Kate Wall of the University of Newcastle summarises her study of one school's approach to the National Literacy Strategy.

This research focused on a junior school in south-west England where I taught and investigated changes in grouping arrangements that occurred after the implementation of the National Literacy Strategy (NLS) in September 1998. Within the school a policy of setting (regrouping by ability within a subject) was instigated as a way of accommodating a wide range of abilities during the required elements of whole class teaching during the literacy hour.

Data collection extended over two years and combined a whole school survey of children's attitudes to the literacy hour in different pupil groupings (either mixed ability classes or sets) and my own reflective commentaries in a mixed ability class (during the first year) and a lower set (during the second). I set out to compare the attitudes of the children and teachers in three different cohorts. Firstly, I compared Year 4 (1998-99) with Year 4 (1999-2000). In this sample the teachers remained constant; the children were the same age; however, the population of the classes were completely different. The second and third samples were represented by the two year groups who changed from mixed ability literacy teaching to sets: the children in Year 3 who were taught in mixed ability classes in 1998-1999 were taught in sets when they were in Year 4 (1999-2000); similarly, the children who were taught in mixed ability classes in Year 4 in 1998-1999 were taught in sets in Year 5 (1999-2000). In these cohorts the children were tracked even though the teachers would change. The different samples can be seen in the table.

The three different cohorts studied

The findings from the data are contrasting and, as a result, it is difficult to find definitive answers. However, there are a number of issues and questions that schools and teachers may need to consider when debating whether or not to set for literacy.

Firstly, and possibly most important, my findings indicate that setting is not necessarily an easy solution to the delivery of the literacy hour to a diverse range of abilities. There are practical issues that need to be assessed and taken into consideration before implementation. My own reflections and the attitudes of average pupils within the school warn against the presumption that setting produces homogeneity and, therefore, easy and effective targeting of objectives. Although the latter challenge to the teacher appeared to have lessened, differentiation was still an important element of effective lesson planning and the challenge of meeting the needs of all children during the whole class teaching time remained. Therefore, one of the key potential advantages of setting did not emerge as clearly as we had hoped.

Secondly, although pupil attitudes to the literacy hour as a whole were revealed to be relatively positive (as shown on the graph), the periods of whole class teaching time were least popular in comparison with the 20-minute task time. Inactivity was revealed as a major contributory factor:

"I hate the fifteen minutes on the carpet because the carpet is hard and it hurts my bottom." (Year 3 pupil, 1999)

The half an hour of whole class teaching was too long for many children and although this should be alleviated as teachers' skills and confidence increase over time, it does exemplify that while teachers were documented as struggling to target their objectives during this period of the literacy hour, it was problematic for pupils too, possibly due to a causal relationship.

Mean attitudes to the literacy hour differentiated for type of grouping

Thirdly, when children in different organisational grouping were asked explicitly what they thought about the whole class section of the literacy hour aimed at word level work and the section targeting text level work (as prescribed by the NLS), the results brought interesting findings (shown in the first two bars of the graph). Findings were far from conclusive. In fact, they were contradictory, with attitudes to whole class word level work being more positive in sets than mixed ability classes and attitudes to whole class text level work giving completely the opposite results. This seems to indicate that a blanket policy of setting for literacy could be inaccurate: different aspects of literacy are possibly more or less suited to the setting process. It could be suggested that aspects of literacy involving creative discussion, associated with the text level sections of the literacy hour, might be more effectively taught to a mixed ability group, as a quote from a pupil exemplifies:

"Yes I do because then the whole class's feelings come out, like fox hunting, everyone had something to say." (Year 5 pupil, 2000)

Word level work, which focuses on phonics and grammar, follows more of a progression. Talking about the complexities of language, such as grammar and phonetics in spelling as required by the objectives in the NLS, implies a certain grasp of the concepts that have gone before. Thus it could be argued there is little point moving on if previous "building blocks of knowledge" have not been fully understood by the majority of the class. It would seem obvious that some children will progress quicker and, therefore, it is this progressive nature of the word level work that applies itself more to the setting process.

These findings indicate important questions needing further research regarding the different aspects of literacy. Is a sweeping introduction of setting the correct solution to more accurate and effective literacy teaching? Do mixed ability methods suffice, or is a combination of organisational methods the most appropriate method?

Significant changes in attitudes between mixed ability and set classes

Fourthly, and finally, there is indication that teachers should consider the age of their pupils and their maturity before implementing setting: in this school the youngest of three cohorts that changed from mixed ability to set classes for literacy were more negative than older groups (see the table). Comments from the children and my own observations indicated that they were ill equipped to deal with the physical transition and change in teacher, and therefore teaching style, necessary for setting. The results of the questionnaire show an increased negativity of the younger pupils when they were reorganised into sets for the literacy hour. The existing research base (for example, Slavin, 1987; Hallam and Toutounji, 1996; Sukhnandan and Lee, 1998; Harlen and Malcolm, 1999) concludes there are possible negative effects on self-esteem associated with ability grouping and comments made by children on the questionnaires went some way to confirming this association.

What becomes apparent is the importance of the school or class context, and the literacy content to be taught. If I was to make recommendations to schools, I think this research indicates that a blanket approach to setting for literacy is not necessarily the answer; a more flexible approach is necessary. For example, if setting is used for teaching the literacy hour for two days out five, then the content can be adapted to fit with a greater emphasis on word level work during the sessions taught in sets, while more discursive elements are focused on at other times.

This is just one study and further research is both vital and urgent because the policy of setting is now commonly used across the country to teach the literacy hour.

References

S. Hallam and I. Toutounji (1996) What Do We Know About the Grouping of Pupils by Ability? A research review, London: Institute of Education, University of London.
W. Harlen and H. Malcolm (1999) Setting and Streaming: a research review, Edinburgh: The Scottish Council for Research in Education.
R.E. Slavin (1987) Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: a best evidence synthesis, Review of Educational Research, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 293-336.
L. Sukhnandan and B. Lee (1998) Streaming, Setting and Grouping by Ability: a review of literature, Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research.

Subscribe to Literacy Today