use theirr writing to searcch for the moost appropriaate wording and a to clarifyy their intenttions and thoughtts. The student makkes good usee of the maiin grammaticcal and orthoographic ulary that is accurate a and precise. rules. They use bothh written andd oral vocabu In a variety of situations, the student uses both reading r andd writing spontanneously and effectively. e Theyy learn that the t French laanguage has diverse origgins and is coonstantly evolvingg. They are aware a of its history h and itts Latin and Greek originns.” Appen ndix 6. DIDA ACFRAN website w hom me page

English translations: Conjugaison C = Conjugation,, Écriture currsive = Cursiive script, o = Spoken language, Grammaiire = Grammarr, Graphisme/écriture = Writiing, Langage oral Lecture = Reading, Litttérature de jeunnesse = Childreen’s literature, Orthographe = Spelling, Poésie = Poetry, P Producttion d'écrits = Written W producttion, Vocabulairre lexique = vocabulary.

Figure 2.1. DIDACFR RAN website home page. For F a color verrsion of the picctures in this chapter c see www.iste.co.uk/ w k/briquet/readin ng.zip

Sccientific Project: Creating a Website Dedicated d to French Dida actics

31

English trranslations: Auutres professionnnels = Other prrofessionals, Éllèves à Besoinss Educatifs Particulieers dont élèves en siuation de handicap = Sttudents with Sppecial Educatioonal Needs includingg disabled studeents, Élèves alloophones = Allo ophone students, Élèves en difficultés = Students with difficultiees, Enseignants = Teachers, En nseignants débuutants = Traineee teachers, Formateuurs = Instructorss, Parents = Parrents. Figu ure 2.2. The actors a

2.8. Bib bliography y Aldon, G., G Front, M.,, Gardes, M.L L. (2017). “Dees intentions de d l’auteur auux usages en cllasse, premièère réflexion sur la cohéreence des usaages d’une reessource”. Éduccation et didacctique, 11(3), 9–30. Arzoumaanian, P., Chaabanon, L., Riiviere, J.P., dee La Haye, F.,, Gombert, J.E E. (2017). Journnée Défense et Citoyennetté 2016 : env viron un jeunne Français suur dix en difficculté de lecturre. DEPP brieffing note, 17.1 17. Colman,, M., Le Cam, M. (2017). PIRLS P 2016: évaluation intternationale ddes élèves de CM M1 en comprréhension à l’éécrit. Évolutio on des perform mances sur quuinze ans. DEPP P briefing notte, 17.24. Felix, C. (2014). “De l’interventionn-recherche à la productionn de ressourcees: quelle didacctisation de l’activité pourr la formation des enseiggnants ?” Rechherche et Form mation, 75, 51––64.

32

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Fluckiger, C., Bachy, S., Daunay, B. (2014). “Les enseignants face aux ressources numériques. Une recherche didactique”. Journées communication et apprentissage instrumentés en réseau (JOCAIR), Paris. Gueudet, G., Trouche, L. (2010). “Ressources en ligne et travail collectif enseignant: accompagner les évolutions de pratiques”. Actes du congrès de l’AREF. Geneva, Switzerland. Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS), (2007). L’organisation des services éducatifs aux élèves à risques et aux élèves handicapés ou en difficulté d’adaptation ou d’apprentissage (EHDAA). Paquin, M. (2012). “Les politiques sur l’intégration des TIC au Canada et l’utilisation des ressources pédagogiques numériques chez les enseignants francophones: un constat de doubles inégalités”. In Écoles en mouvements et réformes, Daviau, C. et al. (eds). De Boeck, Brussels. 133–144. Ravestein, J., Ladage, C. (2014). “Ordinateurs et Internet à l’école élémentaire française. Usages déclarés de 907 professeurs d’école”. Éducation et didactique, 8(3), 9–22.

3 Teacher-researcher Dialogue in Differentiated Support to Develop Students’ Skills in Syntax and Punctuation

3.1. Introduction Syntax, and especially punctuation, is the forgotten side of grammar teaching in Quebec and France (Chartrand 2009; Jaffré 2014; Paolacci and Garcia-Debanc 2003; Paolacci and Rossi Gensane 2014). Indeed, studies on teaching practices describe teaching punctuation by presenting lists of signs to which the linguistic criteria of textuality, syntax or morphosyntax are not associated. Learning punctuation rules is therefore decontextualized and hence less transferable for students when they are confronted with them when writing a text. The analysis of student errors in texts from Quebec ministerial tests clearly shows this gap: according to ministerial reports (Boivin and Pinsonneault 2014; MELS 2012), the “syntax and punctuation” criterion still remains among the two least successful criteria for elementary (Grades 4 and 6) and secondary school (Grades 8 and 11) students, with a success rate of between 79% and 84%. It also appears that the total number of syntax and punctuation errors exceeds the number of grammatical spelling errors at all levels studied by Boivin and Pinsonneault (2014), and that sentence construction errors are as significant as those in punctuation, according to the results of the analysis of 959 texts from students in Grades 4 Chapter written by Marie-Hélène GIGUÈRE, Marie NADEAU, Carole FISHER, Rosianne ARSENEAU and Claude QUEVILLON LACASSE.

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice, First Edition. Edited by Sophie Briquet-Duhazé and Catherine Turcotte. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

34

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

(9–10 years old) to 11 (16–17 years old). Moreover, the study by Lefrançois et al. (2008) reveals that among Grade 6 students, the analysis of texts written at the beginning and end of the academic year shows no change in the number of grammatical spelling and syntax errors, while it reveals a significant increase in punctuation errors. Finally, other research shows that at the beginning of secondary school, students have grammatical knowledge that is not very operational and have difficulty using syntactic manipulations to solve a spelling or syntactic problem (Boivin 2009; Gauvin 2011; Ouellet et al. 2014). To improve students’ written proficiency in the language, it is relevant to consider their syntax and punctuation difficulties at the end of elementary and beginning of secondary school, and to seek solutions to address them. Our team therefore addressed this issue. For two years, we have supported 13 teachers in Cycle 3 in elementary school level (Grades 5 and 6) and Cycle 1 at secondary school level (Grades 7 and 8) in the development of their syntax and punctuation teaching strategies1. Student results are still to arrive. In this chapter, we will focus on describing the level of learning achieved by teachers through the support methods implemented. We will first describe the state of research on teacher professional development and then examine the support systems we have selected to carry out our project. We will present the results of three group interviews, including some researcher observations during the process. Finally, we will make recommendations on the preferred tools to make continued teacher training more effective. 3.2. Problem and conceptual framework The realization of this project, which aims to design and test innovative teaching practices in syntax and punctuation (S-P), requires support for teachers in order to develop these practices. The double objective of the study: 1) to design and test innovative activities in the field of S-P, 2) to measure the effect of the intervention on the success of S-P in students’ texts,

1 This research is funded by the FRQSC-MEES 2017-LC-198593.

Teacher-researcher Dialogue in Differentiated Support

35

required a structured approach for both researchers and participants. Indeed, collaborative work must be considered for this type of project, which is rarely the case with training generally offered to support teachers; certainly, support is usually more unidirectional in nature, and mainly aims at developing predetermined teaching practices expected by the trainer. However, in this case, it is more about developing a dialog between researchers and teachers, since the former must build, on the basis of successive tests, an efficient teaching device, and the latter must learn to understand its foundations and manage it in class. On the one hand, the researchers were able to build on conditions that seem to find consensus in research on teacher professional development. Firstly, training must be at least 50 hours in duration and last at least one year to have an impact on student outcomes (Darling-Hammond et al. 2009; Lafortune 2008; Richard 2017). In addition, this research suggests that the effectiveness of training lies in its social dimension. In other words, it must be the basis for fostering good relationships among teachers to enable rich and open discussions that lead to the sharing of expertise (DarlingHammond et al. 2009; Fullan 2007; Richard 2017). Secondly, it must focus on a very specific aspect of the curriculum, rooted in the schools’ requirements and objectives (Darling-Hammond et al. 2009). In the same vein, Cèbe and Goigoux (2007; 2012) also point out that teachers can only get to grips with a new teaching device if it seems relevant to them both in terms of current knowledge, and of how close it is to their usual practices and sphere of knowledge. According to these authors, the teaching device must also be developed in a collaborative way and adjusted over time through practice. Finally, Richard’s (2017) knowledge synthesis argues that professional development activities must be supported by evidence, led by specialists whose expertise is recognized, and supported by administration that shows leadership. On the other hand, since the experimentation in our research project involves the design of innovative and therefore new activities, the researchers also needed to confront the class and the responses of students and teachers in order to gain a better understanding of the issues involved in targeted learning and readjust the design of activities if necessary. During a previous project, Nadeau and Fisher (2014) stated that they had benefited from a monthly follow-up with teachers, a follow-up that greatly contributed to understanding the obstacles that teachers face in implementing innovative

36

From m Reading–Writting Research to Practice

practicees. This sharring has madde it possiblee to jointly find solutionns to the problem ms raised on the t ground. In order o to better understand and, above all,, support tteachers’ professiional learninng, Shulmann and Shulm man’s model (2004) is llikely to shed ligght on the key k interactiions that tak ke place durring teacher support (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1. Pro ofessional devvelopment mod del in a comm munity of practiice (Shulman and a Shulman 2004). For a color c version of o this figure see www.istte.co.uk/brique et/reading.zip

This theoretical model, whicch focuses on professionnal developm ment in a communnity of pracctice, placess reflective practice at the center of four componnents necessaary for teachher developm ment. Teacheers must conssider the evolutioon of four diimensions siimultaneouslly: their visioon, their mootivation, their unnderstanding and their prractices. Visiion is considdered to be thhe set of beliefs, values andd attitudes related to teaching and a learningg, while on and perseverance to develop motivation refers too the teacher’s motivatio S 200 04). Understaanding is asssociated professiionally (Shuulman and Shulman with teaachers’ new and prior knnowledge, both in termss of teachingg content (currentt grammar, syyntax and puunctuation) and a teaching strategies, thhat is the didacticc foundations associatedd with metaccognitive dicctation (Coggis et al. 2016). It I is the praactical dimennsions that update u this understandin u ng in the

Teacher-researcher Dialogue in Differentiated Support

37

classroom, where the teacher is led to react in a rigorous and spontaneous way according to the students’ interventions during the activities. On the other hand, according to this model, trainers must support the evolution of these four dimensions through their support methods, without letting one develop to the detriment of the others. As professional expertise progresses, teachers develop a particular perspective that allows them to quickly adjust their interventions to students’ needs. This concept of professional vision is defined by Sherin and van Es (2009) as follows: “for teachers, the phenomena of interest are classrooms. Thus, teachers’ professional vision involves the ability to notice and interpret significant features of classroom interactions” (Sherin and van Es 2009, p. 22). This concept represents a major aspect in the development of teachers’ expertise. According to Guskey (Guskey and Yoon 2009), it is through the observation of positive effects in their students’ learning that the teacher’s vision would be most likely to be modified; the change in practice would precede the change in vision. It is therefore important that teachers are able to observe the effect of their practices, interpret this effect and propose innovations. This is made possible by the distribution of ready-to-use documents in the classroom. Indeed, this type of material support could accelerate the implementation of new pedagogical practices, thus freeing up cognitive space for pedagogical gestures. In addition, these tools allow teachers to discuss more specific observations during group meetings, while developing a common language (Giguère et al. 2016). The support context must also make it possible to carry out short-term, back and forth testing as part of training, to open up the possibility of discussing the effect of one’s own practices on the learning of one’s students (Lafortune 2008; Richard 2017). The collective evaluation of the effect of practices is a prerequisite for effective professional development, a conclusion drawn from the synthesis of Hattie’s meta-analyses (Hattie 2008). Similarly, a recent US report suggests that teachers who receive regular feedback from classroom observations would improve more than teachers who do not – or only in the context of institutional assessment (TNTP 2015). This report, entitled “The Mirage”, argues that regardless of its type, design or the characteristics of the participants, training has little effect on actual change in practices. Professional development would be a process associated with individual characteristics and personal impulses towards learning and practice development. However, schools with a culture of continuous professional learning provide regular and formative feedback.

38

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

These schools would be likely to sustain this momentum by taking part in an open learning context based on the needs observed among students (TNTP 2015). In short, the effectiveness of professional development would therefore lie partly in its organizational but also in its individual aspects. Short regular meetings over a long period of more than a year, in small groups, on a targeted and priority topic are essential conditions for the structuring of a training system. These meetings should allow the development of teachers’ professional perspectives and the development of their vision, understanding and practices through the sharing of expertise to support their motivation. Regular and specific feedback is also essential to ensure the development of classroom practices and, ultimately, student learning. The specific objective of this chapter is to describe the effects of the support methods most likely to promote the mobilization of didactic knowledge (disciplinary and pedagogical) in the context of French teaching, based on a study aimed at the implementation of innovative didactic devices in syntax and punctuation. 3.3. Methodology To meet the two research objectives and to promote teachers’ learning in line with the principles of recent research in the field of professional development, this project provided the teachers in the experimental group with two years of support (year 1: 2016–2017 and year 2: 2017–2018). Teachers were offered monthly three-hour meetings and individual support (including classroom observations followed by targeted feedback) for two years, for a total of approximately 50 hours of coaching (the minimum required to achieve an effect among students according to DarlingHammond et al. (2009)). In addition, we provided the necessary equipment to carry out classroom activities, both in terms of the initial design of the activities and in terms of material for the students. 3.3.1. Participants The research team consisted of three university researchers, a research professional and a doctoral intern. The latter were also research assistants and played an important role in the team. In the fall of 2016, we recruited 10 volunteer teachers from Cycle 3 in elementary school (Grades 5–6) and from Cycle 1 in secondary school (Grades 7–8) to participate in the project. These

Teacher-researcher Dialogue in Differentiated Support

39

teachers were initially recruited because of their current grasp of grammar and the regular use of metacognitive dictation in their class, either the daily dictated sentence or the zero-error dictation (Cogis et al. 2016). After a few weeks, four teachers withdrew. The research team therefore recruited seven new teachers in December to reach a total of 13, although these teachers did not previously practice metacognitive dictation. Of these 13 teachers, one left the project at the end of the first year, due to a change in her job. She was replaced by a new colleague the following year. This colleague had taken part in Nadeau and Fisher’s (2014) research on metacognitive dictation and was therefore already familiar with the fundamentals of this type of activity. All teachers had worked in disadvantaged environments, that is with students considered at risk of failure. Table 3.1 describes our sample of 13 teachers more precisely. First names have been changed to preserve their anonymity.

Characteristics of the research field

Field 1

Field 2

Field 3

Urban, Francophone and Allophone Environment

Semi-rural/urban, Francophone and Allophone environment

French-speaking rural area

Sarah-Maude Élodie

Grade 5

Jeanne Julie Marc

Grade 6

Virginie Karine

Grade 7 Grade 8

Moussa Mireille

Vivianne Anaïs Alice

Martin Table 3.1. Teachers participating in group interviews by research field and grade level taught

All teachers had between 5 and 20 years of teaching experience. We grouped the teachers into three areas of research during the group meetings to facilitate travel. Two of these fields benefited from the presence of two

40

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

schoolboard teacher consultants (two per field) to support teachers in their appropriation of knowledge and practices related to syntax and punctuation. We will call them Danielle, Chantale, Josianne and Marie-Claude when discussing the project. 3.3.2. Context of the research Throughout the first year of the project, experimental class teachers received between six and eight training sessions related to the grammatical concepts addressed in our study: syntax and punctuation, the use of syntactic manipulations in solving problems related to our subject and based on the analysis of errors in the students’ texts of students within their own classes, and the conduct of grammatical discussions inspired by the practice of metacognitive dictation. They were invited to discuss their current syntaxpunctuation practices and were then supported in their efforts to implement the activities suggested by the research team in order for them to master the didactic foundations of metacognitive dictation, which inspired the creation of the teaching device within this research project. In addition, teachers received up to 10 visits in their classrooms from a member of the research team, who each time gave targeted feedback to the participant teacher based on their individual development objectives (Darling-Hammond et al. 2009; Richard 2017; TNTP 2015) and pre-established observation criteria for pedagogical gestures that promote the success of metacognitive dictation (Fisher and Nadeau 2014). In the second year of the project, teachers in the experimental classes received essentially the same support, with less frequency. Five to six group meetings were held per field and five to eight classroom observations per teacher were continued as needed. The research project involved the co-construction of syntax and punctuation activities. Given the grammatical complexity, the need to adjust training programs, the lack of teacher time and the limited number of tools available for the teaching of syntax and punctuation, the research team proposed the first version of activities in the fall of 2016. These were tested and discussed with the teachers. There was some uncertainty in the implementation and in the materials necessary for their effectiveness (e.g. how to use the interactive whiteboard – the sequence of operations – the late

Teacher-researcher Dialogue in Differentiated Support

41

introduction of the concepts of syntactic sentence and graphic sentence2). It was in the spring of 2017 that the research team redesigned the sequence and content based on what year 1 had shown. The experimental activities were therefore constructed and provided by the members of the research team based on observations made in class and comments from teachers during individual feedback and group meetings. This material took the form of a sequence consisting of an activity involving cards to manipulate; a workbook for students – including a punctuation exercise section, a sentence-combining section and a “Reference guide” section; a guide for teachers and digital resources (video clips, documents for the interactive whiteboard, etc.). 3.3.3. Collection instruments and procedures In order to document the teachers’ learning through dialog with the researchers and thus better describe the knowledge transfer process, we kept written documentation of each of the collective meetings over the two year project. We also reported on each classroom visit through observations and photos that were shared with the research team. Finally, we conducted group interviews with the three teacher groups at the end of the second year of the project. These interviews, which lasted approximately one hour, were recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis. The interview questionnaire is attached as Appendix 1. The questions were sent to the teachers about a week before the interview, to allow them to prepare their answers and expand their thinking. Field 1 and 2 interviews were conducted by researcher 3, while field 3 interviews were conducted by researcher 1. The researchers were therefore present at the time of the interviews. 3.3.4. Assessment protocol The transcripts of the group interviews are our main source of information about teachers’ learning. Each interview is considered on a caseby-case basis. We used the Shulman and Shulman Framework (2004) as a thematic grid to gather data provided by participants about their vision, motivation, understanding and practice. In addition, we addressed the criteria for effective training (Darling-Hammond et al. 2009; Richard 2017) in the teachers’ discourse: duration, characteristics of participants, characteristics 2 A glossary is provided in Appendix 2.

42

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

of the support methods. Based on the picture we can paint of the teachers, data from the research team’s reports will complete the analysis of the dialog between teachers and researchers. 3.4. Results The thematic analysis of the group interviews revealed recurring elements in the three groups of teachers participating in the project based on the reference frameworks described above. We will first present the elements mentioned by the teachers and identified as recurring in the interviews according to each of the themes related to the characteristics of professional support methods. Then, the components related to the professional development model in a community of practice (Shulman and Shulman 2004) will be presented, in order to observe the personal progression of participants within the groups. Finally, the researchers’ learning will be linked to these elements. 3.4.1. Characteristics of effective support methods According to the review of the scientific literature, effective training: (1) is updated over a long period of time; (2) places the social aspect and the sharing of expertise at the center of the system; and (3) focuses on a specific aspect of the curriculum (Darling-Hammond et al. 2009). In addition, these training courses (4) are evidence-based, led by specialists with recognized expertise; and (5) are supported by strong leadership (Richard 2017). Finally, the back and forth movement between theory and practice (6) and personalized feedback (7) also contribute to the development of teachers’ expertise (TNTP 2015), as well as 8) the provision of concrete materials for the classroom (Giguère et al. 2016). 3.4.1.1. Duration in time The interviews conducted in the three teacher groups participating in the project (Table 3.1) echo the components from this review. First, with regard to duration over time, teachers are unanimous: it was in the second year of the project that they were able to implement certain effective actions or achieve a certain level of learning. For example, Mireille expresses: “this year I feel more experienced, more confident3.” In another group, Vivianne 3 The comments reported were translated freely from French.

Teacher-researcher Dialogue in Differentiated Support

43

goes in the same direction: “[the use of metalanguage] has been solidified this year. Last year, we had to understand the project. I really felt that I could get away from that worry, because I knew what to call it, I knew where I was heading. It’s easy when you don’t have to think too much anymore.” She adds: “last year, I thought it was taking a lot of time, yet already this year, I think it is taking less time because a lot of grammar content passes through these activities.” She concludes: “when you are in survival mode, you panic a little. That’s why two years is quite essential.” Sarah-Maude, having experienced the project for only one year, claims that she found the immersion difficult: “having done years 1 and 2 in the same year, I feel a little less panicked at the end of the year.” Finally, in the third group, teachers agree that the student workbook cannot be distributed to anyone without minimal support. Josianne (schoolboard teacher consultant) clearly states: “[...] it will require follow-up. You have worked for almost two years, it was done gradually and it’s the same for the others.” 3.4.1.2. Sharing expertise The issue of sharing expertise was raised with respect to the value of group meetings. Mireille sums up her thinking as follows: “thanks to sharing experiences, observations, I am much more comfortable and efficient than last year.” In field 2, Sarah-Maude states: “I noticed [during the meetings] that I wasn’t the only one who did not fully understand the notions of syntactic sentence and graphic sentence. It helps to clarify some things.” Alice adds: “we had meetings here, and what I really liked was that by having other secondary school teachers, we were inspired. I also really liked it when you provided us with the teacher guides. We had discussions about grammar. It answered questions that we sometimes have and that we don’t dare to ask sometimes, so it was really interesting.” Marc, from field 3, expressed himself in the same way: “working in small groups with other teachers allowed us to see how things were going elsewhere. We could see that it wasn’t always that easy, we shared strategies that worked, so I thought to myself: these are great let’s use them. All the advice you gave us during those meetings, too, is something I used in class.” Teachers in this field also expressed that they felt connected to what was happening in other settings when the researcher shared experiences from other regions with them. “I read reports and it allowed me to give you examples,” said Researcher 1.

44

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

3.4.1.3. Evidence-based training supported by leaders Teachers did not express themselves clearly on the objectives related to a specific aspect of the curriculum, but they did express themselves on their learning of syntax and punctuation, two aspects that encompass several elements of curriculum content. We will come back to this in the next section (understanding). However, according to Richard (2017), this content must be supported by evidence, and training must be delivered by recognized specialists. Marc explicitly acknowledges this: “professional development is important, when you believe in education; you feel privileged to participate in research like this, which is conducted by leading experts in the field to whom you can refer to, and therefore it becomes interesting.” As for leadership, no school principals were involved in our project. However, all school principals had given their consent, allowing and encouraging teacher participation. Rather, it was the research team that took on this leadership role. Sarah-Maude expresses a certain impact: “sometimes we go to training sessions and we return to our classes, but daily life catches up with us, it goes without saying. At that moment in time, we had no choice, we had to be accountable, we had a number of activities, it forced us to continue, so it’s a winning practice and we are supported to achieve it. Everything comes together.” This last comment also highlights the positive contribution of the back and forth movement between theory and practice. 3.4.1.4. Feedback According to “The Mirage” report (TNTP 2015), feedback in the classroom can have a lasting impact on pedagogical practices. The teachers involved in our project have rated it very highly in helping to transform their practices and even their knowledge. Mireille says: “I had to be open to being observed. It requires being well prepared, expecting feedback, whether positive or negative. We are developing throughout our careers and as long as we want to evolve, it is pleasant to have this outlook that some will never have. At worst, we fool ourselves and pretend it didn’t happen.” His colleague from field 1, Moussa, confirms: “it allows you to exchange, discuss and see how you could have done otherwise, to be integrated into the next class.” Finally, Martin says he preferred individual feedback: “the feedback we’ve had, it targets concrete situations that have been observed. In group meetings, we are informed of what others have done and this does not necessarily concern us. Feedback is more direct.” More specifically, some teachers in field 2 associate the presence of the researchers in the classroom with concrete learning. Indeed, Élodie says that she learned that the

Teacher-researcher Dialogue in Differentiated Support

45

conjunction coordinates something: “when researcher 2 came to class, we couldn’t analyze a sentence and she asked the students what was coordinated. It kind of changed. It was at that moment that it became an automatic reflex to find what is coordinated or juxtaposed to explain a structure.” Vivianne also carried out this very specific type of learning: “when researcher 3 came to class, sometimes she would say: ‘you should say: he ate something, to implicitly introduce the notion of direct complement.’ I introduced a lot of things you gave me in my teaching.” The teachers in field 3 discussed the fact that classroom observations were a good opportunity to take a new look at the classroom: “when you came into the classroom, it often happened that we asked: researcher 1, this discussion, what do you think about it? I found it very rewarding to work on the spot” (Karine). Regarding feedback, they said: “we felt very well supported. In year one, we experienced many imbalances and felt listened to and well supported in this imbalance. In year two, we felt much stronger when working with the activities” (Virginie). 3.4.1.5. Materials provided In order to implement the innovative activities concerning syntax and punctuation, the provided material proved to be essential. All teachers mentioned the essential contribution of the student workbook, video clips and teacher guides. “It is always helpful to have enough material, because you can make choices among exercises” (Vivianne). In addition, they feel that without these tools, they would not have been able to carry out the requested activities. Alice says: “in class, [the teacher guide] was really necessary, especially at the beginning. We didn’t really know if that’s how we should do it, and for the material, I wouldn’t have seen myself creating a workbook either, it would have made it difficult and I’m not sure we would have done it.” Sarah-Maude adds: “I kept the teacher guide very close to me. At first, I used it often, when discussing punctuation.” Mireille says: “it is great to be supported, with material, but also to develop a certain freedom nevertheless with regard to the choice of exercises to be offered.” The teachers in field 3 also appreciated the progress offered in the workbook’s exercises: “support for activities that are already assembled in the workbook, it’s very interesting. It gives a gradation; we can allow ourselves to choose between two types of activities when the children are ready. Of course, a proposal of activities like this is helpful to maintain a level of practice,” says Karine. Many of them say that the use of the workbook is one of the

46

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

essential conditions for continuing this teaching next year, once the research team have left. Vivianne clearly mentions it: “the material is essential to facilitate activities, hence my question for Grade 8 next year. I know I can create material, but I know I may not do it myself.”  The organizational aspects of the support method seemed to meet teachers’ needs. Many argued that the three modalities (group meetings, individual feedback and material) were complementary and inseparable. Let us now look at the effect of this support on the more personal dimensions reported by teachers. 3.4.2. Personal dimensions related to professional development According to the professional development model in a community of practice (Shulman et al. 2004), teachers must act on the evolution of four interdependent dimensions simultaneously during a professional development process. Through the three support methods we offered to our participants, they said they had perceived changes in all four dimensions. The following sections present what teachers say about the perceived evolution of their understanding, practice, vision and motivation. 3.4.2.1. Understanding When asked about their understanding, the majority of teachers mentioned that the concepts of graphic and syntactic sentences were important discoveries directly related to the project, as was the metalanguage used to discuss them. The notions of coordination and juxtaposition, as well as the components of the syntactic sentence and their position, were also part of the concepts learned (mainly by elementary school teachers) or revived (for secondary school teachers): “‘we used the word predicate, but did we understand the extent of what it meant?’ asks Sarah-Maude. In my case, I used it, but to know what it is, where it goes in the sentence, how to delimit all that... I master it much more than the workbook [I used previously] allowed me to do. I understand better what I teach now. Basically, I didn’t understand what I was teaching!” The main learning method that Martin mentioned was the analysis process proposed by our team and the use of syntactic manipulations. This learning has even affected his vision: “it is as if... grammar books, you can get through them without using syntactic manipulations. With the project exercises, it is almost mandatory if you want to analyze the sentence effectively.” Sarah-Maude has also deconstructed

Teacher-researcher Dialogue in Differentiated Support

47

some misconceptions: “I sometimes feel like I’m giving students falsehoods. It happened once when I had seen two syntactic sentences, but Danielle (teacher consultant) said that I had a list of predicates because I didn’t have two subjects. I learn at the same time as the students. Before, we used to say that with two conjugated verbs, we had two syntactic sentences, because there is always a conjugated verb in a predicate. Well, not always! We’ve come a long way.” Finally, the contribution of metalanguage was raised as a powerful tool for teaching: “for me, these are things I have learned: graphic sentences, syntactic sentences. When I started the research project, I learned a lot about it. It helped me to have more distinct tools for myself, to explain to the students what I meant by ‘too long a sentence’ (Marc). According to them, elementary school teachers seem to have developed more new grammatical knowledge than secondary school teachers, the latter being more familiar with the concepts of current grammar from the beginning. 3.4.2.2. Practices In terms of pedagogical practices and professional gestures for conducting learning activities, teachers also reported that they had changed their approach: “just knowing how to teach syntax and teach punctuation, whereas before, it was a bit trial and error working through the texts with paragraph sentences” (Virginie). More specifically, Vivianne says she “placed answers in the hands of students much more. Instead of giving them everything, I will question the students much more; put the ball in their court all the time, because, generally, 90% of the students will find the answer. You have to have the patience to endure this discomfort; at first, I was not patient. I wanted things to go smoothly so as not to lose their attention, but in fact, if we lose 4 or 5, while the others are truly looking for the answers, they will remember it better that way”. Anaïs has the same opinion: “students are more active in this way. They were more autonomous in the process. It’s like teaching differently. It’s more dynamic. It’s more pleasant and we delve deeper. We go beyond the notion.” Her colleague Alice even expresses her transformation explicitly: “earlier, we were teacher-centered: we explained, we did exercises. Now, it’s them [the students] who need to work their brains to reach a conclusion and a common solution.” Our results seem to show that secondary school teachers have developed this “pedagogic” dimension more than elementary school teachers, who seemed, in the majority, already involved in this teaching-learning paradigm.

48

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

The teachers in field 3 stated that mastering the efficient gestures of metacognitive dictation helped them take on these new teaching activities: “of course being comfortable with the daily dictated sentence, when we got to work on this, there were several familiar gestures: remaining neutral, asking questions, asking the student to think aloud, manipulating, trying to do the same with syntax/punctuation.” However, these teachers highlighted a drawback: “with syntax and punctuation activities, there are many gray areas, so it is still a challenge to be able to think about what our students might say” (Virginie). Marc concludes: “students come up with questions that we didn’t anticipate and that we couldn’t prepare for. The students are unsettled and so are we.” This is in line with Cèbe and Goigoux (2007; 2012), who consider that for teachers to take on a pedagogical practice, it must be close to their usual practices and their sphere of knowledge. “The support we had for the gray areas was beneficial, because it’s not like reaching the one good answer,” says Virginie. The progress that teachers note in their pedagogical interventions shows the gap between preliminary practices in syntax and punctuation and the state of their knowledge to date. “I didn’t care about syntax in my class,” says Vivianne. I didn’t have time to teach it, it wasn’t where I put the time and energy, and the project allows me to teach it. It’s almost at the heart of my teaching: I connected my concepts to this, whereas before, it was completely on the periphery. ‘I’ll read your sentence again, listen to me, do you think that’s how it’s said?’ I was limited to that.” Mireille also testifies to her previous practices: “punctuation activities remove the intuitive side of punctuation itself: students truly had to use syntactic manipulations, identify the components of syntactic sentences, were forced to justify why they were using this. Before, I told them to read aloud, punctuation would come naturally. We are far from that!” It should be noted that the French program sets out punctuation rules, all based on syntax. In addition, there are punctuation rules in the grammar books; large and small pauses to place punctuation marks are not mentioned. 3.4.2.3. Vision All teachers reported that they had changed their vision of syntax teaching. For example, Moussa says that “the sentence combining activities are very creative compared to traditional grammar activities where we have binding instructions: ‘from the two sentences, construct a relative

Teacher-researcher Dialogue in Differentiated Support

49

subordinate clause using where or whom.’ Here, students are given freedom to create and it allows for more [syntactic] processes. This is a positive aspect of the project.” Mireille notes that she has reversed her approach: “it gives us another vision of how to teach concepts. Last year, I was stressed because I hadn’t seen the basic sentence and its components, and I realized that it was while doing the activity that I saw the content. Instead of covering the content and then practicing it, it was by doing the exercises that we learned the content itself. It was like the other way around. I liked following another path where they were more active in their learning, making sense themselves, using the strategies themselves. In the end, they may have learned more than through traditional teaching.” Marie-Claude (teacher consultant) sums it up well: “we have finally reached the ‘how to teach’. We were not able to go back to the basics. If we can start with syntax and punctuation, we can start from a corpus of sentences and we have a potential for syntactic complexification.” When we asked teachers what the biggest surprise was, they often said that their vision of students had changed: “I didn’t believe it at first. I didn’t think it was possible in sentence combining; when I was given examples, I thought it was impossible for the students to do it. And I’ve seen some. It’s my biggest surprise”, says Sarah-Maude, a Grade 5 teacher. Several mentioned the students’ ability to use metalanguage properly and to transfer certain learning to other situations, such as reading, for example: “sometimes, we are looking in the workbook and a student tells me ‘look, there is a who, it is a relative subordinate clause that completes the noun’” (Élodie, Grade 5 teacher) or during an exercise, as in Anaïs’ case, a secondary school teacher: “I was writing a sentence on the board and I wanted to isolate the sentence complement and immediately, a student raised her hand to say ‘Miss, you can’t do that, it’s after a predicate!’ She was right.” Observing the effect of one’s practices on students is a powerful lever to change one’s vision (Guskey and Yoon 2009). Josianne (teacher consultant) makes this argument about the diffusion of practices: we must focus on student learning: “if we don’t see any progress, it’s pointless! It’s because the children are progressing that there is a belief in it” (Guskey and Yoon 2009). 3.4.2.4. Motivation The fourth dimension of Shulman and Shulman’s model (2004) represents motivation towards professional development. Teachers mentioned,

50

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

as seen previously, that without tools such as the student workbook, teacher guide or video clips, they would not have implemented the project in this way and would not consider replicating it once the research was completed. They also say that collective and individual support over a two-year period has been essential to their perseverance. However, when asked about strategies to involve other teachers in such projects, many feel that individual and personality considerations come into play. Martin thinks that with the support offered, “the most important thing has been done, the path marked out. Afterwards, it is more up to individuals to implement the acquired knowledge”. Some even doubt the possibility of their colleagues’ involvement: “we would not recommend it to everyone. We know in our schools of some who want to change their practices and others who are comfortable the way they are. Clearly, it all comes down to personality,” says Élodie. The fact that shadow areas inevitably characterize syntax activities amplifies these dimensions: “I believe that a teacher who does not already do the daily dictated sentence or zero error dictation would have more difficulty putting the activities into practice. In these activities, gray areas are less prominent, because the spelling is quite clear. You have a possible sentence and an expected answer. Now we’re falling into something surprising. For some teachers, it bothers them not to have the answer. It takes teachers who are ready for that also” (Marc). To engage teachers in a professional learning process, some believe that the need must emerge from teachers and that a certain word of mouth must be spread. “At our school, I’m sure there are some who are interested, we’re in groups and when we talk about the project, some people ask us questions and want documents,” says Anaïs. On the other hand, if the request comes from the principal, some teachers feel that it will be less effective: “If I see my colleague who seems to be having fun, I have a better chance of signing up than if my principal tells me to go to training on syntax,” concludes Sarah-Maude. In short, the trio of support modalities implemented by the research team seems to have enabled teachers to develop the four dimensions essential to their professional development according to Shulman and Shulman (2004). Let us now look at how the support modalities allowed the researchers to explore the key elements of the proposed activities and how to approach the teaching-learning process.

Teacher-researcher Dialogue in Differentiated Support

51

3.4.3. Dialog between teachers and researchers The first concept that has proved central to the implementation of the activities is the concept of a graphic versus syntactic sentence. The initial activity that involved students manipulating cards and presenting the components of the syntactic sentence had a completely different learning objective (i.e. the position of the sentence complement). It quickly became clear that differentiating between syntactic and graphic sentences was the foundation of the analysis process. The activity known as “cards” was therefore redesigned for this purpose by the research team. Researcher 3 reminds this to the teachers during the interview: “you witnessed the changes we ourselves made to this activity: thanks to your observations of version 1, because you shared in our group meetings, we learned things and did the exercises again. We saw it as an exchange!” Researcher 2 adds that going to class provides a concrete dimension to the activities: “it helps and it informs us in an extraordinary way! We see the limits of what we can do and we understand better the need to format a routine. Routine frees the teacher’s attention. When designing activities, there are some things in mind, but not necessarily the way the activities unfold in the classroom. To see it, it helps us a lot to make it easier, more assimilable compared to the original idea of the project. We know the principles we wanted to implement, but the routine came from your observations, our observations, your reactions and those of your students. Comparing several people also helps in research to develop a transferable activity.” She adds: “there is progress because there is constant adjustment, and that’s why two years ago the project was launched. Between ideas and principles, we need to see students, but we also need to see the teachers, how they deal with many details that we don’t think about, but that we can think about by seeing you and exchanging. It’s a win-win situation.” Researcher 1 describes her experience as follows: “it is you, with your way of experimenting, the obstacles you encounter, what you report to us, the adaptations you make because at some point, it doesn’t work! That’s what makes it so easy to dig the path, so it solidifies and everyone can benefit from it. Ideas have a first form that bears some of the signatures of those who have made them.” Finally, Marc testifies to his contribution to the dialog: “Criticisms, we have made them in the first year! We were given advice, remarks, support, we were not told ‘no, that’s the way it works’. The team was collecting this. We got out [of a meeting] once and felt like we had been a little harsh. I remember thinking to myself, ‘I don’t think I said anything that was positive!’ On the other hand, teachers appreciate that the

52

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

research team has adjusted to their needs, including by improving the proposed material: “talking about context at the beginning of the exercises, we added that this year. It’s a major change” (Marc). The contribution of the teacher consultants in two areas was also the subject of a reflection on dialog. Researcher 1 believes that the teacher consultants played an important role in this aspect: “they validated our approach, at times Josianne reminded us of the expectations of the program and what teachers could do.” In a way, they acted as mediators between teachers and researchers. Marc is grateful: “Josianne also supported us when we felt that we were going too far for elementary school students.” Researcher 2 summarizes the contribution of the dialog as follows: “feedback is important: it is the exchanges that make it possible to be accountable, to improve the functioning of the activity.” 3.5. Discussion The conditions for the professional development of teachers have been maximized in the research project we conducted on the teaching of syntax and punctuation. Teachers were unanimous on this point: classroom support and individual feedback, group meetings and materials provided seemed complementary and indissociable. The following paragraphs attempt to identify the learning achieved in each of the modalities. Perhaps the most destabilizing component for teachers has been the many observations and feedback given in situ. According to them, our visits were nerve-racking and stressful, but ultimately profitable. Teachers in all three fields reported that they had learned a great deal from these observations, both in terms of their grammatical knowledge and in the conduct of activities. However, when we discussed the aspect of knowledge transfer with other teachers, many said that this type of support was not suitable for everyone. Danielle (teacher consultant) even asked how she could generate this interest in opening the classroom door to teachers other than just volunteers. Generally, when teacher consultants go to class, it is often to model an expected practice. Roles are rarely reversed. However, to succeed in creating new activities, classroom observations were necessary, both to validate the proposals and to bring them more in line with the efficient

Teacher-researcher Dialogue in Differentiated Support

53

gestures identified in previous research (Cogis et al. 2016). It is possible to think that the feeling of contributing to an innovation would allow for greater openness despite the discomfort, avoiding the presence of a third person in the classroom being associated with performance assessment. This individual support has also proven to be the most effective way of providing differentiated support for teachers. Indeed, most teachers have made changes in their practices. Some had to adjust their metalanguage in grammar, mainly in elementary school, following observations and feedback from the researchers. Others have had to develop more inductive practices, based on students’ questions, mainly at secondary school level. Since the feedback was based on very concrete examples from the classroom and, in addition, on teachers’ own students, it was probably easier for them to take on board the comments and consider them accurate. As for the material offered, it was initially intended to be created in collaboration with the teachers. In addition, this co-construction exercise was intended to enable everyone to be able to select excerpts from texts by their own students and work on them in the same way as the project activities. However, from the end of the first year, it became clear that teachers were not in a position to create syntax and punctuation activities themselves, depending on the source of their students’ errors. Lack of time was cited in the group interviews as a reason for their appreciation of the material provided. However, it is because the teachers developed expertise in conducting grammatical discussions and metacognitive dictation that the exercises could be conducted in accordance with the approach proposed in this first year. This expertise was further developed in the second year. Some even said they are able to create new exercises at the end of the two years, but say they lack the time and confidence to do so. For all these reasons, the research team modified the proposed activities for year two and for the transfer, based on feedback from teachers. Finally, the collective meetings mainly allowed everyone to share ways of working that they considered effective. The establishment of a routine and the approach to the activities was facilitated in class, but its sharing was mainly done in groups. When teachers spoke out to tell their stories, their suggestions tended to carry more weight than when researchers spoke individually about them during classroom feedback, for example. Feedback should therefore focus on the teacher’s personal practices, rather than suggesting other ways of doing things, from other classes, with most of this

54

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

learning being done in group meetings. It is likely that the classroom context makes the teacher more inclined to receive specific feedback following an activity that was experienced, but it may not allow for the transfer of more general advice. Thanks to the three support modalities provided for in the project, a large majority of participants developed their practices. Personalized monitoring has allowed the establishment of a relatively regular routine in the classrooms, and this recurrence has probably fostered the evolution of teachers’ vision regarding the teaching of syntax and punctuation. They joined the project with questions about this area of teaching that they initially considered vague, intuitive and marginal. At the end of the two years, the importance they attach to this aspect has increased thanks to the effect they have seen among their students. This is in line with Guskey’s (Guskey and Yoon 2009) work, which suggests that observing positive effects in one’s own students’ learning has an impact on a teacher’s vision. Moreover, many teachers were surprised by their students’ ability to engage in the proposed activities and their mastery of metalanguage. In addition, it can be said that the feeling of competence to teach syntax and punctuation was developed mainly through the evolution of their grammatical metalanguage. According to Borg (2006) and Andrews (2007), teachers’ solid metalinguistic knowledge would have an impact on their attitudes during grammar-focused activities. Indeed, it is possible to consider that language teachers with strong metalinguistic knowledge would have a more open attitude towards grammatical problems that arise in the classroom, would be more willing to engage in reflective grammatical activities through open questioning and would be more flexible in their grammatical instruction. Thus, the project, through the support that the research team provided to teachers, would have allowed for full professional development of teachers. 3.5.1. Limitations of our study and future perspectives The results of this study are not generalizable. First, our small sample, despite the fact that it is quite varied, and the fact that the participating teachers were volunteers, is a limitation of our study. In addition, the excerpts presented were chosen because they appear to us to be representative and faithful to all the comments collected, but are subject to

Teacher-researcher Dialogue in Differentiated Support

55

social desirability, as in any interview. It should be noted, however, that our results, despite these limitations, are in line with the studies on professional development. Finally, it would be interesting to renew these three support methods in order to better understand whether their effectiveness lies in this triple mode or whether variables such as the object of development or its purpose (the development of tools or approaches) influence participating teachers’ learning. In addition, it would be interesting to document the characteristics of supporters/trainers who are favourable to teachers’ professional learning in such research-training contexts. 3.6. Conclusion After two years of development that our research team conducted with 13 teachers from Cycle 3 in elementary school and Cycle 1 in secondary school in syntax and punctuation, it must be noted that teachers have learned a lot both in terms of grammatical knowledge and their metalanguage as well as in terms of pedagogical practices conducive to the development of this learning among their students. Through regular sharing of experiences, individual classroom observations and feedback, as well as the materials developed and provided, teachers have made significant strides in their professional development. For its part, the research team also learned a great deal, which was reinvested in the support offered to teachers. These learning experiences on both sides were made possible through dialog and awareness of the reality of each of the fields, two complementary support perspectives. According to teachers, the trio of methods, and not one in particular, is a guarantee of change in their practices, understanding, vision and motivation. The gap between the most common forms of continued education and the professional development methods considered to be effective is often very large. Professional development also requires that teachers be prepared to adjust their practices in an open and voluntary way to help students succeed. However, collaborative research makes it possible to achieve significant learning for both parties, such as the example presented here, where the adjustment of the teaching device, mediated by a set of support modalities, is at the heart of the dialog between teachers and researchers.

56

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

3.7. Appendices Appendix 1. Group interview questionnaire Since last year, we have been working together on syntax and punctuation in the same way as metacognitive dictation. 1) Did you acquire any knowledge through the project? If so, name some of the lessons learned: a) in relation to grammar; b) in connection with educational gestures or didactic actions. If not, to what do you attribute this state of affairs? 2) What do you identify as the greatest change between the beginning and end of the project in your pedagogical practices? To what do you attribute this change? If you have not noticed any change in your teaching practices, identify what would have allowed you to develop them further. 3) What was your biggest surprise? 4) We have had regular group meetings together, we have made observations in your classrooms followed by individual discussions and feedback. We also offered you materials (student workbook, teacher guide, cards, video clips, etc.). a) Describe what each of these methods has brought to your professional development. b) Do you have a preference for one of these forms of support? Which one in particular? Why? c) If you have not felt any sense of development in your practices, what training or support method could have contributed to doing so? 5) Would you advise a colleague to get involved in this type of project? If so, what would you say to persuade them to participate? If not, why?

Teacher-researcher Dialogue in Differentiated Support

57

6) If it were to be done again, what could you suggest to us to improve our support methods? What could have contributed to an even more optimal development of your professional practice? 7) The project ends in a few weeks. Do you plan to maintain these practices in your classroom next year? Do you need support? If so, what kind of support? If not, to what do you attribute the fact that it is not necessary? If you don’t plan to continue, what would be the reason for this? 8) In order to disseminate the results, what advice would you give to a colleague who wishes to start teaching syntax and punctuation in the same way? Thank you for your cooperation. Your thoughts are extremely valuable to us. Appendix 2. Grammatical glossary associated with the project Term

Definition

Graphic sentence

Sentence that starts with a capital letter and ends with a period.

Syntactic sentence

Sentence composed of a subject, a predicate and one or more optional sentence complements.

Juxtaposition

A combination method for linking two syntactic groups of the same function or two syntactic sentences with a comma.

Coordination

A combination method for linking two syntactic groups of the same function or two syntactic sentences by a coordination conjunction.

Subordination

A combination method for linking two syntactic sentences by a subordination conjunction.

Position of the sentence complement

The sentence complement can be moved in front of the subject, between the subject and the predicate or remain in its initial position after the predicate.

Analysis process

1 - Identify the conjugated verb(s) in the graphic sentence. 2 - Identify the subject of each syntactic sentence. 3 - Identify the complement(s) of each syntactic sentence. 4 - Identify the predicate of each syntactic sentence. 5 - Identify the processes used for combining syntactic sentences in the graphic sentence (if applicable).

Table 3.2. Grammatical glossary used during the two-year research project

58

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

3.8. Bibliography Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher Language Awareness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Boivin, M.-C. (2009). “Jugements de grammaticalité et manipulations syntaxiques dans le travail en classe d’élèves du secondaire”. In Pratiques d’enseignement grammatical. Points de vue de l’enseignant et de l’élève, Dolz, J., Simard, C. (eds). AIRDF et Presses de l’Université Laval, Quebec, 179–200. Boivin, M.-C., Pinsonneault, R. (2014). Étude sur les erreurs de syntaxe, d’orthographe grammaticale et d’orthographe lexicale des élèves québécois en contexte de production écrite. Research report. Ministère de l’Éducation (MELS), Quebec. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice. Continuum, London. Cèbe, S., Goigoux, R. (2007). “Concevoir un instrument didactique pour améliorer l’enseignement de la compréhension des textes”. Repères, (35), 185–208. Cèbe, S., Goigoux, R. (2012). “Comprendre et raconter: de l’inventaire des compétences aux pratiques d’enseignement”. Le Français aujour d’hui, 179(4), 21–36. Chartrand, S.-G. (2009). “Proposition didactique d’une progression des objets à enseigner en français langue première au secondaire québécois”. In Pratiques d’enseignement grammatical. Points de vue de l’enseignant et de l’élève, Dolz, J., Simard, C. (eds). AIRDF et Presses de l’Université Laval, Quebec, 257–288. Cogis, D., Brissaud, C., Fisher, C., Nadeau, M. (2016). “L’enseignement de l’orthographe grammaticale”. In Mieux enseigner la grammaire. Pistes didactiques et activités pour la classe, Chartrand, S.-G. (ed.). ERPI, Montreal, 123–146. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. National Staff Development Council, Washington (DC). Fisher, C., Nadeau, M. (2014). “Usage du métalangage et des manipulations syntaxiques au cours de dictées innovantes dans des classes du primaire”. Repères, (49), 169–191. Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change, 4th edition. Teachers College Press, New York.

Teacher-researcher Dialogue in Differentiated Support

59

Gauvin, I. (2011). Interactions didactiques en classe de français: enseignement/ apprentissage de l’accord du verbe en première secondaire. PhD thesis, Université de Montréal. Giguère, M.-H., Turcotte, C., Godbout, M.-J. (2016). “Une démarche d’accompagnement pour structurer l’enseignement des stratégies de compréhension en lecture”. Nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation, 76(4), 141–160. Goigoux, R., Cèbe, S. (2009). “Un autre rapport entre recherche, pratique et formation. Les instruments didactiques comme vecteur de transformation des pratiques des enseignants confrontés aux difficultés d’apprentissage des élèves”. Conférence de clôture du 9e colloque international de recherche en éducation et formation (REF). Nantes. Guskey, T., Yoon, S.K. (2009). “What works in professional development?” Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495–500. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning: A Synthesis Of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge, London. Jaffré, J.-P. (2014). “ Postface À quoi sert la ponctuation ?” Le français aujourd’hui, 187(4), 129–135. Lafortune, L. (2008). Un modèle d’accompagnement professionnel d’un changement, pour un leadership novateur. Presses de l’Université du Québec, Quebec. Lefrançois, P., Laurier, M.D., Lazure, R., Claing, R. (2008). Évaluation de l’efficacité des mesures visant l’amélioration du français écrit du primaire à l’université. Suivi de la situation linguistique, étude 9. Office québécois de la langue française, Montreal. Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS), (2012). Évaluation du plan d’action pour l’amélioration du français, résultats aux épreuves ministérielles d’écriture de juin 2009 et 2010, Quebec. Available at: http://www.education. gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/site_web/documents/dpse/formation_jeunes/EvalkuationP AAF_2eRapportFinal_ResultatsEpreuves_1.pdf. Nadeau, M., Fisher, C. (2014). Expérimentation de pratiques innovantes, la dictée 0 faute et la phrase dictée du jour, et étude de leur impact sur la compétence orthographique des élèves en production de texte, FQRSC Research Report, FRQSC, Quebec. Available at: http://www.frqsc.gouv.qc.ca/documents/11326/ 449040/PT_NadeauM_rapport+2014_Dictée+impact+orthographique.pdf/f230769 6-6f26-4ea0-965f-433a9fbe0a54.

60

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Ouellet, C., Dubé, F., Gauvin, I., Prévost, C., Turcotte, C. (2014). Étude des profils orthographiques d’élèves de la fin du primaire, du début du secondaire, d’élèves en difficulté et des pratiques de leurs enseignants, Research Report, Programme Actions concertées, FRQSC. Available at: http://www.frqsc.gouv.qc.ca/documents/ 11326/449040/ PT_ OuelletC_rapport+2014_Profils+orthographiques/dadcfd0dd2cb-4b20-819c-a517b3ce8156. Paolacci, V., Garcia-Debanc, C. (2003). “Quel enseignement de la ponctuation (et autres marques d’organisation textuelle) en formation initiale des enseignants ?” Repères, (28), 93–116. Paolacci, V., Rossi Gensane, N. (2014). “Ponctuation et écrits d’élèves: une conception différente de la phrase pour enseigner la ponctuation autrement”. Le français aujourd’hui, 187(4), 115–125. Richard, M. (2017). Quels sont les modèles de formation continue les plus efficaces pour l’enseignement de la lecture et de l’écriture chez les élèves du préscolaire, du primaire et du secondaire ? Une synthèse des connaissances, Research Report, FRQSC, Quebec. Available at: https://r-libre.teluq.ca/1099/1/Rapport%20 scientifique%20FRQSC-MRichard.pdf. Sherin, M.G., van Es, E. (2009). “Effects of Video Club Participation on Teachers’ Professional Vision”. Journal of Teacher Education, (60), 30–37. Shulman, L., Shulman, J. (2004). “How and what teachers learn: a shifting perspective”. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257–271. The New Teacher Project (2015). The Mirage: Confronting the Hard Truth About Our Quest for Teacher Development. Available at: https://tntp.org/publications/ view/the-mirage-confronting-the-truth-about-our-quest-for-teacher-development.

4 The Learning Community Mobilized to Raise the Reading Levels of Adolescents with Intellectual Disabilities

4.1. Introduction In the health field, several studies have shown that the dissemination of knowledge and even its acquisition by a target audience does not completely, or maybe slightly, predict its use and the improvement of care (Grimshaw et al. 2004). In the field of education as well, many advances in research that aimed to promote academic success for all students seem to be difficult to be implement in the school system (Prud’homme et al. 2016). The production of knowledge in research, if not accompanied by its relevant use by target audiences, is of little value itself. The researchers’ work aims to ensure that the knowledge generated in their studies is not only accessible and comprehensible, but also conducive to the improvement of the practices and services used (Leclerc and Labelle 2013). In the same vein, several authors propose to think about research in regards to a new temporality, where the production of knowledge and its diffusion are done in a more synchronic and less distant manner over time. Researchers therefore include spaces for collaboration and reflection between researchers and stakeholders at an early stage of their research, as well as throughout the research process (Chagnon et al. 2009). In addition, in order to make the desired changes, it seems important to take into account the tacit knowledge

Chapter written by Céline CHATENOUD, Catherine TURCOTTE, Rebeca ALDAMA and Sabine CODIO.

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice, First Edition. Edited by Sophie Briquet-Duhazé and Catherine Turcotte. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

62

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

shared by community stakeholders, who act as filters for the use of knowledge (Elissalde et al. 2010). In light of these findings, this chapter proposes stimulating reflection on the use of research knowledge in the specific field of reading instruction for students with mild intellectual disabilities (MID)1. For these young people, learning how to read comes with enormous challenges from the beginning of elementary school and throughout their entire education. In terms of comprehension, although these adolescents can understand simple texts at the end of elementary school, they often experience severe loss of meaning when it comes to texts requiring higher order reading comprehension strategies (Van Wingerden et al. 2017). Based on the outcomes of collaborative research conducted in Montreal, this chapter aims to understand the strategies deployed to ensure the transfer of the desired knowledge in order to improve the level of reading comprehension among adolescents (10–15 years old) with a mild intellectual disability (MID). 4.2. Theoretical frameworks Figure 4.1 illustrates the two major and complementary processes on which we based our study to ensure the production and mobilization of new knowledge, but also its use and transfer in the field. On the one hand, we are talking about knowledge funneling, adapted from (Turnbull et al. 2010), and on the other hand from the “creation of a scientific learning community” (Leclerc 2013). 4.2.1. From knowledge to action: the process of channelling knowledge Several recent departmental policies and documents encourage the implementation of evidence-based teaching approaches (Council for Exceptional Children 2008; MEES 2017); however, the implementation of these gold standards is far from being established or realistic in many fields (Whitehurst 2003). In addition to these challenges related to the validation of evidence (broad sampling, repeated measurements, significant impacts), 1 In DSM5 (American Psychiatric Association 2013), the degree of severity of intellectual disability is no longer determined solely by IQ (less than 70 to 55 on the IQ test for these students), but also by the person’s area of environmental adaptation or adaptive functioning.

The Learning Community and Raising the Reading Levels

63

others, related to the consideration of the experiential knowledge of practitioners, compromise the deployment of the type of research expected.

Figure 4.1. Fostering knowledge transfer (source: according to [TUR 10]). For a color version of this figure see www.iste.co.uk/briquet/reading.zip

In order to overcome these challenges and to ensure the deployment of practices based on research findings, Turnbull et al. (2010) suggest a knowledge funneling approach operating through “a decision-making process that integrates top-tier research, relevant experience-based knowledge, and current policy for improving outcomes for children and youth with disabilities” (Turnbull et al. 2010). This approach has been used to promote the mobilization of knowledge for use in the field according to three important steps: (1) identification of field needs, (2) the search for, evaluation and selection of resources from recent scientific literature, (3) their availability or preparation for use by the learning community. 4.2.2. The learning community The establishment of learning communities in schools and other educational settings is described in many texts as a preferred way to promote

64

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

educational and academic success for all students. Unlike working in a community of practice, working in a learning community makes it possible to bring together researchers and practitioners in formal collaborative environments whose “goal is to acquire new ways of doing things in a particular teaching field and to develop innovative practices” (Leclerc and Labelle 2013, p. 4) in order to improve the teachers’ skills. These communities are thus perceived as a key path to ensure teachers’ professional development as well as their continued development, as it enables them to solve problems encountered in their daily activities (Gordon 2006) and to overcome the isolation often experienced in the school community (Fallon and Barnett 2009). Several forms of actions can be distinguished in order to reach the objectives of the oriented learning community to promote student learning: the identification of objectives, the choice of targeted knowledge resulting from research, the support in the use of knowledge in the field and finally the identification of opposition (Turnbull et al. 2010). In light of these two theoretical contributions, the specific objective of this chapter is to describe our team’s work over a period of nearly four years in order to facilitate the use of knowledge aimed at raising young students’ reading achievement (10–15 years) with intellectual disabilities. It describes the activities carried out with 12 elementary and secondary school teachers and five pedagogical advisors from three school boards in the Montreal area, during and before the collaborative research, to promote the mobilization and, above all, the use of knowledge to enable the desired sustainable changes. 4.3. From production to knowledge transfer: the activities carried out 4.3.1. Funneling knowledge into action During the first “exploratory” year of research, three meetings with school staff, non-participant observations in class, and a survey addressed to teachers made it possible to identify the needs of the teachers with regard to reading practices for their students with IDs (intellectual disability). A review of the scientific literature was also carried out to target, evaluate and select relevant scientific knowledge for mobilization in the field.

The Learning Community and Raising the Reading Levels

65

4.3.1.1. Teachers’ needs As for the needs expressed in the field, the teachers seem to experience uncertainty or perplexity regarding the reading practices to be prioritized for students with MID that are progressing very slowly especially those who have spent two or three years in their class. They mention their difficulties in individualizing reading instruction, faced with a diversity of students who often describe themselves as poor decoders and poor “comprehenders”. These adolescents also have specific characteristics linked to prior learning (e.g. some can read sight words easily while others are better in word attack), not to mention the comorbidity of other disorders associated with ID (language delay, dysphasia, etc.). Thus, the numbers of students with difficulties in reading comprehension are generally quite high. Faced with this variability in the acquisition of basic reading skills by students with an MID (mild intellectual disability) in the same classroom, various approaches have been used by the teachers, either in the so-called “ordinary” (children’s literature, textbooks, audio books, grammar learning methods, etc.) or in specialized teaching (approaches, materials or interventions developed for students with ID). Teachers also express that they often have to repeat the same instructions (especially in decoding and vocabulary knowledge), without necessarily noticing any visible progress in their students. Specifically, at secondary school level, the decision to pursue or strengthen student decoding strategies or phonological awareness is still at issue. 4.3.1.2. Knowledge mobilization On the knowledge mobilization side, a review of the literature instruction for students with IDs (2001–2013) reveals that there are few based on the five pillars of reading that the2 National Reading Panel (2000) has yet to identify as priorities to develop the approaches to literacy learning disabilities for all types of apprentice readers. This observation is even more significant when it comes to identifying a review of research on reading comprehension by students with IDs (Van Wingerden et al. 2017). Indeed, until the 2000s, studies focused largely on overall reading approaches for these students, which are not very favorable to achieving an expected reading level relative to their cognitive potential (Cèbe and Paour 2012; Dessemontet Sermier and Martinet 2016). 2 Phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

66

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Like other researchers, our review of the literature reveals that it appears difficult to determine the essential evidence to consider in in reading and writing instruction for students with ID. Many of these studies do not meet the gold standards expected from research based on experimental study specifications (Lemons 2012). Limitations include research with small samples, difficulties in establishing a control group, interventions leading to moderate effects, etc. In order to meet the needs of the field, a choice was made to take into account studies in the field of specialized education for students with ID, but also those in French didactics, particularly when it comes to supporting students at risk of experiencing difficulties with written comprehension (Turcotte et al. 2015). From this work of funneling knowledge to meet the needs expressed by teachers in the field, several proposals have been mobilized for the actors of the learning community (Chatenoud et al. 2017): – structured and sustained instruction: 20–30 minutes, 3–4 times a week, repeated guided reading;   – a choice of targeted strategies that are explicitly taught to students; – work on comprehension of common texts, without waiting for students to be good decoders in order to work on reading comprehension strategies in real texts; – assessments at the beginning and end of the year. 4.3.2. Development of the learning community (action cycle) The three years following the exploratory year were devoted to the development of the learning community. At the beginning and the end of the first two years of research (October– December), large group meetings were conducted to identify the common goals targeted by researchers and teachers, as well as to transfer the knowledge generated during the funneling stage. Of these meetings, teachers were asked to put into practice some teaching strategies, such as using a plan of repeated and guided reading comprehension strategies on a same text over at least three sessions of 30–50 minutes per week. The students were thus encouraged to gradually master a text by reading it more than once every week and by working on different reading strategies and by writing a few

The Learning Community and Raising the Reading Levels

67

words on it. This in-depth work aimed to enable the students to develop a deeper comprehension of the text, as well as to automate important strategies. Throughout the academic year, teachers were supported in their appropriation of knowledge by members of the research team in collaboration with pedagogical advisors, in sub-groups of participants per school. These were classroom visits followed by one-on-one meetings to clarify misunderstandings or to address difficulties associated with the use of knowledge and to suggest adaptations. Teachers and researchers were more and more flexible at each meeting to solve some questions, for example: by making decisions on the number of repeated readings of a same text (from four to five times a week), by developing precise records to support the explicit teaching of targeted strategies before introducing the guided repeated reading work, by creating text banks of themes that could interest adolescents and teenagers with an ID (between 10 and 15 years-of-age), etc. During these periods, the research team continually adjusted to the experiential knowledge and work culture of teachers and was receptive to detecting any form of resistance among the participants during the implementation of the knowledge and research recommendations of teaching practices. For example, the proposal to practice a letter-sound correspondence, a complex grapheme or a spelling rule during a guided repeated reading session was not retained by the teachers, although the researchers frequently returned to this point. It became clear that the teachers did not want to carry out this sequencing associated with decoding skills, preferring to work on it in other teaching practices (e.g. in a set of cards on grapho-phonetic correspondence). Teachers have also made efforts to adjust their practices, including reducing the time allocated to teaching and learning in order to read (from 90 to 30 minutes) and provide vigorous and intensive explicit instruction on a daily basis. During the last year of collaborative work, a study using a quasiexperimental research design was conducted by our team in collaboration with a small group of volunteer teachers. By comparing students’ progress in the two conditions, this design allowed a better understanding of the scope of the approach developed, as well as the possibility to stabilize its essential parameters, together with school staff, for the dissemination of knowledge.

68

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

4.4. Discussion The main purpose of this chapter is to raise the question of the appropriation and transfer of knowledge with regard to the usual diachrony experienced between its production in research and its use in the field (Chagnon et al. 2009). This chapter also presents the activities that researchers and practitioners can carry out together in order to acculturate each other and generate new knowledge, directly applicable in the classroom (Leclerc and Labelle 2013). These proposals also specifically contribute to the emerging field of reading comprehension for students with a MID, where little research meets the expected standards. Based on two joint processes (knowledge funneling and creation of a learning community) described in the scientific literature on knowledge transfer, the work of our research team in collaboration with teachers has allowed knowledge to be used directly in the classroom in order to foster the development of reading comprehension in adolescents with an MID (Chatenoud et al. 2017). It also seems important to think about what will happen to this learning community at the end of this period of joint and funded research, as well as on the use that other teachers and stakeholders will have of the new knowledge. In other words, will this knowledge developed and used by our learning community be applied to other areas of practice? Will the learning community strengthen, even grow? Several indicators are currently tangible one year after the end of the research, to answer this question positively. Firstly, researchers and teachers shared similar concerns regarding the fact that students with intellectual disabilities (IDs) are currently underestimated in their ability to learn to read based on their cognitive skills (Channell et al. 2013) and that optimal approaches must be addressed. This is evidenced by the relatively high number of material downloads, including a pedagogical guide and six explicit instruction brochures of reading strategies, to promote reading comprehension among students (10–15 years old) with ID, published online in November 2017 by our research team (2, 500 downloads in three months) for the purpose of the dissemination of knowledge. In addition, several teams of teachers of younger students with IDs have contacted us to arouse the deployment of optimal practices for the early stages of reading skills acquisition. On an organizational level, the work in the community carried out by the pedagogical advisors, the resource teachers and the teachers continuously

The Learning Community and Raising the Reading Levels

69

present throughout the four years of research, seems promising. In light of our current exchanges with these participants, it is clear that they act as a drive belt, transmitting knowledge and increasing the desired practices to students with IDs in special education classes and even in ordinary classes (Chatenoud and Codio 2018). The relative instability of these positions within Montreal school boards could, however, compromise this effect. Leadership is indeed an essential condition for the long-term development of a learning community (Leclerc and Labelle 2013). Finally, our research team has taken care to develop self-supporting materials to ensure that essential information is transmitted to foster teachers and participants’ practices. The latter are committed to providing contributions that support their students’ reading comprehension. All the material has been prepared with and for the teachers and contains, in addition to a pedagogical guide, reading sequences, teaching sheets on strategies, current texts adapted to students, comprehension tests to assess learning and aids to guide students. All of this content is also used in French orthodidactic courses, as well as in specialized teaching for students with ID, both in initial and continued training. Several oral and written communications in symposiums have also filtered through to the work of researchers, aimed at knowledge transfer. National and international collaborative efforts among researchers are also underway to provide complementary and new knowledge to strengthen the learning community and the field of research development (Dessemontet Sermier and Martinet 2016). 4.5. Conclusion Overall, this close collaboration between university researchers and practitioners over a period of four years has resulted in a promising learning community to promote reading comprehension in students with MIDs. Participants in this community were able to experience a structured professional development approach to improve their work and practices. From this learning community of researchers-participants, it is now desirable that a new community, composed mainly of professionals and practitioners in the field, can be consolidated in order to maximize the impact on the learning and success of students with IDs.

70

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

4.6. Bibliography American Psychiatric Association, (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition. American Psychiatric Publishing, Arlington (VA). Cèbe, S., Paour, J.-L. (2012). “Apprendre à lire aux élèves avec une déficience intellectuelle”. Le français aujourd’hui, 177(2), 41–53. Chagnon, F., Daigle, M., Gervais, M.-J., Houle, J., Béguet, V. (2009). “L’utilisation de l’évaluation fondée sur la théorie du programme comme stratégie d’application des connaissances issues de la recherche”. Journal of Program Évaluation, 23(1), 3–32. Channell, M.M., Loveall, S.J., Conners, F.A. (2013). “Strengths and weaknesses in reading skills of youth with intellectual disabilities”. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 23(34), 776–787. Chatenoud, C., Turcotte, C., Aldama, R., Godbout, M.-J. (2017). Favoriser la compréhension en lecture auprès des jeunes (10-15 ans) ayant une déficience intellectuelle. Un guide pédagogique à l’intention des enseignants et intervenants scolaires. Université du Québec, Montreal. Chatenoud, C., Codio, S. (2018). “Communauté d’apprentissage mobilisée pour rehausser le niveau en lecture des jeunes ayant une déficience intellectuelle”. 5e colloque international en éducation : enjeux actuels et futurs de la formation et de la profession enseignante. Montreal. Council for Exceptional Children. (2008). Classifying the State of Evidence for Special Education Professional Practice: CEC Practice Study Manual. CEC, Arlington (VA). Dessemontet Sermier, R., Martinet, C. (2016). “Lecture et déficience intellectuelle: clés de compréhension et d’intervention”. Revue suisse de pédagogie spécialisée, 3, 40–47. Elissalde, J., Judith, G., Renaud, L. (2010)., “Circulation des connaissances: modèle et stratégies”. Communiquer, 3–4, 135–149. Fallon, G., Barnett, J. (2009). “Impacts of school organisational restructuring into a collaborative setting on the nature of emerging forms of collegiality”. International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, 4(9). Gordon, S.P. (2006). Professional Development for School Improvement: Empowering Learning Communities. Allyn and Bacon, Boston (MA). Grimshaw, J.M., Thomas, R.E., MacLennan, G., Fraser, C., Ramsey, C.R., Vale, L. (2004). “Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies”. Health Technology Assessment, 8(6), 1–84.

The Learning Community and Raising the Reading Levels

71

Koritsas, S., Iacono, T. (2011). “Secondary conditions in people with developmental disability”. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 116(1), 36–47. Leclerc, M., Labelle, J. (2013). “Au cœur de la réussite scolaire: communauté d’apprentissage professionnelle et autres types de communautés”. Éducation et francophonie, 41(2), 1–9. Lemons, C.J., Mrachko, A.A., Kostewicz, D.E., Paterra, M.F. (2012). “Effectiveness of decoding and phonological awareness interventions for children with Down syndrome”. Exceptional Children, 79(1), 67–90. Ministère de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement supérieur (MEES). (2017). Politique de la réussite éducative. Le plaisir d’apprendre, la chance de réussir. Government of Quebec, Quebec. National reading panel (NRP). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), Report of the National Reading Panel. NIH Publication No. 00-4754, US Government Printing Office, Washington (DC). Prud’homme, L., Duchesne, H., Bonvin, P., Vienneau, R. (2016). L’inclusion scolaire: ses fondements, ses acteurs et ses pratiques. De Boeck, Brussels. Turcotte, C., Giguère, M.-H., Godbout, M.-J. (2015). “Une approche d’enseignement des stratégies de compréhension de lecture de textes courants auprès de jeunes lecteurs à risque d’échouer”. Language and Literacy, 17(1), 106–125. Turnbull, A., Zuna, N., Young Hong, J., Hu, X., Kysar, K., Obremski, S., Summers, J.A., Turnbulll, R., Stowe, M. (2010). “Knowledge-to-action guides. Preparing families to be partners in making educational decisions”. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(3), 42–53. Van Wingerden, E., Segers, E., Van Balkom, H., Verhoeven, L. (2017). “Foundations of reading comprehension in children with intellectual disabilities”. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 60, 211–222. Whitehurst, G.J. (2003). “The Institute of Education Sciences: New wine, new bottles”. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago (IL). Yu, J., Newman, L., Wagner, M. (2009). Secondary School Experiences and Academic Performance of Students With Mental Retardation, Research report addressed to the National Center for Special Education Research.

5 Teaching Practices that Promote the Development of Reading Skills in Inclusive Secondary Schools

5.1. Introduction This chapter focuses on teaching practices in an inclusive education context and on those most likely to promote the development of literacy skills, taking into account the diversity of secondary school students. Reading and writing remain the foundations of learning in all school subjects, and their proficiency is an essential condition for successful social and professional integration, especially for secondary students. This knowledge synthesis aims to fill important knowledge gaps about secondary school literacy teaching practices in an inclusive education context and to assist decision-makers and school stakeholders in making decisions about effective approaches to implement in these said secondary schools. This synthesis has the following objectives: 1) to establish a state of knowledge on teaching practices in the context of inclusive education and select those that seem favorable to the development of writing skills or skills involving reading texts; 

Chapter written by France DUBÉ, Chantal OUELLET, France DUFOUR, Marie-Jocya PAVIEL, Olivier BRUCHESI, ÉMILIE CLOUTIER and Marc LANDRY.

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice, First Edition. Edited by Sophie Briquet-Duhazé and Catherine Turcotte. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

74

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

2) to describe the contexts in which these teaching practices are implemented in an inclusive education context (type of school, secondary school level, discipline), the results obtained and the limitations of the practices identified; 3) to analyze the effects of these practices on literacy progress and student success; 4) to identify winning practices and transfer conditions in the Quebec context with respect to the Quebec Education Program. This study, which is currently being carried out, focuses more generally on reading and writing teaching practices in an inclusive context. However, in this chapter, we will focus in particular on the results related to reading instruction and those aimed at achieving our first research objective. 5.2. Question and perspective adopted The main purpose of this synthesis is to assist decision makers, curriculum developers, instructional material developers, school principals, pedagogical advisors and teachers working in Quebec secondary schools in making decisions. The results provide them with a body of knowledge on approaches or practices to adopt or adapt in order to promote the development of reading skills that take into account the diversity of secondary school students. In addition, this synthesis aims to contribute to the transfer of knowledge in the field of language teaching practice, but also to the teaching of the various secondary school subjects, which involve reading and writing in classroom teaching-learning situations. As early as 2010, the Conseil supérieur de l’éducation du Québec proposed that access to success required diversity be taken into account when determining paces of learning and needs. Moreover, orientations and frameworks recommended by the Quebec school system should be taken into account as much as possible, as well as the integration of students with disabilities, social maladjustments or learning disabilities into regular classrooms (Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec 1999). However, the integration of students with specific needs into regular classes poses challenges for initial and continuous teacher training, and is

Teaching Practices that Promote the Development of Reading Skills

75

based, among other things, on the necessity to achieve a differentiated pedagogy that is oriented and anticipates meeting students’ needs. However, an inclusive school context is distinct from inclusion. “The school or the class that integrates students expects them to adapt: it does not question its mode of operation. On the other hand, the school or class that includes students seeks to create different learning conditions that meet all types of needs.” (Conseil supérieur de l’éducation 2016, p. 31) The majority of 15-year-old Quebec boys read little or nothing for fun, and the less a young person reads, the more likely they are to drop out of school (ISQ 2016). Quebec secondary schools face many challenges. Many private secondary schools or special purpose public schools (international education programs, sports-arts-studies) mainly only accept students who do not have, or have fewer, learning difficulties, which weakens class groups in “standard” public secondary schools. As a result, many standard-trained classroom teachers consider themselves helpless in the face of these new challenges (Boutin et al. 2015). In addition, French teachers in regular classes in Quebec are only trained using three course credits (45 hours), out of a possible 120, in approaches to prevent or counter students’ reading and writing difficulties, and continuous training activities are only offered on the basis of rare pedagogical days dedicated to these specific courses. In the United States, for example, knowledge syntheses and/or metaanalyses such as Reading Next (Biancarosa and Snow 2004) on reading instruction practices for adolescents in secondary schools, based on research, have been widely disseminated. The Response to Intervention model (RTI), which is increasingly widespread in Quebec, is designed and deployed in the United States, so that at the first level, given the specific school organization at secondary school level, reading comprehension teaching practices are implemented by all teachers, regardless of their discipline. Educational approaches to improving reading comprehension in all subjects (e.g. Reading Apprenticeship, Strategic Instruction Model, etc.) are implemented in the United States and are the subject of numerous scientific and professional articles. Another field, that of Adolescent Literacies (Hinchman and Appleman 2016), rooted in daily life, focuses on practices that take into account their interests, knowledge and diverse adolescent literacies in and out of school. This field focuses on how gender, language,

76

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

socio-cultural background and other dimensions of identity, in interaction with curriculum and teaching methods, shape adolescent development and engagement in reading and writing. It explores innovative practices where teachers use a variety of multimodal texts, from paper manuals to digital productions, and collaborative learning. In this synthesis of knowledge, we adhere to an inclusive position, given the heterogeneity of the student populations that progress to secondary school. The programs, practices, approaches or tools that contribute to improving reading proficiency in the language of instruction identified are intended to meet the needs of the greatest number of people, given the organizational reality of secondary schools, which poses a challenge in implementing inclusive models to improve students’ reading skills (Buehl 2011). Even if complementary services provide support, the resources currently in place are often insufficient, putting a lot of pressure on secondary school teachers, regardless of the subject they teach. In addition, recent budget cuts further reduce the availability of complementary services for exceptional students. Research data is consistent in regards to the need for early implementation of appropriate interventions and adequate follow-up to support student progress. For this knowledge synthesis, we consider reading as a transversal skill and seek approaches and practices that are not only recognized as effective in language teaching courses, but also integrate reading instruction into the different disciplines offered. Our research question is therefore the following: “what are the teaching practices in an inclusive education context that are most likely to promote the development of reading skills that take into account the diversity of students at secondary school level?” We will also try to contribute to the appropriation of these practices by secondary school teachers who work in an inclusive context. 5.3. Reference framework We will borrow Kruidinier’s framework (Kruidenier 2002), the knowledge synthesis “Research-Based Principles for Adult Basic Education: Reading Instruction” and the recommendations of the “National Reading Panel” (National Reading Panel 2000) on the reading components that

Teaching Practices that Promote the Development of Reading Skills

77

inspired MELS (MELS 2011) to design the reading intervention framework for students aged 10 to 15. Thus, the components related to reading fluency are: word identification, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension and motivation. In addition, in order to master reading in an inclusive context, effective practices or approaches will be discussed in language teaching contexts (and not in a second or foreign language). In other words, the practices identified are those where the teaching of subject content (e.g. French/English, mathematics, history, etc.) is done in the language of instruction. To refine the analysis of the concepts of programs, practices, approaches, interventions or tools, we use the following criteria as used by Kruidinier (2002) in his knowledge synthesis on the language of reading instruction: – the pedagogical objectives (teaching word identification, fluency, vocabulary, etc.);   – the environment and the educational purpose (special purpose schools, integration of ICTs, etc.);   – the methods of organizing services (co-teaching, teacher resources, remedial teaching, etc.);   – methods and materials (teaching strategies, materials, intensity, duration of training, teacher preparation, etc.);   – learner characteristics (socio-cultural environment, poor environment, learning difficulties or disabilities, motivation, self-esteem, assessment of learners’ strengths and weaknesses). Through effective programs, practices or approaches, we select literature in which a positive assessment (quantitative or qualitative) of the effects on students has been published in peer-reviewed scientific articles or in which we have a documented assessment in the case of professional texts about reading and writing progress, but also of academic success and perseverance. 5.4. Methodology For the past 20 years, the most common method of synthesis has been the systematic review (Grimshaw 2008). This is also the method the team decided to adopt. Systematic review involves the examination of a clearly

78

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

formulated question using systematic and explicit methods to discover, select and evaluate relevant research in an informed manner, and to collect and analyze data from the studies included in the review. We used the criteria outlined by Grimshaw (2008) and Noyes et al. (2008) to develop the methodology. In order to carry out this systematic review, it was first necessary to define the eligibility criteria for the studies to be included. Some of the inclusion criteria that guided the development of our analysis corpus included document types, region and publication date. First, three document search strategies were used for the type of document: – computerized research of scientific texts, professional texts including gray literature and stories about the best practices;  – a manual search for basic books such as handbooks and meta-analyses; – retrieval of bibliographic channels by consulting the bibliographies of the selected texts. Our mixed approach included both quantitative and qualitative studies for scientific texts. Experimental, non-experimental, qualitative, case studies and best practices were also included, validated or not, provided that they had been the subject of a documented assessment by recognized practitioners and experts. The computerized search of scientific and professional texts was carried out using the following meta-search engines and databases: Google Scholar, Cairn Info, ERIC, PsyInfo, SocInfo, ProQuest, Érudit, and Australian Education Index and Repères. In addition to the types of documents, geographical area and chronological period, more specific criteria were used, taking into account our reference framework. Thus, based on a search in the database thesauri and in relation to the concepts retained in our reference framework, the following categories of keywords were combined (Table 5.1). Category A includes terms related to pedagogical approaches in reading and writing; category A1 adds the notion of success and effectiveness. Category B focuses on reading, and category B1 on the idea of difficulties in the language of instruction. Category C refers to the concept of secondary school students and category D to the concept of inclusion. Categories C and D have been combined with categories A, A1, B and B1.

Teaching Practices that Promote the Development of Reading Skills

Category

79

Key words

A

Approach, educational approaches, educational practices in reading, programs, interventions, teaching methods, tools.

A1

Effective approaches (OR programs, practices etc.), instructional effectiveness, effective literacy practices.

B

Reading, French, English.

B1

Literacy; learning difficulties in reading; competences, reading skills.

C

Teenagers, secondary school students (middle school, secondary school, colleges).

D

Inclusion (full inclusion), inclusive approach or integration/inclusive context, students with special needs, diversity. Table 5.1. Categories of combined keywords in databases

These starting keywords were adjusted to find others that were more specific based on the search results and to make it easier to find relevant texts in electronic databases. Based on the evolution of inclusive education principles in the Western world, and not intended to provide a historical overview of the problem, we limited our research to texts published after 1999, the publication date of the Politique de l’adaptation scolaire au Québec (Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec 1999). Work was carried out to filter these results and adjust the keywords in order to identify the most appropriate texts. Relevant methods for locating documents were used according to their type. For scientific texts, keyword searches in the main education databases, but also those that were generalist, were accompanied by searches in specialized journals (examples: Reading Research Quarterly, Journal of Adult and Adolescent Literacy, etc.) in order to identify texts that had not been indexed in the databases. In addition, for the same category of texts, we also consulted the comparative analyses of existing texts. For professional texts, we searched the gray literature, that is studies that were not officially published in professional books or journals, project reports or government documents, websites of organizations with their own publications, and examined professional journals from countries within the selected

80

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

geographical area (provided that the language of publication was either English or French). The identified texts were filtered after reading their abstracts. Finally, the texts selected following this filtering were analyzed using a data extraction grid. Data extraction requires first of all the identification of the important elementary data to be collected, which then leads to the development of a grid for data extraction and a codebook. The extraction grid included information on bibliographic details, methodology, context and setting, participants, interventions, results and other relevant data. The data extraction was validated and was based on the results of the work of two judges (a researcher and a research assistant), in order to reach an acceptable inter-judge agreement. 5.5. Results We have identified 15 scientific texts on reading instruction practices. The synthesis of knowledge on this subject in an inclusive secondary school context highlights teaching practices from nine identified scientific articles and six theses. These texts come from four countries: the United States, Canada (Quebec and outside Quebec), Australia and South Korea. Of these articles/theses, 12 are based on empirical research: three have adopted a quantitative method, four have adopted a qualitative method and five have a mixed method. Only three of them are theoretical articles. The first study identified highlights that reading fluency, also known as fluency, even if it is usually acquired in elementary school, must be addressed once again in secondary school, since the texts covered are longer and more complex. A program of decoding and fluency instruction in Secondary I, called Quicksmart (Graham and Pegg 2007), aims to ensure the development of fluency and the effective use of basic strategies to understand the texts read. For students with learning difficulties, lack of fluency leads to cognitive overload that hinders comprehension. Indeed, students who have not developed good fluency in elementary school are more likely to experience comprehension difficulties for the rest of their school lives (Dubé 2017). One component of this program involves activities with computer software that allows students to practice reading words, pseudo-words or short sentences by speaking them into a microphone,

Teaching Practices that Promote the Development of Reading Skills

81

allowing the software to provide feedback to the young reader. Other reading activities are also carried out using various media (vocabulary words, repeated reading, flashcards, quizzes of comprehension questions, feedback, discussion), which are always presented in the same sequence of activities of five minutes each, ending with a 10-minute reading game activity, for a total of 35 minutes. Students can benefit at any time from a toolkit and comprehension strategies developed through the activities. Other researchers have looked at activities that lead to developing better fluency, and then discuss strategies for understanding (Lang et al. 2009). As in the study by Graham et al. (2007), software was used to conduct reading exercises and monitor student progress, and every day small groups of students were formed to discuss reading and share their understanding of texts; some groups were facilitated by a teacher and others encouraged exchanges in the form of reading circles. Recognizing the values and challenges of inclusive schooling, action research conducted in Saskatchewan, Canada (Lyons and Thompson 2012), by four teams of teachers and researchers, experimented with guided reading with students up to Grade 7, which is considered the beginning of secondary school in Quebec, using texts of different levels of complexity and varying student groupings within classes according to student progress. Teaching activities on reading comprehension strategies targeted according to students’ needs were proposed. Some strategies were addressed before reading (activating prior knowledge, reading titles and tables of contents, observing images illustrating the text, making predictions, discussing the subject of the text, developing a graphic organizer), during reading (making connections with personal experiences, self-questioning, discussing vocabulary, developing strategies to understand new words, making inferences) and after reading (returning to initial predictions and questions, and answering them). Targeted reading comprehension strategies are also discussed with students, in sub-groups, in class, according to their needs, which are established after observing them in a guided reading situation in a large group. Independent and complementary activities may include readings chosen specifically for each student, a reading journal, texts to be read for literary analysis, or texts to enrich students’ knowledge before the next reading task. Research using literary circles, collective novel reading and the reading journal (Hébert 2009) led all students in the same class to appropriate the text and understand it. The author specifies that “the teaching of literary

82

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

reading must be the subject of a pedagogy of questioning, engagement and dialogue” (Hébert 2009, p. 88). Discussions between students were conducted over the weeks to discuss the progress of reading the novel. This collective reading, which is a peer-learning approach, was spread over a three-week period. Over the weeks, students were taught several reading strategies, and were asked to indicate in their response log when they used one of these strategies when reading the novel. These explicit, differentiated and collaborative teaching approaches, combined with reading activities, lead students to confront their opinions and understanding of the text. Literary circles are among the most effective approaches for students with reading difficulties. Discussions make the strategies used by peer readers more transparent. A doctoral thesis action-research project proposed that students at different grade levels approach reading and reading comprehension strategies through reading in dyads (Vasquez 2010). This twinning is called having reading buddies. The students had a text to read together, using strategies that had been explicitly taught to them by the teacher: predict, question and review. The strategies used before (predicting, making connections with their knowledge), during (rereading certain passages of the text, questioning the text) and after reading (validating predications, reviewing questions) contributed to a better understanding of the texts read and to a more frequent use of the strategies taught which were used in dyads. Grade 7 students who had difficulties improved their reading comprehension and, according to the author, this helped to overcome the Mathieu effect, that is, the best readers tend to increase this gap and remain better (Stanovich 1986). The structure of texts and the recognition of the types of texts read are also strategies that must be taught explicitly in the classroom. Fagella-Luby et al. (2007) subdivided a sequence of teaching writing strategies into three steps: 1) before reading: self-questioning on seven text components, characters, triggering elements, time clues, text themes; 2) during reading: analysis of the type of text and its structure; 3) after reading: summarizing.

Teaching Practices that Promote the Development of Reading Skills

83

To conduct this study, they proposed eight short texts so that students could experiment with the comprehension strategies explicitly taught. A graphic organizer was also used by the students and the teacher to represent the co-construction of the understanding of the read text. Other research identified included the teaching and use of concept maps and graphic organizers to promote understanding of current and narrative texts (Kim et al. 2012; Knox 2008), strategies discussed with the teacher, or with a resource teacher providing classroom support (Granger and Dubé 2017) for students who may have difficulty understanding long and complex texts. In a meta-analysis, Kim et al. (2012) had already identified teaching practices identified in our synthesis: using the graphic organizers; promoting questioning in plenary, in dyads, with the teacher; develop strategies with students to identify the main idea and create a summary; have students identify the structure of the text; annotate it; speak about it; take notes and write a reading journal; and identify the theme of the proposed narrative texts. The authors of this meta-analysis point out that explicit instruction is even more effective when accompanied by student self-monitoring strategies (Kim et al. 2012). Several researchers now propose to approach reading by formulating problems, not always with a view to solving them, but rather as an exploration of the text (Graham et al. 2007; Hébert 2009), by questioning themselves or by using the strategy “sharing text talk” (Kim et al. 2012) Ouellet Croisetière and Boultif (2015), so that the student interacts with the text. Many studies propose to develop strategies to predict (Lyons and Thompson 2012; Vasquez 2010) and make inferences (Lyons and Thompson 2012), strategies that can be used even when students read comic books (Boutin 2010). Reading is then an active and interactive activity between the reader and the text, as well as with peers in the classroom. To promote interaction and peer learning, the formation of dyads (Vasquez 2010), teams and small discussion groups (Graham et al. 2007) in the classroom is often recommended in the studies reviewed (Hébert 2009 ; Lyons and Thompson 2012; Ouellet et al. 2015; Vasquez 2010), in order to promote understanding, reading should no longer be considered a solitary activity, but a collective one.

84

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

5.6. Conclusion It must be said that the need for knowledge about teaching practices in an inclusive education context is immense. The first impacts help to provide practitioners (principals, pedagogical advisors and teachers) with a synthesis of approaches and practices that can inform them in order to improve the performance and interest of secondary school students in reading in an inclusive context. In this way, practitioners will be able to use these research findings to select the most convincing and relevant approaches and practices for their environment, because at the end of our process, they will be presented according to their potential for generalization, according to their origin: from experimental, quasi-experimental, empirical research, case studies or best practice studies. The implementation conditions and limits will be accessible to them, since we will produce a critical synthesis. This systematic synthesis will contribute to the appropriation of knowledge from scientific texts and will help decision-makers in the world of education to review guidelines and framework texts in order to propose teaching practices to be implemented in inclusive secondary school classes. Our research work is ongoing and a report will soon be submitted to the funding partners for this project. The report format recommended by our research partners will be 25 pages at the end of the various synthesis and analysis steps that are currently underway. This format, which involves focused and concise writing, will certainly contribute to knowledge transfer, but other activities will have to be carried out so that our results reach secondary schools and teachers can take them on board. The results of this knowledge synthesis will also make it possible to propose new research avenues that could lead to action research projects in secondary schools or research projects aimed at implementing these teaching approaches and practices. Finally, these results can guide other studies and also inspire graduate students to conduct research and enrich knowledge in this field. These results will also be available to program designers at the Quebec Ministry for Education and to instructional material designers. Ultimately, the results will benefit the students themselves, who will be able to further improve their reading and writing skills. In addition, these results can be reinvested in the initial and continuous training of secondary school teachers and in university undergraduate and graduate training programs, particularly

Teaching Practices that Promote the Development of Reading Skills

85

in special education, and language classes in secondary education. The creation of a new course on teaching reading comprehension in all subjects taught at the secondary level is also being considered for these teacher education programs. Finally, this chapter is the first publication from our ongoing study. Professional and scientific articles and communications, as well as presentations in schools will be offered in the coming months, so that many teachers will benefit from the knowledge highlighted in this synthesis, as we consider them to be essential actors in promoting learning reading skills, not only in mother tongue teaching, but also in all subjects taught in secondary schools. We conclude by thanking the Ministère de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement supérieur (MEES) and the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture (FRQSC) for their financial support in this study. 5.7. Bibliography Biancarosa, G., Snow, C.E. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. Report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Alliance for Excellent Education, Washington (DC). Boutin, G., Bessette, L., Dridi, H. (2015). L’intégration telle que vécue par des enseignants dans des écoles du Québec. Research Report, Fédération autonome d’enseignement, Quebec. Boutin, J.F. (2010). “Prédire/inférer par la bande dessinée !” Québec français, (157), 68–69. Buehl, D. (2011). Developing Readers in the Academic Disciplines. International Reading Association, Newark (DE). Conseil supérieur de l’éducation (CSE), (2016). Remettre le cap sur l’équité. Rapport sur l’état et les besoins de l’éducation 2014–2016. CSE, Quebec. Dubé, F., Bessette, L., Ouellet, C. (2017).  “Développer la fluidité et la compréhension en lecture afin de prévenir les difficultés”. La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation. Apprenants en difficulté en littératie: enseignement et apprentissage, 76(4), 27–44. Faggella-Luby, M., Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D. (2007). “Embedded learning strategy instruction: Story-structure pedagogy in heterogeneous secondary literature classes”. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(2), 131–147.

86

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Graham, L., Pegg, J., Alder, L. (2007). “Improving the reading achievement of middle-years students with learning difficulties”. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 30(3), 221–234. Granger, N., Dubé, F. (2017). “Sustain resource teachers in the appropriation of the graphic organizer to facilitate the understanding of disciplinary texts among at risk students at the secondary level”. Education Sciences & Society, (2), 88–108. Grimshaw, J. (2008). Guide sur la synthèse des connaissances. Institut de recherche en santé du Canada. Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/f/41382.html. Hébert, M. (2009). “Cercles littéraires et journal de lecture comme éléments d’intervention en didactique de la littérature: étude de cas d’un élève de 8e année en difficulté”. Revue du Nouvel-Ontario, 34, 83–117. Hinchman, K.A., Appleman, D.A. (2016). Adolescent Literacies: A Handbook of Practice-Based Research. Guilford Press, New York. ISQ, (2016). “La motivation en lecture durant l’enfance et le rendement dans la langue d’enseignement à 15 ans, Étude longitudinale du développement des enfants du Québec (ELDEQ 1998–2015)”. Institut de la statistique du Québec, 8(3), 1–24. Kim, W., Linan Thompson, S., Misquitta, R. (2012). “Critical factors in reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis”. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 27(2), 66–78. Knox, A.M. (2008). Reading strategies for middle school students with learning disabilities. Education PhD thesis (EdD). University of Oregon, Oregon. Kruidenier, J. (2002). Research-based Principles for Adult Basic Education, Reading Instruction. RMC Research Corporation, New Hampshire. Lang, L., Torgesen, J., Vogel, W., CHANTER, C., Lefsky, E., Pescher, Y. (2009). “Exploring the relative effectiveness of reading interventions for high school students”. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, (2), 149–175. Lyons, W., Thompson, S.A. (2012). “Guided reading in inclusive middle years classrooms”. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47(3), 158–166. Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS). (2011). Référentiel d’intervention en lecture pour les élèves de 10 à 15 ans. Gouvernement du Québec, Quebec. Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec (MEQ). (1999). Une école adaptée à tous ses élèves. Politique de l’adaptation scolaire. Gouvernement du Québec, Quebec.

Teaching Practices that Promote the Development of Reading Skills

87

Noyes, J., Popay, J., Pearson, A., Hannes, K., Booth, A. (2008). “Incorporating evidence from qualitative research”. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S. (eds). Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, 571–591. National reading panel (NRP). (2000). “Teaching children to read: An evidencebased assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction”. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. National Reading Panel, Rockville. Ouellet, C., Croisetière, C., Boultif, A. (2015). “Lire et mieux comprendre au secondaire: bilan et prospectives d’un projet de recherche collaborative”. Québec français, (174), 86–87. Stanovich Keith, E. (1986). “Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy”. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407. Vasquez, V.B. (2010). The power of the partner: Investigating the effects of structured reading buddies and reading strategies on the attitudes and comprehension of seventh grade students. Education PhD thesis (EdD), Arizona State University, Tempe (AZ).

6 Supporting the Professional Development of Elementary School Teachers: Action Research in an Aboriginal Context1

6.1. Introduction The rapid growth of the First Nations population in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, is creating pressure on education in an Aboriginal environment. Indeed, while the number of people who have declared Aboriginal identity increased from 79,400 in 2001 to 141, 915 in 2011 (Lévesque and Polèse 2015), this population “represents a much younger age profile than the general population and it will continue to take up a little more space each year in the school population of the province” (Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport 2013). According to the Bulletin statistique de l’éducation dedicated to Aboriginal education (Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport 2013), 16,165 preschool, elementary and secondary school children are divided into 68 schools in Quebec’s Aboriginal communities (51 First Nations and 17 Inuit schools). Schools generally adopt the Quebec education system (Secrétariat des commissions de l’Assemblée nationale du Québec, SCANQ) (Secrétariat des commissions de l’Assemblée nationale du Québec 2007) and the Quebec education program (Ministère de l’Éducation, du Sport 2006). In such a context, how

Chapter written by Christiane BLASER and Martin LÉPINE. 1 We would like to thank Isabelle Nizet, Frédéric Saussez, Denis Simard, Yvonne Da Silveira, Glorya Pellerin, Julie Mowatt and Marguerite Mowatt-Gaudreau for their collaboration in this study.

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice, First Edition. Edited by Sophie Briquet-Duhazé and Catherine Turcotte. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

90

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

can we support the professional development of a team of elementary school teachers to improve their teaching and reading assessment practices with students in such a community? In the following sections, we present the specific context of the action research we conduct in an Aboriginal context, the research problem and objectives, the frameworks used, and the main impacts of the interventions on teaching and reading assessment practices in years 1 and 2 of the research. 6.2. General context, problem and research objective The education of Aboriginal people, in Canada and Quebec, has undergone significant changes since the 1960s. Lévesque and Polèse (2015) recount the key moments of this period and see three reforms emerge, from the 1970s to today: “The first gave rise to the indigenization program in the early 1970s, with a particular focus on language instruction and school management by the local authorities; the second began with the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in the mid1990s and placed Aboriginal education back at the heart of Canadian and Quebec public policy; the third, currently underway, is precisely in the era of partnerships and opens the door to multiple community projects.” (Lévesque and Polèse 2015, p. 51) Among the highlights was the creation, in 1985, of the First Nations Education Council (FNEC), which represents 22 communities affiliated with eight First Nations, including the Anishnabe Nation, at the heart of this action research. FNEC’s mission is to defend the interests of Aboriginal people in education and to achieve the objective of complete control over their education. Since 2015, the organization offers an annual publication, Programme de réussite scolaire des étudiants des Premières Nations, in which concerns related to teaching and learning to read and write are central, and for good reason: in a literate society, reading and writing are the pillars of learning in all disciplines, of perseverance and educational success, and a major asset in the personal, professional and social development of all individuals.

Supporting the Professional Development of Elementary School Teachers

91

However, it turns out that, even though, in 40 years, academic success and perseverance among Aboriginal people has improved, the number of First Nations people living in Quebec with no certificate, diploma or degree stands at 46.3%, while it is 24.8% among non-Aboriginal people (Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport 2009). In addition, in Canada, the literacy level of the Aboriginal population is lower than that of the Canadian population: 40.3% of the Aboriginal population has a literacy level of 3 or higher compared to 51.9% of the non-Aboriginal population (Statistique Canada2). It should be recalled that literacy level 3 is considered the minimal level to be functional in terms of writing in a literate society. Apart from the well-known political, socio-historical and economic factors that may explain the difficult relationship with Aboriginal schools today (colonial and assimilative government federal policies; residential school dramas and their lasting repercussions; lack of control by Aboriginal people over their own education; underfunding of schools, etc.) (Lévesque and Polèse 2015), other decisive factors of academic success have been identified in recent years (Archambault 2010) at different levels, including factors related to the school environment: teacher shortages, staff turnover and lack of qualifications, teachers’ lack of knowledge about cultural Aboriginal integration ; differences in student learning styles and language differences. It is worth nothing that French, the language of instruction, is often a second language in Aboriginal communities (da Silveira 2013). In a review of research conducted in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada on Aboriginal student perseverance and success, Lévesque and Polèse (2015) found that, over the past 40 years: “The research, reflection and analysis efforts in Aboriginal education in Quebec have been variable: they have not necessarily been sustained from one decade to the next and have not been of the same for all Aboriginal groups in the province. Thus, the Mohawk, Innu and Cree First Nations have received more attention from researchers, as has the Inuit population. However, there is little information on the educational trajectories of Wabanaki, Algonquin/Anishnabe, Atikamekw, Huron-Wendat, Maliseet or Mi’kmaq First Nations [...]” (Lévesque and Polèse 2015, p. 21)

2 http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-555-x/2013001/chap3-fra.htm, accessed December 6, 2015.

92

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

The researchers also observe that given the diversity of the research fields from which the work is derived (anthropology, education, psychology, social work, etc.), as well as the variety of approaches, epistemological postures, conceptual frameworks, methodologies, etc., it is difficult to draw wideranging lessons from this work, which is often based on a single study. Among the most frequently discussed themes are those related to Aboriginal languages and second language instruction. In this regard, Morris and O’Sullivan (2007) were interested in the acquisition of French as a second language by Innu elementary students in Côte-Nord; their study was designed to monitor the development of students’ language skills. The researchers found that Innu students have poor oral and written French skills when they enter school and that they quickly fall behind, meaning they are unable to catch up. Morris and O’Sullivan (2007) propose to bring students into contact with reading in both Innu and French, in order to increase their contact with the written word. In addition, da Silveira et al. (2015) conducted exploratory research in three elementary schools in two Aboriginal communities in Quebec, one Anishnabe3 in Abitibi-Témiscamingue and the other Innu in Basse-CôteNord, to explore new practices in writing instruction in order to promote the development of this skill among students. Six teachers, three pedagogical advisors and about 40 students were involved in the research. Among the means implemented to achieve their objective, the researchers experimented, with the Abitibi-Témiscamingue school, with a distance support system for teachers, based on dialog with an expert in the didactics of writing: based on problematic situations experienced in their classes related to writing instruction, the teachers, in collaboration with the didactic expert, sought solutions that took into account the school context. They then experimented in class with new practices or strategies and kept a professional journal to better report on their actions and reflections at the next meeting. Although modest because it affects few teachers and students, the results obtained were encouraging: there was a significant increase in classroom written productions in varied textual genres; significant effects were observed among students by the teachers involved, including better use of writing strategies and a marked interest in writing activities (da Silveira

3 The spelling of this name may vary according to context and documents, but our Aboriginal partners retain this spelling.

Supporting the Professional Development of Elementary School Teachers

93

et al. 2015). Above all, these promising results have made it possible to lay the foundations for new action research that is in line with the recommendation made by Lévesque and Polèse (2015), namely “to put forward knowledge co-production projects between the university and Aboriginal communities in order to increase the impact of research for the benefit of those most affected and to explore new avenues of understanding and explanation” (Lévesque and Polèse 2015, p. 207). Several factors encouraged us to continue working with the AbitibiTémiscamingue school by broadening the scope of intervention to reading and the evaluation of reading and writing: the already well-established collaboration with the school, the interest of the school administration and teachers in continuing to work with researchers to continue to improve practices and the willingness of teachers to share their new practices with other teachers in the school, for the benefit of students. Thus, this new action research aims to support female teachers working in an Aboriginal environment in the ongoing development of their skills in teaching and evaluating reading and writing in the age of technology, taking into account the learning styles of Aboriginal students, their linguistic reality and their cultural specificity. To this end, we pursue the following objectives: 1) to equip Aboriginal school classrooms with “reading corners” offering the necessary material to develop the language skills of the students; 2) to design, in partnership with the principal and teaching staff, a mechanism to support the construction, experimentation and generalization of means of action to improve teaching and assessment practices in literacy that respect the learning styles, linguistic reality and cultural specificity of Aboriginal students. More specifically, action research aims first of all to develop, within the school, a collaborative structure to design and organize reading corners4 in the classroom and to support the problematization of the challenges to be met in terms of developing teaching practices and evaluating reading and writing. Secondly, it seeks to structure a professional development system co-constructed by teachers and researchers, consistent with the initial

4 Reading corners, in this context, are spaces designed to suit each teacher’s taste to stimulate students’ interest in both reading and writing. For example, there is furniture for comfortable reading (carpets, cushions, low chairs, etc.), displays and storage spaces for books, stationery, etc.

94

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

challenges identified and responding to emerging training needs. Finally, it is necessary to document the effectiveness of the system and its effects on the appropriation of new didactic gestures by teachers and the development of students’ skills, as well as the challenges, dilemmas and difficulties experienced by female teachers. In this chapter, we are particularly interested in interventions to support reading instruction and assessment practices, including training and materials to improve these practices and the holding of a book fair. We describe the impact of these different actions in the following sections, after presenting the theoretical and methodological frameworks of action research. 6.3. Theoretical framework To support the professional development of the teachers involved in the project, we have identified various works from didactic approaches to literature in schools in order to provide a reference framework on what literary training is, how to read and appreciate literary works, and how to evaluate literary reading. 6.3.1. Literary training and reading/appreciation Literary training, as envisaged by Dumortier (2010, p. 22) for the school context, is “all the practices which, from kindergarten and throughout compulsory schooling, contribute to creating a community of pupils willing to positively value literary texts, to devote part of their leisure time to their reading, to appreciate them as works of art and to take part in exchanges on the basis of which this appreciation is based”. In this sense, recent research on didactic approaches to literature in schools shows that literary reading teaching practices focus on different complementary activities related to readers’ participation, distance and sensory appropriation (Dufays 2015). This dialectical back and forth between psycho-affective participation and intellectual distance in readers from elementary school onwards makes it possible, among other things, to nurture passionate and rational relationships when reading literary texts and to marry subjectivity and intersubjectivity (Dumortier 2005, p. 94). Literary reading must therefore simultaneously solicit the reader’s participation, leading them to enter the game, and an

Supporting the Professional Development of Elementary School Teachers

95

effort of distancing, which leads then to observe and analyze the game, alone or in a community (Delbrassine 2007). Based on the work of Gabathuler (2016) on the esthetic relationship in the teaching of literary reading and also on Falardeau’s (Falardeau 2003) work on the distinctions between understanding and interpretation in literary reading, we define the reading/appreciation of literary works in two complementary ways: (1) reading is about constructing the possible meanings of texts; (2) appreciating is about making judgments (esthetic, ethical, emotional) about texts. We explain these two aspects in the following paragraphs. The construction of the possible meanings of the texts. Based on the writings of researchers such as Dufays, Gemenne and Ledur (Dufays et al. 2015; Giasson 2011; Hébert 2011; Rouxel 2007), constructing the possible meanings of texts implies, in an iterative movement and in a dynamic tension (Falardeau 2003), that readers plan their reading, understand and interpret it, react to it, use it and evaluate their approach. Planning allows the reader to create a certain “horizon of expectation”, to give themselves an intention of reading/appreciation as well as to launch initial hypotheses from some clues present in and around the work. The formulation of judgments (esthetic, ethical and emotional). According to Gabathuler (2016), assessment involves justifying what bases there are to provide judgment on the work, a judgment that Dumortier (2006) subdivides into two parts: judgment of taste and judgment of value. The judgment of taste consists of “reporting on the (dis)pleasure experienced in contact with a work” and “providing the reasons for the judgment of taste, i.e. why we liked or did not like this work” (Dumortier 2006, p. 193). The value judgment, in a school context, implies “all persons belonging to the same community and thus sharing common places” (Gabathuler 2016, p. 54) and (Gabathuler 2016) points out, value judgment is not necessarily derived from the pleasure of contact with a work, but rather from an assessment of the work against the values of the community of individuals to which the reader belongs. To summarize the didactic approaches to literature that inspired us for the training courses offered as part of the action research, we retain that the reader must be encouraged, in an iterative process of planning and evaluating his or her reading/appreciation process, to participate emotionally

96

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

and take an intellectual distance when reading literary works (Dufays et al. 2015). Then, to construct meanings, this reader must be led to understand, interpret, use and react to the literary work itself (Falardeau 2003; Rouxel 2007). Finally, in order to make judgments, this subject reader must justify their judgment of taste and argue their value judgment according to different literary elements (Dumortier 2005). By considering these definitions and ministerial prescriptions (Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport 2006), including the elements of learning progress (Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport 2009/2011), we have tried to illustrate all the processes involved in the reading/appreciation of literary works in Figure 6.1 (Lépine 2017).

Figure 6.1. The reading/appreciation process of literary works by a reader (Lépine 2017) . For a color version of this figure see www.iste.co.uk/briquet/reading.zip

As Figure 6.1 shows, the reading/appreciation processes of literary works are intimately intertwined and recursive, feeding on each other in the same way throughout the reader’s process. Each of these processes requires specific and varied teaching and assessment practices.

Supporting the Professional Development of Elementary School Teachers

97

6.3.2. Means of evaluating the reading/appreciation of literary works One of the challenges in teaching reading and the appreciation of literary works is its evaluation, with literary reading having a large number of “unassessable” elements (Dufays et al. 2015) and access to the “reader’s texts” posing various problems (Dufays 2011; Hébert 2011). How, in fact, can we evaluate the reading/appreciation of literary works through learning devices centered on the reader’s activity, thus encouraging students to objectively analyze a literary work while expressing their subjectivity as readers (Hébert 2011)? How can we access the “black box” of students, what is happening in the minds of readers, if not through written or oral demonstrations (Tauveron 2005), demonstrations that bring their share of challenges for the elementary school teacher in particular (Hébert 2011)? In addition to having to report knowledge of different, often subjective, natures (Hébert 2011), written and oral literary reading events must allow teachers to evaluate the five criteria of the competence: “reading a variety of texts and appreciating literary works” within the current framework of learning assessment: (1) understanding the significant elements of a text; (2) having plausible interpretation of a text; (3) having relevant justification for reactions to a text; (4) possessing critical judgment on literary texts; (5) having recourse to appropriate strategies (Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport 2011). To evaluate these aspects in the reading/appreciation of literary works, the teacher can develop questionnaires or plan more global meta-textual or hypertextual, written and oral tasks (Dufays et al. 2015), within a framework of diagnostic, formative or certified evaluation (Dumortier 2006). To evaluate the “readers’ texts” in this way, Dufays (2011) proposes a breakdown of written and oral, meta-textual (rather reflexive) and hypertextual (rather creative) manifestations, which we illustrate in Figure 6.2 on a continuum between each of the areas involved. In practice, these written or oral manifestations take the form, for example, of questionnaires drawn up by teachers or examinations from existing material, ministerial tests, notebooks, newspapers or notebooks for reading/appraisal (Ministère 2006). Individual interviews, focus groups and more formal oral presentations of various kinds can also be used to orally assess students’ reading/appreciation (Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport 2006).

98

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Figure 6.2. Possible reading events (source: adapted from Dufays, 2011)

In order to maintain some distance from the traditional reading comprehension questionnaire, which has different limitations, particularly in terms of assessing the understanding of a chosen text’s specific features and not the more global development of skills (Dumortier 1999), Langer (2011) stresses the importance of offering a wide variety of written and oral means: free writing, automatic writing, brainstorming, journal entries, reading journals, oral reading, role-playing, written and oral conversations, small group presentations, whole class discussions, portfolios, artwork, essays, graphics, multimodal presentations, etc. These different tools allow students to respond to literature by expressing their own perception of a literary work (Barone 2012). It is therefore with this framework in mind that we approached the methodological aspects of action research. 6.4. Methodology The action research took place in an elementary school in an Aboriginal community in Abitibi-Témiscamingue with 114 students, from preschool to Grade 6, in nine classes. Female classroom teachers – both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal – participated in the action research on a voluntary basis. It

Supporting the Professional Development of Elementary School Teachers

99

should be noted that as soon as the grant was obtained in the spring of 2016, the first step of the action research consisted of presenting the project to all teachers and inviting them to participate; obviously, the school principal and the pedagogical advisor had been consulted when the application was being developed. Since the partnership was already well established, and since the teachers’ participation went hand in hand with the development of reading corners in their classrooms, we were not surprised that everyone agreed to participate in the project. However, by committing, the teachers also agreed to participate in the training activities that would be offered throughout the duration of the project. In addition to the initial research team, two working groups structured the operation of action research (Clot 1999). The first was an extended collective made up of all the school’s teachers, the pedagogical advisor, a retired teacher from the community and members of the research team (about 20 people). At the beginning of each school year, this group’s function was to identify and validate the problems to be overcome or to anticipate the difficulties or challenges of continuing education to be addressed as a priority in the research process. The second group was a small committee composed of three volunteer teachers (one per cycle), a pedagogical advisor, a principal researcher and one or two other members of the research team (in total, 5 to 7 people); it met about once a month. Its function was to implement means of action to meet the needs related to the development of teaching and evaluation practices for reading and writing, as expressed in the wider collective. The anticipated products of this support approach in the select committee were the design of teaching sequences and didactic devices as well as the identification of new professional gestures for experimentation in the classroom and the selection of tools. This possibly included student productions following the experiment. Within the framework of “cafés pédagogiques”, a system inspired by videoclubs in the United States (Van Es and Sherin 2008), teachers exchanged new practices that they could implement in their classrooms, thus feeding each other. These meetings were recorded, then analyzed in order to assess their significance and scope; they were held regularly (after each training session or event), in order to discuss the work of the select committee as part of a sustainable and critical appropriation process, guaranteeing anchored professional development. At

100

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

the end of a cycle of construction, experimentation and generalization of new means of action, the fruit of the work carried out by the select committee was presented and discussed within the extended collective, in order to support a process of legitimization and generalization of new practices. With regard to the documentation of the professional development process, the methodological framework presents various methods for collecting and analyzing the processes and products generated as part of the action research: interviews with teachers, educational cafés, minutes of meetings, photos, training recordings, etc. For the purposes of this chapter, we will present the results of the thematic analysis of interview transcripts conducted in June 2017 (N = 6) and March 2018 (N = 6) with teachers involved in action research. We will also present the results of the thematic analysis of transcripts from the meetings of two educational cafés (October 2017 and February 2018) following the series of three training workshops that were offered to school teachers in years 1 and 2 of the action research. The first two workshops, led by Martin Lépine5, in the fall of 2016 and spring of 2017, focused on the choice of literary works and the animation of works in the classroom. The third workshop, orchestrated by Isabelle Nizet6 and Martin Lépine in winter 2018, addressed the issue of reading assessment. In the workshops on reading instruction, we dealt with the choice of literary works in the school context and the animation of the book in the classroom through interactive readings. In the assessment workshop, we encouraged teachers to assess their current assessment practices based on a continuum of varied means and devices, in order to encourage them to diversify their ways of assessing the reading and appreciation of their students’ literary works. In addition to these training courses, the purchase of books and reading-teaching materials (a document camera, for example), the installation of reading corners in the classroom and the holding of a book fair were also key steps in the action research process.

5 Martin Lépine is a French didactician, specializing in didactic approaches to literature in schools. 6 Isabelle Nizet is a specialist in learning assessment.

Supporting the Professional Development of Elementary School Teachers

101

6.5. Some results of the interventions in teaching and reading assessment In the following sections, we will present the main impacts of the training offered on teaching and reading assessment practices, the materials offered as part of the project, the holding of a book fair in the school and the interventions on students. The results presented here were obtained by analyzing the data from the interview transcripts and the educational coffee meetings. The thematic analysis carried out made it possible to identify themes and sub-themes, and to identify some key citations. In the following subsections, we report only the most salient facts of this thematic analysis and interpret the results presented. 6.5.1. The impact of the training offered in reading and evaluation The training offered, both on reading instruction and its evaluation, has had a positive and diverse impact on the practices of female teachers involved in action research. In general, teachers say they are open to experimenting with new approaches to developing a love of reading among their students and are curious and motivated to improve their practices. In their teaching, following the training offered, teachers reported that they have implemented daily reading practices, and therefore more frequent reading practices than in the past, both by students independently and through the reading aloud activities they lead. They claim to allow more time in class to allow students to “truly dive into their books” (teacher E47), to enter their reading area by reading books of their choice (Atwell and Atwell 2017). They also reported that they encourage a more interactive approach to reading in the classroom, an approach that allows students to interact orally about their reading, both before and after discovering a literary work or a documentary book. Teacher E5, for example, points out that, “now, [reading] is something we experience, something we share in the group”; reading is now less considered as a purely academic subject, but as a meeting place between their students. Teachers also reported that they are more sensitive to the fact that the act of reading is not just about decoding and understanding what you read, but about constructing meanings and sense through comprehension, interpretation, reaction and use. Many insist on the 7 To ensure confidentiality, we have assigned alphanumeric codes to teachers.

102

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

relevance, during the training on interactive reading, of the animations carried out in the classrooms by the trainer, thus serving as a reading model for the students and teachers of reading. For example, teacher E1 says: “animation has changed the way I read books to my boy in the evening myself!” With respect to reading assessment, several teachers mentioned in the interviews that they limited themselves, before the training, to assessing their students’ reading using only comprehension questions. For example, teacher E4 said in the February 2018 pedagogical café: “I was always quite good at evaluation, evaluating reading comprehensions with grades. So it was a lot, a lot of questions of understanding.” Following the training, they indicate that they paid more attention to the interpretation, reaction, use in reading and formulation of judgments in appreciation: “The next day, I went to remove many of the comprehension questions that were planned to replace them with questions related to interpretation and appreciation” (teacher E4). Female teachers, in general, wished to evaluate the reading and appreciation of literary works through more diversified evaluative practices, but also and above all to use them to nourish their students’ desire to read. In this perspective, they practiced oral discussion leads and written questions that required more justified and personal answers from students about their reading. “They do not need to look for [all the answers] in the text [...]. It seems that the answers, they can build them in their head” (teacher E4). This teacher points out that, in this way, some exceptional students experience reading success more frequently. In this sense, the teachers involved in action research mention that the three training courses offered around reading were very useful and inspiring, and the thematic analysis based on the interview transcripts clearly shows that the courses had an impact on the length and frequency of reading periods in the classroom, on the importance given to more personal aspects of reading, such as the interpretation and reaction of readers, and on the diversity of the evaluation methods used by a more marked use of oral means. 6.5.2. The benefits of the material offered: books, document cameras, reading corners The teachers point out that the project has enabled them to create and develop an environment in the classroom that is conducive and favorable to reading. They say they have been able to obtain books of various forms and

Supporting the Professional Development of Elementary School Teachers

103

genres, literary works and information books. They now report that they present a wide variety of books, albums, novels, comics, magazines, dictionaries, etc. to students, which they can present on attractive shelves and displays. They use a document camera to animate interactive readings in their classrooms, and sometimes even on a daily basis. They have also been able to create reading corners, that is, different areas in their classroom where students can sit comfortably to read on chairs, cushions, carpets, where they can choose books, paper and pencils to read and write. They can also listen to audio books. Female teachers seem to be satisfied with the variety of materials available to better develop their students’ interest in reading and to better teach them to read a variety of texts and appreciate literary works. They report exchanging materials with each other to diversify their teaching practices at key times. Finally, seeing the positive impacts on students of a rich book environment that encourages the development of a taste for reading, they are faced with the following challenge: how to fill and renew their reading corners frequently? 6.5.3. The benefits of the book fair In April 2017, the book fair, held directly in the school and organized by a committee of teachers and researchers, was one of the highlights of action research, a highlight during which teachers, students and visitors were able to obtain books of various forms and genres, and experience book mediation activities and an author’s meeting. The series of interviews conducted in June 2017, two months after the book fair, revealed various impacts of this activity on teachers and their students, particularly in terms of access to books. The teachers pointed out that this event allowed both adults and children to familiarize themselves with a significant quantity of books, many of which were offered by an Aboriginal bookstore. Using the action research budget, students had to buy a book for the class and a book for home. Both students and their teachers said they enjoyed this unique experience. The students took advantage of this opportunity to share discoveries with each other, to exchange books and to consult each other in order to select complementary works for their class. Several teachers stated that they had been pleasantly surprised, even knocked off their feet by some students’ book choices who they considered to have reading difficulties, but who were immersed in complex works in a purely passionate way, according to their interests. They thus revised one of their questions from the beginning of the action research which revolved around the choice of works according to

104

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

student age only. The book fair, considered a precedent for the school, was beneficial for teachers and students, making books objects of sharing and exchange in the school and out-of-school community. 6.5.4. The impact on students Although, as part of the action research, the team of researchers was particularly interested in the teaching content and the teachers themselves, the interviews revealed various impacts of the project on students. Teachers reported a change in students’ attitudes towards reading and books. “The children are becoming more and more autonomous, they are reading better and better”, says teacher E4é. The students seemed more enthusiastic and stimulated by the reading activities; they also seemed more attentive during their reading activities: “Everyone is reading! I don’t have anyone sulking or refusing to read, unlike others years” (teacher E4). Students participated more in class to express their reaction and their appreciation; many were less embarrassed to speak out to discuss their reading. It should be remembered that, for many of the school’s students, French is not their mother tongue and that speaking in front of an audience is a challenge. It is the teachers working with younger students who report seeing immediate positive and marked impacts; older students, from the end of elementary school, face greater challenges in immersing themselves in reading, as they have not been nourished by this innovative approach since the beginning of their education. That said, teacher E5, who works in the third cycle and teaches mathematics, told the following anecdote at a pedagogical café, demonstrating the team’s desire to train readers not only to succeed in school but also to thrive in life: during a ski trip, she brought a few books with her on the bus. She distributed them to the students, who were quick to read them during the trip. “At lunchtime, even the driver made them read”, she added, concluding that “bringing the books changed their lives!”. 6.6. Conclusion In this chapter, we have presented highlights of interventions undertaken for the professional development of female elementary school teachers in an Aboriginal community to improve and refine their teaching and reading assessment practices. The action research, in a more global way, also aims to

Supporting the Professional Development of Elementary School Teachers

105

develop writing teaching practices and the use of information and communication technologies for years 2 and 3 of the project. Further results are therefore to come on this subject. While the benefits presented here are positive, we know that challenges remain, particularly in terms of access to books once the research is completed. In addition, further training on reading assessment and literary appreciation would be welcome to ensure the sustainability of improved teaching practices through the training provided. It should also be noted that, to accompany the training, female teachers received teaching materials specifying aspects dealt with on the development of a taste for reading and the teaching of reading (Atwell and Atwell 2017; Brasseur 2003; Pennac and Blake 2016). These professional resources make it possible, in a way, to keep written records of training courses. In conclusion, it should be noted that various factors contribute to the success of the ongoing action research. Among these, emphasis must be placed on the trust and respect shared by the members of the research team, the school team staff and the group of practitioners. The leadership of the pedagogical counselor and the commitment of the school principal and teachers are at the heart of the success of such a collaborative approach that extends over time. Finally, listening to the needs of the community and the sincere desire to respond to them, through a competent team of trainers, are also decisive factors for the success of action research and for the impacts that we hope will be felt long after the research team has left. 6.7. Bibliography Archambault, H. (2010). “Quels sont les facteurs favorisant ou inhibant la réussite éducative des élèves autochtones?” First Peoples Child & Family Review. 5(2), 107–116. Atwell, N., Atwell Merkel, A. (2017). La zone lecture. Comment former des lecteurs compétents, passionnés et critiques. D’eux, Sherbrooke. Barone, D.M. (2012). Children’s Literature in the Classroom. Engaging Lifelong Readers. The Guilford Press, New York-London. Brasseur, P. (2003). 1001 activités autour du livre. Casterman, Paris.

106

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Clot, Y. (1999). La fonction psychologique du travail. Presses universitaires de France, Paris. da Silveira, Y. (2013). “Le développement bilingue des élèves autochtones: un état de la question”. In La formation des enseignants inuit et de Premières Nations. Problématiques et pistes d’action, Maheux, G., Gauthier, R. (eds). Presses de l’Université du Québec, Quebec, 125–143. da Silveira, Y., Blaser, C., Maheux, G., Moldoveanu, M., Pellerin, G. (2015). Exploration de nouvelles pratiques d’enseignement pour favoriser le développement de la compétence à écrire d’élèves anicinapek et innus du primaire. FRQ-SC, Quebec. Delbrassine, D. (2007). Découvrir la “lecture littéraire ” avec des romans écrits pour la jeunesse. Presses universitaires de Namur, Namur. Dufays, J.-L. (2011), “Les textes du lecteur en situation scolaire”. In Textes de lecteurs en formation, Mazauric, C., Fourtanier, M.-J., Langlade, G. (eds). Peter Lang, Brussels, 19–32. Dufays, J.-L., Gemenne, L., Ledur, D. (2015). Pour une lecture littéraire. Histoire, théories, pistes pour la pratique, 3rd edition. De Boeck, Brussels. Dumortier, J.-L. (1999). “Pour composer des questionnaires de compréhension qui favorisent l’autonomie du lecteur”. Vie pédagogique, 118, 51–54. Dumortier, J.-L. (2005). Tout petit traité de narratologie buissonnière à l’usage des professeurs de français qui envisagent de former non de tout petits (et très mauvais) narratologues mais des amateurs éclairés de récits de fiction. Presses universitaires de Namur, Namur. Dumortier, J.-L. (2006). “Conduite esthétique, jugement esthétique et écriture de soi”. Repères, 34, 185–213. Dumortier, J.-L. (2010). “La formation littéraire à l’école primaire”. Vivre le primaire, 23(1), 22–24. Falardeau, É. (2003). “Compréhension et interprétation: deux composantes complémentaires de la lecture littéraire”. Revue des sciences de l’éducation. 29(3), 673–694. Gabathuler, C. (2016). Apprécier la littérature. La relation esthétique dans l’enseignement de la lecture de textes littéraires. Presses universitaires de Rennes, Rennes. Giasson, J. (2011). La lecture. Apprentissage et difficultés. Gaëtan Morin et Chenelière Éducation, Montreal.

Supporting the Professional Development of Elementary School Teachers

107

Hébert, M. (2011). “Annoter un journal de lecture: quels gestes évaluatifs pour mieux soutenir ‘l’action’ du jeune sujet lecteur ?” Mesure et évaluation en éducation, 34(3), 51–78. Langer, J.A. (2011). Envisioning Literature. Literary Understanding and Literature Instruction, 2nd edition. Teachers College Press, New York and London. Lépine, M. (2017). L’enseignement de la lecture/appréciation des œuvres littéraires à l’école primaire: enquête sur les pratiques déclarées et les conceptions d’enseignants québécois. PhD thesis, Université de Montréal, Montreal. Lévesque, C., Polèse, G. (2015). Cahiers DIALOG: une synthèse des connaissances sur la réussite et la persévérance scolaires des élèves autochtones au Québec et dans les autres provinces canadiennes. INRS, Montreal. Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS) (2006). Programme de formation de l’école québécoise. Gouvernement du Québec, Quebec. Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS) (2009). “L’éducation des populations scolaires dans les communautés autochtones du Québec en 2009”. Bulletin statistique de l’éducation, Gouvernement du Québec, 39, 1–21. Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS) (2009/2011). Progression des apprentissages au primaire. Gouvernement du Québec, Quebec. Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS) (2011). Cadre d’évaluation des apprentissages. Français, langue d’enseignement. Enseignement primaire 1er, 2e et 3e cycle. Gouvernement du Québec, Quebec. Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS) (2013). “L’éducation des populations scolaires dans les communautés autochtones du Québec en 2010”. Bulletin statistique de l’éducation, Gouvernement du Québec, 42, 1–26. Morris, L., O’Sullivan, D. (2007). L’acquisition du français ou de l’anglais langues secondes par les élèves autochtones de la maternelle à la sixième année du primaire: les défis à relever. Research Report, Fonds québécois de recherche sur la société et la culture, Quebec. Pennac, D., Blake, Q. (2016). Comme un roman. D’eux, Sherbrooke. Rouxel, A. (2007). “De la tension entre utiliser et interpréter dans la réception des œuvres littéraires en classe: réflexion sur une inversion des valeurs au fil du cursus”. In Enseigner et apprendre la littérature aujourd’hui, pour quoi faire ? Sens, utilité, évaluation, Dufays, J.-L. (ed.). Presses universitaires de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 45–54. Secrétariat des commissions de l’Assemblée nationale du Québec (2007). Mandat d’initiative: la réussite scolaire des Autochtones. Secrétariat des commissions de l’Assemblée nationale du Québec.

108

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Tauveron, C. (2005). “Que veut dire évaluer la lecture littéraire? Cas d’élèves en difficulté de lecture”. Repères, 31, 73–112. van Es, E.A., Sherin, M.G. (2008). “Mathematics teachers’ ‘learning to notice’ in the context of a video club”. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (2), 244–276.

7 When Researchers Discover that Organizational and Collaboration Models that are Still Not Very Explicit for School Stakeholders

7.1. Introduction Children from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to fail in learning to write, starting in the first year of elementary school (Puranik and Al Otaiba 2012). The transition from kindergarten to elementary school is identified as conducive to the emergence of writing difficulties, especially among this vulnerable population (McClelland et al. 2006). This chapter presents the same study twice. The first part deals with the progress of the centered study on the description of effective school organization and collaboration models that support the development of children’s writing skills during the transition of disadvantaged children from kindergarten1 to the first year of elementary school. The second part discusses the results disseminated as well as the preferred means of dissemination in order to reach practitioners, pedagogical advisors and other school stakeholders concerned by this issue.

Chapter written by Nathalie PRÉVOST and Catherine TURCOTTE. 1 In this study conducted in Quebec, kindergarten (5 years old) corresponds to the main section of the pre-school in France.

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice, First Edition. Edited by Sophie Briquet-Duhazé and Catherine Turcotte. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

110

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

7.2. Context and issues Recent data show that even today, some primary school students still have difficulties in learning to write, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds (Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux 2008). Studies show that young children from disadvantaged backgrounds are disadvantaged because they have less access to written materials within their families and communities (Allington et al. 2010; Constantino 2005; Neuman and Celano 2001), receive less language stimulation (Hart and Risley 1995) and experience fewer activities related to writing (Ozturk 2016; Senechal and Martini 2002; Senechal and Martini 2012; Senechal and LeFevre 2014) than in privileged settings. As a result, children from disadvantaged backgrounds do not always understand and have difficulty making sense of writing skills and their usefulness, which often leads to failure (Cabell et al. 2013). The challenge of teaching these students to write is therefore twofold. Firstly, they have little incentive to value and understand the functions of the written word. Secondly, they are poorly stimulated in terms of the fundamental learning that allows them to successfully enter the world of writing. In addition to the difficulties experienced by these students during their first contact with writing in kindergarten, the transition from kindergarten to year 1 of elementary school represents another stage vulnerable to the appearance of persistent writing difficulties according to the document entitled “Le plaisir de lire et d'écrire, ça commence avant l'école” (the pleasure of reading starts before school) from the Quebec Ministry of Education, Leisure and Sport (Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport 2003). The transition from kindergarten to elementary school represents a major academic transition in the child's life (Ahtola 2011). Between kindergarten and the first year of elementary school, students experience a transition between two cycles of education with very different aims (Bart 2007; Duval and Bouchard 2013a; Riley and Jones 2010). The pedagogical environment of these two divisions differs in several respects, particularly with respect to the place given to play as a context for learning and development. In this sense, the design of the environment of time, daily activities and routines is considered differently according to the kindergarten child and the elementary school student (Entwisle and Alexander 1998; Florin and Crammer 2010; Goos et al. 2010; Pianta and Stuhlman 2004). The results of the Quebec survey “En route pour l’école!” (Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux 2008) agree and show that one in three children

When Researchers Discover that Models are Still Not Explicit for Stakeholders

111

are at risk of experiencing difficulties during the maternal transition to Grade 1 of elementary school. Once again, the survey reveals that the risks are higher when these students come from disadvantaged backgrounds. The results obtained in a study by McWayne et al. (2009), conducted with children from disadvantaged backgrounds, point in the same direction. They also reveal that writing difficulties encountered during this transition period pose risks to students’ subsequent academic success. In addition to the change in the organization of activities and the school environment, teaching practices related to writing vary greatly from one class to another. Indeed, while some teachers value more academic activities oriented towards the acquisition of specific written knowledge, others avoid this type of activity, while other teachers will even combine a variety of playful and formal approaches to get children into writing (Peterson et al. 2016; Puranik 2014). Thus, not all students have the same knowledge and experience of writing when they enter kindergarten, and this knowledge may develop in very different ways depending on the class they attend. Some questions therefore emerge from these findings: how can we stimulate and encourage students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds to start writing? How can this be done while promoting a successful transition of their learning when they are in the first year of elementary school? Considering the major issue of the transition from kindergarten to elementary school and the possible repercussions on written learning, this chapter first describes a study that focused on describing practices and models of service organization and collaboration among stakeholders at K-5 and Grade 1 levels, with the objective of fostering a successful transition of written learning. Secondly, this chapter will present the measures related to the dissemination of results in schools. 7.3. Reference framework 7.3.1. Educational continuity According to Joncas, educational continuity implies a continuation in the child’s experience and, in this sense, it suggests a linking of their immediate experience to their previous experience, then a progressive introduction to their subsequent experience (Joncas 1997).

112

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

This continuity is desirable in the school environment, since it encourages the creation of conditions conducive to interaction between new learning and previous learning. Some conditions for the implementation of this continuity in the school environment have been identified, such as the importance of leadership, consultation and effective communication between the various school stakeholders as well as collaboration with the children’s families (Jacques and Deslandes 2002; Mangione and Speth 1998; Pierce and Bruns 2013). Taking these conditions into account requires real teamwork among school stakeholders and an understanding of the transition. This period, characterized by the transition from kindergarten to Grade 1 of elementary school, forces children to adjust to the new social and academic requirements of the educational environment (Duval and Bouchard 2013b). This transition, during which much learning can take place, is likely to be more successful when children receive support tailored to their needs (Joncas 1997). This makes it possible for children to make connections between their past experiences in kindergarten and their new experiences in Grade 1 of elementary school. According to Marcel et al. (2007), in order to facilitate a successful transition, it is essential that teachers in kindergarten and Grade 1 adopt teaching practices that refer to the act of teaching, and organizational practices that refer more to the collective dimension within the school. With regard to writing, it is essential to take into account the characteristics of the writing system as well as the various conditions allowing its appropriation, in order to promote a transition of learning between the two school orders. 7.3.2. Learning object: written French If learning to write is a great challenge for the majority of young students, it is because it depends on an economic, but complex, writing system. Indeed, the French alphabet is economical, because it allows an infinite number of words to be formed from a fixed number of letters, that is 26. Learning the name and sound of letters is therefore necessary to master this written code (Prévost 2016; Treiman 2012). Phonological awareness (syllables, rhymes and phonemes) is a crucial element for effective writing, as it makes it possible to become aware of the units and manipulate them (Fayol 2017; Levac and Lefebvre 2017). These teachings about letters and sounds in turn strengthen the understanding of the alphabetical principle. This principle is mastered by students when they understand that there is a

When Researchers Discover that Models are Still Not Explicit for Stakeholders

113

link between oral and written language and that sounds in words appear in the same sequence in oral and written language. This definitive link between oral and written communication leads to more formal learning of lettersound correspondence, usually in the first year, which is crucial for encoding words and appropriating spelling. These first fundamental teachings (sounds and names of letters, phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, alphabetical principle) are considered as pillars (Burns 2003; Dickinson 2010; Lawrence and Snow 2010) to support the development of writing in Grade 1 and throughout the school year. They can be observed during a writing test of certain targeted words according to their linguistic characteristics (Bourassa and Treiman 2009; Ouellette and Sénéchal 2017). Unlike oral word learning, which is carried out for the majority of children through quality verbal exchanges with others, learning specifically related to writing requires greater support, or even more direct teaching, in order to build the self (Cunningham and Stanovich 1998). And, as presented at the beginning of this discussion, children from disadvantaged backgrounds need even more attention in these respects when they arrive at school. In addition, when implementing these fundamental learning processes, it is equally necessary for students to develop an appreciation and understanding of the functions of the written word (Chauveau et al. 1993). Phonological awareness activities, including phonemic awareness, sound and letter name learning activities, and alphabetic principle activities are not significant if they are detached from any sociocultural activity related to writing. It is when students write to communicate, respond, invite, record and tell that they develop a meaningful personal project for learning about writing, based on the cultural and linguistic aspects of this activity. This cultural context is all the more essential for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who, as Cabell et al. (2013), often have difficulty attributing meaning to writing tasks in school. Thus, knowing that entry into writing is supported by a set of conditions and learning processes that are worth thinking about in continuity between kindergarten and the first year of elementary school, this chapter highlights ways in which it is possible to better understand how school teams achieve this. 7.4. Methodology In order to meet the objective of describing how practitioners are able to promote a successful transition in literacy learning among students from

114

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

disadvantaged backgrounds, this research adopted an interview method that allowed us to understand the solutions found by those who have thought about the transition problem before. 7.4.1. Participants During the school recruitment phase, some school boards did not have any particular groups to suggest. They said they had never heard of such a concern in their schools. However, they were curious to know the results of our study, once it was completed. After a few reminders to the Director of Educational Resources and pedagogical advisors from the 61 Frenchlanguage school boards in Quebec, four schools were named by their school boards as models to encourage students in disadvantaged areas to learn about the written word, and as having developed transition practices between kindergarten and Grade 1. However, it should be noted that none of them had undertaken any reflective analysis work on this organization and collaboration for which they were recognized as exemplary by the school administration or pedagogical advisors. The four schools were from four administrative regions of the province of Quebec and did not know each other. 7.4.2. Instrument and procedure A focus group was preferred, as it allows participants sharing the same experience to understand the reality of the situation and to draw up profiles of a given context, without seeking to reach a consensus (Baribeau 2009). In addition, the focus group allows, among other things, to identify the characteristics specific to specific types of organizations (Krueger and Casey 2009). The focus group interviews were semi-structured to allow for some openness in the discussions and a better understanding of the specificities of the school reality in each setting with respect to the transition from kindergarten to Grade 1. The questions asked by the researcher were first general and then more specific (Krueger and Casey 2009). The themes discussed during this interview touched on different aspects of the transition such as objectives, operating methods, difficulties encountered, practices (by teachers and other stakeholders) during the working meetings, as well as the

When Researchers Discover that Models are Still Not Explicit for Stakeholders

115

organization and collaboration between the various transition stakeholders. The interviews were recorded and lasted approximately 75 minutes. All schools were met several times to document both children’s progress in writing and teaching practices in writing. However, in this chapter, only data from focus groups that took place in the last year of the project will be discussed. 7.5. Analysis of the interviews The data from the interviews were analyzed in two stages. First, the verbatim of each of the focus group was transcribed as accurately as possible in order to find the exact words used by each participant. In a second step, a transcription of the verbatim was made, aiming at a reduction in the number of data and the identification of critical themes for each of the questions. Such a reduction was necessary to eliminate repetitions and preserve the essence of the exchanges. To do this, the verbatim was transcribed into a two-column table. In the left-hand column, the participants’ words were transcribed in such a way as to preserve most of what they said. This reduction took into account the frequency with which the theme appears in the discourse, the specific details of the theme and the importance given to the theme by participants. In the right-hand column, two researchers collected these themes separately, keeping in mind the reference framework on educational continuity and teaching practices. Finally, these two researchers discussed these themes in order to reach a consensus. This qualitative analysis of the data from the focus groups provides privileged access to practices and organizational modes, while preserving the contextual elements of the exchanges that took place between the participants (Baribeau 2009). 7.6. Results Overall, analysis of the focus group data identified five key transition factors present in the collaborative and organizational work of the four participating school teams, notwithstanding the individual differences of each school team. These key factors can serve as benchmarks in the implementation of work towards a successful transition from kindergarten to Grade 1 of elementary school.

116

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

7.6.1. Key factor 1: initiating dialog and engaging transitionfriendly practices The first key factor was to initiate dialog and transition-friendly practices. Consultation between school stakeholders promoted the development of a clear vision of learning to be achieved in continuity between kindergarten and the first year of elementary school in terms of writing. To do this, kindergarten and Grade 1 teachers set aside time, for example, to discuss the expectations of the curriculum in the school, both in kindergarten and in the first year of elementary school. During these moments of reflection and exchange, school stakeholders clarified their respective roles and harmonized their practices in order to promote successful learning during the transition. This pedagogical continuity between kindergarten and the first year of elementary school made it possible to offer children more effective support that was more adapted to their needs (Duval and Bouchard 2013b). In this way, children were better able to gradually adapt to the new requirements of Grade 1 of elementary school. 7.6.2. Key factor 2: developing a transition plan The second key factor was to develop a transition plan, in order to define pedagogical objectives for specific learning about written language (e.g. knowledge of lower-case letters, understanding of story elements, etc.), ensuring continuity rather than discontinuity between kindergarten and Grade 1. Thus, when students arrive in the first year of elementary school, some experiences are lived again and reinvested to create a climate of trust, while gradually introducing more complex learning content. For example, in one of the participating schools, the principal, teachers and remedial teacher defined graduated expectations between the middle of kindergarten and the middle of grade one for frequent word writing. The first expectations focused more on writing first names. Then, the expectations aimed at a progressive appropriation of the alphabetical principle during various writing activities related to the themes and contexts used in the classroom. The creation of this common thread helps to facilitate the development of knowledge and skills about the written word and to foster a greater appreciation and sense of competence towards these learning processes during this critical transition. The fact that the preferred pedagogical approaches in the first year of elementary school are close to those of

When Researchers Discover that Models are Still Not Explicit for Stakeholders

117

kindergarten would help the child to better adapt to the new requirements of the first year of elementary school education (Marcel et al. 2007). 7.6.3. Key factor 3: giving importance to oral and written language in the school and classroom The third key factor is to give an important place to oral and written language in the school and in the classroom. In the participating schools, both in kindergarten and in the first year of elementary school, a variety of rich activities are developed and offered daily to children, involving letters, sounds, words, comprehension and written production based on both playful and more formal approaches, using a variety of materials (e.g. children’s literature, sound cards, tunes, documentaries, spontaneous writing, thematics). In February, the school administration also organized a day dedicated to Quebec children’s literature, during which an author was invited to lead a storytelling workshop. During this workshop, kindergarten and Grade 1 students were paired up. All these planned and spontaneous activities encouraged the development of language knowledge and writing and reading skills. This key factor was consistent with the idea that oral and written language skills and knowledge jointly contribute to academic success (Pagani et al. 2011). 7.6.4. Key factor 4: providing leadership during this transition The fourth key factor identifies leadership as an essential element for successful collaboration and collaboration during the transition. This leadership can be shared among the various stakeholders or led by a key person. For example, in one of the participating schools, teachers in both cycles were responsible for creating a timeline of realistic expectations for students’ writing development. The school principal then took the lead in organizing schedules to facilitate meetings between professionals. The remedial teacher took the lead in assessing students’ knowledge and strategies. In this way, throughout the year, targeted interventions were offered to students with special needs. The pedagogical adviser went into the classroom once a month to experiment with teachers on new approaches based on research. This example illustrates well how leadership can facilitate the articulation and coordination of various actions, the maintenance of

118

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

timelines and objectives, and the implementation of follow-up on group decisions (Ahtola et al. 2011). 7.6.5. Key factor 5: planning student follow-up between kindergarten and Grade 1 of elementary school The fifth key factor is the planning of student follow-up between kindergarten and Grade 1 of elementary school. The school environment changes between kindergarten and Grade 1. Monitoring students from kindergarten onwards allows Grade 1 teachers to better welcome them and observe how they adapt to their new context. Screening students’ needs during kindergarten, combined with monitoring their progress and the transmission of this information to Grade 1, is therefore the key to a successful transition. Finally, it is essential that stakeholders work together on the most appropriate interventions to facilitate a successful transition for students with special needs. 7.7. Dissemination of results to the school community These key factors in the successful transition that emerged from the analyses as having significance in similar environments were the subject of an accompanying guide in order to disseminate these successful conditions to a wider audience. In this accompanying guide, these key factors are presented in order to stimulate reflection and perhaps their implementation in school environments that wish to promote a successful transition of written learning during the transition from kindergarten to Grade 1 of elementary school. More precisely, each of the factors is defined in such a way as to target the bulk of their contribution to the successful transition of literacy learning processes. In addition, strategies are proposed to take this factor into account in the implementation of collaborative and consultation work within the school team. Finally, examples of implementation from the observations and focus groups conducted with the participating school teams are presented, in order to contextualize these factors in the school reality. This guide is particularly suitable for school teams operating in the form of learning communities, such as those encountered in this study, to facilitate the transition.

When Researchers Discover that Models are Still Not Explicit for Stakeholders

119

7.8. Conclusion Sometimes researchers are interested in a problem or context that may not necessarily be of concern to practitioners. This was particularly the case in this project, for which we received funding, as well as several expressions of interest in the results, but without finding communities that could serve as references to document their approaches and solutions. Thus, the dissemination was carried out in the form of a guide in order to raise awareness of this issue in the community while offering avenues for future work. This guide also expresses the interest of this transition from pre-school to elementary education, which involves new academic and social requirements for children. In this sense, it is a pivotal period, when the support offered to the student is particularly important and when the relationships between the different educational environments play a crucial role. 7.9. Bibliography Ahtola, A., Silinskas, G., Poikonen, P.-L., Kontoniemi, M., Niemi, P., Nurmi, J.E. (2011). “Transition to formal schooling: Do transition practices matter for academic performance?” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 295–302. Allington, R.L., McGill-Franzen, A., Camilli, G., Williams, L., Graff, J., Zeig, J., Zmach, C., Nowak, R. (2010). “Addressing summer reading setback among economically disadvantaged elementary students”. Reading Psychology, 31(5), 411–427. Baribeau, C. (2009). “Analyse des données des entretiens de groupe”. Recherches qualitatives, 28(1), 133–148. Bart, O., Hajami, D., Bar-Haim, Y. (2007). “Predicting school adjustment from motor abilities in kindergarten”. Infant and Child Development, 16, 597–615. Bourassa, D., Treiman, R. (2009). “Linguistic foundations of spelling development”. In Routledge International Handbook of English, Language and Literacy Teaching, Wyse, D., Andrews, R., Hoffman, J. (eds). Routledge, London, 182–192. Burns, S., Espinosa, L., Snow, C.E. (2003). “Débuts de la littératie, langue et culture : perspective socioculturelle”. Revue des sciences de l’éducation, 29(1), 75–100.

120

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Cabell, S.Q., Justice, L.M., Logan, J.A., Konold, T.R. (2013). “Emergent literacy profiles among prekindergarten children from low-SES backgrounds: Longitudinal considerations”. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(3), 608–620. Chauveau, G., Rémond, M., Rogovas-Chauveau, E. (1993). L’enfant apprenti lecteur : l’entrée dans le système écrit. L’Harmattan, Paris. Constantino, R. (2005). “Print environments between high and low socioeconomic status communities”. Teacher Librarian, 32(3), 22–25. Cunningham, A.E., Stanovich, K.E. (1998). “What reading does for the mind”. American Educator, 22, 8–17. Dickinson, D.K., Golinkoff, R.M., Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2010). “Speaking out for language: Why language is central to reading development”. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 305–310. Duval, S., Bouchard, C. (2013a). “La transition de l’éducation préscolaire vers l’enseignement primaire et l’ajustement socioscolaire des élèves de première année”. Réussir et soutenir : regards croisés des sciences de l’éducation, special edition (1), 18–29. Duval, S., Bouchard, C. (2013b). “Transition de l’élève de l’éducation préscolaire vers l’enseignement primaire”. Nouveaux cahiers de la recherche en éducation, 16(2), 147–181. Entwisle, D.R., Alexander, K.L. (1998). “Facilitating the transition to first grade: The nature of transition and research on factors affecting it”. The elementary school journal, 351–364. Fayol, M. (2017). L’acquisition de l’écrit. Presses universitaires de France, Paris. Florin, A., Crammer, C. (2010). Enseigner à l’école maternelle: de la recherche aux gestes professionnels. Hatier, Paris. Goos, M., Van, Damme, J., Onghena, P., Petry K. (2010). “First-grade retention: effects on children’s psychosocial growth throughout elementary education”. Rencontre biannuelle de l’Association européenne pour la recherche sur l’apprentissage et l’instruction. Louvain (August 25–27, 2010). Hart, B., Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Paul, H. (ed.), Brookes Publishing, Baltimore. Jacques, M., Deslandes, R. (2002). “Transition à la maternelle et relations école famille. Comprendre la famille”. In Actes du 6e symposium québécois de recherche sur la famille, Lacharité C. and G. Pronovost (eds). Presses de l’Université du Québec, Quebec.

When Researchers Discover that Models are Still Not Explicit for Stakeholders

121

Joncas, M. (1997). “Continuité éducative et adaptation de l’enfant en maternelle”. Revue préscolaire, 35(3), 17–20. Krueger, R.A., Casey, M.A. (2009). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 4th edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Lawrence, J.F., Snow, C.E. (2010). “Oral discourse and reading”. In Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 4, Kamil, M.L., Pearson, P.D. et al. (eds). Routledge, New York. Levac, N., Lefebvre, P. (2017). “La validité prédictive de deux outils de dépistage des enfants francophones d’âge préscolaire à risque de développer des difficultés de lecture et d’écriture”. Diversity of Research in Health Journal, 1, 135. Mangione, P.L., Speth, T. (1998). “The transition to elementary school: A framework for creating continuity through home, school, and community partnerships”. The Elementary School Journal, 98(4), 382–397. Marcel, J.-F., Dupriez, V., Périsset Bagnoud, D. (2007). “Le métier d’enseignant: nouvelles pratiques, nouvelles recherches”. In Coordonner, collaborer, coopérer: de nouvelles pratiques enseignantes, Marcel, J.-F., Dupriez, V., Périsset Bagnoud, D. et al. (eds). De Boeck, Brussels. McClelland, M.M., Acock, A.C., Morrison, F.J. (2006). “The impact of kindergarten learning-related skills on academic trajectories at the end of elementary school”. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(4), 471–490. McWayne, C.M., Green, L.E., Fantuzzo, J.W. (2009). “A variable- and personoriented investigation of preschool competencies and Head Start children’s transition to kindergarten and first grade”. Applied Developmental Science, 13(1), 1–15. Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS) (2003). “Le plaisir de lire et d’écrire, ça commence bien avant l’École”. Cahier de mise en œuvre 2003–2007. Gouvernement du Québec, Quebec. Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux (MSSS) (2008). En route pour l’école ! Enquête sur la maturité scolaire des enfants montréalais. Regional Report. Quebec. Neuman, S.B., Celano, D. (2001). “Access to print in low-income and middleincome communities: An ecological study of four neighborhoods”. Reading Research Quarterly, 36 (1), 8–26. Ouellette, G., Sénéchal, M. (2017). “Invented spelling in kindergarten as a predictor of reading and spelling in Grade 1: A new pathway to literacy, or just the same road, less known?” Developmental Psychology, 53 (1), 77–88.

122

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Ozturk, G., Hill, S., Yates, G. (2016). “The role of parental practices and expectations on five-year old children’s phonological awareness and letter-word knowledge”. Australian Association for Research in Education Conference 2016, Melbourne, Australia, 21–25. Pagani, L.S., Fitzpatrick, C., Belleau, L., Janosz, M. (2011). “Prédire la réussite scolaire des enfants en quatrième année à partir de leurs habiletés cognitives, comportementales et motrices à la maternelle”. Étude longitudinale du développement des enfants du Québec (ÉLDEQ 1998–2010) – De la naissance à 10 ans, Institut de la statistique du Québec. Quebec. Peterson, S.S., McIntyre, L.J., Forsyth, D. (2016). “Supporting young children’s oral language and writing development: Teachers’ and early childhood educators’ goals and practices”. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(3), 11–19. Pianta, R.C., Stuhlman, M.W. (2004). “Teacher-child relationships and children’s success in the first years of school”. School Psychology Review, 33 (3), 444–458. Pierce, C.D., Bruns, D.A. (2013). “Aligning components of recognition and response to intervention to improve transition to primary school”. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41, 347–354. Prévost, N. (2016). Portrait de l’évolution de la connaissance des lettres chez des enfants de maternelle au Québec. PhD thesis, University of Sherbrooke. Puranik, C.S., Al Otaiba, S. (2012), “Examining the contribution of handwriting and spelling to written expression in kindergarten children”. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1523–1546. Puranik, C.S., Al Otaiba, S., Sidler, J.F., Greulich, L. (2014). “Exploring the amount and type of writing instruction during language arts instruction in kindergarten classrooms”. Reading and Writing, 27(2), 213–236. Riley, J.G., Jones, R.B. (2010). “Acknowledging learning through play in the primary grades”. Childhood Education, 86 (3), 146–149. Senechal, M., LeFevre, J.O. (2002). “Parental involvement in the development of children’s reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study”. Child Development, 73(2), 445–460. Senechal, M., Martini, F. (2012). “Learning literacy skills at home: Parent teaching, expectations, and child interest”. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 44(3), 1–12. Senechal, M., LeFevre, J.O. (2014). “Continuity and change in the home literacy environment as predictors of growth in vocabulary and reading”. Child Development, 85(4), 1–17.

When Researchers Discover that Models are Still Not Explicit for Stakeholders

123

Treiman, R., Levin, I., Kessler, B. (2012). “Linking the shapes of alphabet letters to their sounds: The case of Hebrew”. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25(2), 569–585. Turcotte, C., Prévost, N., Benjamin, F. (2016). “Continuité dans les expériences d’apprentissage de l’écrit entre la maternelle et la première année du primaire en milieux défavorisés”. La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation, 76, 11–26.

8 Encouraging the Appropriation of Research Results on Morphological Knowledge by School Stakeholders

8.1. Introduction The field of linguistics distinguishes between inflectional morphology and derivational morphology (Gonnerman 2018). Inflectional morphology refers to the variations, in gender and number, of nouns (cousin: cousine [feminine]/cousins [plural]1) and adjectives (petit [small]: petite [small, feminine]/petits [small, plural]) as well as variations in tense, in person and in verb agreement (e.g. porter [to carry] je porte [I carry]/je portais [I carried]). Inflectional morphology is present in Quebec ministerial prescriptions and school textbooks. In this chapter, we are more interested in derivational morphology, which concerns the structure of words and their formation rules (Huot 2001). Derivational knowledge makes it possible to perceive, when reading the word peureux [nervous], for example, that it contains two morphemes, namely the peur base and the suffix -eux, with eux signifying something “characteristic”, in turn allowing us to infer that this word refers to a person who is afraid. Understanding the significance of this suffix allows us to make connections with terms that include the same suffix, such as, for example, courageux [courageous] and paresseux [lazy], just like knowing the peur base allows us to make connections with the Chapter written by Rachel BERTHIAUME. 1 The examples in this chapter refer to French with an English translation provided in square brackets.

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice, First Edition. Edited by Sophie Briquet-Duhazé and Catherine Turcotte. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

126

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

French words peureusement [nervously], apeurant [scary], etc. This knowledge contributes to the development of reading, writing and vocabulary in students as soon as they start to learn to read and write, in addition to facilitating their access to the meaning of unknown words and allowing them to better understand the texts they must read (see for example (Casalis et al. 2009; Kieffer et al. 2013; Kirby et al. 2012; St-Pierre 2018)). Despite recent advances in research on the development of morphological knowledge and its contribution to written language learning, and despite derivational morphology occupying a specific place in Quebec ministerial prescriptions (the Quebec ministerial document used to mark the progress of learning in French, the language of instruction in elementary school, for example, contains a couple of references to derivational morphology), there are few French-language teaching tools and textbooks that specifically refer to it and allow it to be taught. However, the teachers we encounter on a daily basis often express to us the wish to have access to such material. These findings motivated the creation and publication of a teaching manual, La morphologie pour mieux lire et écrire Berthiaume et al. (Berthiaume et al. 2017) and the challenges of its design are explained in this chapter. The first step is to define what derivational morphology is and briefly report on the results of research conducted on this subject over the past three decades. We will then describe the approach we adopted to conduct our cross-sectional research aiming to explore the morphological knowledge of students from Grades 1 to 6 of elementary school. Finally, the challenges of translating the results of this research into a didactic book and the teamwork between researchers and teachers in such a process are presented. To conclude, general observations are proposed in order to better delimit the roles of each stakeholder in the context of the process of transferring scientific results for practical purposes. 8.2. Question and theoretical framework Learning to read and write is considered by many researchers to be the cornerstone of an elementary school student’s academic journey (see, among others, (Blanc 2009; Labrecque et al. 2012; Slavin et al. 2009)). Success in reading and writing is the foundation for both success in other school subjects and full participation in adult life (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development 2010). However, this learning process is complex, since it is associated with a large number of oral and written skills

Encouraging the Appropriation of Research Results

127

that students develop over a long period of time (Ecalle and Magnan, 2010). When they start school, students usually already know a certain amount of spoken words. The challenge for teachers is therefore to encourage them to reinvest this knowledge in their writing processes. To do so, it is essential that they have access to tools and guidelines to guide and support them in meeting this challenge. Currently, research-based classroom practices aimed at literacy development are based on an approach described as mixed, in which the processes of word recognition and production are primarily taught first, with students then gradually developing the processes related to reading comprehension and text production (Daigle, Berthiaume, Ruberto and Wolter, 2018). This mixed approach is enshrined in the Programme de formation de l’école Québécoise (Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et des Sports du Québec 2006) and in the curricula of several Western school systems (e.g. (Ministère de l’Éducation nationale, France 2006; Ministère de l’Éducation de l’Ontario 2006)). This mix of teaching practices is in part the result of findings from the impressive synthesis of the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 2000), which identified areas of reading development such as metaphonological skills development for example (Foorman et al. 2006). Since the publication of this synthesis, phonological awareness training programs, both in kindergarten and early elementary school, have multiplied, confirming the importance of its role in the development of reading (Ehri et al. 2001). However, an increasing number of researchers have suggested that variables other than phonology contribute to this development, such as morphological knowledge (see, among others, (Bowers et al. 2010; Carlisle 2000; Devonshire and Fluck 2010; Goodwin and Ahn 2013; Henbest and Apel 2017; McLeod and Apel 2015; Wolter et al. 2011; Wolter and Gibson 2015)). This is particularly the case in French, a language that can be described as morphologically rich since 80% of the words that constitute it are made up of more than one morpheme (Rey-Debove 1984). This is the case of the word refaire [do again], for example, which is formed by the prefix re- (which here includes the meaning “again”) and the base faire, or the word amies [friends], which is formed by the base ami, the female gender mark being the addition of the letter “e” and the plural mark “s”. It should also be noted that each year, new words composed of more than one morpheme are added to the usual dictionaries. Over the past decade, for example, the word crudivore has been added, -vore being a suffix meaning “to eat”, and covoiturer [carpooling], the “co-” prefix meaning “with”.

128

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Over the past 35 years, a growing number of studies have focused on the relationship between morphological knowledge and literacy development. Early studies show that even very young children are sensitive to the morphological structure of words (see, for example, (Carlisle and Fleming 2003; McBride-Chang 2006; Nunes et al. 2006; Wolter et al. 2009)) and that morphological knowledge contributes to early reading development (see, for example (Carlisle 1995; Casalis and Louis-Alexandre 2000; Lecocq et al. 1996)). More recently, the literacy skills of interest to researchers have been expanded to include vocabulary, spelling and reading comprehension. The results of this research indicate that the level of morphological knowledge is related to reading and writing performance (Apel et al. 2012; Apel and Henbest 2016; Carlisle 2000; Deacon and Kirby 2004; Nagy et al. 2006; Singson et al. 2000; Tong et al. 2011) and that when morphological instruction is explicitly provided and students are systematically supported in their manipulation of the morphological structure of words, it has a positive impact on their reading and writing skills (Apel et al. 2013; Bowers et al. 2010; Gaustad 2013; McLeod and Apel 2015; Wolter and Gibson 2015). In short, the results reported in all these studies indicate that derivational morphological knowledge is a formidable tool to facilitate word processing when learning to write, and that explicit instruction of the morphological structure of words is another entry point to autonomy in reading and writing. As Gaustad (Gaustad 2000) points out, knowledge of the morphological units contained in words promotes their recognition and access to their meaning and allows other cognitive operations involved in understanding and producing language to function more effectively. Despite all of this, very little material is currently available in the market to specifically work on derivational morphology in the classroom. The few rare morphological exercises presented in school textbooks designed to teach French are, in most cases, limited to an activity where the student is presented with a table where they must write new words, cut them into morphemes and explain their meaning. This reduces derivational morphology to the extraction of the word base, when so many other activities could be offered in the classroom. We therefore believe that there is a real need for material dedicated to the learning of morphological rules of word formation in French. This is why we have published such material in the form of a manual containing 55 activities to discover the rules of word formation. The design of these activities is largely based on research findings we have carried out as mentioned above, as well as a cross-sectional study we conducted with classes of students in

Encouraging the Appropriation of Research Results

129

Grades 1 to 6 (Berthiaume and Daigle 2015), which is discussed in the following section. 8.3. Presentation of a research project aiming for the evaluation of the morphological knowledge of elementary school students All the research mentioned above provides insight into the role of morphological knowledge in literacy development. On the other hand, we still know little about the development of morphological knowledge itself. Indeed, only one research project (Tyler and Nagy 1989) proposes a model for the development of morphological knowledge. This research highlights three types of knowledge: 1) knowledge of the relationship (i.e. the ability to recognize the relationship between two words that share the same morpheme, such as fille [girl] and fillette [little girl]), 2) syntactic knowledge (i.e. knowledge of the syntactic category of suffixes, which indicates that the suffix -ette in fillette indicates that this word is a noun) and 3) distributional knowledge (i.e. knowledge of morphological construction rules, which implies knowing that the suffix -ette is associated with nouns (fille) but not verbs (*small text). This study has the merit of proposing an attempt to foster morphological knowledge from a developmental perspective. However, it remains incomplete, insofar as it does not take into account all the knowledge required to achieve the different morphological tasks used in the studies mentioned above. This is what led us to propose a typology grouping all these tasks according to the morphological operation they require (Berthiaume et al. 2010; Berthiaume et al. 2018). This typology is the first attempt to systematize, describe and operationalize all the morphological operations described in the scientific literature and has been the subject of preliminary tests in a pilot study to assess the feasibility of the experimental equipment and procurement protocol (thanks to an institutional grant). As the results obtained in the pilot study confirmed the theoretical relevance of this typology, it was then important to carry out an empirical validation of this typology with a large sample of pupils in order to: 1) prioritize morphological tasks according to their potential difficulty and 2) estimate the educational level at which elementary school pupils are able to mobilize the different morphological operations. This was done in this research (Berthiaume and Daigle 2015), the realization of which was characterized by a number of challenges and obstacles.

130

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

The first obstacles to be overcome were related to the search for participants and the management of data collection schedules. In order to meet a number of criteria that would allow us to set benchmarks to better understand the development of morphological knowledge, it was determined that the participants who would perform the proposed tasks had to come from several regions of Quebec, have French as their first language, be educated in a Francophone environment, attend an elementary school class and follow a regular academic path. In order to constitute a representative sample of the Quebec school environment, a stratified random sampling method was used based on the “deprivation” indices (which range from 1 to 10 and are based on parents’ income and education, determined from census data) provided by the Ministère de l’Éducation. Three strata of deprivation indices have been established: (1) from 1 to 4; (2) from 5 to 7; (3) 8 and + (the latter category corresponding to the most disadvantaged schools). We then contacted some school boards and then some 15 schools that were selected from these three strata to present our research project. The writing of an introductory letter to the project, which was presented in a synthesized form and in an accessible and popularized language, greatly facilitated this communication. Since the principals and teachers on site agreed to participate in the project, we randomly selected classes from the six grades from these schools to form a total sample of approximately 500 students. The consent form was sent to the parents via the teachers. Here, it should be noted that the fact that we were proposing a message to teachers, that they signed and inserted in their students’ diaries with the consent form, probably had a positive effect on the participation rate in our research, because, finally, we were able to keep the data of about 75% of the targeted students. Academic standards related to research ethics ensured that the forms that were sent to parents contained several pages and a large amount of information that could have been daunting to parents. Reading a note signed by the teacher summarizing the project and showing interest in it could only facilitate the return of the consent form from the parent. Finally, the students’ teacher explained the project to them, who also told them that they would never be identified when the results were analyzed and that they could freely withdraw from the project at any time. It goes without saying that in such a project, healthy collaboration with the school communities concerned is also essential. Without the support of the leaders of the school boards concerned, as well as the principals and teachers who agreed to welcome us in their respective classes, such a project would not have been possible. To maximize this collaboration, it is

Encouraging the Appropriation of Research Results

131

important, in our experience, to plan as much as possible the schedule for the handover of the various tasks, while keeping a certain amount of flexibility so as to allow for unforeseen circumstances and overrunning of time. For example, take the case of a situation in which a teacher from another class intervened to ask one of the students participating in our research to follow them in order to resolve a conflict that occurred with another student during recess. Or, again, a teacher who had forgotten to hold a school activity involving the whole school when we had to administer several tasks in her classroom. These examples demonstrate the importance of carefully planning data collection schedules and raising awareness among all school staff of the importance of how data collection should take place, while respecting the school context and ensuring that it is part of the daily lives of teachers and students as smoothly as possible. To do this, it is also important to adequately train the research assistants who will interact with them. These university students, who contributed greatly to the successful conduct of our research and represent essential people in such a process, must be made aware of the importance of smooth integration into school teams during data collection. They should also have the opportunity to be trained by the researcher responsible for the ongoing research in order to be able to react as appropriately as possible when unforeseen circumstances arise. Nevertheless, we have faced a number of challenges that we have not been able to anticipate correctly. The greatest of these challenges is certainly the fact that the youngest students, those in Grade 1, had great difficulty performing most of the tasks administered (for example, it was difficult for them to focus on the task for more than a certain amount of time, they asked many questions, they sometimes read with more difficulty than anticipated), despite the presence of some adaptations to make their task easier. We have learned several lessons from this. First, given the heterogeneity of this population of students (some already being able to read at the beginning of the year, others with some delays), testing materials with pilot classes at the same grade level was probably not sufficient to ensure their feasibility, and using the same morphological tasks (the objective being to set benchmarks from one school year to the next) had certain limitations. In addition, given their more limited attention and concentration, it was important to plan more short periods of time to break down the transfer of tasks to students in first year. Finally, we also found that of all the grade levels, it was the youngest students who required the most interaction with research assistants before

132

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

data collection even began, hence the importance of taking the time to connect with them to earn their trust and answer their questions when the time came. Despite its obstacles and challenges, this research project and its impacts now allow us to better understand the development of morphological knowledge among elementary school students and thus facilitate the identification of teaching practices that promote the development of this knowledge. These results, as well as the consultation and analysis of the data from the research cited in section 8.2, guided, to a large extent, the writing of the educational book that we subsequently published. 8.4. Challenges and obstacles in translating research results into a didactic book Our didactic book aims to propose a set of activities to work on derivational morphology in the first and second cycles of elementary school (in particular, Grade 2, Grade 3 and Grade 4). These activities are grouped: 1) according to grade level (1st or 2nd cycle) and 2) according to seven main categories of morphological activities that we describe below. The team of authors includes two university professors/researchers, an elementary school teacher and a specialized classroom teacher working with children in the first cycle of elementary school who have behavioral difficulties. 8.4.1. The weaving of links between authors (or how to write with several hands) The link was first established between ourselves, a university professor/researcher and the two teachers2 as part of a graduate course on the evaluation of French didactics that we give each semester and during which the teachers developed innovative activities aimed at working on morphology in primary school. A common interest in morphology unites us, and the idea of submitting a proposal for a didactic book quickly sprang up. Subsequently, the fourth author – a university colleague with whom we have collaborated for many years and who is also interested in morphology – was

2 It should be noted that a third teacher was originally involved in the project, but had to withdraw due to time constraints.

Encouraging the Appropriation of Research Results

133

added to the project to submit a didactic book. Following acceptance of the project, it was agreed that the tasks would be shared among all participants so that the teachers would be responsible for creating all the morphological activities and choosing the words used in the various activities, and that the researchers would be responsible for the books’ theoretical content (i.e. the introduction and chapter describing the theoretical and fundamental concepts related to the development of morphological knowledge), in addition to participating in the creation of some of the proposed activities and the revision of all the activities. Collaboration between co-authors who have never worked together before requires a harmonization of roles and recognition of each other’s strengths. Both teachers have a sharp creative mind, but above all, a strong knowledge of the field. These are female teachers who were already creating a lot of materials for their own classrooms, and they were the creative driving force behind this project. They were probably the ones that proposed the most unusual activities, but they were also, sometimes, the most difficult ones to put into words on paper. They had also already experimented with some of the activities they had created with their students before they were included in the book’s submission, so that we had some guidance on their content and format beforehand. One of the teachers, who works with young children, initiated the activities for the first cycle of elementary school and ensured that the level of difficulty of all activities seemed appropriate for the targeted students. The second teacher, based on her experience with exceptional students, proposed many adaptations for all the activities created, which greatly contributed to enriching the proposed book. The second researcher involved acted as a group mentor, as he has extensive and rich knowledge related to the field of didactics and already had experience in publishing didactic material. Finally, as the first author, we have tried to maintain an overall view of the book, while helping to maintain harmony within the team of authors according to the publishing house’s expectations. To do this, we bridged the gap between the publisher and coordinator who were involved in the production of our book and the authors, mainly through emails and phone conversations. This coordination proved to be timeconsuming, but essential to avoid any confusion and to maintain this overall view of the structure and promote cohesion between the activities proposed. In short, being a complementary team on this project has certainly helped to perfect the material we offer.

134

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

8.4.2. The creation of the material Beyond the importance of the team spirit between the co-authors and the cohesion of their actions, the creation of activities as such has proven to be a real headache, mainly because morphology is a complex field that interacts with other levels of language processing such as semantics, pragmatics, syntax, phonology, orthography and vocabulary. An example of a task that illustrates the fact that various linguistic dimensions participate in morphology is the situation where a sentence must be completed. For example, to complete the sentence “Un homme qui voyage est un...” [a man that travels is a…] by producing the right answer, it is necessary, in addition to deriving voyageur [traveler] from voyager [travel], to infer that the expected word is a name (since it follows a determiner) and to generate a derivative that does not go against grammatical constraints or meaning. At the same time, since the early 2000s, the number of studies showing that morphology plays an important role in literacy development has continued to grow, as mentioned above, while the different tasks used by the researchers concerned are, in most cases, designated by different names from one study to another, making it extremely difficult to compare the methodological frameworks used. In fact, it seems that this field has developed so rapidly that few researchers have taken the time to describe and define its central concepts. As a result, there are several inconsistencies in the scientific literature in this area, and this lack of agreement can lead to conceptual confusion that affects how readers can interpret the results of this research. So how can we create activities from a mosaic of tasks? In section 8.3, we mentioned our typology, which groups 10 categories of tasks according to the morphological operation they require (Berthiaume et al. 2010; Berthiaume et al. 2018). The creation of this typology is closely linked to the methodological choices we made during the process of creating our book, the two being closely linked. To create and revise this typology, we conducted an analytical review of 223 studies published in peer-reviewed journals or published books. The objectives of these studies are too numerous to be examined in detail. They include, but are not limited to: examining the role of morphological knowledge in the development of reading, spelling or vocabulary; verifying the extent to which children with reading difficulties use the morphological structure of a word or pseudoword to access its meaning; assessing the effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary and/or reading development. Given our language

Encouraging the Appropriation of Research Results

135

skills, only articles published in English or French were included in our sample. The typology was then created following several steps. First, after examining the tasks in each study, we grouped together those that appeared to require the same mental operations. For example, we have grouped together all tasks involving the extraction of a database from a complex word (for example, finding dire [say] in redire [say again]). After grouping the tasks, we carefully compared and examined their characteristics in order to clearly distinguish the mental operations that defined them. We also compared the terms used to describe the tasks in the studies themselves. The category criteria were then refined through discussion and divided into sub-groups and adjusted as necessary. Subsequently, we listed the different names used in the studies reviewed to group tasks under generic terms. Ten categories of tasks were therefore formed. The advantage of this typology is that it allows a better understanding of the objectives and effects related to morphological activities, and therefore to design appropriate teaching practices. Finally, it was necessary to determine whether all these categories were useful for the purposes of our didactic book. Subsequently, it was decided to retain only six categories of tasks, those that represented the tasks most associated with literacy development in the scientific literature and that could also be easily transferred to the classroom. Thus, the 55 activities that make up La morphologie pour mieux lire et écrire are grouped into six categories based on the typology of Berthiaume et al. 2010: (1) relationship judgment, (2) derivation, (3) judgment of plausibility, (4) sense of affixes, (5) decomposition and (6) judging of intruders, in addition to being inspired by research conducted in the field of derivational morphology. Second, it was important to determine the level of difficulty of these activities. The possibilities were various, because this level of difficulty can be established on the basis of several parameters: the modality (using oral and/or reading and/or writing), the type of targeted item (prefixed, suffixed, both), its frequency, the meaning of the affixes concerned, the context in which the items are presented (out of context, or rather in the context of a sentence), etc. The structure we finally opted for also takes into account the results obtained in research conducted in recent years, which indicate that some morphological operations are more difficult to perform than others and that it is preferable to suggest activities to students whose difficulty level is gradually increasing. The category “relationship judgement”, for example, includes the easiest activities: most of the time, one must decide if two words belong to the same morphological family (for example, manger-

136

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

mangeur [eat-eater]). This task is generally successful from the very beginning, from the 1st cycle of elementary school. In contrast, we considered the decomposition activity to be the most difficult since it involves analyzing the words to be read, then determining whether or not they contain a sequence of letters that form its base and correctly targeting that sequence, which requires sustained attention from the student (e.g. dent [tooth] does not contain a smaller base word, while dentiste [dentist] does). These task categories are associated with categories of items presented in each of the different activities according to their degree of difficulty (from the easiest [prefixed words, such as, for example, animalerie [pet shop] to the most difficult [suffixed pseudo-words, such as, for example, préparareur, preparer]). Thus, the teacher can choose an easier level of difficulty and work only with prefixed words, which are easier to analyze than suffixed words: the word injuste [unfair], for example, is transparent in terms of its structure, since adding the -in prefix does not change the base form of the (correct) word. Suffixed items, on the other hand, vary according to their level of transparency (it is difficult to perceive the musique [music] base in the word musical [musical]). A teacher who wants to offer more challenging activities to his or her Cycle 2 students may decide to use pseudo-words; these are words that do not exist and are created to look like real words. For example, redanser, even if it includes a real base, danser [dance], a real prefix, re-, and it respects the rules of word formation in French (the prefix is attached to a verb, as in redonner [give again]), is not a word that is found in the dictionary. While pseudo-words have a high level of abstraction, they are very useful, as they are used to work on word formation rules in a playful way. Finally, it was important to determine the didactic principles that would serve as a lever for the implementation of these different tasks. In this sense, our activities required active learning, in which students had to actively participate in their own learning and activate, through the context provided by the teacher, previously acquired knowledge, analyze the purpose of learning and relate the new knowledge to what has already been learned. The activities also allowed for the co-construction of knowledge, since teachers acted as mediators by setting up activities that allowed students to gradually acquire the content to be learned and students were most often led to work in teams. Finally, our activities are preceded by explicit teaching processes that lead the teacher to help students construct new knowledge by modeling the actions to be undertaken and ensuring that the tasks to be carried out are accessible.

Encouraging the Appropriation of Research Results

137

8.4.3. External obstacles In addition to the challenges of collectively writing a textbook and translating research results into classroom activities, there are also external barriers that can complicate the process of publishing such material. First of all, it should be stressed how fundamental it is to be supported by an editorial team working in such a process in order to reflect, in a common way, on compromises when certain choices have to be made. This implies that, on the side of this team, the people in place must have a strong belief in the current project and be prepared to defend it to the publishing house’s senior management. It is this support that has allowed us to persevere in our efforts despite the fact that our bid was not accepted the first time. Indeed, the teachers who served on the committee reviewing our textbook project found that our proposal was not sufficiently formatted to be directly usable in the classroom. To overcome this problem, we have reworked the format of our activities to make them complete and thus present a second submission that is closer to the final result envisaged. The presence of pseudo-words in some of our activities also displeased the committee members reviewing our first submission. This resistance to pseudo-words may be due to the fact that it is wrong to believe that students will no longer be able to distinguish pseudo-words from real words. As far as the choice of pseudo-words is concerned, however, in our opinion, they are an excellent way of working on the morphological structure of words, since morphology is precisely about the rules of word formation. By creating pseudo-words that do not exist, but that respect (or not) French morphological rules, we move away from the meaning of words as such, since these words are not in the dictionary, and we encourage students to work directly on the meaning of affixes and these training rules. For example, a mitainerie [mitten factory] becomes a place where mittens are made thanks to the recognition of the meaning of the suffix -erie, which means “a place”, and it is deduced that prépareur is more plausible than papiereur [paper factory], because the suffix -eur most of the time joins verbs. However, the students made this distinction very well and, precisely, loved working with pseudo-words, since they did not tend to have the impression that a correct and normative answer was expected. We therefore used these arguments to support the use of pseudo-words in our second submission. These efforts have yielded the expected results as this second attempt has been successful.

138

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Some problems may also arise due to requirements or restrictions imposed by the publishing house with which you are engaged. Thus, we have been restricted in terms of the format and layout of the activities, the final result should not exceed a certain number of pages, despite the fact that some of the material is available on the internet. To get around these restrictions, we had to be very flexible and imaginative. Another obstacle has been the obtaining of reproduction rights for certain extracts from children’s literature. The use of children’s literature is very useful for working on morphology, as pupils may have to search for words composed of more than one morpheme in an excerpt from an album or a children’s novel, for example. We therefore wanted to accompany some of our activities with extracts from existing books, but with one exception, this was not possible, since the amounts requested by the publishing houses contacted were too high (we also received refusals). As a solution, we propose, in the book, to consult the ministerial site Livres Ouverts 3 in order to find extracts of children’s literature that could be suitable for the students concerned, and we have also written our own texts with the collaboration of the book’s editor. This made our task more difficult, but we found it fundamental to associate the use of morphology with that of children’s literature. The use of creativity and imagination was therefore essential throughout the writing process of our educational book. 8.5. Conclusion The process of writing a textbook for the school environment is rewarding, but extremely complex. From the submission stage to the revision of the entire work, several types of challenges and obstacles can arise and make the realization of such a project difficult at times. Anyone wishing to embark on such a project must, in our opinion, invest fully in it, without compromise. From our point of view, the transposition of the results of the analysis of scientific research on the one hand, and of the experimentation of home-based classroom activities on the other, into a didactic book for schools is, in a way, a gift to oneself and implies a commitment to it for a certain number of months, even years. To achieve the final result, our experience allows us to say that it is generally important to use imagination and creativity to overcome obstacles along the way. We must constantly persevere in our efforts, even in the event of refusal. It is 3 www.livresouverts.qc.ca/.

Encouraging the Appropriation of Research Results

139

also crucial not to skimp on the quality of the final product, especially given the omnipresence of social media and the current tendency to criticize what is on the market without basing this criticism on solid foundations. In our case, our book has been the subject of feedback, most of which seems to be positive on some websites, but these comments have been written without prior contact. Finally, we must accept that when the book is published, it no longer belongs to us, but that it is not an end in itself, since research will never stop moving forward and taking us elsewhere. 8.6. Bibliography Appel, K., Wilson-Fowler, E.B., Brimo, D., Perrin, N.A. (2012). “Metalinguistic contributions to reading and spelling in second and third grade students”. Reading and Writing, 25, 1283–1305. Appel, K., Brimo, D., Diehm, E., Appel, L. (2013). “Morphological awareness intervention with kindergartners and first- and second-grade students from low socioeconomic status homes: A feasibility study”. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44, 161–173. Apel, K., Henbest, V.S. (2016). “Affix meaning knowledge in first through third grade students”. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 47, 148–156. Berthiaume, R., Besse, R., Daigle, D. (2010). “Évaluation de la conscience morphologique: proposition d’une typologie de tâches”. Language Awareness, 19(3), 153–170. Berthiaume, R., Daigle, D. (2015). L’évaluation des connaissances morphologiques au primaire: proposition d’un cadre méthodologique intégré. Subvention de développement Savoir, Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada. Berthiaume, R., Boisvert, M., Théberge, P., Daigle, D. (2017). La morphologie pour mieux lire et écrire: 55 activités pour découvrir les règles de formation des mots. Chenelière éducation, Montreal. Berthiaume, R., Bourcier, A., Daigle, D. (2018). “Morphological processing tasks and measurement issues”. In Morphological Processing and Literacy Development: Current Issues and Research, Berthiaume, R., Daigle, D., Desrochers, A. (eds). Routledge, New York, 48–87. Blanc, N. (2009). Lecture et habiletés de compréhension chez l’enfant. Dunod, Paris.

140

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Bowers, P.N., Kirby, J.R., Deacon, S.H. (2010). “The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature”. Review of Educational Research, 80, 144–179. Carlisle, J.F. (1995). “Morphological awareness and early reading achievement”. In Morphological Aspects of Language Processing, Feldman, L.B. (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (NJ), 189–209. Carlisle, J.F. (2000). “Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading”. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12(3–4), 169–190. Carlisle, J.F., Fleming, J. (2003). “Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in the elementary years”. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3), 239–253. Casalis, S., Louis-Alexandre, M.F. (2000). “Morphological analysis, phonological analysis and learning to read French: a longitudinal study”. Reading and Writing, Vol. 12 : Awareness of the Structure and Meaning of Morphologically Complex Words: Impact on Reading, 303–335. Casalis, S., Dusautoir, M., Colé, P., Ducrot, S. (2009). “Morphological relationship to children word reading: a priming study in fourth graders”. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(3), 761–766. Daigle, D., Berthiaume, R., Ruberto, N., Wolter, J. (2018). “Classroom practices in morphological instruction”. In Morphological Processing and Literacy Development: Current Issues and Research, Berthiaume, R., Daigle, D., Desrochers, A. (eds). Routledge, New York, 244–268. Deacon, S.H., Kirby, J. (2004). “Morphological awareness: Just ‘more phonological’? The roles of morphological and phonological awareness in reading development”. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 223–238. Devonshire, V., Fluck, M. (2010). “Spelling development; fine-tuning strategy-use and capitalising on the connections between words”. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 361–371. Ecalle, J., Magnan, A. (2010). L’apprentissage de la lecture et ses difficultés. Dunod, Paris. Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Willows, D.M., Schuster, B.V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., Shanahan, T. (2001). “Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis”. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250–287.

Encouraging the Appropriation of Research Results

141

Foorman, B.R., Schatschneider, C., Eakin, M.N., Fletcher, J.M., Moats, L.C., Francis, D.J. (2006). “The impact of instructional practices in grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling achievement in high poverty”. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 1–29. Gaustad, M.G. (2000). “Morphographic analysis as a word identification strategy for deaf readers”. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 60–80. Gonnerman, L. (2018). “A linguistic analysis of word morphology”. In Morphological Processing and Literacy Development: Current Issues and Research, Berthiaume, R., Daigle, D., Desrochers, A. (eds). Routledge, New York, 3–15. Goodwin, J., Ahn, S., “A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English: Effects on literacy outcomes for school-age children”. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(4), 257–285. Henbest, V.S., Appel, K. (2017). “Effective word reading instruction: What does the evidence tell us?”. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 18, 1–9. Huot, H. (2001). Morphologie. Forme et sens du mot en français. Armand Colin, Paris. Kieffer, M., Biancarosa, G., Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2013). “Roles of morphological awareness in the reading comprehension of Spanish-speaking language minority learners: Exploring partial mediation by vocabulary and reading fluency”. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(4), 697–725. Kirby, J.R., Deacon, S.H., Bowers, P.N., Izenberg, L., Wade-Woolley, L., Parrila, R. (2012). “Children’s morphological awareness and reading ability”. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 389–410. Labrecque, M., Chuy, M., Brochu, P., Houme, K. (2012). PIRLS 2011 Le contexte au Canada : Résultats canadiens du Programme international de recherche en lecture scolaire. Conseil des ministres de l’Éducation, Toronto. Lecocq, P., Leuwers, C., Casalis, S., Watteau, N. (1996). “Troubles de la lecture et traitement morphologique ”. In Apprentissage de la lecture, Lecocq, P., Leuwers, C., Casalis, S. et al. (eds). Presses universitaires du Septentrion, Paris, 231–227. McBride-Chang, C., Cheung, H., Chow, B.W.Y., Chow, C.S.L., Choi, L. (2006). “Metalinguistic skills and vocabulary knowledge in Chinese (L1) and English (L2)”. Reading and Writing, 19, 695–716. McLeod, A.N., Apel, K. (2015). “Morphological awareness intervention: Study of a child with a history of speech and language impairment”. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 36, 208–218.

142

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et des Sports du Québec (MELS) (2006). Programme de formation de l’école québécoise. Éducation préscolaire et primaire. Gouvernement du Québec, Quebec. Ministère de l’Éducation nationale, France (MEN) (2006). École élémentaire – Le socle commun des connaissances et des compétences. Gouvernement français, Paris. Ministère de l’Éducation de l’Ontario (MEO) (2006). Le curriculum de l’Ontario de la 1re à la 8e année en français. Gouvernement de l’Ontario, Toronto. Nagy, W., Berninger, V., Abbott, R. (2006). “Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle school students”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 134–147. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidencebased assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Report no. 00-4769. US Government Printing Office, Washington. Nunes, T., Bryant, P., Bindman, M. (2006). “The effects of learning to spell on children’s awareness of morphology”. Reading and Writing, 19(7), 767–787. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCDE) (2010). Résultats du PISA 2009: Synthèse. OCDE, Paris. Rey-Debove, J. (1984). “Le domaine de la morphologie lexicale”. Cahiers de lexicologie, 45(2), 3–19. Singson, M., Mahony, D., Mann, V. (2000). “The relation between reading ability and morphological skills: Evidence from derivational suffixes”. Reading and Writing, 12(3–4), 219–252. Slavin, R., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., Davis, S. (2009). “Effective reading programs for the elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesis”. Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1391–1466. St-Pierre, M.-C. (2018). “The role of morphology in spelling development”. In Morphological Processing and Literacy Development: Current Issues and Research, Berthiaume, R., Daigle, D., Desrochers, A. (eds). Routledge, New York, 190–213. Tong, X., Deacon, S.H., Kirby, J.R., Cain, K., Parrila, R. (2011). “Morphological awareness: A key to understanding poor reading comprehension in English”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 523–534. Tyler, A., Nagy, W.E., “The acquisition of English derivational morphology”. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(6), 649–667.

Encouraging the Appropriation of Research Results

143

Wolter, J.A., Wood, A., D’zatko, K.W. (2009). “The influence of morphological awareness on the literacy development of first-grade children”. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 286–298. Wolter, J.A., Corbin-Lewis, K., Self, T., Elsweiler, A. (2011). “An evidence-based practice model across the academic and clinical settings”. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 32, 118–132. Wolter, J.A., Gibson, F.E. (2015). “Morphological awareness assessment and intervention to improve language and literacy”. Seminars in Speech and Language, 36, 31–41.

Conclusion

All the chapters in this book have focused on issues specific to the field of literacy in several school settings. Although a diversity of methodological choices and populations distinguish the projects presented, researchers faced challenges and had to use different means to foster appropriation and dissemination of the results before, during or after the research. What brings researchers together here is their commitment to this dissemination and appropriation, which for them constitute research stages of equal importance to all others. In the action research projects presented, for example, some researchers have succeeded in developing a common ground for exchanges and risktaking with practitioners. To achieve this, they proposed the study and implementation of new practices, creating a desirable imbalance. The latter demonstrated openness and trust, making it possible to compare ways of doing things and new knowledge with pre-existing practices, without completely disrupting existing practices, beliefs and models. It is a productive space where the knowledge and practices of yesterday, today and tomorrow are intertwined. In this respect, it seems that the difference in status is not experienced as an obstacle, but rather as an exchange of professional skills that enriches all actors. This is undoubtedly what appears to be a common vector for all the work presented here. The question of dissemination after action research also arises. How then to transmit material and approaches resulting from a long-term construction with practitioners, coming from a specific context, to environments that will Conclusion written by Sophie BRIQUET-DUHAZÉ and Catherine TURCOTTE.

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice, First Edition. Edited by Sophie Briquet-Duhazé and Catherine Turcotte. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

146

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

not benefit from support, precious moments of exchange, feedback on practice, specific theoretical training related to the project ? How can we make the sequence of actions that have led to interesting results understandable to teachers, principals and decision-makers who have not participated themselves? How can we offer objects from research projects (materials, videos, fact sheets, tests, etc.) that will be well understood and not distorted? The authors of this book have raised questions in this regard. Other researchers have been challenged by the dissemination of their results after seeing their potential for the school environment. However, since it is difficult to predict the relevance of all research results, it is often with few resources, but at the cost of unsuspected efforts, that researchers commit themselves to finding ways to disseminate their research results. This is a rewarding step for a researcher, as teachers and other school stakeholders then recognize the work being done and express their enthusiasm. The researchers invited to write chapters in this book have all implemented ways to take a step towards practitioners, out of conviction, a sense of duty or even an attachment to the practice environment. Although these actions are unfortunately still not highly valued by the academic community, these researchers have no hesitation in undertaking them. Moreover, these dissemination initiatives sometimes generate sustained requests from schools, which see a training opportunity that meets their needs. Thus, some conferences or popular articles are transformed into training resources and support new environments, another form of dissemination and unforeseen appropriation when the project starts. Similarly, it seems that educational and didactic works written by researchers are highly appreciated by teachers, as a way of shaping professional experience and research for practitioners, with the certainty that these texts are intended primarily for them. They can therefore refer to them over a long period of time if necessary. This book represents the first attempt to bring together researchers around issues aimed at the dissemination and appropriation of their work. Although they generally know each other through their presentations and writings, these researchers had never taken the time to discuss the challenges, issues and solutions they consider when addressing these issues. Let us hope that this will continue with the aim of mutual professional development.

List of Authors

Rebeca ALDAMA UQAM Montreal Canada

Céline CHATENOUD UQAM Montreal Canada

Rosianne ARSENEAU UQAM Montreal Canada

Émilie CLOUTIER UQAM Montreal Canada

Rachel BERTHIAUME UdeM Montreal Canada

Sabine CODIO Commission scolaire de la Pointe de l’Île Montreal Canada

Christiane BLASER Sherbrooke University Canada Sophie BRIQUET-DUHAZÉ CIRNEF Rouen Olivier BRUCHESI UQAM Montreal Canada

France DUBÉ UQAM Montreal Canada France DUFOUR UQAM Montreal Canada Carole FISHER UQAC Chicoutimi Canada

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice, First Edition. Edited by Sophie Briquet-Duhazé and Catherine Turcotte. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

148

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

Marie-Hélène GIGUÈRE UQAM Montreal Canada

Chantal OUELLET UQAM Montreal Canada

Marie-Julie GODBOUT UQAM Montreal Canada

Marie-Jocya PAVIEL UQAM Montreal Canada

Marc LANDRY UQAM Montreal Canada

Nathalie PRÉVOST UQAM Montreal Canada

Martin LÉPINE Sherbrooke University Canada

Claude QUEVILLON LACASSE UQAM Montreal Canada

Marie NADEAU UQAM Montreal Canada

Catherine TURCOTTE UQAM Montreal Canada

Index

A, B accompanying guide, 7, 9, 118 action research, 1, 3, 7–9, 81, 84, 90, 93, 94, 96, 98–105 adolescent, 76, 80, 86 book fair, 94, 101, 103 books, 46, 48, 65, 78, 80, 84, 93, 101, 103–105, 133, 134, 138 C capsules, 8 collaboration between co-authors, 133 project between researchers and teachers, 3 with teachers, 68 with the children’s families, 112 comprehension strategies, 2–4, 81–83 consultation, 112, 116, 118, 132 continuing education, 7, 99 D DIDACFRAN, 13, 15, 16, 18, 23, 24, 30 didactic book, 126, 132, 135, 138 diffusion, 49, 61

digital resources, 18, 19, 21, 24, 41 disadvantaged areas, 114 disciplines, 1, 76, 86, 90 E educational continuity, 111, 115 practices, 79 evaluating reading comprehension, 102 evaluation, 17, 37, 63, 93, 97, 99, 101, 102, 129, 132 methods, 103 practices for reading and writing, 99 explicit teaching, 2, 67, 136 F factors key, 115, 118 personal, 3 professional, 3 relational, 3 feedback, 29, 37, 38, 40–42, 44, 46, 52, 53, 55, 56, 81, 139 files, 22 French didactics, 13, 18, 20, 66, 132

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice, First Edition. Edited by Sophie Briquet-Duhazé and Catherine Turcotte. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

150

From Reading–Writing Research to Practice

language, 13, 18, 28, 29, 30 orthodidactic courses, 69 funding agencies, 9

O, P

inclusive context, 74, 76, 77, 79, 84 inferences, 2, 4, 81, 83 inferential understanding, 2 intellectual disability, 62, 64, 65 knowledge mobilization, 65

observations, 34, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 45, 51, 52, 55, 56, 64, 118, 126 professional development of teachers, 3, 52, 54 gestures, 47, 99 learning, 36, 37, 50, 55, 58 vision, 37 punctuation, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40, 44, 45, 47–49, 52–57

L

R

learning community, 62–64, 66–69 lecture, 65 literacy learning, 65, 79, 113, 118 skills, 73, 122, 128, 140 teaching, 73, 119 literary reading, 82, 94, 95, 97 literature children’s, 15, 23, 65, 117, 138 gray, 78, 80 scientific, 42, 63, 64, 68, 129, 134, 135 logbooks, 6

reading comprehension, 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 16, 62, 65–69, 72, 75, 81, 82, 98, 127, 128, 141, 142

M

T

macrostructure, 1, 2 main ideas, 2 material support, 2, 37 mental representation, 2 model, 5, 6, 11, 14, 27, 28, 36, 42, 46, 49, 52, 75, 76, 102, 129, 143 morphological knowledge, 126, 127, 128–130, 132–134 morphology, 125, 126, 128, 132, 134, 137, 138, 141, 142 derivational, 125, 126, 128, 132, 135, 142 in primary school, 132 inflectional, 125

teaching practices, 2, 13, 33–35, 56, 67, 73– 76, 80, 83, 84, 93, 94, 103, 105, 111, 112, 115, 127, 132, 135 reading, 2, 10, 85, 97 comprehension, 2, 10, 85 training graduate, 85 literary, 94 needs, 94 teacher, 34, 75 transversal skill, 76 transversality, 29

I, K

S school stakeholders, 3, 73, 109, 112, 116 sharing of expertise, 35, 38, 42 sheets, 4, 21, 69 support distance, 92 individual, 4, 8, 38, 50, 53 system, 34

Index

U, V, W understanding and interpretation, 95 vocabulary, 6, 23, 30, 65, 77, 81, 122, 126, 128, 134, 141 website, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 22– 24, 30

151

Other titles from

in Knowledge Management

2018 FABRE Renaud, BENSOUSSAN Alain, in collaboration with COLLIN Lucile, BLANQUART Marie, RICHOU Louki-Géronimo The Digital Factory for Knowledge: Production and Validation of Scientific Results

2016 FABRE Renaud, in collaboration with MESSERSCHMIDT-MARIET Quentin, HOLVOET Margot New Challenges for Knowledge: Digital Dynamics to Access and Sharing

WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT Go to www.wiley.com/go/eula to access Wiley’s ebook EULA.