After 3 years... A Review of the Effectiveness of LINUS in English in a Malaysian Primary School

THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM

AFTER 3 YEARS... A REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LINUS IN ENGLISH IN A MALAYSIAN PRIMARY SCHOOL By

LEAN ZU LEE M.A TESOL Word count: 15,600 words (excluding citations and appendices)

Dissertation submitted to the University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts- Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. July 2015.

Acknowledgement First, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Too Wei Keong, for all his advice and support throughout the process of this dissertation writing. I am particularly grateful for his quick response in responding to my emails. He had given valuable input and encouraged me to think through critical issues especially the methodology section. Second, I would like to express my gratitude to the participants in this study for their willingness to participate in this study and their patience with me throughout the data collection process. Third, I would like to thank my family and friends for supporting me throughout the journey. Special thanks to my fiancée, Khairil Anwar Ramli and my friends for helping me proofread every chapter and motivating me during the most crucial moments.

1

Abstract This case study investigated the effectiveness and the implementation of the English LINUS and LINUS 2.0 remedial program in a national primary school in Selangor, Malaysia. Within the school context, semi-structured interviews, classroom observations and document analysis were used to investigate the effects of the LINUS programme and to what extent the implementation had been successful in achieving program goals. The findings of the research revealed that the program had been successful in remediating pupils to achieve basic literacy skills to a certain extent. The implementation process required improvement in terms of teaching strategies, material development, assessment and professional development. Keywords: LINUS, remedial program, early literacy skills, case study, Malaysia

2

Table of Contents Acknowledgement....................................................................................................... i Abstract...................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables and Figures........................................................................................... vi List of Abbreviations................................................................................................. vii 1. Introduction............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background of the Problem............................................................................... 2 1.2 Problem Statement............................................................................................ 3 1.3 Purpose of the Study......................................................................................... 5 1.4 Research Questions........................................................................................... 6 1.5 Overview of Methodology.................................................................................. 6 1.6Rationale and Significance.................................................................................7 2. Literature Review................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Definition of terms............................................................................................. 8 2.1.1 Literacy....................................................................................................... 8 2.1.2 Early literacy skills...................................................................................... 9 2.1.3 Remedial intervention................................................................................. 9 2.2 Issues related to literacy learning and instruction...........................................10 2.2.1 Importance of literacy development.........................................................10 2.1.1 Characteristics of learners........................................................................11 2.1.2 Language barriers..................................................................................... 12 2.1.3 Learning environment...............................................................................15 2.3 Early Literacy Skills......................................................................................... 16 2.3.1 Code-focused skills....................................................................................17 2.3.2 Print awareness......................................................................................... 18 2.3.3 Oral language............................................................................................ 18 2.3.4 Writing....................................................................................................... 19 2. 4 Remedial Instruction...................................................................................... 19 2.4.1 Reading Recovery, United States..............................................................20 2.4.2 Canada...................................................................................................... 21 2.4.3 Zimbabwe................................................................................................. 21 2.4.4 Balsakhi Program, Mumbai, India..............................................................22 3

2.4.5 Vacation Reading Program, Nigeria...........................................................23 2.4.6 Competency-based approach, Cameroon.................................................23 2.4.7 Literature review in Australia, New Zealand and United States................24 2.5 Summary of chapter........................................................................................ 25 3. Methodological and Research Design...................................................................26 3.1 Methodological Framework.............................................................................. 26 3.2 Research Design.............................................................................................. 28 3.3 Participant and Sampling Method....................................................................29 3.3.1 FasiLINUS................................................................................................... 29 3.3.2 Lower Primary Teachers............................................................................29 3.3.3 Pupils......................................................................................................... 30 3.4 Data Collection Method...................................................................................30 3.4.1 Interview................................................................................................... 30 3.4.2 Classroom Observation............................................................................. 31 3.4.3 Document Analysis....................................................................................31 3.5 Data Collection Instruments............................................................................ 32 3.5.1 Semi-Structured Interviews.......................................................................32 3.5.2 Observation checklist................................................................................ 34 3.6 Data Collection Procedure............................................................................... 35 3.7 Validity and Reliability..................................................................................... 37 3.7.1 Trustworthiness of data.............................................................................37 3.7.2 Authenticity............................................................................................... 38 3.7.3 Dependability............................................................................................ 38 3.8 Data Analysis Procedure.................................................................................. 39 3.8.1 Interview................................................................................................... 39 3.8.2 Observation checklist................................................................................ 39 3.8.3 Document analysis.................................................................................... 39 3.9 Ethical Considerations..................................................................................... 39 4. Findings................................................................................................................ 41 4.1 Research Question 1....................................................................................... 41 4.2 Research Question 2....................................................................................... 45 4.2.1 Teaching Context....................................................................................... 46 4.2.2 Implementation problems.........................................................................47 4

4.2.3 Assessment............................................................................................... 50 4.2.3 Remedial lessons....................................................................................... 52 4.2.4 Teaching Materials..................................................................................... 53 4.3 Research Question 3....................................................................................... 54 4.3.1 Standardising teaching practice................................................................54 4.3.2 Language exposure...................................................................................54 4.3.2 Material development............................................................................... 54 4.3.3 Professional development.........................................................................55 5. Discussion, Recommendations and Conclusion....................................................56 5.1 Discussion....................................................................................................... 56 5.1.1 Implications for remedial instruction.........................................................57 5.1.2 Implication for effective assessment.........................................................58 5.1.3 Implication for professional development.................................................60 5.2 Recommendations for future research............................................................61 5.3 Conclusion....................................................................................................... 61 Reference................................................................................................................. 63 6. Appendices........................................................................................................... 69 Appendix 1: Turnitin Report................................................................................... 69 Appendix 2: Sample of interview questions..........................................................70 Appendix 3: Sample of observation checklist........................................................78 Appendix 4: Interview transcript........................................................................... 81 Appendix 5: Observation checklist data..............................................................103 Appendix 6: Sample of pupil’s work....................................................................122 Appendix 7: Sample of permission letter to the headmaster..............................128 Appendix 8: Statement of research.....................................................................129 Appendix 9: Sample of participants’ information sheet.......................................136 Appendix 10: Sample consent form.....................................................................139

5

List of Tables and Figures Table 1: Number and percentage of Year 1 and Year 2 pupils based on the September, 2014 LINUS screening test....................................................................11 Table 2: Semi-structured interview topics for the FasiLINUS and English teachers...40 Table 3: Pupils LINUS results from 2013 to 2014......................................................48 Table 4: Sample pupils' achievement from 2013-2015.............................................51 Table 5: Comparison between expected results (KPI) and school's actual achievement............................................................................................................. 52 Table 6: Respondents' background, teaching experience and current teaching situation................................................................................................................... 53

Figure 1: Data collection procedure..........................................................................40

6

List of Abbreviations district education department (PPD), 6 English language learners (ELL), 11 Government Transformation Plan (GTP), 2 Key Performance Index (KPI), 4 KIA2MKelas Intervensi Asas Membaca dan Menulis, 3 LINUS district officer (FasiLINUS), 7 Literacy and Numeracy Screening (LINUS), 2 Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE), 3 National Key Result Areas (NKRA), 2 national service training recruits (PLKN), 4 non-governmental organisation (NGO), 23 Parent Action Group for Education Malaysia (PAGE), 5 Primary School Assessment Test (UPSR), 4 PROTIMProgram Penguasaan Tiga M, 3 state education department (JPN), 6

7

1. Introduction Literacy development among primary school children is one of the National Key Result Areas (NKRA) emphasised in the Government Transformation Plan (GTP)("Zero to 12", 2012). Closing the achievement gap for disadvantaged and low performing schools is a pivotal step in ensuring that every pupil is given the same opportunity to excel in education in Malaysia (Economic Planning Unit, 2010). As stipulated in the GTP, children should be able to acquire basic literacy and numeracy skills after the first three years of primary education (PEMANDU, 2010). For this purpose, a remedial intervention program called the Literacy and Numeracy Screening (LINUS)program was introduced in 2010. It was initially a series of literacy screening testsexecuted three times a year in March, June and September (PEMANDU, 2010). The tests aimed to distinguish learners who have achieved the literacy learning milestones from those who have not. The frequency of the screenings was later changed to twice a year ("Primary schools to get Linus 2.0", 2012). Those who were unable to pass the screening tests would be given remedial intervention until they could be placed in mainstream education(Brown, 2014). Modules and training were provided to aid teachers in class. According to the Ministry’s Curriculum Development Division Deputy Director,ShamsuriSujak (as cited in Balqis, 2014), “all pupils who have not mastered English literacy will be supplied the English Literacy Pupil’s Module while the teachers who conduct the classes will be supplied with English Literacy Teacher’s Module”. However, remedial teachers were not provided for the English subject. Even though the government claimed that 15, 500 remedial teachers were trained for the purpose of LINUS, these teachers were only for Bahasa Malaysia and Numeracy (Economic Planning Unit, 2010). This means that LINUS pupils would not be removed from the classes but English 8

teachers were expected to conduct both English mainstream and remedial education in the same lesson. Between 2010 and 2011, the percentage of pupils passing the literacy test increased from 87% in Year One to 96.31% in Year Two. Based on the success rate of the pioneer Linus program, the ministry continuedthe second cycle of this program, called LINUS 2.0. However, looking at percentages alone is insufficient. According to Topkaya (2010), “a constant cycle of planning, implementation and evaluation” is a prerequisite to a teaching program that is up-to-date with the changes in developing society and nation (p.52). In order to truly ascertain that a program has been successfully implemented, we must look into other aspects of the program besides the program’s outcomes. For example, not only is it important to analyse student’s achievement in the screening test, we also need to look at the extent that theprogram objectives are achieved, whether the program caters to the needs of the teachers and the learners, how well-prepared the teachers are in carrying out the program, and how successful the overall implementation of the program is. For this, we need to perform a case study on how a Malaysian primary school implements LINUS and to what extent pupils benefited from the program.

1.1 Background of the Problem One of the aims of the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE) is to eradicate illiteracy and dropout cases among young learners in school. In 2008, it was discovered through the KIA2M screening tests that 54,000 Year One pupils did not have basic literacy skills. In the same year, 117,000 Year Four pupils did not have basic literacy skills through the PROTIM screening tests. Meanwhile, there were 31,939 dropout cases in 2008 alone(PEMANDU, undated). These statistics areproof that drastic measures are required to overcome this issue. The priority to combat illiteracy at the early stages of schooling is high because it is reported that pupils 9

whodrop out of schools have difficulties coping with the syllabus due to the lack of basic literacy skills (Economic Planning Unit, 2010). Illiteracy is seen as a real problem as it may affect the children’s future in the long run. For example, three Year 6 pupils were barred from taking their Primary School Assessment Test (UPSR) due to their weak academic performance("Action to be taken against school", 2011). This is a serious implication as the Year 6 assessment is one of the three national assessments that is mandatory to Malaysian students. Moreover, the Defence Minister of Malaysia, Abdul Latiff Ahmad revealed that 1,000 out of 11,000 national service training recruits (PLKN) were illiterate in2011 ("Special module for national service trainees", 2011). It is incredulous that youths should be illiterate even after going through eleven years of formal schooling. Hence, tackling the problem through the LINUS program whenthe children have just entered primary school is seen as a potentially effective move. Even UNESCO (2015) recognises the impact of LINUS and recommends its continuation. However, UNESCO (2015) warns that Malaysia’s utmost challenge lies in improving the professional development of teachers, along with monitoring and evaluating the implementation of its educational policies. This has thus formed the basis for the statement of the problem for this study.

1.2 Problem Statement The challenge of implementing LINUS emerges when there is pressure to achieve the Key Performance Index (KPI) stipulated by the MOE. According to Amar-Singh (2013), in order to achieve the KPI of learners being fully literate by Year 3, there have been cases whereby teachers have been ‘unloading’ children with learning disabilities to Special Education classes (p.9). This move is due to the fact that the achievement of KPI is linked to career advancement and learners who are diagnosed as special needs or ‘OKU’ pupils are exempted from mainstream education. The president of Parent Action Group for Education Malaysia (PAGE) also complainsof the 10

‘flawed’ implementation of LINUS as a number of unethical teachers had manipulated pupils’ results for the sake of achieving KPIs (ASLI-CPPS, 2012). Table 1: Number and percentage of Year 1 and Year 2 pupils based on the September, 2014 LINUS screening test

Grade/Darjah

1 2

Special Needs f -

% 1

0.36

LINUS Tegar

LINUS

f

f

10

% 3.53

3

1.09

126 38

Achieved

% 44.5 2 13.8 2

f 147 233

% 51.9 4 84.7 3

Total No. of Pupils

283 275

This pressure has also affected how LINUS is being implemented in a national primary school in Selangor. As can be seen in Table 1, by the end of the academic session in 2014, the school has identified 126 LINUS and 10 LINUS Tegar pupils in Year 1 while there are 38 LINUS and 3 LINUS Tegar pupils in Year 2.The school is considered one of the critical schools in the district due to this. The pressure escalates as the MOE expects the passing rate of 83% for Year 2 pupils and 100% for Year 3 pupils by the end of 2015. Therefore, teachers are expected to push the percentage of Year 1 pupils from 51.94% to 83% and Year 2 pupils from 84.75% to 100% in just the span of one year. This has caused significant stress on teachers and the school which resulted in teachers to teach to the test. Indirectly, this has caused teachers to diverge from the main objective of LINUS, which is to help learners overcome illiteracy. Aside from the pressure, multiple case studies conducted by Nazariyah and Abdul Rahman (2013) in four primary schools in Hulu Langat reveal that although headmasters in the school are supportive of the LINUS program, they list four poignant problems that hinder the success of LINUS, namely: 1. ineffective dissemination of information regarding LINUS

11

2. lack of qualified teachers and technology 3. miscommunication between the MOE, state education department (JPN), district education department (PPD) and the schools 4. social, economic and political factors This is an indication that although the statistics show that there is an increment of percentages of pupils passing the LINUS test at national level; there are still problematic areas in implementation that need to be addressed. This is especially evident in schools which are located in suburban and rural areas in Selangor. Hence, the problems of implementation must be rectified at school level.

1.3 Purpose of the Study It is my personal belief that case studies should be conducted in a national primary school in order to monitor the implementation of the LINUS program and improve at micro level. Mackay (1994) proposes that school staff of every level should take responsibility and ownership on reviewing their implementation of language programs in the school so that there would be less interference from the bureaucracy, whose approaches in program evaluation may not suit the teaching context of teachers. Although it seems idealistic, schools should not merely wait for input from district officers. Schools should be able to identify their strengths and weaknesses through transparent and systematic methods. Therefore, this research attempts to emulate the idea aforesaid. This research is conducted among teachers and those who are directly involved with the implementation of LINUS 2.0 in a primary national school in Selangor, Malaysia. The purpose of the case study is to conduct a program evaluation in order to thoroughly evaluate the impact of the LINUS 2.0 programme in the school being investigated. The research aims: 12

1. to assess, through various data collection methods such as document analysis, interviews, and classroom observations the effectiveness of this programme on pupils who have been involved with the programme since 2013. 2. to identify the extent the program has helped to develop basic literacy skills among pupils and how much these pupils have improved under the program. 3. to investigate whether the instructional methods used in the classroom conform to the learning objectives, learning activities and learning outcomes as stipulated by the MOE, Malaysia. Procedural barriers, unintended outcomes, unanticipated issues that may arise will also be identified.

1.4 Research Questions This research will attempt to answer the following research questions: 1. What are the outcomes of the LINUS programme after 3 years of implementation in a Malaysian primary school? 2. To what extent has the LINUS programme achieved its programme objectives? 3. What suggestions might be recommended for further improvement?

1.5 Overview of Methodology This research uses the case study approach in data collection. Quantitative data is sourced from pupils’ LINUS screening tests results. Qualitative data will be collected from various sources such as semi-structured interviews, classroom observations and samples of pupils’ work. Convenience sampling will be used to determine the teachers, and LINUS district officer (FasiLINUS) as suitable participants for the study. Meanwhile, stratified purposeful sampling is used to select pupils’ work for document analysis. Data gathering instruments such as the semi-

13

structured interview questions and observation checklists are generated by the researcher based on the LINUS workshops attended, official documents related to LINUS and input from the FasiLINUS. Further details of data collection procedure, validation process and ethical considerations will be further elaborated in Chapter 3.

1.6Rationale and Significance This research can be an example for schools to conduct their own case studies in order to gauge the program’s impact and success of its implementation in a specific context. Also, this research would benefit the English department of the school under study. Teachers may want to adopt this evaluation model for other educational programmes implemented to ensure a smoother implementation.

14

2. Literature Review This chapter is divided into four main subcategories which will discuss previous and current research related to the topic being investigated namely; a) definition of terms which will explain and define the parameters of terminologies used within this research, b) a description of literacy learning difficulties and how pupils are affected by them, c) early literacy skills which is the prerequisite skills young learners acquire that is pivotal to the development of their language proficiency, d) a critical review of remedial programs conducted in several developed and developing countries.

2.1 Definition of terms The following section defines the following terms within the parameters of this study. 2.1.1 Literacy

Generally, literacy encompasses the early acquisition of listening, reading and writing skills(Usha, Karunanidhi, & Nirmala, 2014). According to the LINUS 2.0 manual, literacy is defined as: a) Able to communicate with peers and adults appropriately b) Able to read and comprehend simple texts and stories c) Able to write a range of texts through a variety of media (MOE, 2015, p. 2) Nonetheless, a more accurate and comprehensive definition of literacy is given by the Department of Education and Skills. According to them, “literacy includes the capacity to read, understand and critically appreciate various forms of communication including spoken language, printed text, broadcast media, and digital media” (DES, 2011, p. 8). This is especially true as the advent of technology exposes children to diverse forms of oral and written text. Hence, current perspectives of literacy instruction should be geared towards helping learners to not only acquire literacy skills, but also to be able to apply these skills in their daily lives. 15

2.1.2 Early literacy skills

While literacy is related to the acquisition of language skills for reading, understanding and appreciating diverse forms of oral and written text, early literacy is “greatly related to how children acquire literacy and develop as readers and writers” (Ng & Yeo, 2012, p. 2). According to the National Institute For Literacy (2009), children are already aware of some mechanics of oral and written language before they receive formal education. These skills are the keys to which help learners to develop and unlock more complex literacy skills when they reach schooling age. Specifically, early literacy is the acquisition of three main content; oral language comprehension, phonological awareness and print knowledge (National Early Literacy Panel , 2008; see also Nag, Chiat, Torgerson, & Snowling, 2014; National Institute For Literacy , 2009; Roskos, Christie, & Richgels, 2003; Slavin, Lake, Chambers, Cheung, & Davis, 2010). 2.1.3 Remedial intervention

Grubb et al. (1999) defines remedial intervention as “a class or activity intended to meet the needs of students who initially do not have the skills, experience or orientation necessary to perform at a level that the institution or instructions recognise as ‘regular’ for those students” (p.174). This definition stresses on the certain standards that has been established by educational institutions and if these minimal requirements are not met by the pupils, then they must be provided with a different set of instruction to help them achieve those standards. Another definition by Bipoupout (2007) is "any teaching action that is conducted outside the normal routine and which aims to improve pupils’ school performance" (p.212). As the context of this research revolves around primary school pupils who are struggling with reading and writing, the following definition of remedial instruction will be used. Remedial instruction is the on-going process of teaching outside the normal classroom routine to help boost learners’ school performance to the minimal requirements as established by the school. 16

2.2 Issues related to literacy learning and instruction Difficulties in literacy learning should be addressed because of the long-term effects it poses towards learners’ performance throughout their schooling experience. Melekoglu and Wilkerson (2012) believe that if not promptly remedied, it can affect learners until they enter tertiary education. It is believed that problems that occur among children with low literacy level has always been linked with their ethnic, socioeconomic and linguistic background that causes them to receive less exposure to print and language input (Gonzalez et al., 2011). Similarly, a review of researches on English language learners (ELL) in the US highlights several issues that they face when learning English (August, 2003). Problems range from different sound and alphabet systems between learner’s mother tongue and target language, learner’s lack of vocabulary, to the inability to grasp target language’s grammatical structure. With regards to bilingual and foreign language learners, research has proven that different languages affect language teaching, learning and assessment (Nag & Snowling, 2012). Meanwhile, using the context of teaching literacy in Ireland, the issues revolve around time constraint, low emphasis of meaningful and authentic language instruction, differentiation in instruction, continuity between literacy programs and curriculum, assessment tools, and professional development (DES, 2011). Hence, the following subsections will discuss the importance of literacy development, characteristics of poor literacy learners, language barriers that impede literacy teaching, learning environment, and conventional assessment practices. 2.2.1 Importance of literacy development

According to Gova and Cvelich (2011), there is a reciprocal relationship between the quality of education and the economic growth of a nation. They explain that there is a correlation between dropout rates caused by illiteracy and the quality of workforce. This view is also supported by the United States Agency International Development (2012), quoting that 10% of learners who 17

achieve basic literacy is equivalent to an increment of 0.3% of a nation’s economic growth (p.6). The rationale for this is simple. It is believed that the development of language skills in children mutually support one another (Kennedy, et al., 2012). Due to this, they further explain that the learning process is so fragile that any difficulty that arises in the process of acquiring a language skill may create a domino effect that hampers the development of other language skills. For example, pupils who have problems with reading will face further problems in learning other subjects and writing as the demand for comprehension increases. Hence, Gova & Cvelich (2011) warn that if policy makers are not quick to act on learners especially at the most critical stage of acquiring literacy, the cost and resources for remediation will escalate as they become older. The first logical step would be to diagnose and identify these learners from their more-able peers. 2.1.1 Characteristics of learners

Okebukola (2006) describes pupils who have dropped out of schools with neither English nor their mother tongue in their repertoire possess the following characteristics:      

poor decoding skills the inability to read strategically and actively poor spelling weak vocabulary too few reading opportunities outside the school poor motivation, lack of confidence or behaviour all stemming from experiencing too much reading failure (p. 134)

Similarly, Hollohan (2012) described that, a struggling reader is normally someone who reads slowly or inaccurately, usually both. Struggling readers often spell words incorrectly and omit words from a story. They also have difficulty comprehending the meaning of a story. Struggling readers get easily frustrated and feel inadequate when they cannot read and keep 18

up to their classmates. Reading for these children becomes a chore and learning is stalled due to a negative attitude (p.12). These characteristics indicate the lack of early literacy skills which are pivotal to the development of learners’ language proficiency. This in turn causes learners to feel frustrated and de-motivated in learning. For example, statistics revealed that around 50% to 75% of pupils who have dropped out of school suffer from low motivation and self-esteem due to poor literacy (Lancashire County Council, 2015). Despite this, Alvarez, Amstrong, Elish-Piper, and Risko (2009) mentioned that all hope is not lost as these characteristics are situational and not embedded into learners’ attitude. They reassured that with the right teaching strategies and assessment which build on learners’ prior knowledge and passion, the situation is still salvageable. Hence, there is a need for a diagnostic literacy test that is comprehensive and able to detect specific literacy difficulties in learners. Moreover, an emphasis on early literacy skills from the commencement of formal instruction is highly recommended in order to enable learners to develop a stronger foundation in literacy development. 2.1.2 Language barriers

Since the push for early literacy skills was first highlighted by the National Early Literacy Panel (2008) in the United States and focused mainly on native English language learners, we have to take into considerations how this can be successfully applied to bilingual learners and ELLs. We have to consider the different contexts and language backgrounds learners came from. For example, The situation for many children entering school in developing countries is typically more complex, with children exposed to one or more indigenous

19

languages as well as a national and/or post-colonial language, and potentially arriving at school with limited or no experience of the language of instruction (Nag, et al., 2014, p. 11). In Malaysia, children of different races have to learn Bahasa Malaysia as the language of instruction in school, in addition to English as a compulsory subject. In the context of the school being investigated, pupils are all Malay so they have to learn both their mother tongue (Bahasa Malaysia) and English when they enrol into school. However, problems arise when there are differences in writing system between learners’ mother tongue and English. The ‘complexity’ of a language affects the pace of learners’ in attaining fluency in reading (Gova & Cvelich, 2011, p. 6). According to Nag and Snowling (2012), any attempt at making comparisons about symbol learning across the two types of writing systems is therefore not straightforward. And, as can be expected, when symbol learning demands are different, there is a knock on effect on how word reading, spelling, reading comprehension and expressive writing are developed within each system (p.10). This means that if the alphabet characteristics of the target language are different from the alphabet characteristics of the learners’ mother tongue, the approach to teaching the target language has to be modified in order to make these differences more explicit to learners. Nag and Snowling (2011) mentioned that language systems which are transparent would pose lessproblems to learners as the symbols would be easily acquired in the span of a year. However, Nag, et al. (2014) warned that the rate of reading and spelling acquisition would be affected by languages, whereby its symbols do not correlate with its sounds such as English, as compared to languages that are more ‘transparent’ such as Spanish, Finish and German (p.16). This would

20

explain why learners may be struggling with English even when they are in Year 1 and Year 2 as the pronunciation rules for English are more complex and unpredictable when compared to learning Bahasa Malaysia. Therefore, understanding the writing system of the target language would enable researchers to recommend specific predictors of literacy skills for a specific language.

It is believed that instruction in a foreign language poses an adverse effect on learner’s development in reading and writing skills(Usha, et al., 2014). This may be caused by poorlyplanned language programs that are not based on early literacy skills instruction (United States Agency International Development, 2012). Nag and Snowling (2012) commented that it is difficult for children to attain reading comprehension skills in a foreign language, especially when they are taught in a language that they have yet mastered. This would not only “challenge learners cognitively, but at the same time affect their confidence and sense of identity” (Bartlett, 2010, p. 20). According to the United States Agency International Development (2012), it is recommended that “students should not transition to reading instruction in a second language until they are solid readers in a language they understand and have oral language competency in the new language” (p.7).Gova and Clevich (2011) explained that children are already aware of the vocabulary and phonemic awareness in their mother tongue which can be transferred to the learning of a foreign or a second language. However, the teaching policy in certain countries do not encourage consolidation of the mother tongue and foreign or second language teaching, hence rendering language teaching difficult as learners are unable to tap into their prior knowledge (Gova & Cvelich, 2011). In the context of the school being investigated, teachers are encouraged to use only English in lessons and to avoid the use of Bahasa Malaysia as much as

21

possible. This practice has been verbally enforced through routine school visits and classroom observations by the district officers and FasiLINUS. 2.1.3 Learning environment

It is reported that school settings in low to middle-income countries differ in terms of language teaching policy, provision of facilities and materials, class size and assessment from schools in high-income countries(Nag & Snowling, 2012). Bartlett (2010) cited large classrooms, inadequate facilities and materials, and fewer hours of instructions as the main differences. Research has shown that disadvantaged schools especially in low-income countries place a higher emphasis on basic skills over meaningful and authentic language practice (Rasinki, Homan, & Biggs, 2008). However, it is unfair to make such direct comparisons between the implementation of literacy teaching as both teaching contexts are completely different (Kennedy, et al., 2012). As mentioned in the subsection above, in low-income to developing countries, learners come from a complicated language background and sometimes may not be exposed to the target language in primary school. Their progress cannot be compared to the progress of native speakers of English. Thus, it is more practical to focus on basic skills until learners have mastered sufficient level of language proficiency.

Another common dilemma faced by teachers is handling classes with large number of pupils with different levels of language proficiency. J-PAL (2009) reported that large class sizes implicate that more effort is required from the teacher to coordinate the lesson. This compromises the time to address the needs of every pupils especially when remedial pupils require more attention. Usha, et al. (2014) suggested that class sizes should be reduced in order to increase the quality of interaction and contact ratio between teachers and learners.

22

Meanwhile, Gova and Clevich (2011) lamented that the conventional ‘paper-and-pencil tests’ that are implemented in low-income countries are not effective in pinpointing the strengths and weaknesses in learners’ literacy level (p.19). Tests should not be set at a high level as this will fail to identify problem areas or conversely measure any progress among weak pupils(United States Agency International Development, 2012). Due to this, they claimed that teachers are unable to gather enough information to improve their instruction for individual learners.

2.3 Early Literacy Skills In order to ensure the success of literacy instruction, we have to understand how children acquire language. In brief, Gova and Clevich (2011) explained that learners learn by first identifying the letters; second, letter sounds; third, spelling and pronunciation of the word; then, meaning of the word; and finally, reading and understanding sentences. According to the National Institute For Literacy (2009), children are already aware of some mechanic of oral and written language before they receive formal education. These skills are the keys to help learners to develop and unlock more complex literacy skills when they reach schooling age. According to the National Early Literacy Panel (2008), there are several key predictors that are recognised for reading and school success. Their findings revealed that learners should be able to grasp basic literacy skills such as alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid autonomic naming of letters and numbers, rapid autonomic naming of objects and colours, writing and phonological memory. In a later publication, the National Institute For Literacy (2009) adds print concept, print knowledge, reading readiness, oral language and visual processing to the existing list of key predictors. Their findings and key predictors are currently used extensively in early development programs internationally, from diagnosing children, to teaching early literacy skills and finally for assessment purposes. 23

In practice, it is suggested that teaching and learning activities should be tailored to achieve the following goals:  

learn the names of the letter-shapes in the alphabet and the sounds the letters made be aware of sounds in language and provide opportunities to practice manipulating

  

sounds remember spoken information develop oral language understand how print works ( National Institute For Literacy , 2009, pp. 10-11).

There are four components that should be integrated into the language classroom which are codefocused skills, print awareness, oral language and writing. 2.3.1 Code-focused skills

Code-focused instruction targets the ability to decode sounds and letters through phonological awareness, phonics and alphabet knowledge. Phonological awareness refers to the ability to understand and manipulate the unit of sounds in a language (EURYDICE, 2011). Generally, knowledge in phonology is directly associated with the success of reading due to two reasons. "Writing systems directly represent phonology" and "the segmental units in spoken sounds become better represented because the symbols are visual representations of phonological units"(Nag & Snowling, 2012, p. 17). For example, learners identify that the letter ‘a’ in the alphabet makes the /a/ sound. Once they know all the sounds that the alphabets represent, they can blend the sounds together to form words. At the most basic level, when learners see words such as ‘cat’, they can make the association that the sounds /c/, /a/ and /t/ sound out as cat. Then as learners progress they can move on to analysingsounds and using word families to pronounce more difficult words.

24

This method of identifying and blending of sounds is commonly referred to as the systematic phonics instruction. EURYDICE (2011) and Lancashire County Council (2015), lauded the use of systematic phonics instruction as great improvement can be seen in pupils’ word recognition and spelling skills. Although there are opponents to this method of teaching as it does not help learners understand meaning of words, this method is not the sole method for early literacy skills and is not meant to be taught in isolation (Lancashire County Council, 2015). 2.3.2 Print awareness

Print awareness is the teaching of various types of elements and conventions of written materials. Here, the National Institute For Literacy (2009) also stressed that vocabulary must be taught concurrently with grammar and not in isolation. According to EURYDICE (2011), it is insufficient to teach only the meanings of words alone. What is more important is to help learners’ develop higher order thinking skills to the point of being able to understand words in different contexts. Vocabulary must be taught in context and as such Kennedy, et al. (2012) suggested teachers to use storybooks and discussions to engage learners. 2.3.3 Oral language

Oral language is the ability to “produce and comprehend spoken language” (NELP, 2008, p.43). They encourage the provision of opportunities for children to speak though play and authentic conversations. Teachers should not underestimate the teaching of oral language skills as they are useful for ‘decoding words, making meaning of texts, and expressive writing’ (Nag & Snowling, 2012, p. 12). Nag and Snowling (2012) further elaborated the benefit of teaching oral language skills to strengthen reading comprehension as it helps learners to obtain information from written text. Also, fluency is an important aspect in any reading instruction as it is directly correlated to reading comprehension (Rasinki, et al., 2008). When learners have mastered the technical

25

aspects of de-coding and are more fluent in reading, they would able to use their cognitive ability to focus on reading comprehension (EURYDICE, 2011). 2.3.4 Writing

As for writing, teachers should introduce the mechanics of writing in children’s work so that learners can relate easier (Kennedy, et al., 2012). At the early stages, this can be introduced in the form of ‘symbolic drawings’ from ‘play and social interaction’(Kennedy, et al., 2012). Then, teachers can gradually move on to writing process approach to help learners express their thoughts and ideas. Hence, teachers should understand this process and adapt their classroom practices in order to accelerate learning progress.

2. 4 Remedial Instruction Remedial programs generally follow this route: First, the subjects are targeted at low achievement learners, or under-prepared students. After the teacher diagnoses students’ learning difficulties, a remedial course will be designed in accordance with students’ needs. And then the teacher takes initiative in offering the instruction, and an evaluation will be conducted during and after the implementation of the remedial instruction to examine the actual effectiveness of the course. Minor adjustments would be made based on the results of the evaluation to ensure that students are able to catch up in regular classes (Mazen, 2011, p.17-18). Remedial programs are hence essential to ensure that every pupil is given equal opportunity in quality education. However, different countries have different language policies and approaches in providing remediation. This depends on the perception of English, curriculum, length of the 26

program, budget, staff, materials and resources, and support provided. The following literature review looks at various remedial programs for primary school children being implemented in different context. The strength and weaknesses of the programs will be discussed and this information will be able to inform how this can be applied in the study. Bartlett (2010) summarises the following seven criteria for the success of a remedial program in low-income countries. These include community-based knowledge and experience; program models of proven high quality; supportive work environments for teachers; flexible training for teachers; ensuring that government is supportive, financially engaged and able to take leadership; multidisciplinary research, especially longitudinal studies; and mobilization of the public and of policymakers (p.10). 2.4.1 Reading Recovery, United States

An investigation on the effects of a literacy intervention program called Reading Recovery in New York, United States showed that the program has helped all pupils of different English backgrounds to catch up in their first grade of schooling (Ashdown & Simic, 2000). Reading Recovery is a remedial reading program, whereby at-risk ELL and native speakers of English are given individual tutoring for 30 minutes daily by specially trained teachers for a period of 16 to 20 weeks. Interestingly, ESL pupils were ranked to progress the fastest compared to native speakers and limited English pupils. This phenomenon proves that ELL learners have great potential if proper attention and guidance is given. 2.4.2 Canada

According to Roessingh & Elgie (2009), “children exposed to bilingual experiences often show heightened phonemic awareness and can outperform their unilingual counterparts on these

27

measures predictive of early literacy success” (p.31-32). They believe that a systematic approach incorporating consistent evaluation for early literacy skills such as phonics can help learners to be successful readers. A longitudinal research conducted by Roessingh & Elgie (2009) shows that through early literacy intervention focusing on phonemic awareness, letter recognition, phonics and emergent reading skills, ELL pupils can consistently achieve proficiency level similar to their native speaker counterparts. However, this effect only last until Grade 5 and 6, whereby the same ELL pupils would hit a plateau and tend to stumble over activities that require more complex literacy skills such as story-telling. Apparently, their choice of vocabulary is limited compared to native speaking children who are using more expressive and creative with word choice. Roessingh & Elgie (2009) proposed that early literacy must also take vocabulary development into consideration as learners should learn beyond the list of high-frequency words and to use a wide-range of words in a creative and meaningful way. Hence, it is suggested that the role of intervention must extend beyond helping learners to catch up to the point they are fully proficient in the language. 2.4.3 Zimbabwe

Ndebele (2014) investigated the effectiveness of a remedial program in primary schools in Zimbabwe. The program was implemented at national level which was supervised by the Ministry of Education. The program focused on providing one-to-one instruction to pupils who did not pass the diagnostic test in Grade 4 so that they would be able to pass the national Grade 7 examination. The diagnostic test aimed to identify pupils who have not mastered basic literacy skills taught from Grade 1 to Grade 3. This approach is different from the LINUS 2.0 whereby pupils are already diagnosed at the age of 7. The program’s objective was purely to support pupils for the purpose of passing the national examination. Pupils who were identified as at-risk would be given 30 minutes of individualised lessons by a remedial teacher in the afternoon 28

during co-curricular activities twice a week. Pupils would remain in the program from six months to two years depending on the pupils’ progress. The investigation reported disappointing results due to poorly trained remedial teachers, no continuity of learning content between mainstream and remedial education, poorly-motivated pupils, inadequate teaching materials and lack of monitoring from authorities on the program. An implication from this research shows that a poorly planned program with low funding from authorities can affect program’s implementation at school level. 2.4.4 Balsakhi Program, Mumbai, India

However, in the case of Mumbai, India, the remedial program called the Balsakhi Program was found to be effective even though the cost of the program was minimal. In contrast with the remedial program in Zimbabwe, this program was organised by a non-governmental organisation (NGO) called Pratham and not by governmental organisations. A balsakhi is a remedial instructor who was hired to teach a group of 15-20 weak pupils for 2 hours a day. Although balsakhis received only two weeks of training and subsequent follow-ups by NGO staff, pupils’ results improved by the end of the school year. Banerjee, Cole, Duflo, & Linden (2007) suggested two reasons for the success of this program; one, mainstream teachers are busy and could not provide special attention to weak pupils; and two, pupils could relate to the balsakhis better than their teachers due to their similarity in socio-economic background. This program showed that funding does not play an important role in the success of program implementation, but the presence of a separate remedial teacher made a difference in lowering teacher’s workload. Also teachers must play a role in understanding learners’ background to keep them motivated in learning.

29

2.4.5 Vacation Reading Program, Nigeria

Vacation reading program was also reported to be successful in Nigeria. The program was held during the school holidays in order to help weak learners catch up before the next school semester. It was reported that the program’s success was due to the teaching instruction that used various activties to promote literacy development for different levels of learners(Udosen, Udofia, Ekukinam, & Akpan, 2010). Story-telling, picture reading, songs, quizes, shared reading, were used for beginning readers while dialogic reading, text-talk and print referencing were used for older pupils. The research also cited that because pupils did not have to be removed from their classes for the program, children did not feel stigmatised and labelled as weak. This retained their motivation level to learn because of the safe and fun environment of learning. As this program was only conducted in one state in Nigeria, considerations must be made on how this type of program can be implemented at a national level especially in terms of funding and staff. The small experimental research showed that teaching instruction that is rich in interactive and meaningful activities help improve learners’ motivation to learn and promote reading habits among weak learners. 2.4.6 Competency-based approach, Cameroon

Instead of focusing on only providing remediation during school holidays, another successful program in Cameroon placed emphasis on competency-based approach (Bipoupout, 2007). Learners had to master minimum literacy standards that are outlined in the curriculum. The main goal was to lower repetition rates and poor performance in examinations. Three main stages of remediation are explained in the review. The first stage was called remedial compensatory teaching at the beginning of the academic year, whereby learners who were diagnosed were given remediation so that they could cope with the current year’s curriculum. The second stage was called continually adjusted compensatory teaching, which was spread throughout the year; 30

whereby learners would be provided with remediation instruction and continually evaluated to monitor their progress. Third and final stage of remediation was called compensatory education for certification and promotion, which was an intensive program for learners who would be sitting for their primary national examination. Therefore, remediation should not only focused for beginning readers but is a continuous program throughout primary education. 2.4.7 Literature review in Australia, New Zealand and United States

A literature review was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of literacy and numeracy intervention programs for kindergarten to 3rd grade education in Australia, New Zealand and the USA (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2013). They highlighted some recommendations for school administrators to collect evidence of effective interventions namely:      

Criteria for supporting an intervention Documenting the use and impact for interventions School literacy and numeracy improvement plans Evaluation plan for new or expanded interventions Consistent and comprehensive costing data Strengthening the knowledge base (p. xiv-xv)

The review investigated reading and writing intervention for three different needs, mainstream education, at-risk pupils and high-risk pupils. The review found that consistently implemented interventions, meticulously planned reading and writing lessons, careful selection of materials, assessment, and strong focus on professional development were among the key criteria for the effectiveness of the programs.

2.5 Summary of chapter This chapter had covered issues related to children’s difficulty in attaining literacy, the process of children’s early literacy developmentand the challenges in conducting remedial education in

31

different contexts. The issues discussed would contribute to the methodology and research design which is elaborated in the following chapter.

32

3. Methodological and Research Design This section outlines the research design which was used to answer the following research questions as stated in Chapter 1: 1. What are the outcomes of the LINUS programme after 3 years of implementation in a Malaysian primary school? 2. To what extent has the LINUS programme achieved its programme objectives? 3. What suggestions might be recommended for further improvement? Section 3.1 addresses the research paradigm and philosophy that shaped the methodological framework of this research. Section 3.2 elaborates on the research design which is the case study method and the rationale for choosing such a design for the research. Section 3.3 describes the samples and the sampling method used. Section 3.4 explains the data collection method while Section 3.5 describes the types of data gathering instruments used in the research and how they were generated. Data collection procedures are outlined in Section 3.6 while Section 3.7 justifies how validity and reliability were achieved. Section 3.8 explains how the data were analysed. Finally, Section 3.9 explains the measures taken to ensure that the research complied with the ethical practices of research.

3.1 Methodological Framework According to(Robson, 2002), methodology refers to the “sampling strategies, measurement instruments, comparisons, statistical techniques, and other procedures that produce research evidence” (p. 4). This means that the researcher should be guided by an underlying research theory for every decision and procedure in the investigation. In this section, the research philosophy, research paradigm and research approach that shaped the methodological framework will be discussed.

33

Research philosophy determines how a research should be executed by considering the aspects of ontology, epistemology and axiology. Ontology relates to how knowledge is being investigated and whether the investigation is objective or subjective. In contrast, epistemology is related to how knowledge is understood, while axiology deals with the value of the research(Kiely & Rea-Dickins, 2005). These aspects help shaped the many research paradigms that are available today. “A research paradigm is a perspective about research held by a community of researchers that is based on a set of shared assumptions, concepts values and practices”(Johnson & Christensen, 2013, p. 31). This research takes the view of the constructivist which is also known as the naturalistic approach. In terms of ontology, the constructivist paradigm views reality as not absolute (Bhola, 1990). In fact, it is subjected to one’s interpretation as it is a “social construction” (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Bhola, 1990). Stufflebeam and Coryn (2014) added that “knowledge (is) to be gained as one or more social-psychological constructions that are uncertifiable, often multiple, and constantly problematic and changing” (p.197). As such, with truth being multi-dimensional and unpredictable, it affects the way research is conducted. Epistemologically, the constructivist paradigm is interpretivist, suggesting that “human behavior be studied as it naturally occurs, in natural settings, and within its total context” (Bhola, 1990, p. 29). The interpretivist researcher views research as a truly unique relationship between the researcher and the participants. This researcher attempts to ‘stand in their (participant’s) shoes’, ‘look through their (participant’s) eyes’ and ‘feel their (participant’s) pleasure or pain’ (Taylor & Medina, 2013). Hence, interpretivism rejects objectivity but accepts the tenets of subjectivity. This research leaned more towards qualitative research as it was more important for the

34

researcher to investigate the experiences and the different perspectives involved in the implementation of LINUS in the school being investigated.

3.2 Research Design The case study method was the preferred method for this research. According to Yin (2003), the case study method “investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context” (p. 13). It allowed the researcher to ‘paint a picture’ of the context being investigated by answering the ‘hows’ and the ‘whys’ to explain the phenomenon occurred (Europe Aid Cooperation Office, 2005). This method is particularly useful in answering concerns related to the implementation of a specific program (Davey, 1991). In the context of this research, this method would significantly bridge the gap between what is required from the Ministry of Education and what goes on in schools during its implementation. This method is based on three principles, "the use of multiple sources of data, the creation of a case study database and the maintenance of a chain of evidence"(Yin, 2003, p. 85). This is the strength of the method as multiple sources and techniques of research are systematically combined to answer the research question. The triangulation of data ensures that findings from these sources validate each other (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). This method is flexible as the research may be modified when new perspectives or anomalies arise as long as the changes are documented (Soy, 2006). However, according to Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2011), its strengths are also its weaknesses as the case is so context specific that it cannot be generalized to other cases. Moreover, extensive care must be taken to ensure that the research is reliable as it is prone to researcher bias (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011). Hence, careful considerations must be made in choosing data collection instruments and data collection procedures to ensure the validity and reliability of the data. This will be discussed further in Section 3.7. 35

3.3 Participant and Sampling Method The naturalistic paradigm of research dictates that sampling should be “purposeful rather than random”(Bhola, 1990). The sampling method chosen for this research was convenience sampling. “Convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling technique where subjects are selected

because

of

their

convenient

accessibility

and

proximity

to

the

researcher”(Explorable.com, 2015). The school being investigated is a primary national school in Selangor. The school being investigated was chosen because the researcher is directly involved with the LINUS 2.0 program as the LINUS coordinator. The LINUS coordinator is elected among the English teachers in the school to be responsible for ensuring smooth implementation of the program. The researcher is also currently the school’s head of English department. Hence, the participants of this study were those directly involved with the researcher and the implementation of LINUS 2.0 in this particular school. 3.3.1 FasiLINUS

The FasiLINUS is a district officer who was elected to monitor the implementation of LINUS in schools within the jurisdiction of the district. The job scope includes disseminating information about LINUS to schools, organising workshops, visiting schools for meetings and field observations, providing assistance and teaching ideas to teachers and collecting data about LINUS. Hence, the FasiLINUS can be a source of information from an outsider’s point of view on the school’s progress. 3.3.2 Lower Primary Teachers

There are a total of 8 English teachers teaching Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 in this school including the researcher. Aside from teaching the main syllabus, teachers themselves conduct screening tests on pupils twice a year in March-April and September-October. They are to record and identify LINUS and LINUS Tegar pupils in the classes that they are teaching. Teachers who have 36

LINUS and LINUS Tegar pupils in their classes would be given an additional LINUS module and teacher’s guide book. These teachers have to provide differentiation in activities for nonLINUS pupils and LINUS pupils. Seven of these teachers were interviewed and several classroom observations were conducted to monitor how classes and screening tests are conducted. 3.3.3 Pupils

Meanwhile, stratified purposeful sampling of the following categories of the pupils was chosen to participate in the research: a pupil who is categorised as LINUS, a pupil who is categorised as LINUS Tegar, and a LINUS pupil who has been reintroduced into mainstream education. These pupils’ results and work sample would be collected for document analysis. Stratified purposeful sampling is used to “capture major variations rather than a common core” (Patton, 2002, p. 240).

3.4 Data Collection Method Three types of data collection methods were used in this research. All three methods, interview, classroom observation and document analysis were mainly qualitative. However, document analysis related to pupils’ results will contain elements of quantitative method. The following subsections will justify the use of interview, classroom observation and document analysis. 3.4.1 Interview

According to McDonough and McDonough (1997), interviews enabled the researcher to gain perspectives from respondents which cannot be acquired through quantitative methods such as questionnaires. Dowling and Brown (2010) mentioned that interviews allowed an in-depth investigation of an issue through prompting and probing respondents for clarifications of their actions. Interviews will be a useful method in identifying the gaps in the implementation of the LINUS 2.0 program. However, Dowling and Brown (2010) also mentioned that interviews can be time-consuming and difficult to analyse. Hence, there must a systematic approach in data 37

collection procedure and data analysis in order to save time and to avoid bias. This will be discussed further in section 3.7 and 3.8. 3.4.2 Classroom Observation

Classroom observations allowed the researcher to gain insight into what went on in the classroom during the LINUS assessment and the remedial lessons. An observation checklist was used to help the researcher note the teaching activities that had been used. This informed the researcher how and to what extent teachers carry out the LINUS 2.0 program in their classroom. Non-participatory classroom observation was used as the researcher was interested in how teachers conducted the classes in their natural setting. Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) explained that the researcher should only observe and “not manipulate any variable or activity” during such observation (p.450). Hence, it is very important that the researcher should be as unobtrusive as possible. It is very important that observer effect was minimalized as much as possible especially when teachers may be nervous and children would possibly be distracted by the presence of the researcher during the observation. Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) suggested two steps to lessen this effect. First, the researcher should enter the classroom several times prior the actual observation session in order to have the participants get accustomed to being observed. Second, the researcher should not reveal the observation criteria to the teachers. By doing so, the researcher would be able to observe the classroom without the teachers modifying their behaviour. 3.4.3 Document Analysis

“Document analysis is a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents- both printed and electronic (computer-based and Internet-transmitted) material”(Bowen, 2009, p. 27). Bowen (2009) recommended document analysis as it coincides with the constructivist approach in research and it is useful for triangulating data. Document analysis in the form of pupils’ results and homework samples were used to help the researcher analyse their progress and in what areas 38

they have improved or require further attention. The issue with document analysis however, lies in the difficulty in procuring certain documents. Dowling and Brown (2010) highlighted this issue, The producers of information may be in no position to give consent to its recycling as research. Considerations then, must be given to anonymity... Schools, for example, keep much information that has a limited circulation and some that is highly confidential. Researchers have to consider carefully whether such information should be used at all, and if it is, how it should be treated and represented (p.71). The school’s and district’s identity had to be kept anonymous for this reason. The researcher had to conduct consistent checks with the school administrative department and procure permission to use any document for the research. School and parental consent were obtained especially for documents that were related to pupils’ results and their homework.

3.5 Data Collection Instruments Data collection instruments that were used in this research were semi-structured interview questions and observation checklists. This section details the process of generating and testing the data collection instruments. 3.5.1 Semi-Structured Interviews

Semi-structured interview was preferred because it is, designed to elicit specific answers from respondents. Often they can be used for obtaining information that can later be compared and contrasted(Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006, p. 455).

39

The semi-structured interview is advantageous as it allows the interviewer to be in control and at the same time puts the interviewee at ease as it is more informal than a structured interview (McDonough & McDonough, 1997, p. 184). There are several considerations that were kept in mind when constructing semi-structured interview questions. According to (McCammon, n.d.), one must use concise, open-ended questions that are not biased. Therefore, questions were carefully thought-out and based on the research questions prior to the interview sessions. The semi-structured interview questions were divided into two sets; one for the district fasiLINUS and another for teachers teaching Tahap 1 pupils (Year 1 to 3) in the school. Table 2: Semi-structured interview topics for the FasiLINUS and English teachers

Questio ns 1 2

3

4 5 6

Set 1 (FasiLINUS)

Set 2 (Teachers)

Background and working experience FasiLINUS’ perception of the school in terms of LINUS results and learner’ level of proficiency based on school visits and workshops. Expectations from the school district towards the school for Saringan 2 (second assessment) Procedures for reading and writing assessment Procedures for LINUS lessons Suggestions to school

Background and working experience Teacher’s perception of pupils’ performance in LINUS

Teacher’s expectations towards LINUS results and implementation

Procedures for reading and writing assessment Procedures for LINUS lessons Suggestions to school

The table above shows the topics that were covered in the interviews. Note that the interview topics were similar however the questions were slightly re-worded to suit the fasiLINUS and the teachers’ context (Appendix 2). The topics were chosen in order to investigate several issues: 1. To identify the background of the FasiLINUS and the teachers and their context of teaching. 40

2. To gather their perception towards the school and their expectations in achieving the goals of the program. 3. To identify whether the district’s expectation from the school and the teachers’ understanding of the program correlate each other. 4. To identify whether information regarding the assessment and LINUS lessons has been successfully relayed to the teachers. 5. To gather suggestions from both parties that would be useful for the betterment of the program. Prior to the interview, the interview questions were piloted with a colleague. This was to ensure the suitability of the questions and to modify questions that were ambiguous. Additionally, it had doubled as a practice session for the researcher. 3.5.2 Observation checklist

Two separate sets of observation checklists were made for the purpose of observing teachers in three different teaching situations; one each for reading and writing assessment, and another for LINUS remedial lessons (Appendix 3). The observation items were based on the information from the LINUS assessment manual, teacher’s LINUS module, workshops, and fasiLINUS’ responses to Question 4 and 5 in the semi-structured interview. The observation checklist looked into several procedures that are mandatory such as the use of phonic song before lesson commenced, use of high frequency words, documents that must accompany the teacher during the lesson, teaching techniques such as arm blending and phonics gestures, and time allocation for KSSR and LINUS lesson.

41

3.6 Data Collection Procedure Figure 1: Data collection procedure

LDCI N oUan cSst l uoe s mor seOv nbi te Avw nt an ly ys s s

I

l s

r e

o

s n

s r a i

l s

o

i i

The figure above shows the data collection procedure that was executed for the research. In order to understand the current situation, pupils’ LINUS results from 2013 to 2014 were gathered and analysed. This was obtained from the school database. The results would be able to indicate the pupils’ progress throughout the program. It would be apparent then how many pupils were identified as LINUS and LINUS Tegar. Additionally, based on the results, we were able to see how many of these LINUS pupils had been successfully reintroduced to mainstream education and how many still receive remedial intervention throughout the program. Results of several LINUS pupils and LINUS Tegar pupils were also used in order to determine the extent of their

42

progress. By looking at the constructs they had and had not mastered, we would be able to determine the pupils’ areas of strength and weaknesses in literacy development. Interview sessions were then carried out with the FasiLINUS to understand the district’s expectations towards the schools. The rationale behind this was to identify the progress the school had made overall based on the data and observations from the FasiLINUS’ perspective. The FasiLINUS would also be able to tell the researcher the school’s areas of strengths and weaknesses for further improvement. After that, interview sessions were conducted with the seven English teachers. This step was taken to understand the implementation process from their point of view and to identify any problems the teachers may have encountered in the past. All the seven teachers were observed for the reading and writing assessments between March and April 2015. Pupils were not involved in the observation as the main purpose of the observation was to investigate to what extent the teachers understood and executed LINUS in their classes. Similar to the interview, the teachers were given a short explanation and purpose of the observation. However, the criteria that the researcher was looking for was not shared with the teachers in order to ensure that the teachers were carrying out their classes as normal. Their permission was also sought before the observation could take place. Documents such as pupils’ results for the first assessment in 2015 and samples of pupils’ work were collected for analysis. One sample was collected from the following pupils; pupil who was categorised as LINUS, pupil who was categorised as LINUS Tegar and pupil who was categorised as LINUS but had been reintroduced into mainstream education. The pupils’ work would indicate whether they have improved in penmanship, and the ability to write from word, phrase, and sentence level.

43

Finally, based on the Saringan 1 (first assessment) results, classroom observations were conducted with five teachers. The other two teachers were exempted from the observations as they did not have LINUS pupils in their classrooms.

3.7 Validity and Reliability In research, validity is associated with the relationship of data and conclusions made(Mohammed Ali, 2012). Internal validity answers how research is conducted while external validity deals with how it is conducted with research integrity (Mohammed Ali, 2012). Meanwhile, reliability is related to how methods and data analysis are conducted to ensure consistency in data (Mohammed Ali, 2012). Within the constructivist paradigm of research, validity and reliability are termed differently compared to the positivist paradigm. Internal and external validity are replaced by the terms ‘trustworthiness’ and ‘authenticity’ while reliability is replaced with the terms ‘dependability’ (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). 3.7.1 Trustworthiness of data

According to Riege (2003), trustworthiness of data must answer the following questions:   

How rich and meaningful or “thick” are the description? Are the findings internally coherent? Are concepts systematically related? (p.81)

According to (Yin, 1994), trustworthiness of data can be increased by cross-checking the results during data analysis. This means that findings from the interview, classroom observation and document analysis can be verified by cross-checking method called triangulation. Triangulation is one the strategies used to test the reliability and validity of a qualitative research (Golafshani, 2003). As mentioned, since the constructivist paradigm accepts that knowledge is ever changing, the use of the triangulation method will result in a more valid and reliable research.

44

3.7.2 Authenticity

Authenticity on the other hand must answer these questions: 

Do the findings include enough “thick descriptions” for readers to assess the potential



transferability appropriateness for their own setting? Are the findings congruent with, connected to, or confirmatory to prior theory? (Riege, 2003, p. 81)

Marshall and Rossman (1989) claimed that this can be increased by defining the research design so that analytical generalization can be achieved. Meanwhile Yin (1994) mentioned that linking findings with existing literature so that generalization can be made within the context of the research. 3.7.3 Dependability

Dependability, on the other hand, must answer the following questions: 

Are the research questions clear and are the features of the study design congruent with



them? Have things been done with reasonable care? (Riege, 2003, p. 82)

For strengthening dependability, Yin (1994) suggested that pilot studies on data collection instruments should be conducted prior to the actual data collection. Guba & Lincoln (1989) also shared how dependability can be achieved by ensuring that the process of data collection is well explained, well documented and checked for bias. In order to test the reliability of the research instruments, pilot tests were conducted with the interview questions and observation checklists. The questions and observation checklists were generated through a review of government official documents, LINUS meetings and workshops attended by the researcher, and input from the fasiLINUS.

45

3.8 Data Analysis Procedure 3.8.1 Interview

Interview data was analysed using the 3 stages of thematic analysis. This is also known as the framework method. In the first stage, data was coded using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet template and similar codes that appeared were categorised into themes. In the second stage, the themes were described and summarised. Finally, in the third stage, the patterns were interpreted and reported. This report can be found in the following chapter. 3.8.2 Observation checklist

The three sets of observation checklist was analysed by noting the similar positive and negative teaching behaviour that were observed. Statistical operations were not used because the sample was too small to include statistical methods. Instead, the behaviours were described and used to support the interview data. 3.8.3 Document analysis

Pupils results was analysed using Microsoft Excel. Data from 2013 to 2015 was calculated to find its percentage. In order to see if there is an improvement from one year to another, a graph will be charted to see its progression.

3.9 Ethical Considerations First, unless otherwise agreed to, the identities of all who participated in a qualitative study should always be protected: care should be taken to ensure that none of the information collected would embarrass or harm them. If confidentiality cannot be maintained, participant must be so informed and given the opportunity to withdraw from the study. Second, participants should always be treated with respect... Usually subjects should be told of the researcher’s interests and should give their permission to proceed. Researchers should never lie to 46

subjects nor record any conversations using a hidden tape recorder or other mechanical apparatus. Third, researchers should do their best to ensure that no physical or psychological harm will come to anyone who participates in the study (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006, p. 441) The excerpt above summarised how a researcher should consider the ethical aspect of research. In compliance with the ethical practice of research, this research followed the guidelines handed out by the University of Nottingham, Malaysia campus and the British Education Research Association (Appendix 8). The researcher understood the importance of respecting the participants and their rights. All participants were briefed about the research and they were made to understand that their participation was strictly voluntary (Appendix 9). They could at any time withdraw from the research and their identity would be anonymous. A written consent from them and the school authorities were obtained before data collection commenced (Appendix 10) .

47

4. Findings This chapter presents the findings to address the three research questions described in Chapter 1. Data from all three methods, semi-structured interview, classroom observation and document analysis will be presented together. This will give the reader a deeper depth of the context and responses given.

4.1 Research Question 1 4. What are the outcomes of the LINUS programme after 3 years of implementation in a Malaysian primary school? Table 3: Pupils LINUS results from 2013 to 2014

Coho rt

1

2

3

Year

201 3 201 3 201 4 201 4 201 5 201 4 201 4 201 5 201 5

Grade / Darja h

Assessm ent

1

Tota l No. Special of Needs Pupi f % ls (N) 1 268

1

2

266

1

2

1

273

2

2

3

Results LINUS Tegar f %

LINUS

Achieved

f

f

%

%

6

2.24

175

65.3

87

32.46

0.38

3

1.13

103

159

59.77

1

0.37

9

3.3

44

219

80.22

275

1

0.36

3

1.09

38

233

84.73

1

289

1

0.35

3

1.04

22

38.7 2 16.1 2 13.8 2 7.61

263

91

1

1

278

23

8.27

114

141

50.72

1

2

283

10

3.53

126

147

51.94

2

1

279

2

0.72

60

217

77.78

1

1

296

15

5.07

128

41.0 1 44.5 2 21.5 1 43.2 4

153

51.69

Note: *LINUS assessments are conducted twice in a year. Assessment 1 is usually conducted from March-April. Assessment 2 is usually conducted from September48

October. *Special needs pupils have to be diagnosed by a certified medical officer and are exempted from LINUS. *LINUS Tegar- pupils who did not master Construct 1-Construct 2 in either the reading or writing assessment. *LINUS –pupils who did not master any one of Construct 3-Construct 12 in either the reading or writing assessment. *Achieved- pupils who mastered all constructs in both reading and writing assessment.

In order to answer this question, pupils’ literacy development based on the LINUS assessment results was obtained. Through document analysis method, Table3was generated to show pupils’ results by cohorts. In general, Year 1 pupils in all three cohorts suggested that they struggled in the first year of formal schooling. A significant number of Year 1 pupils were categorized as LINUS every year. There were 175 (65.3%) LINUS pupils in the first assessment in 2013, 114 (41.01%) LINUS pupils in 2014, and 128 (43.24%) LINUS pupils in 2015. For Cohort 1, there was improvement as the number of LINUS pupils in Year 1 decreased to 103 (38.72%) in the second semester. Even though the number of LINUS pupils in Cohort 2 increased to 126 (44.52%) by the second semester, this was also a sign of improvement as it meant more LINUS Tegar pupils were transferred into LINUS category. As these pupils did not master Construct 3 to Construct 12 in either reading or writing assessment, this signified that these pupils had problems reading and writing from word to sentence level. This could be due to the fact that English is not widely used outside the classroom. One teacher commented during the semi-structured interview, “In my class I have mixed ability pupils and it's difficult to teach them because English is not their language. Also they do not speak English at home” (Respondent A). Meanwhile, a small percentage of pupils were categorized as LINUS Tegar in Year 1. There were 6 (2.24%) LINUS Tegar pupils in Cohort 1, 23 (8.27%) LINUS Tegar pupils in Cohort 2, and 15 49

(5.07%) LINUS Tegar pupils in Cohort 3. The problems that these pupils experienced were more severe compared to the LINUS pupils as the test results indicated that they could not even recognize the alphabets and the sounds of the English language. However, there was slight improvement as the number of LINUS Tegar pupils decreased by the second semester. Teachers’ perception of pupils’ language proficiency was generally negative as one teacher commented, “they (pupils) cannot pronounce simple words correctly. They don’t know the phonic sounds and they are in Year 3” (Respondent F). Additionally, another teacher commented, “students cannot repeat the words. They know the sounds but they don’t recognise the letters” (Respondent B). Despite this, the FasiLINUS viewed the school’s performance as average and did better compared to vernacular schools and Orang Asli schools in the district. For example, as can be seen with Cohort 1 pupils, the majority of these pupils had shown tremendous improvement by Year 3 as there were only 3 (1.04%) LINUS Tegar pupils, 22 (7.61%) LINUS pupils and 263 (91%) pupils who had achieved the basic literacy constructs in English. Cohort 2 pupils also showed signs of improvement as there were only 2 (0.74%) LINUS Tegar pupils, 60 (21.51%) LINUS pupils, and 217 (77.78%) pupils who had achieved the basic literacy constructs in English by Year 2. The findings suggested that initially, many Year 1 pupils may have lacked early literacy skills in English and required remedial intervention. However, the subsequent assessments showed that a majority of pupils had improved under the program. This is supported by document analysis. Table 4 below shows three individual pupils’ results from 2013 to 2015. Pupil A is an example of a LINUS Tegar pupil. At Year 3, this pupil only managed to achieve Construct 3, thus placing him in the LINUS category. A sample of his work showed that in the span of one year, he is now able to recognise the alphabets and complete written exercises with guidance (Appendix 6). Pupil B, on the other hand, is an example of a 50

LINUS pupil who was successfully reintroduced into mainstream education. The pupil’s data revealed that initially she could only recognise letters of the alphabets. However, a sample of her work showed that she improved consistently and by Year 2, she had attained basic literacy (Appendix 6). Finally, pupil C is an example of pupils with inconsistent literacy achievement. According to her teacher, pupil C was not consistent with her reading skills this year. Although she achieved all the literacy skills last year, she could not master the reading skills for Year 3. A sample of her work showed that she had no problems with writing. Hence, further investigation is required to elicit why her reading performance is inconsistent. Table 4: Sample pupils' achievement from 2013-2015

Pupi

Year

l

Assessmen

LINUS

LINUS

t

Tegar K1 K2 K3 K4

K5 K6 K7 K8 K9

K1

K11 K1

0 A

2013 2014

B

2015 2013 2014

C

2015 2013 2014 2015

1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

2

/ / / / / / / / / / / / /

/ / / / / / / / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

4.2 Research Question 2 5. To what extent has the LINUS programme achieved its programme objectives?

51

In order to answer this, we have to investigate two main aspects of the program. First, whether the school had achieved the KPI outlined by the MOE and second, the implementation of LINUS 2.0. The table below shows the target percentage of pupils who achieved basic literacy skills by year and the actual percentage achieved by the school. Overall, the school did well as it had achieved the KPI for Year 2 and Year 3. However, the school did not achieve the KPI for Year 1. For example, in the first assessment in 2015, passing rate for Year 1 is 51.69% which is slightly under the target rate by 7.31%. The school needed to double its efforts in remediating pupils because by the second assessment in September-October 2015, teachers must ensure that for Year 1, the passing percentage must be increased from 51.69% to 67%. For Year 2, the percentage must be increased from 77.78% to 83% while Year 3 pupils must attain 100% passing rate. Consequently, data from the semi-structured interviews and classroom observations must be used in order to understand why this phenomenon happened and how the implementation of LINUS 2.0 can be improved. The following themes had been identified.

Table 5: Comparison between expected results (KPI) and school's actual achievement

Year

201 3 201 4 201 5 201 4 201 5 201 5

Grade / Darja h 1

2

3

KPI for Assessm ent 1(%)

Actual Achieveme nt (%)

Differen ce (%)

KPI for Assessm ent 2(%)

Actual Achieveme nt (%)

Differen ce (%)

59

32.46

- 26.36

67

59.77

- 7.23

50.72

- 8.28

51.94

- 15.06

51.69

- 7.31

NA

80.22

+ 5.22

77.78

+ 2.78

91

0

75

91

52

83

84.73 NA

100

NA

+1.73

4.2.1 Teaching Context

First, it is pivotal to understand the teachers who were involved with LINUS 2.0. The following table 6 summarises teachers’ teaching experience and current teaching situation. Respondent B, C, and F had the most experience with conducting LINUS (4 years). Meanwhile, respondent A and D have average experience with LINUS (2 years). Respondent E and G have the least experience with LINUS (one year). Respondent E is a newly transferred teacher from another state. Respondent E confirmed on separate occasions, “I’m still a new teacher (just transferred). I need more workshop(s)” and “Still ‘blur’ especially for weak students. I’m a new teacher in a new teaching environment”. On the other hand, respondent G is a Mathematics teacher who was asked to teach English this year due to the lack of English teachers in the school. All the teachers have adequate experience with teaching English except for respondent G with only one year of teaching experience. However, she did not mention in the interview whether she was uncomfortable teaching the subject. Out of the 7 respondents, Respondent A and F are not involved with LINUS this year as all their pupils pass the first screening of LINUS in April 2015. Respondent E has the most number of LINUS pupils in her classes with a total of 74 pupils while respondent D has the least number of LINUS pupils with 22 pupils in her classes. This information helped the researcher understand which teachers required more training and assistance in teaching materials and assessment. Table 6: Respondents' background, teaching experience and current teaching situation

Respond ent

Gend er

Experience with LINUS (years)

A B C

F F F

2 4 4

Teaching Experience (years) 9 4 6 53

Current Class Year 2 Year 1 Year 1 and

No. of LINUS pupils None 31 40

D E F G

F F F F

2 1 4 1

4 3 3 1

2 Year Year Year Year

3 1 3 2

22 74 None 23

4.2.2 Implementation problems

When asked about the problems teachers faced in implementation of LINUS 2.0, three themes cropped up repeatedly; time constraint, large class size, and mismatch of content between LINUS module and the textbook. 4.2.2.1 Time constraint

From the interview, time constraint was cited as one of the main problems in implementing LINUS. Teachers claim that the implementation of screening test, making of teaching materials and the use of LINUS modules were hampered by the requirement to complete the syllabus and the assessment procedure. Respondent B especially mentioned on several occasions, “Not enough time to teach. I don’t have time to make the ABM (material). No time to make flashcards.” She also mentioned, “No time to do the test. Only 30 minutes every day I can only do for 3 students”. This referred to the assessment procedure whereby 30 minutes of the KSSR lesson must be conducted before the LINUS screening test can be conducted. Teachers were given approximately 30 days to conduct the screening before keying-in pupil’s results online. There was a specific time-frame to do this before the NKRA website closes. So respondent B felt burdened when she could only assess so few pupils in one lesson and at the same time teach according to the KSSR syllabus. Although she commented that information provided through workshops were sufficient, she replied that she didn’t have time to complete all the requirements. Similarly, respondent A cited time constraint as the reason for not using the LINUS module, “I don’t have time to use…You know we got the (LINUS) test. Then we got PPT (mid-year test)… When I teach I must follow the textbook. I don't have time to teach twice”. This was confirmed 54

through classroom observations. Especially for the reading assessment, all teachers were observed using the first 30 minutes of class time to teach KSSR content first. Except for respondent A and F, the other respondents only managed to work with approximately less than 10 pupils in a lesson as time was spent in giving instructions for the assessment and prompting. 4.2.2.2 Large class size

Time constraint was linked to another common problem which was large class size. Based on the number of pupils assessed, there were 296 Year 1 pupils, 279 Year 2 pupils and 289 Year 3 pupils and these pupils were divided equally into 7 classes. Initially 7 classes for every level, but this year an additional class had to be opened for Year 1 in order to cope with the growing number of pupils. Respondent C and E found that they had to adapt their teaching strategies due to the large number of pupils. “It’s difficult to focus on every pupil because there are too many pupils in this school. In my previous school I had 30 plus students in one class. Here it’s up to 40” (Respondent C). “Previous school have (had) less students. In this school, I’m shocked because there are more students. Cultural shock because this is the first time I have to handle so many students so it affects how I teach” (Respondent E). 4.2.2.3 Mismatch of module and textbook content

Teachers also complained that the LINUS module was problematic as there was a mismatch of content between the module and the textbook. “The content is not the same with the textbook so it is hard to teach” (Respondent B). “Well, the topics don’t match. The vocabulary is different from the textbook. The tenses are different so have to teach 2 different things. Year 3 focuses on grammar but LINUS is about pronunciation” (Respondent D). Response towards the LINUS module however was mixed. Although Respondent A praised that the module is good for improving penmanship, other teachers lamented that the content in the

55

module did not complement the textbook hence teachers felt burdened teaching different language content in two different groups of pupils. “The Linus Year 3 module. Although we have to learn the dipthong but the topics not aligned with the textbook so it’s hard to teach students” (Respondent D). “In the book, for reading they have past tense. And then writing in present tense.'Susah nak ajar' (Difficult to teach)” (Respondent A). The same respondent also complained that the vocabulary level in the module is high. “I think they must revise the book to lower the standard for vocabulary.I think too high level for pupils” (Respondent A). In contrast, three teachers responded positively towards the module. “It is helping the children. It is easier than the daily lesson. The words are easy” (Respondent G). “It is helpful, very helpful but not enough materials. For example, I need ICT, LCD to show images” (Respondent E). “I don’t have problems with Year 1 and Year 2. But the module must be conducted from day 1 (of semester)” (Respondent C). Respondent E and C were the only respondents who mentioned that material adaptation is done to suit the levels of their pupils. “I know that we can improvise based on the students’ level. Don’t have to follow the steps given” (Respondent E). “We must adapt the activities to suit the topic in the textbook” (Respondent C). 4.2.2.4 Expectations to achieve KPI

Interestingly, one teacher mentioned the interference from the FasiLINUS as a problem with implementing LINUS. Respondent B was clearly frustrated when she recounted how pupils’ results have to be adjusted because they did not achieve the required KPI. She said, I want to be able to do it without PPD interfere (interfering). Well, the impact of the program cannot be seen because the results (are) not accurate. There’s no honesty. PPD ask us to adjust the results. I did the test but PPD interfered so there’s no point to do the test. 56

Since respondent B taught three Year 1 classes, the Year 1 data in 2015 did not represent the actual achievement of pupils as the results had been modified. This matter had been brought to the attention of the headmaster of the school. He had since informed teachers in a staff meeting that teachers do not have to modify LINUS results for the next assessment. Instead, he motivated teachers to do their best and carried out the assessment with integrity. 4.2.3 Assessment

The preliminary interview with the FasiLINUS informed the researcher of the following requirements for the reading and writing assessment: 1. Assessment can be conducted with one or up to 3 pupils at one time. 2. Teachers can give guidance as long as they do not provide the answers. 3. Teachers must have the following documents during assessment; lesson plan, screening instrument, assessment and BPPI forms. 4. Teachers may use teaching aid or phonic gestures as guidance. 5. Teachers can only conduct tests up to 4-6 constructs at one time, so that pupils do not think of it as a test. These criteria helped to form the observation checklist that was used to observe teachers in class. When asked, all of the teachers could elaborate on the assessment procedures in detail, which signified that information from the MOE had been successfully disseminated to the teachers. For example, Respondent C listed the documents required for the assessment, “And every time we do the assessment we must have the BPPI, instrument and the manual”. Two teachers talked about the constructs. “Maximum do 4 constructs at a time” (Respondent C). “I know we cannot do all constructs at once. First day, Contruct 1, 2, 3... The next day 4, 5, and 6...For writing, I let them do Construct 1 to 6, then Construct 7 to 12” (Respondent D). Finally, they were aware that guidance could be given to pupils. “Then I know we can help them. We can do arm blending technique. Then we can use games and drills” (Respondent B). “We can guide them up to 3 57

times. It’s the same with writing” (Respondent C). Their statements were confirmed in the classroom observations. For the reading assessment, five teachers were observed displaying all five criteria by the FasiLINUS. The other two teachers, however, did not display criteria 4 and 5 because pupils could read independently. For the writing assessment, the results were similar to the reading assessment except that most teachers did not have the BPPI forms with them because the forms are filled in after marking the pupils’ test papers. When asked about how teachers implement the assessment, teachers cited drilling or similar methods. Teachers would pre-teach the assessment items before conducting the assessment to individuals or in small groups. “Keep repeating and drilling to the students” (Respondent D). For reading I drill the questions first. I photocopy a lot of the reading instruments for my classes. Then the students will read together and practice in pairs. Then the pairs will come to me and I will assess both at the same time. I will make sure that everyone pass one page before we move to the next page (Respondent B). The drilling method was commonly used by the teachers. After conducting the KSSR lesson, teachers spent approximately 10 minutes in drilling important phrases and vocabulary related to the assessment constructs. This left teachers around 20 minutes to do the assessment which was clearly insufficient. Hence, a few of the respondents took the initiative to do the assessment during free time in the staffroom. As for the writing assessment, one teacher used parallel writing method. And then for writing it’s easier to ask them to write the same sentences but with different detail… I also drill the questions but I change the questions a bit. Maybe

58

I change the personal details. The actions (verbs) are similar but I change the details a bit (Respondent B). There were not much problems with the writing assessment as it was more straightforward than the reading assessment. Pupils mainly did the assessment individually while the teacher provided guidance only when necessary. 4.2.3 Remedial lessons

When asked about how teachers teach LINUS, various teaching strategies were cited. Here, repetition and drilling were also mentioned. “Teach whole class the daily lesson. Then I call the LINUS students and drill them. We do the activity in the module” (Respondent G). One teacher modifies this slightly by making word nametags to teach vocabulary, “The name tag I'm making. Going to start in semester 2… The students will be wearing name tags and they have spell and read the word every day” (Respondent A).One teacher used the buddy system. “I think the buddy system is good. I divide students into pairs. Students on the right is A, and students on the left is B. A will coach B and then they will take turns” (Respondent F). Another teacher mentioned that using songs to teach phonics is very effective. “Use the phonics song for the first two months. With that I can get the students to Construct 4. Teachers in previous school didn’t do it but when I did it this year I can see the difference” (Respondent C). The phonics song was one of the teaching strategies highly encouraged by the FasiLINUS. Teachers dedicate five minutes before every lesson for this song as a set induction. However, the teaching of high frequency words was not conducted even though materials and method were handed out at the beginning of the semester. This is a gap that needed to be addressed before the second assessment.

59

4.2.4 Teaching Materials

Regarding the teaching materials used to teach LINUS, teachers generally responded that they referred to the teacher’s module to teach. However, Respondent E and B did not receive the teacher’s module at the time of interview. This problem had since been rectified. With regards to the frequency of LINUS modules being used, respondent A and B only used them in class once citing time constraint as a factor. Classroom observations revealed that only one teacher used the LINUS module in class. Another teacher used the module for homework purposes. Three teachers provided differentiation in activities and extra guidance. Teachers said they need more teaching materials to supplement the module. For Year 3 we need more materials because just 2 years LINUS being implement(ed). So we need the materials to teach…but if we can have materials then

it’s

better.

Whatever

for

our

pupils

we

would

do

it

but

‘nakmenyenangkankerja’(would ease our job) (Respondent D). It is helpful, very helpful but not enough materials. For example, I need ICT, LCD to show images. For 1G and 1M, they want movement because they don’t like English. Pictures are not enough. I have to show them videos” (InterviewRespondent E).

60

4.3 Research Question 3 6. What suggestions might be recommended for further improvement? There were four main themes for this question: standardizing teaching practice, language exposure, material development and professional development. 4.3.1 Standardising teaching practice

The following suggestions were given by the FasiLINUS to ensure the According the FasiLINUS, the administrative department should ensure standardizing of teaching practice through observation and reminders so that teachers follow the guidelines set by the MOE and key in data on time. As for the teachers, she suggested that teachers should set a goal for each pupil so that they will progress accordingly. According to her, it is important that teachers should identify and set appropriate TOV/Headcount so that as each assessment is conducted, pupils will be able to pass more constructs. 4.3.2 Language exposure

Teachers would like learning environment to be richer with English language. They suggested that classroom walls and belongings should also be labeled with English words. One teacher suggested that wall murals that are more suitable for young learners should be drawn to capture learners’ interest to learn the language. Organising an English Carnival was also suggested to help motivate learners and expose them to the idea that learning English can be fun and interesting. They also suggested collaborating with Bahasa Malaysia teachers to help develop a stronger language foundation among learners. 4.3.2 Material development

Teachers would like to see more teaching aid being made and provided to ease their workload. More efforts to share materials and worksheets are welcomed by the teachers especially those

61

who are teaching the same topics. A teacher also lauded the use of picture dictionaries for Year 1 and hopes that it will continue. More materials are needed for sounds. 4.3.3 Professional development

As for professional development, a teacher commented that she would like to know more about mixed-ability teaching and how to provide differentiation in activities. Since there were teachers with less than 5 years of teaching experience and involvement with LINUS, these teachers should be given priority for workshops and training courses.

62

5. Discussion, Recommendations and Conclusion The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of the LINUS 2.0 remedial program in a national primary school in Malaysia. This research was based on the case study methodology and employed convenience sampling method in choosing the school and participants. Semi-structured interviews, classroom observations and document analysis were used to gather data. Pupils’ LINUS results from 2013-2015 and work samples were analysed to study the effectiveness of the remedial program. Then, the FasiLINUS and teachers were interviewed. Interview data was transcribed and coded in an Excel spreadsheet. Themes were then identified from similar codes. As a supplement to the interview data, classroom observations were used to observe teachers in three different teaching situations; during reading assessments, writing assessments and remedial lessons. Observational checklist was generated from semistructured interview with the FasiLINUS, information from workshops and related official documents. Data triangulation method was used to answer the research questions.

5.1 Discussion Based on the data fromdocument analysis, the majority of pupils demonstrated significant improvement in the subsequent LINUS assessment. To a certain extent, the program was found to be successful as more pupils were reintroduced into mainstream education. A review of selected pupils’ past year and current year’s work displayed noteworthy literacy development. Pupils improved from failing to recognise alphabets to being able to construct sentences with guidance. On a surface level, the statistics showed that the program has achieved its objectives. The school was on its way to achieve expectations laid out by PPD and MOE. However, there were several issues regarding implementation that needed to be resolved. The following subsections discuss the findings of the research in relation to literature review. 63

5.1.1 Implications for remedial instruction

There is a need for a balanced literacy instruction that encompasses all the early literacy skills mentioned in Chapter 2 (E-Best, 2006). Cowen (2003, as cited in EURYDICE, 2011) is also in support of a balanced literacy instruction that combines not only the teaching of early literacy skills, but also the principles of constructivist learning. The findings revealed that there was a heavy emphasis on drilling in the remedial lessons and literacy assessment. Moreover, teachers focused on the teachings on phonics but did not teach high frequency words. Teaching practice needs to be aligned to include all four components of code instruction, oral language, print awareness and writing as outlined by the National Early Literacy Panel (2008).

Im addition, teachers’ suggestion for improving language exposure among pupils reflected EURYDICE’s (2001) suggestion, that a learning environment that is rich in spoken and written language should be created by allocating reading and writing centres within the classroom, labelling objects and pupils’ names on belongings, and using routine instructional words and phrases. These steps will indirectly provide learners with the language input in the classroom.

Correspondingly, Nag and Snowling (2012) believed a good practice of remedial intervention encompasses a systematic approach that provides ample opportunities for consolidation, revision and which takes learners’ needs into consideration. The findings agreed with the United States Agency International Development (2012) that a consistent circular cycle of diagnosis, grouping of learners, differential or remedial instruction and assessment benefits learners. For example, Hollohan (2012), mentioned that learners may have strengths and weaknesses in different aspects of reading. A learner may be good at identifying sight words but not as successful in reading comprehension. Thus, it is the duty of the teacher to pinpoint individual learners’ strengths and 64

weaknesses and work out an intervention that can push learners further. Hollohan (2012) also stressed that differential instruction should be used in place of what she called ‘generic worksheets’ as these do not cater to all learners’ needs (p.15). She argued that this neglect will result in learners not being able to progress from one skill to another. At the same time, teachers should be realistic and set easier lesson goals for remedial pupils so that they are more manageable (The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 2007). EURYDICE (2011) recommended that teachers should work with pupils in small groups or individual pupils within a lesson. When dealing with learners of different proficiency levels, teachers should master classroom management strategies that work within their teaching context. Ankrum and Bean (2007) suggested that teachers should have good organisation and classroom routines that allow them to work with different groups of pupils within a lesson. More-able learners should be trained to work independently while the teacher spends more time with weak learners until these learners are able to catch up with their peers(Ankrum & Bean, 2007). 5.1.2 Implication for effective assessment

Kennedy et al. (2012) suggested that assessment for young children should be formative through observing learners in their learning environment and involving the perspective of parents on their child’s development.

However, in more formal instructional context, they recommended

assessment tools such as “interviews, running records, miscue analysis, oral retelling, comprehension questions, cloze assessment, reading and writing conferences, and writing portfolios” which are documented using scoring rubrics and other suitable recording tools (p.328). According to Ankrum and Bean (2007), a good teaching practice should utilise formative assessment in order to gauge learners continuously and place learners into suitable

65

proficiency groups. This, according to them, would ensure that learners receive differential instruction that is appropriate for their level. Besides that, they recommended the use of various assessment tools that are manageable and comprehensive in measuring basic literacy skills to more advanced skills which are aligned to the principles of early literacy skills. Muralidharan (2013) argued that formative assessment should be carried out as its purpose is to measure learning gaps so it does not cause any stress to the learners. In order to execute formative assessment succesfully, Muralidharan’s concern was more towards ensuring that assessment tools are reliable and valid. At the same time, it is stressed that teachers should shift away from being too reliable on textbooks, instead they should follow a more constructivist approach to avoid the backwash effect of examinations (Muralidharan, 2013; The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 2007). Learners should also be assessed by classroom mentors or supervisors for a more impartial appraisal (United States Agency International Development, 2012).

The research revealed that a gap existed between target language assessmet, target language instruction and its relationship with pupils’ mother tongue. Teachers complained that teaching is made difficult as learners do not practice English outside the classroom. In order to address this difficulty, Nag, et al. (2014) suggested using vocabulary knowledge task to test learners’ knowledge of words that do not follow a transparent sound-symbol mapping. This would allow educators to assess whether learners fully understand the writing system of the English language. Otherwise, the assessment would not be reliable as learners would simply rely on the writing system of their mother tongue to read and write in English. It is therefore imperative that in order for actual language learning to take place, teaching and assessment have to be adapted in such a

66

way that learners can differentiate between the two writing systems which are Bahasa Malaysia and English. Learners would benefit from this in the long run because they will have a stronger foundation in both languages. Moreover, there is a gap for assessment for reading comprehension skills; oral language skills which comprise of word definition, grammar, narrative and listening comprehension; high quality teacher administered tools; and observational tools that needs to be further developed (Nag, et al., 2014). 5.1.3 Implication for professional development

The findings revealed that several of the teachers lacked confidence as there are newly transferred teachers and non-optionist teachers this year. It is without a doubt that professional development is crucial for teachers who have minimal teacher training and experience (Bartlett, 2010). However, he remarked that it is only effective if the training is practical and deviates from the present conventional methods used in classrooms. An interesting observation discovered that teaching practice was not standardised and there were minimal sharing of information among teachers. Snow et al. (2005, as cited in EURYDICE, 2011) mentioned that professional development must eventually lead to teamwork and demonstrate shared expertise among teachers. One way of achieving this is by establishing a coaching or mentoring system among colleagues in order to ensure consistency of high quality instruction in schools (United States Agency International Development, 2012). Teachers should also channel their attention towards a ‘research-based approach’ as they can investigate literacy problems and come up with answers for their own teaching context (Kennedy, et al., 2012, p. 334). For example, Respondent A’s effort in experimenting with the use of vocabulary name-tags to teach spelling and vocabulary to her pupils should be an example to the other colleagues. 67

5.2 Recommendations for future research The findings of this case study are only applicable to the context of the school being studied. In order to confirm these findings, research of a larger scale needs to be conducted for schools in the entire district. As this research is qualitative in nature, it would allow other LINUS coordinators to investigate the effects of the program. Additionally, they would be able to identify strengths and weaknesses of the implementation process in their school. Due to limited resources and time, only several data collection methods were used in this case study. For a better understanding of the teaching context, other sources of data should have been included. The findings had focused on the implementation of LINUS 2.0 from the FasiLINUS and teachers but not from the administrator and pupils. Another recommendation is to include additional sources such as informal and formal staff meetings, reports of official staff observations, interview with the administrator and feedback from pupils for a more comprehensive triangulation of data. The third recommendation is to conduct a longitudinal study on the internal and external factors that contributed to the success of remedial pupils reintroduced into mainstream education. This will inform teachers the formula of success for remediating pupils. Simultaneously, a longitudinal case study can be conducted on LINUS Tegar and LINUS pupils that did not perform or displayed slight improvement throughout the program. Further research is required to understand the language learning difficulties that these pupils face in the context of Malaysia and to determine possible solutions that can be recommended to aid them.

5.3 Conclusion This case study investigated the effects of the implementation ofLINUS 2.0 remedial program in a national primary school in Selangor, Malaysia. The findings revealed that the remedial program 68

has potential in developing learner’s early literacy skills. Consistent regulation of its implementation by the FasiLINUS and the LINUS coordinator through interviews, classroom observation and document analysis is recommended. This is pivotal in order to maintain the smooth process of assessment and quality of language instruction.

69

Reference National Institute For Literacy . (2009). Early Beginnings: Early Literacy Knowledge and Instructions. Retrieved May 15, 2015, from Literacy Information and Communication System: https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPEarlyBeginnings09.pdf Alvarez, M. C., Amstrong, S. L., Elish-Piper, L. M., & Risko, V. J. (2009). Deconstructing the construct of 'struggling reader': Standing still or transforming expectations and instruction? American Reading Forum Annual Yearbook [Online], 29, 1-21. Amar-Singh, H. S. (2013). Screening and Diagnosing Learning Disabilities. Retrieved May 13, 2015, from National Early Childhood Intervention Council: http://www.necicmalaysia.org Ankrum, J. W., & Bean, R. M. (2007). Differentiated reading instructions. Reading Horizons, 48(1), 133-146. Anonymous. (2011, September 21). Action to be taken against school for barring trio from exam. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com.my/story/? sec=nation&file=%2F2011%2F9%2F21%2Fnation%2 Anonymous. (2012, November 25). Primary schools to get Linus 2.0 next year. Daily Express. Anonymous. (2012, 4 2). Zero to 12: Upgrading the Education System. Retrieved 1 10, 2015, from News Straits Times: http://www2.nst.com.my/nation/extras/zero-to-12-upgrading-the-educationsystem-1.69792 Ashdown, J., & Simic, O. (2000). Is early literacy intervention effective for English language learners? Evidence from Reading Recovery. Literacy Teaching and Learning , 5(1), 27-42. ASLI-CPPS. (2012). Feedback Report on National Education Blueprint. Kuala Lumpur: ASLI-CPPS. August, D. (2003). Supporting the development of English literacy in English language learners: Key issues and promising practices. The John Hopkins University . Baltimore: CRESPAR. Australian Council for Educational Research. (2013). Literacy and Numeracy Interventions in the Early Years of Schooling: A Literature Review. New South Wales: Ministerial Advisory Group on Literacy and Numeracy.

70

Balqis, N. (2014, September 21). Further strengthening English language learning. New Straits Times. Banerjee, A. V., Cole, S., Duflo, E., & Linden, L. (2007). Remedying Education: Evidence From Two Randomised Experiments in India. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1235-1264. Bartlett, S. (2010). Improving Learning Achievement in Early Primary in Low-Income Countries: A Review of the Research . Geneva: Aga Khan Foundation . Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544559. Bhola, H. S. (1990). Evaluating "Literacy for Development" Projects, Programs and Campaigns: Evaluation Planning, Design and Implementation, and Utilization of Evaluation Results. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education . Bipoupout, J. C. (2007). The contribution of the competency-based approach to education for all in Cameroon. Prospects, 37(2), 205-221. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. Brown, V. (2014). All primary schools to adopt LINUS programme. Retrieved 1 10, 2015, from The Asian Parent : http://my.theasianparent.com/all-primaryschools-to-adopt-linus-program/# Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education (7th ed.). Oxon: Routledge. Davey, L. (1991). The Application of Case Study Evaluations. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from Ericae.net: http://ericae.net/db/digs/ed338706.htm DES. (2011). Literacy and Numeracy for Learning and Life: The National Strategy to Improve Literacy and Numeracy Among Children and Young People 20112020. Government Publications : Dublin . Dowling, P., & Brown, A. (2010). Doing Research/ Reading Research: Reinterrogating Research . Oxon: Routledge. E-Best. (2006, February ). Accelerated Reading Interventions: Double-Dipping Reading Strategy. Retrieved July 15, 2015, from Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board: http://www.hwdsb.on.ca/e-best/files/2011/03/AcceleratedReading-BLAM.pdf Economic Planning Unit. (2010). Tenth Malaysia Plan 2011-2015: Chapter 5. Retrieved May 13, 2015, from UNESCO: 71

http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Malaysia/Malaysia_10th_Master_Plan_ Chapter5.pdf Europe Aid Cooperation Office. (2005, 3 7). Case Study. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from European Union: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation/methodology/examples/too_cas_res _en.pdf EURYDICE. (2011). Teaching Reading in Europe: Contexts, Policies and Practices . Brussels: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. Explorable.com. (2015). Convenience Sampling . Retrieved July 20, 2015, from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/convenience-sampling Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607. Gonzalez, J. E., Goetz, E. T., Hall, R. J., Payne, T., Taylor, A. B., & Kim, M. (2011). An evaluation of Early Reading First (ERF) preschool enrichment on language and literacy skills. Read Writ, 24, 253-284. Gova, A., & Cvelich, P. (2011). Early Reading: Igniting Education For All. A Report by the Early Grade Learning Community of Practice. NC: Research Triangle Institute. Grubb, N. e. (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in community colleges. New Yok: Routledge. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage Publication. Hollohan, B. (2012). Children Who Struggle in Early Literacy . Integrated Studies Project , Anthabasca University , Department of Arts- Integrated Studies . Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2013). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Research (5th ed.). New York: Sage Publications. J-PAL . (2009). Abdul Latiff Jameel Poverty Action Lab Executive Training: Evaluating Social Programs . Retrieved July 15, 2015, from MIT, Cambridge : https://www.povertyactionlab.org/course Kennedy, E., Dunphy, E., Dywer, B., Hayes, G., Mcphillips, T., Marsh, J., et al. (2012). Literacy in early childhood and primary education (3-8 years). Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

72

Kiely, R., & Rea-Dickins, P. (2005). Program Evaluation in Language Education . New York: Palgrave Macmillan . Lancashire County Council. (2015). The importance of phonics: Securing confident reading. Retrieved July 15, 2015, from The Lancashire Grid For Learning: http://www.lancsngfl.ac.uk/curriculum/assessment/download/file/3.pdf Mackay, R. (1994). Undertaking ESL/EFL programme review for accountability and improvement. ELT Journal, 48(2), 142-149. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing Qualitative Research . Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Mazen, A. R. (2011). The impact of a remedial program on English writing skills of the seventh grade low achievers at UNRWA schools in Rafah. MA thesis, The Islamic University of Gaza, Curriculum and English Teaching Methods Department . McCammon, B. (n.d.). Semi-structured Interviews. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from Design Research Techniques: http://designresearchtechniques.com/casestudies/semi-structured-interviews/ McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research Methods for English Language Teachers. New York: Arnold. Melekoglu, M. A., & Wilkerson, K. L. (2012). The use of repeated reading in afterschool programs: Improving outcomes for struggling elementary students with reading difficulties. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 8(2), 127-139. MOE. (2015). Manual Am Pentadbiran Instrumen LINUS 2015: Saringan 1 [General Manual for LINUS 2015 Instrument: First Assessment]. Putrajaya: MOE. Mohammed Ali, B. (2012). Is it possible for qualitative research to be properly valid and reliable? . Retrieved July 20, 2015, from Academia.eu: http://www.academia.edu/997438/Validity_and_Reliability_in_Qualitative_Rese arch Muralidharan, K. (2013). Priorities for primary education policy in India's 12th Fiveyear plan. India Policy Forum, 9, 1-46. Nag, S., & Snowling, M. J. (2012). School underachievement and specific learning difficulties. In J. M. Rey (Ed.), IACAPAP e-Textbook of Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Geneva: International Association for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Allied Professions. Nag, S., Chiat, S., Torgerson, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2014, January). Literacy, Foundation Learning and Assessment in Developing Countries: Final Report. 73

Education Rigorous Literature Review, Department for International Dvelopment. National Early Literacy Panel . (2008). Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel . Washington D. C.: National Institute for Literacy. Nazariyah, S., & Abdul Rahman, I. (2013). Implementation of Linus programme based on the model of Van Meter and Van Horn. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Science, 1(2), 25-36. Ndebele, C. (2014). Teacher perceptions on the effectiveness of an English remedial teaching programme in primary schools in Zimbabwe: Towards an alternative to the deficit model. International Journal of Educational Science, 6(3), 497508. Ng, P. F., & Yeo, K. J. (2012). Preschool teachers' beliefs and practices on early literacy instruction. Retrieved June 6, 2015, from uitm.com: http://eprints.utm.my/37854/ Okebukola, F. (2006). Adjuticating the reading wars. Literacy and Reading in Nigeria, 11(1), 134-143. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. PEMANDU. (2010). Government Transformation Programme: The Roadmap. Putrajaya: PEMANDU. PEMANDU. (undated). Literacy and numeracy: Education NKRA lab. Retrieved January 10, 2015, from http://epic.oum.edu.my/epic_upload/resources/HBEF3503/20130220092017_P EMANDU%20lit%20&%20num.pdf Rasinki, T., Homan, S., & Biggs, M. (2008). Teaching reading fluency to struggling readers : Method, materials, and evidence. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25(2-3), 192-204. Riege, A. M. (2003). Validity and reliability tests in case study research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(2), 75-86. Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (2nd edition ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Roessingh, H., & Elgie, S. (2009). Early language and literacy development among young English language learners: Preliminary insights from a longitudinal study. TESL Canada Journal, 26(2), 24-45.

74

Roskos, K. A., Christie, J. F., & Richgels, D. J. (2003). The Essentials to Early Literacy Instruction. Retrieved May 15, 2015, from NAEYC: https://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200303/Essentials.pdf Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Davis, S. (2010, January). Effective reading programs for elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesis. Retrieved June 10 , 2015, from Best Evidence Encyclopedia: www.bestevidence.org Soy, S. (2006, 12 2). The Case Study as a Research Method: Uses and Users of Information . Retrieved July 10, 2015, from ischool.utexas.edu: https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~ssoy/usesusers/l391d1b.htm Special Module for National Service Trainees: Malaysia. (2011, September 12). Retrieved July 7, 2015, from http://news.asiaone.com/print/News/AsiaOne %2BNews/Malaysia/Story/A1Story20110912-299006.html Stufflebeam, D. L., & Coryn, C. L. (2014). Evaluation Theory, Model, and Application (2nd ed. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Taylor, P. C., & Medina, M. N. (2013). Educational Research Paradigms: From Positivism to Multiparadigmatic. Retrieved April 21, 2015, from Academia.edu: http://www.academia.edu/2635980/Educational_research_paradigms_From_po sitivism_to_multiparadigmatic The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. (2007, July 1). Chapter 3 - Remedial Teaching Strategies. Retrieved July 15, 2015, from The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: http://www.edb.gov.hk/en/edu-system/special/resources/serc/irtp/book3.html#1 Topkaya, E. Z. (2010). An evaluation of 4th and 5th grade English language teaching program. Elementary Education Online, 9(1), 52-65. Udosen, A. E., Udofia, N., Ekukinam, T., & Akpan, L. (2010). Empowering primary school pupils through literacy remediation project in Uyo local government area. African Research Review, 4(3b), 55-70. UNESCO. (2015). Education for All 2015 National Review: Malaysia. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from UNESCO: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002297/229719E.pdf United States Agency International Development. (2012). 2011 USAID Education Strategy: Reference Materials. Washington: USAID.

75

Usha, N., Karunanidhi, R., & Nirmala, D. (2014). Reading literacy in primary schools in South Africa: Educator perspectives on factors affecting reading literacy and strategies for improvement. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(1), 155-167. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd edition ed.). London: Sage Publications. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd Edition ed.). London: Sage Publications.

76

6. Appendices Appendix 1: Turnitin Report

77

Appendix 2: Sample of interview questions Interview Question Set 1 Bi l 1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of your background regarding the LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as a Fasilinus?

b) What is your job scope like?

c) What activities or support in general have you provided for this particular school?

2.

What was your initial impression of this particular school in terms of the LINUS results in the past three years?

a) Why do you believe it to be so?

b) Compared to other schools in the same district, where does the school stand in terms of LINUS results?

78

c) Compared to other schools in the same district, how would you rate the implementation of LINUS? Please elaborate.

3.

What are your expectations for the school this year?

a) Results

b) Implementation

4.

Based on the workshops, I understand that there are certain steps and procedures to carry out the reading and writing test. Please elaborate what the PPD expects from teachers?

a) Based on your school visit during the LINUS reading test, what is your impression of the way our teachers carry them out?

b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices? Please elaborate.

79

c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate.

5.

Based on the workshops, there are also guidelines to carry out the LINUS module. Can you elaborate what the PPD expects from teachers?

a) Based on your school visits, what is your impression of the way our teachers carry them out?

b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices? Please elaborate.

c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate.

80

6.

Any further advice you would like to recommend to our school to further improve the implementation of the programme?

a) Admin

b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS

c) Teachers

81

82

Interview Question Set 2 Bi l 1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of your background regarding the LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as an English teacher?

b) Which year are you teaching this year?

c) How many of your pupils are classified as LINUS/ LINUS TEGAR?

2.

What was your initial impression of this particular school in terms of the LINUS results in the past three years?

a) Why do you believe it to be so?

b) Have you noticed any areas of progress in our school?

c) Have you noticed any areas that need to be 83

worked on?

3.

What are your expectations for the school this year?

a) Results

b) Implementation

4.

Based on the workshops, I understand that there are certain steps and procedures to carry out the reading and writing test. Please elaborate what you have understood from these workshops?

a) How do you rate the information and support you have received from the workshop? Why?

b) What are the best practices that you have seen/experienced when conducting the tests? Please elaborate.

84

c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate.

5.

Based on the workshops, there are also guidelines to carry out the LINUS module. Can you elaborate what teachers are supposed to do?

a) What is your general opinion of the module?

b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices that you have seen/experienced when carrying out the module? Please elaborate.

c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate.

85

6.

Any further advice you would like to recommend to our school to further improve the implementation of the programme?

a) Admin

b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS

86

c) Other teachers in school

87

Appendix 3: Sample of observation checklist Observation checklist for reading assessment Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents? a) assessment manual b) BPPI form c) assessment instruments Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

4.

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher cover no more than 4 constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

88

Yes

No

Comments

Observation checklist for writing assessment Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents? a) assessment manual b) BPPI form c) assessment instruments Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

4.

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher cover no more than 4 constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

89

Yes

No

Comments

Observation checklist for LINUS lesson Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher refer to the LINUS teacher’s module?

4. 5.

Did the teacher use the LINUS module? Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

6.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

7.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher provide differentiation in activities?

8.

9.

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

Did the teacher provide differentiation in worksheet? Overall comment:

90

Yes

No

Comments

Appendix 4: Interview transcript Interview Question Set 1 Bi l 1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of your background regarding the LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as a Fasilinus? 1 year.

FasiLINUS BI. b) What is your job scope like? Watching, coaching and mentoring level 1 teachers and their pupils. I work hand in hand with teachers to help cater to pupils' basic literacy. Besides that, I handle courses,analyse data and conduct workshops. c) What activities or support in general have you provided for this particular school? Mainly coaching and mentoring. I assisted one of the teachers recently, to guide her for reading and writing assessment. I observe PdP (teaching and learning) and the screening process. 2.

What was your initial impression of this particular school in terms of the LINUS results in the past three years?

a) Why do you believe it to be so?

Pupils are weak.

Pupils cannot really communicate in English independently unless it is scripted.

Most teachers are strict during the screening. Pupils should have more chances to pass because this is basic literacy especially for Year 3 pupils. Pupils need drilling because in

But even then I can see that teachers are very creative.

No communication in English between pupils. Maybe for the first 2 classes but for the rest teachers only use English because it is compulsory. b) Compared to other schools in the same district, where does the school stand in terms of LINUS results? 91

some schools English is like their 4th language. Teachers lack time so they only give one or two chances to the pupils during screening because they have mixedability pupils in the class.

Most schools in the district are similar in background.Not that bad compared to SJKC or SJKT or Orang Asli school. I would say middle or average. c) Compared to other schools in the same district, how would you rate the implementation of LINUS? Please elaborate. As I wasn't able to see all the teachers during my visit. I think may 60% to 70% are implementing LINUS right.30% because lack of experience or not conducting the lessons in English.Maybe they do not have the exposure and they are non-optionistteachers.Schools need English teachers. I can see that the district lacks English teachers.Some admin just fill in the post with other option teachers. To train them will take a long time because we can only train one teacher from each school at one time.The school is large so it is impossible to train all teachers because training is based on rotation.

3.

What are your expectations for the school this year?

a) Results School should try their best to achieve KPI (Key Performance Index). Year 3 90% pass for the first screening and 100% pass for the second screening. This is based on MOE. b) Implementation Teacher should deliver content based on students' level instead of assuming they are all at the same level.Don't expect students to understand high level of English.No mother tongue. Teacher should use less translation. They shouldn't be too dependent on translating.

4.

Based on the workshops, I understand that there are certain steps and procedures to carry out the reading and

a) Based on your school visit during the LINUS reading test, what is your impression of the way our teachers carry them out?

92

writing test. Please elaborate what the PPD expects from teachers? There are four items that are compulsory to have; lesson plan, screening instrument, assessment manual and BPPI form.For reading, you can do the assessment one to one or up to 3 pupils maximum at the same time.Guide, teachers can guide as long as they don't say the answer.You can use teaching aid or gestures.For writing, you can only do 4 to 6 Construct in a period or a lesson.To avoid pupils thinking it's a test. It's not a test. It's just screening. 5.

Based on the workshops, there are also guidelines to carry out the LINUS module. Can you elaborate what the PPD expects from teachers? The module is written based on phonics. It is fundamental for students especially for weaker pupils.Teachers should use it as it is good.The level is lower than the activity book.Use it thoroughly so that it will help the students.

6.

Any further advice you would like to recommend to our school to further improve the implementation of the programme?

I only observed that one class at the time.I observed a Year 2 class. The teacher used English in her instruction.But the atmosphere is not conducive because the students were standing. They should be sitting down. b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices? Please elaborate. Her voice was clear. The instructions were simple and she used the phonics song. c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate. Classroom control… She supposed to give worksheet to preoccupy the other students.

a) Based on your school visits, what is your impression of the way our teachers carry them out? They gave me good feedback.They said the tasks were simple. Number of task not many.The module suits pupils' needs. b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices? Please elaborate. Not yet. This year it's still early. Not like last year. c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate. Don't give the module to pupils who have already mastered LINUS. a) Admin Remind teachers to make sure they know all the KPIs so that you are on the right track.Also need to observe teachers in teaching LINUS 93

pupils.Make it (observation) periodically so that teachers will be on the right track. Sometimes teachers tend to do things their own way. Admin can do this as pencerapan (annual observation). b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS Disseminate information on how to write proper lesson plans, conduct screening, using the module and textbook so that teachers are always updated.Keying in data on time.Remind them (teachers) of due dates. c) Teachers Must identify LINUS pupils… make them sit in front of the class so that they can focus.Know TOV /Headcount so that they have target to pass.Example, if the pupil is at Construct 1 , for the next screening teacher must make sure the pupils pass 6 constructs and the next screening another 6 constructs.

94

Interview Question Set 2 Teacher A Bi l 1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of your background regarding the LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as an English teacher? 9 years.

2 years when LINUS started. b) Which year are you teaching this year? Year 2. c) How many of your pupils are classified as LINUS/ LINUS TEGAR? None. 2.

What was your initial impression of this particular school in terms of the LINUS results in the past three years? There are too many pupils in this school. I think their ‘prestasi’ (results) are average. X

a) Why do you believe it to be so? In my class I have mixed ability pupils and it’s difficult to teach them because English is not their language. Also they do not speak English at home. So that’s why I think they are only average. b) Have you noticed any areas of progress in our school? I think their writing is ok. c) Have you noticed any areas that need to be worked on? First is reading. I think their pronunciation needs more practice. They cannot speak certain words. Spelling. You know, like words that sound the same. What do you call them? Homophones. Yes, they are confused with homophones. And lack of vocabulary. That’s it.

3.

What are your expectations for the school this year?

a) Results

95

In my class, I hope that everyone pass the constructs. b) Implementation Well, we have to teach ABC song for phonics. I just started. And when they are reading, I have to ‘notify’ (teach) the sounds. I want them to know the different sounds. Then, for my ‘kajiantindakan’ (action research) with Teacher (Puan) Hajar. You know about it. The name tag I’m making. Going to start in semester 2. The students will be wearing name tags and they have to spell and read the word every day. Then we will test them with spelling test and see if they know the words. 4.

Based on the workshops, I understand that there are certain steps and procedures to carry out the reading and writing test. Please elaborate what you have understood from these workshops? Reading. Oh you mean the test? Which one? The one we did in April? I just do pre-teaching. I teach the words and sentences first. Then when they are ready I call them one by one. Then I know we can give them clues. Have to try and help them. For writing... I just give them the questions. If (constructs are) not achieved, we can give guidance until they can do it.

5.

Based on the workshops, there are also guidelines to carry out the LINUS module. Can you

a) How do you rate the information and support you have received from the workshop? Why? I don’t know because I’ve never been to a workshop. I only get information from other teachers. In-house training. I think the information is sufficient. b) What are the best practices that you have seen/experienced when conducting the tests? Please elaborate. -

None

c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate. I know that when we do pre-teaching, we shouldn’t give same activity. I give them something different. I change the names a bit. I change the sentences a bit. So they have to think. a) What is your general opinion of the module? I think too high level for pupils. In the book, for 96

elaborate what teachers are supposed to do? I know we use for each class with Linus students. No, I don’t. I don’t have time to use. You know we got the (LINUS) test. Then we got PPT (midyear test). No time. I only used once this year. ‘Banyakkerja’ (too much workload).

reading they have past tense. And then writing in present tense. ‘Susah nakajar’(Difficult to teach). But the book is good for writing (penmanship). When I teach I must follow the textbook. I don’t have time to teach twice. I think they must revise the book to lower the standard for vocabulary. b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices that you have seen/experienced when carrying out the module? Please elaborate. -None. c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate. -None.

6.

Any further advice you would like to recommend to our school to further improve the implementation of the programme?

a) Admin -None. b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS Need to give more exposure to students. We need to have one day for students to enjoy English. Maybe we can have a workshop... no... an English Carnival for 3 hours? You know, we can target speaking and reading skills. We can do stations and students can do different activities. Then, we must implement more action research to the whole school so that (we can) improve students vocabulary. c) Other teachers in school Maybe they can label classroom with English words. Other teachers do with Malay words. So if we have English words pupils can also read English words.

97

98

Interview Question Set 2 Teacher B Bi l 1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of your background regarding the LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as an English teacher? Since 2012... So 4 years.

2 years b) Which year are you teaching this year? Year 1. c) How many of your pupils are classified as LINUS/ LINUS TEGAR? In I Jauhari 11 pupils. 1 Delima 30 plus students are LINUS. 2.

What was your initial impression of this particular school in terms of the LINUS results in the past three years?

a) Why do you believe it to be so? Because from my Jauhari class I can already see there are weak students and Jauhari is the 4th class.

Average. b) Have you noticed any areas of progress in our school? No. Not yet. c) Have you noticed any areas that need to be worked on? Um... maybe implementation. We need to think how to manage mainstream and Linus students in one class without neglecting students. 3.

What are your expectations for the school this year?

a) Results I hope pupils’ results will improve.

99

b) Implementation I want to be able to do it without PPD interfere (interfering). Well, the impact of the programme cannot be seen because the results (are) not accurate. There’s no honesty. PPD ask us to adjust the results. I did the test but PPD interfered so there’s no point to do the test. 4.

Based on the workshops, I understand that there are certain steps and procedures to carry out the reading and writing test. Please elaborate what you have understood from these workshops? For reading I drill the questions first. I photocopy a lot of the reading instruments for my classes. Then the students will read together and practice in pairs. Then the pairs will come to me and I will assess both at the same time. I will make sure that everyone pass one page before we move to the next page. Then I know we can help them. We can do arm blending technique. We have to teach the topic of the day for 30 minutes before the LINUS. Then we can use games and drills. For writing same thing. 30 minutes to teach. I also drill the questions but I change the questions a bit. Maybe I change the personal details. The actions (verbs) are similar but I change the details a bit. If they (pupils) don’t pass then

a) How do you rate the information and support you have received from the workshop? Why? The information is ok but I don’t have time to do everything. No time to do the test. Only 30 minutes every day I can only do for 3 students. The standard of the test is too high. Some students cannot read the sentences, they can only read (at) words (level) but teacher have to pass the students. b) What are the best practices that you have seen/experienced when conducting the tests? Please elaborate. The easiest thing for me is to photocopy the (instrument) sets for reading. And then for writing it’s easier to ask them to write the same sentences but with different detail (parallel writing). Must lessen the number of sentences for reading c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate. Kevin’s idea (native speaker mentor). When he helped me with the LINUS, he only said the instructions. Students cannot understand (oral instruction). So I think that is not good. I must write the instructions down. So must have spoken and written instructions together. Then only students understand.

100

I can ask them to do again. But I only do this for the weak ones. No need to do for Arif. 5.

Based on the workshops, there are also guidelines to carry out the LINUS module. Can you elaborate what teachers are supposed to do? I don’t know because I didn’t have the teacher’s module.

a) What is your general opinion of the module? Just once. I can only do 3 words with the pupils in one page. The content is not the same with the textbook so it is hard to teach. Blur because don’t know how to use the module. Students cannot repeat the words. They know the sounds but they don’t recognise the letters. Not enough time to teach. I don’t have time to make the ABM (material). No time to make flashcards. b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices that you have seen/experienced when carrying out the module? Please elaborate. Not yet. c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate. No.

6.

Any further advice you would like to recommend to our school to further improve the implementation of the programme?

a) Admin Need 1 class for LINUS (separate remedial classes). I think cannot mix the mainstream and LINUS students. Very hard to control. And we cannot be the remedial teacher. Must have another remedial teacher to help. b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS I know how to do LINUS but no time. And too result-oriented. Cannot expect so many students to pass. If we can make or find video on how to teach two groups of students at the same time then it can help a lot. c) Other teachers in school

101

Maybe we need to work together with BM (Bahasa Malaysia) teachers. We need to work together to help students to learn the letters (letter recognition).

102

Interview Question Set 2 Teacher C Bi l 1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of your background regarding the LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as an English teacher? 6 years

Since 2012 during the first penataran ()... So about 4 years.

b) Which year are you teaching this year? Year 1 and 2 c) How many of your pupils are classified as LINUS/ LINUS TEGAR? 40 for Year 1 classes. Year 2 semuamenguasai (all achieved)

2.

What was your initial impression of this particular school in terms of the LINUS results in the past three years? I got the average classes so I can’t really say because I don’t teach weak classes so I cannot compare. I think it depends on the teacher to push the students.

a) Why do you believe it to be so? Maybe it’s the strategy the teacher used. It’s difficult to focus on every pupil because there are too many pupils in this school. In my previous school I had 30 plus students in one class. Here it’s up to 40. b) Have you noticed any areas of progress in our school? I can’t say because I just got transferred here. I can only say in Saringan 2 (2nd assessment) c) Have you noticed any areas that need to be worked on? I can’t answer this question because it depends on the teacher. How the teacher push students. Different teachers have different styles.

3.

What are your expectations for the school this year?

a) Results

103

I want to cut down the number of LINUS pupils to half. At least half. b) Implementation I want to focus more on reading. The Year 1 students know the sounds and letters but they are mostly stuck on Construct 6 and above. They cannot read sentences. 4.

Based on the workshops, I understand that there are certain steps and procedures to carry out the reading and writing test. Please elaborate what you have understood from these workshops? Maximum do 4 constructs at a time. We can guide them up to 3 times with guidance. It’s the same with writing. Make sure we jot down the date for screening. And every time we do the assessment we must have the BPPI, instrument and the manual.

a) How do you rate the information and support you have received from the workshop? Why? Enough. If we understand the information then we can do it. b) What are the best practices that you have seen/experienced when conducting the tests? Please elaborate. Use the phonics song for the first two months. With that I can get the students to Construct 4. Teachers in previous school didn’t do it but when I did it this year I can see the difference. c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate. Maybe we cannot do more than 4 constructs. It depends on the teacher.

5.

Based on the workshops, there are also guidelines to carry out the LINUS module. Can you elaborate what teachers are supposed to do? We must adapt the activities to suit the topic in the textbook. We can skip topics in the module to suit the syllabus.

a) What is your general opinion of the module? It was chaos in 2012. The module should be used before the Saringan 1 (first assessment). If they (students) pass then don’t need to continue the module. It’s too late if done after saringan. I don’t have problems with Year 1 and Year 2. But the module must be conducted from day 1 (of semester).

104

b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices that you have seen/experienced when carrying out the module? Please elaborate. Do it as homework because it is difficult to teach 2 sets (groups) of pupils. c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate.

6.

Any further advice you would like to recommend to our school to further improve the implementation of the programme?

a) Admin Must use the module for Year 1 from Day 1. We have a lot of materials but must make sure that we use it (close monitoring). Continue using the Year 1 dictionary. b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS Nothing because everyone has different duties. We cannot expect the head of department to do everything. We must play our part also. Maybe more boards and markers. c) Other teachers in school Keep up with the good work. Keep sharing materials with other teachers. Well, compared to other schools, this school is like heaven. Everyone has so many materials and ideas and we share them.

105

Interview Question Set 2 Teacher D Bi l 1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of your background regarding the LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as an English teacher? 4 years.

Started LINUS in 2013. b) Which year are you teaching this year? Year 3. c) How many of your pupils are classified as LINUS/ LINUS TEGAR? I am teaching 2 classes with LINUS students 3 Geliga and 3 Mutiara... About 22 of them are LINUS. 2.

What was your initial impression of this particular school in terms of the LINUS results in the past three years?

a) Why do you believe it to be so?

This year’s Year 3 is weak, very weak.

b) Have you noticed any areas of progress in our school?

Lack of vocabulary. They don’t even know how to pronounce ‘he’ properly. They will say ‘her’.

After implementing the ABC phonic song with 3M. Last year, the teacher already taught them. So I also use with 3G this year, and I can see the improvement. c) Have you noticed any areas that need to be worked on? For Year 3 we need more materials because just 2 years LINUS being implement(ed). So we need the materials to teach. The Linus Year 3 module. Although we have to learn the dipthong but the topics not aligned with the 106

textbook so it’s hard to teach students. 3.

What are your expectations for the school this year?

a) Results All of 3G must pass the second screening. For 3M half of them must pass the second screening. b) Implementation I have to separate them (students) into groups. It’s hard for me to teach LINUS in 30 minutes every day so I only do it 2 hours in a week.

4.

Based on the workshops, I understand that there are certain steps and procedures to carry out the reading and writing test. Please elaborate what you have understood from these workshops? Keep repeating and drilling to the students. I know we cannot do all constructs at once. First day, Contruct 1, 2, 3... the next day 4, 5, and 6... For writing, I let them do Construct 1 to 6, then Construct 7 to 12. If the students can’t get it, then we can do it again the next day.

a) How do you rate the information and support you have received from the workshop? Why? Enough... but if we can have materials then it’s better. Whatever for our pupils we would do it but ‘nakmenyenangkankerja’(would ease our job).

b) What are the best practices that you have seen/experienced when conducting the tests? Please elaborate. I use visual aids. I show segmented word cards in front of them. And then not just point at the test paper (assessment instrument) but I do it like teaching. c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate. No.

5.

Based on the workshops, there are also guidelines to carry out

a) What is your general opinion of the module?

107

the LINUS module. Can you elaborate what teachers are supposed to do? I use the teacher’s LINUS module.

Well, the topics don’t match. The vocabulary is different from the textbook. The tenses are different so have to teach 2 different things. Year 3 focuses on grammar but LINUS is about pronunciation. b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices that you have seen/experienced when carrying out the module? Please elaborate. One week two times for LINUS because more than half of 3M is LINUS so I can do it as a class. c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate. no problem yet. Just very time consuming.

6.

Any further advice you would like to recommend to our school to further improve the implementation of the programme?

a) Admin I need pictures or materials but photocopy policy in the office say we need to give it a day before. Sometimes materials not photocopied on time. Admin should consider changing the photocopying policy. b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS Good because I received materials from head of department and penyelaras LINUS so it’s good but it’s better if we can have more ABM (teaching materials) like flashcards, picture cards, slides and mini projectors. c) Other teachers in school I think our colleagues are very helpful because we ask materials and help each other.

108

Interview Question Set 2 Teacher E Bi l 1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of your background regarding the LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as an English teacher? 2013... so about 3 years.

Started last year in 2014. b) Which year are you teaching this year? Year 1. c) How many of your pupils are classified as LINUS/ LINUS TEGAR? Can I estimate? 1G about 34, 1M about 36 and 1A 4 students. 2.

What was your initial impression of this particular school in terms of the LINUS results in the past three years? Compared to previous school, this year is better even though I’ve only been teaching for four months.

a) Why do you believe it to be so? Previous school have less students. In this school, I’m shocked because there are more students. Cultural shock because this is the first time I have to handle so many students so it affects how I teach. b) Have you noticed any areas of progress in our school? The use of pictures. Teacher Z (English teacher) showed Teacher S (Bahasa Malaysia teacher) how to use different sets of materials for different classes. For example, 1A 1 set, 1M and 1G another set. The content is the same but with different method. So it’s good. c) Have you noticed any areas that need to be worked on? First impression of 1A, the LINUS students are lazy and day dreaming. But with 1A, I do a lot of repetition. Then they can do it (reading and 109

writing activities) With 1G and 1M, it is difficult even with repetition. I must show pictures and sing songs with them. They don’t know how to read so I show them and introduce the vocabulary then they can sing. 3.

What are your expectations for the school this year?

a) Results For 1 Arif, hopefully all of them will pass. For 1M and 1G, at least half. At least I want to see some improvement to show our effort. b) Implementation This year I want to make more ABM (teaching materials). For example, I want to make flashcards shaped like fish with sounds printed on them to teach phonics. So when they read the fish will grab their attention. Repetition is very important.

4.

Based on the workshops, I understand that there are certain steps and procedures to carry out the reading and writing test. Please elaborate what you have understood from these workshops? We can mix language when we give instruction (use both Bahasa Malaysia and English language). We can help them if they don’t know... can give them guidance. Can help them as much as possible. If they get 2 out of 3 questions correct then they pass the construct. Do the constructs bit by bit.

a) How do you rate the information and support you have received from the workshop? Why? No, I can’t comment because I have no experience going into a workshop in this district. I’m still a new teacher (just transferred). I need more workshop (s). I need to find out more for weak students so that they can achieve the KPI (key performance index). b) What are the best practices that you have seen/experienced when conducting the tests? Please elaborate. Not yet. Still ‘blur’ especially for weak students. I’m a new teacher in a new teaching environment. And with the time constraint. So I lack good practices. c) Have you noticed any practices that should 110

be avoided? Please elaborate. Because of this assessment, students cannot differentiate a real test from LINUS assessment. Students expect the teacher to guide them one by one during the exam. The students cannot finish the exam questions. So something must be done so that students don’t expect so much from teachers. 5.

Based on the workshops, there are also guidelines to carry out the LINUS module. Can you elaborate what teachers are supposed to do? ‘Bolehlah’ (It’s alright) because I have used it in my previous school. But this year I have not received the teacher’s module. I know that we can improvise based on the students’ level. Don’t have to follow the steps given.

a) What is your general opinion of the module? It is helpful, very helpful but not enough materials. For example, I need ICT, LCD to show images. For 1G and 1M, they want movement because they don’t like English. Pictures are not enough. I have to show them videos. b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices that you have seen/experienced when carrying out the module? Please elaborate. Not yet for myself. Only seen Teacher Z sharing with Teacher S. Um, phoneme segmenting is good. Year 1 still need method. c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate. No, because other teachers are very committed.

111

6.

Any further advice you would like to recommend to our school to further improve the implementation of the programme?

a) Admin We need to host an English Carnival. We need to make more murals for phonics. I have noticed new murals but they are not for lower year students. Make more pictures, banners or decorations in English to attract students. Like we have multiplication for mathematics, so it’s the same for English because students will see it every day and not rely on the teacher. I think the more they see the more they will retain. b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS I want more workshops. I have been to KSSR but not LINUS workshops. I need to be clearer about instructions from PPD about guidelines. The manual is given but sometimes not clear. c) Other teachers in school I want more sharing of information with teaching materials and pedagogy. Share exercises and worksheets.

112

Interview Question Set 2 Teacher F Bi l 1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of your background regarding the LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as an English teacher? 3 years.

4 years but I’m not involved with LINUS this year. b) Which year are you teaching this year? Year 3 c) How many of your pupils are classified as LINUS/ LINUS TEGAR? None. 2.

What was your initial impression of this particular school in terms of the LINUS results in the past three years? Worse

a) Why do you believe it to be so? Because too many students still can’t read. They cannot pronounce simple words correctly. They don’t know the phonic sounds and they are in Year 3. b) Have you noticed any areas of progress in our school? After teaching phonics and the phonic song, students show slight improvement. c) Have you noticed any areas that need to be worked on?

3.

What are your expectations for the school this year?

None. a) Results Increase number of non-LINUS students. b) Implementation None. 113

4.

Based on the workshops, I understand that there are certain steps and procedures to carry out the reading and writing test. Please elaborate what you have understood from these workshops? For reading, I teach before carrying out the paper (assessment). I do the constructs one by one. Then I record their results in a form (BPPI). I keep these forms in a file. If they (students) are LINUS then I have to work on them, if not then I continue to teach as normal.

a) How do you rate the information and support you have received from the workshop? Why? Resource production workshop is good. b) What are the best practices that you have seen/experienced when conducting the tests? Please elaborate. I think the buddy system is good. I divide students into pairs. Students on the right is A, and students on the left is B. A will coach B and then they will take turns. c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate. Not sure. When doing communication activities they can do with guidance.

For writing it’s the same procedure. 5.

Based on the workshops, there are also guidelines to carry out the LINUS module. Can you elaborate what teachers are supposed to do? Don’t know because I’m not involved with LINUS yet.

6.

Any further advice you would like to recommend to our school to further improve the implementation of the

a) What is your general opinion of the module? b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices that you have seen/experienced when carrying out the module? Please elaborate. c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate. a) Admin -

114

programme?

b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS The head of department is active and she keeps contact with the other teachers. She always asks opinions and gives fast feedback. So everything is ok. c) Other teachers in school I think teachers have to be honest in teaching LINUS students. Don’t ignore them and don’t simply say they are special needs students, must try teaching techniques and methods first. Don’t just send them to another school.

Interview Question Set 2 Teacher G Bi l 1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of your background regarding the LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as an English teacher? 1 year.

I have been involved with LINUS Mathematics for 3 year... LINUS English this year.

b) Which year are you teaching this year? Year 2. c) How many of your pupils are classified as LINUS/ LINUS TEGAR? 23 in 2D.

115

2.

What was your initial impression of this particular school in terms of the LINUS results in the past three years?

a) Why do you believe it to be so?

Good, students are getting better.

b) Have you noticed any areas of progress in our school?

After introducing phonics, the students can read a few words and in short sentences.

Students’ reading skills. c) Have you noticed any areas that need to be worked on? We have to push the students to know sounds like /wh/ and /ch/ so that it’s easier for them to recognise words. 3.

What are your expectations for the school this year?

a) Results All clear from LINUS. b) Implementation Call Mr.Keven (Native speaker mentor) for different ideas.

4.

Based on the workshops, I understand that there are certain steps and procedures to carry out the reading and writing test. Please elaborate what you have understood from these workshops?

a) How do you rate the information and support you have received from the workshop? Why?

First, I give them the instructions. Second, I read the questions to the last class. Third, I make sure everyone answer the same question, then we move on to the second question.

b) What are the best practices that you have seen/experienced when conducting the tests? Please elaborate.

I have never been to a LINUS workshop yet for English but the information given to me by the other teachers is enough.

Focus on the questions one by one so that I don’t skip or miss any students. c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate.

116

No.

5.

Based on the workshops, there are also guidelines to carry out the LINUS module. Can you elaborate what teachers are supposed to do? Teach whole class the daily lesson. Then I call the LINUS students and drill them. We do the activity in the module.

a) What is your general opinion of the module? It is helping the children. It is easier than the daily lesson. The words are easy. b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices that you have seen/experienced when carrying out the module? Please elaborate. c) Have you noticed any practices that should be avoided? Please elaborate. -

6.

Any further advice you would like to recommend to our school to further improve the implementation of the programme?

a) Admin No. b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS More ABM for sounds. If children recognise the sounds then they can read. c) Other teachers in school No.

117

Appendix 5: Observation checklist data Subject: A Class: 2B Observation checklist for reading assessment Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

/

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents? a) assessment manual b) BPPI form c) assessment instruments Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher cover no more than 4 constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

118

Yes

No

/ / / /

/

/ / / /

Comments

Subject: B Class: 1J Observation checklist for reading assessment Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

/

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents? a) assessment manual b) BPPI form c) assessment instruments Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher cover no more than 4 constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

119

Yes

/ / / /

/

/ / / /

No

Comments

Subject: C Class: 2A Observation checklist for reading assessment Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents? a) assessment manual b) BPPI form c) assessment instruments Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question

7.

No

/

/ / / /

/

/ / /

Did the teacher cover no more than 4 constructs in a lesson?

Overall comment:

120

Comments

/

All pupils could read fluently so no need for prompting Pupils could complete the assessment in one go.

Subject: D Class: 3M Observation checklist for reading assessment Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents? a) assessment manual b) BPPI form c) assessment instruments Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher cover no more than 4 constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

121

No

/

/ / / /

/

/ / / /

Comments

Subject: E Class: 1 G Observation checklist for reading assessment Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

/

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents? a) assessment manual b) BPPI form c) assessment instruments Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher cover no more than 4 constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

122

Yes

/ / / /

/

/ / / /

No

Comments

Subject: F Class: 3A Observation checklist for reading assessment Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

/

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents? a) assessment manual b) BPPI form c) assessment instruments Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question

7.

Yes

No

/ / / /

/

/ / /

Did the teacher cover no more than 4 constructs in a lesson?

Overall comment:

123

Comments

/

Pupils could read independently without guidance. Pupils could complete the assessment in one go.

Subject: G Class: 2D Observation checklist for reading assessment Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents? a) assessment manual b) BPPI form c) assessment instruments Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher cover no more than 4 constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

124

No

/

/ / / /

/

/ / / /

Comments

Subject: A Class: 2P Observation checklist for writing assessment Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

/

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents? a) assessment manual b) BPPI form c) assessment instruments Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question

7.

Yes

No

/ / / /

/

/ / /

Did the teacher cover no more than 4 constructs in a lesson? Overall comment:

125

Comments

/

Pupils could do assessment independently

Subject: B Class: 1D Observation checklist for writing assessment Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

/

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents? a) assessment manual b) BPPI form c) assessment instruments Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher cover no more than 4 constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

126

Yes

No

Comments

/ / / /

/

/ / / /

Lesson was spent on drilling

Subject: C Class: 1C Observation checklist for writing assessment Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents? a) assessment manual b) BPPI form c) assessment instruments Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher cover no more than 4 constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

127

No

Comments

/

/ / / /

/

/ / / /

Lesson was spent on drilling.

Subject: D Class: 3G Observation checklist for writing assessment Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents? a) assessment manual b) BPPI form c) assessment instruments Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher cover no more than 4 constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

128

No

Comments

/

/ / / /

/

/ / / /

Lesson was spent on drilling

Subject: E Class: 1M Observation checklist for writing assessment Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents? a) assessment manual b) BPPI form c) assessment instruments Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher cover no more than 4 constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

129

No

/

/ / / /

/

/ / / /

Comments

Subject: F Class: 3A Observation checklist for writing assessment Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

/

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents? a) assessment manual b) BPPI form c) assessment instruments Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher cover no more than 4 constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

130

Yes

No

Comments

/ / / /

/

/ / / /

Pupils could work independently. Pupils could complete the assessment in one go.

Subject: G Class: 2D Observation checklist for writing assessment Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents? a) assessment manual b) BPPI form c) assessment instruments Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher cover no more than 4 constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

131

No

/

/ / / /

/

/ / / /

Comments

Subject: B Class: 1D Observation checklist for LINUS lesson Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

/

3.

Did the teacher refer to the LINUS teacher’s module?

/

4. 5.

Did the teacher use the LINUS module? Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

6.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

7.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher provide differentiation in activities?

8.

9.

Did the teacher provide differentiation in worksheet? Overall comment:

132

No

/ /

/

/ / / /

/

Comments

Subject: C Class: 1C Observation checklist for LINUS lesson Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

/

3.

Did the teacher refer to the LINUS teacher’s module?

/

4. 5.

Did the teacher use the LINUS module? Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

/ /

6.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

/

7.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher provide differentiation in activities?

8.

9.

Did the teacher provide differentiation in worksheet? Overall comment:

133

No

Comments

as homework

/ / / /

/

Subject: D Class: 3M Observation checklist for LINUS lesson Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher refer to the LINUS teacher’s module?

/

4. 5.

Did the teacher use the LINUS module? Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

/ /

6.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

7.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher provide differentiation in activities?

8.

9.

Did the teacher provide differentiation in worksheet? Overall comment:

134

No

Comments

/

/

today is purely a LINUS lesson

/

not applicable as the whole class is LINUS not applicable as the whole class is LINUS

/ / /

/

Subject: E Class: 1M Observation checklist for LINUS lesson Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

/

3.

Did the teacher refer to the LINUS teacher’s module?

/

4. 5.

Did the teacher use the LINUS module? Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

/ /

6.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

/

7.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher provide differentiation in activities?

8.

9.

Did the teacher provide differentiation in worksheet? Overall comment:

135

No

/ / / /

/

Comments

have not received teacher’s module

136

Subject: G Class: 2D Observation checklist for LINUS lesson Bi l. 1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

/

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency word in lesson?

/

3.

Did the teacher refer to the LINUS teacher’s module?

/

4. 5.

Did the teacher use the LINUS module? Did the teacher give suitable instructions to students?

/ /

6.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for 30 minutes?

/

7.

Did the teacher prompt students? a) arm blending technique b) phonics gestures c) personalised question Did the teacher provide differentiation in activities?

8.

9.

Did the teacher provide differentiation in worksheet? Overall comment:

137

No

/ / / /

/

Comments

138

Appendix 6: Sample of pupil’s work

139

140

141

142

143

144

Appendix 7: Sample of permission letter to the headmaster Suria 2-1-8, Cyber Heights Villa, PersiaranTasik, 63000, Cyberjaya. 1st March 2015.

Guru Besar, SekolahKebangsaan _________________, ______________________________, _____________________________, Selangor, Malaysia. Seeking Permission to Conduct Study in School I am writing to seek your permission to conduct a case study in your school regarding the LINUS remedial program. This study is for a dissertation to complete my MA TESOL degree in University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus. The research topic is entitled, ‘After 3 years... A review of the effectiveness of LINUS in English in a Malaysian primary school’. The identity of the school and its staff will not be revealed as an act of protection and in compliance with the ethics of research. I hope you would consider approving this request.

Yours sincerely, Lean Zu Lee.

145

Appendix 8: Statement of research School of Education

STATEMENT OF RESEARCH ETHICS Name of student:

Lean Zu Lee

Supervisor:

Dr. Too We

Course of Study:

28 November 2014- 28 July 2015

Date:

10 April 20

Title of assignment / dissertation:

AFTER 3 YEARS... A REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LINUS IN ENGLISH IN A PRIMARY SCHOOL

Sections 1-4 are to be completed by the student; Sections 5 / 6 are to be completed by the tutor / supervisor.

Section 1 Briefly outline your research questions or aims

1. What are the outcomes of the LINUS programme after 3 years of implementation in a Malaysian primary school?

2. To what extent has the LINUS programme achieved its programme objectives? 3. What suggestions might be recommended for further improvement? Section 2 Briefly outline your proposed methods and sites of data generation and your proposed methods of sampling

Mixed-method 1. Qualitative data 146

- Semi-structured interviews with the Fasilinus and teachers of SK Kebun Baharu - classroom observations -Doc analysis of pupils’ homework

2. Quantitative data - doc analysis of pupils’ LINUS results Sampling -quota sampling -1 Fasilinus -8 lower primary teachers -pupils who are LINUS -pupils who are LINUS Tegar -pupils who have been reintroduced into mainstream education Section 3 Briefly explain how you plan to gain access to prospective research participants

Participants Participants will be recruited through quota sampling: 1 Fasilinus of PPD Kuala Langat, 8 lower primary teachers of SK Kebun Baharu, Kuala Langat, pupils who are classified as LINUS, pupils who are classified as LINUS Tegar and pupils who have been reintroduced to mainstream education. Their permission to use their responses will be sought. It will be made clear that their responses will be anonymized and kept confidential.

Ethical Considerations All participants will be provided with a project summary (information sheet), and an ethical consent form. This consent form will make clear the commitments and expectations relating to the project (commitments to anonymity and confidentiality, details about uses of data). The consent form will offer a range of issues for which consent will be sought, and each participant will be asked to indicate positively their support for each one (for example, digital recording of interviews will involve specific consent).

All participants will be asked to provide active consent. All participants will be assured that they will not be identifiable in any resulting presentations or publications arising 147

from the study. It will be made clear to potential participants that non-participation will have no negative consequences. All ethical issues and risks will be communicated to the participants. Assurance of anonymity and non-traceability of research participants No individuals or individual institutions will be named in the writing up of the research project, and any resulting reports. Completed research questionnaire will be stored securely on password protected computers. Data will be stored in a way what makes it non-traceable to individuals (using codes for individuals).

Risks to participants Generally the research might be considered to face no more than standard risks. The subject matter does not involve sensitive issues, and most of the methods of data collection are commonly understood.

Section 4 (a) I have read and discussed with my supervisor the British Educational Research Association’s Revis 1. for Educational Research (BERA, 2004) and/or guidelines of the appropriate professional associatio 2.

I have read and discussed with my supervisor the Code of Research Conduct and Research Ethics Nottingham:http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/fabs/rgs/documents/code-of-research-conduct-and-res approved-january-2010.pdf

3.

I am aware of and have discussed with my supervisor the relevant sections of the Data Protection http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980029.htm

4.

Data gathering activities involving schools and other organizations will be carried out only with the head of school/organization, or an authorised representative, and after adequate notice has been permission (e.g. email) will need to have been seen by your supervisor.

5.

The purpose and procedures of the research, and the potential benefits and costs of participating ( their time involved), will be fully explained to prospective research participants at the outset.

6.

My full identity will be revealed to potential participants.

7.

Prospective participants will be informed that data collected will be treated in the strictest confiden reported in anonymised form, but that I will be forced to consider disclosure of certain information strong grounds for believing that not doing so will result in harm to research participants or others continuation of) illegal activity.

8.

All potential participants will be asked to give their explicit, normally written consent to participatin and, where consent is given, separate copies of this will be retained by both researcher and partic

9.

In addition to the consent of the individuals concerned, the signed consent of a parent, guardian o will be required to sanction the participation of minors (i.e. persons under 16 years of age) or thos

148

capability or other vulnerable circumstance may limit the extent to which they can be expected to voluntarily to undertake their role’. (BERA, 2004, para 14-16). 10.

Undue pressure will not be placed on individuals or institutions to participate in research activities.

11.

The treatment of potential research participants will in no way be prejudiced if they choose not project.

12.

I will provide participants with my contact details (and those of my supervisor), in order that th contact in relation to any aspect of the research, should they wish to do so.

13.

Participants will be made aware that they may freely withdraw from the project at any time withou

14.

Research will be carried out with regard for mutually convenient times and negotiated in a way tha disruption to schedules and burdens on participants.

15.

I have considered carefully to what extent, if any, my research might expose me to any kind of ris safety. I have also discussed this with my supervisor, and appropriate steps taken to respond to a Where such a strategy has been agreed, a record of it is attached to this submission.

16.

At all times during the conduct of the research I will behave in an appropriate, professional manne ensure that neither myself nor research participants are placed at risk.

17.

The dignity and interests of research participants will be respected at all times, and steps will be ta no harm will result from participating in the research.

18.

The views of all participants in the research will be respected.

19.

Special efforts will be made to be sensitive to differences relating to age, culture, disability, race, s sexual orientation, amongst research participants, when planning, conducting and reporting on the

20.

Data generated by the research (e.g. transcripts of research interviews) will be kept in a safe and will be used purely for the purposes of the research project (including dissemination of findings). research colleagues, supervisors or examiners will have access to any of the data collected.

21.

Research participants will have the right of access to any data kept on them.

22.

All necessary steps will be taken to protect the privacy and ensure the anonymity and non-traceab e.g. by the use of pseudonyms, for both individual and institutional participants, in any written rep and other forms of dissemination.

23.

Where possible, research participants will be provided with a summary of research findings and an debriefing after taking part in the research. Does your research involve (please tick ALL that apply):

24. groups?

/

Schools?

Vulnerable Adults?

149

/

Children?

a) Will your research be conducted in (please tick ONE BOX only): UK only?

/

Outside the UK only?

UK and outside the UK

25. b) If outside the UK, please name the country(ies) involved: Malaysia

FOR ALL STUDENTS UNDERTAKING RESEARCH INVOLVING SCHOOLS, CHILDREN (UNDER 18) A ADULTS AT A LOCATION WHERE THE STUDENT IS NOT CURRENTLY COVERED BY AN EXISTING E RECORDS BUREAU (CRB) DISCLOSURE 26.

I have received Enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosure through the University of N School of Education Postgraduate Office has the reference number. This applies even when data of the UK.

NB: All students must remember to apply for their University of Nottingham CRB disclosure wh the UK. FOR ALL NON UK STUDENTS 27.

I have received a Certificate of Good Conduct (where one is available)* and the School of Educatio Coordinatorshave a copy of this**.

* Countries that produce a Certificate of Good Conduct are: Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Irish Republic, Italy, Jamaica, Latvia, Malaysia, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden & Turkey. ** UK students who have lived in one of the above countries for 6 months or more may also need to apply for one of these.

Section 4 (b) Please provide further information below in relation to any of the above statements which you have not been able to tick, explaining in each case why the suggested course of action is not appropriate:

150

When you have completed Sections 1-4 email the form to the relevant supervising tutor, together with:

(1)

a draft information sheet to be provided to prospective participants;

(2)

a draft consent form to be used with prospective participants.

Section 5

Supervising tutor I have discussed the proposed research outlined on this form with the student and I am satisfied that the work will be carried out with due regard to ethical protocol and participants’ interests.

NAME:

Date:

Section 6 Course Leader/ second reviewer I have reviewed the proposed research outlined on this form and I am satisfied that the work will be carried out with due regard to ethical protocol and participants’ interests.

NAME:

Date:

Note to supervising tutor:Please email the completed form to the course leader who will forward the final version to the appropriate administrative assistant. When the Course Leader is also Supervising Tutor (Section 5) they should get a second member of

151

/ /

their course team to check and review the form. The administrative assistant will email the student (cc yourself and course leader) with confirmation of ethical approval to begin collecting data and proceed to the next stage of the dissertation.

Updated 10/10/2012

152

Appendix 9: Sample of participants’ information sheet AFTER 3 YEARS... A REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LINUS IN ENGLISH IN A MALAYSIAN PRIMARY SCHOOL

General Information Sheet

You are invited to take part in a research study. This research is to produce an MA dissertation for the School of Education. Before you agree to take part it is important to understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take time to carefully read the following information. Please ask me if there is anything that is not clear, or if you would like more information. Please think about it carefully and then decide whether you would like to take part or not. What are the aims of the research? This study aims to assess the implementation of LINUS of this school. It is hoped that this study will provide insight and future direction into improving the programme in the context of the school being studied. Who else is and can be involved? Besides you, the Fasilinus of the district, lower primary teachers of the school, pupils who are classified as LINUS, LINUS Tegar, pupils who have been reintroduced to mainstream education will be asked to participate. What sorts of methods are being used? This research is based on data collected via an interview with the Fasilinus. For teachers, data will be collected through interviews and classroom observations. For pupils, data will be gathered through LINUS results and homework samples. Why have you been chosen? You have been invited to participate in this study because you are directly involved with the implementation of LINUS in this school. What are you being asked to do? For Fasilinus- You are being asked to be interviewed and give permission to the researcher to use your responses as data. For teachers- You are being asked to be interviewed, be observed and give permission to the researcher to use your responses as data. For pupils- You are being asked to give permission to the researcher to use your results in the LINUS tests and homework as data.

Will my taking part in this study be kept confidential? The data we collect will be treated confidentially, and only members of the research team will have access to the raw data. All information collected while carrying out the study will be stored on a database which is password protected and strictly confidential. The digital and textual data will be kept in a secure and confidential location. Your name will not appear on any database or any information which is then published. Instead, a number will be used as an identifier on all data associated with you. The master copy of the names associated with each number will be kept in a separate, secure and confidential location. We will report the results anonymously. When results are reported all individuals and institutions (e.g., individual schools and zones) will be anonymized, so neither you nor your affiliations will be identifiable.

We are committed to carrying out our research according to the ethical guidelines provided by the British Educational Research Association (online at http://tinyurl.com/6r5juen). What will happen to the results of the research study? The data gathered will be used to write an MA dissertation. Do you have to take part? Your participation is entirely voluntary. It is important you understand that you do not have to participate in the project at all, and even if you decide to take part you are still free to stop at any time and without giving a reason. What are the possible disadvantages of taking part? We realize that some people may find being interviewed tiring or difficult and we understand that for some this may cause feelings of discomfort or anxiety. Otherwise, we do not believe there are any risks or disadvantages to you in taking part. What are the possible benefits to me of taking part? We hope that your views, and those of others, will us better understand and improve the implementation of LINUS in the school being studied. Who is paying for this research and who is carrying it out? The research is being carried out by myself. I am a student at the University of Nottingham, School of Education. I am being supervised by D. Too Wei Keong. If you have any questions or concerns about the research you can contact me or my supervisor: Lean Zu Lee e: [email protected] p: 019-7914858

Dr. Too Wei Keong (Supervisor) e: [email protected] p: +6 (03) 1234 5678

If you agree to take part in this study, please: 1. Keep this copy of the Information Sheet for your records 2. Sign the attached Consent Form

Appendix 10: Sample consent form

AFTER 3 YEARS... A REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LINUS IN ENGLISH IN A MALAYSIAN PRIMARY SCHOOL

Consent Form

1. I have read the Information Sheet. 2. I understand the nature and purpose of this research. 3. I have received enough information to make an informed decision about taking part. 4. I understand that I can raise questions, offer criticisms and make suggestions about the project. 5. I understand that I can decide not to participate in this project at any time after agreeing to. 6. I agree to contribute to this research. 7. I agree for my responses to be analyzed for this research.

I consent to take part in this project after considering the information provided. NAME (capital letter): ________________________________ Signature:___________________________________________ Date: ______________

Participant Code (for research team use): _____________