57
\nLiteracy Learning:
\nthe Middle Years
\nVolume 23
\nNumber 3
\nOctober 2015
\nSmall data: Working with
\nqualitative information in the
\nliteracy classroom
\nEileen Honan | The University of Queensland, Queensland
\nAbstract
\nThis paper describes the current emphasis on collecting and using quantitative data that encourages
\nthe \u2018quantification of everything\u2019 (Mayer-Sch\u00f6nberger & Cukier, 2013, p. 78). The author argues
\nthat qualitative data provides more complex and nuanced understandings of how young people
\nengage with literacy teaching and learning opportunities in classrooms. Some useful examples of
\nmethods that teachers can use to collect and analyse qualitative data in their literacy classrooms
\nare provided.
\nIntroduction
\nThere has been a rapid growth in interest and enthusiasm for \u2018big data\u2019 in educational contexts, both
\ninternationally and in Australia. Use of large scale sets of data to inform the planning of literacy policies
\nand programs is underway in the USA and this has implications for literacy teachers in Australian
\nschools. As well, there is an increasing responsibility for literacy classroom teachers to collect and
\ninterpret quantitative data, ranging from the regular administration of reading comprehension
\nassessment tests, to the interpretation of class and student NAPLAN (National Assessment Program \u2013
\nLiteracy and Numeracy) results. These two emphases have tended to push into the background the
\nvital importance of qualitative data that provide more in-depth and individualised understandings of
\nhow young people engage with literacy teaching and learning opportunities in classrooms.
\nIn this paper I provide an overview of the use of \u2018big data\u2019 in the USA to shed light on the
\npossible future uses in Australian contexts. I will then describe some of the current approaches to
\nthe use of quantitative data in classroom contexts and provide a critique of the overemphasis on the
\n\u2018quantification of everything\u2019 (Mayer-Sch\u00f6nberger & Cukier, 2013, p. 78). I will argue that qualitative
\ndata provides more complex and nuanced understandings of how young people engage with literacy
\nteaching and learning opportunities in classrooms. I will provide some useful examples of methods
\nthat teachers can use to collect and analyse qualitative data in their literacy classrooms.
\nOverview of the use of \u2018big data\u2019 in the USA
\nThe use of \u2018big data\u2019 has been growing exponentially globally as more and more personal information
\nis stored in databases. The term was first used in science contexts and has many different definitions. It
\nhas come to mean the use of large sets of data that can be analysed to produce or \u2018apply math to huge
\nquantities of data to infer probabilities\u2019 (Mayer-Sch\u00f6nberger & Cukier, 2013, p. 12).
\nIn educational contexts, especially in the USA, there is a growth in attention to the possibilities
\nprovided through collections of these large data sets about students. These collections are made
\npossible by the growth of cloud storage spaces used by education departments and systems. Data
\ncollected at the student, classroom and school level are sent to the state or federal level department or
\norganisation, and these data can then be analysed to tailor online learning programs, track achievement
\nand attendance levels, or as one enthusiast suggests, \u2018using a data-driven approach can help us teach
\n58
\nLiteracy Learning:
\nthe Middle Years
\nVolume 23
\nNumber 3
\nOctober 2015
\nmore effectively. At the same time, technology that leverages data can help students with day-to-day
\nlearning and staying in school\u2019 (Feinleib, 2014, p. 174).
\nIn the USA, examples of data collection methods include the use of mobile applications that
\ncan collect information down to individual keystrokes. Teach to One is one company that uses data
\ncollected through software to develop personalised quizzes and lessons. It claims that \u2018Teach to One
\nstudents are assessed daily to determine current skill levels, and an algorithm employs these test results
\nto target content delivery for the following day\u2019 (Ready, 2014). Renaissance Learning (2015) boasts
\nthat their \u2018database houses reading records for more than 10,700,000 U.S. students at more than
\n36,000 schools\u2019.
\nThese and other companies are using the term \u2018learning analytics\u2019 to explain their applications of
\n\u2018big data\u2019 concepts to educational contexts. A research paper from the University of Bristol explains
\nthe concept:
\n\u2018Learning analytics\u2019 has been defined as: The measurement, collection, analysis and reporting of data
\nabout learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimising learning and the
\nenvironments in which it occurs. Learning analytics interrogates learner-based data interaction (using
\ntechniques such as predictive modelling, user profiling, adaptive learning, and social network analysis)
\nto inform or prompt actions or decisions based on the results. (Broadfoot, Timmis, Payton, Oldfield &
\nSutherland, 2012, p. 2)
\nSome of the inherent problems associated with privacy legislation and data security have already
\nbeen raised in the USA where \u2018education-data companies are hiring chief privacy officers, testifying
\nbefore state legislatures and reshaping their messages to emphasise their data security. States rein in
\naccess to student data or allow parents to opt out of data collection\u2019 (Fleisher, 2014). One of the more
\ncontroversial initiatives was inBloom Inc., a company that wanted to link education-tech companies
\nwith school districts \u2018serving as a type of middleman for student data. Its system gives schools the
\noption of uploading hundreds of characteristics about students, including disabilities such as autism
\nor vision problems\u2019 (Fleisher, 2014).
\nThe implications for classroom teaching if these approaches are introduced into Australian schools
\nare many. Increasingly, the teacher\u2019s role in identifying and diagnosing learning problems would be
\nremoved, and even in the case of programs such as those promoted by Teach to One, the role of
\nteaching students how to overcome these problems would be taken by the software delivered on either
\na computer or tablet or even smartphone. The focus for responsibility for assessing and teaching would
\nshift outside of the classroom, away from the generalist classroom teacher. Indeed, this shift is already
\napparent in the collection of quantitative data in Australian classrooms that is then used in state and
\nfederal government reports.
\nCurrent approaches to the use of quantitative data in classroom contexts
\nWhile the use of large sets of data is not yet as common in Australian schools as it is in the USA,
\nthere has been a rapid increase in the amount of quantitative data collected in classrooms over the
\nlast 15 years. The introduction of NAPLAN and the development of the MySchool website by the
\nfederal government have necessarily required a greater focus on the collection of data at the school and
\nclassroom level. As well, each state in Australia has its own systems and methods of data collection in
\neducation \u2013 for example in, Queensland the Queensland School Opinion Survey is:
\na suite of surveys on opinions on the school, student learning and student well-being from a parent\/
\ncaregiver in all families and a sample of students from each state school. Opinions on the school as a
\nworkplace are sought from all state school staff and principals. Additional questions are included for
\nteaching staff on their confidence to teach and improve student outcomes, while principals are also asked
\non their confidence to lead the school, including improvements in student outcomes. (Department of
\nEducation, Training and Employment, Queensland, 2005\u20132015)
\n59
\nLiteracy Learning:
\nthe Middle Years
\nVolume 23
\nNumber 3
\nOctober 2015
\nClassroom teachers are asked to distribute these surveys and participate in discussions about the
\nresults, as well as administer and interpret the results of NAPLAN tests. Many schools have adopted
\nschool-wide assessment tools such as:
\n\u2022\t TORCH (Tests of Reading Comprehension; see Australian Council for Educational
\nResearch (ACER), 2005\u20132010);
\n\u2022\t CARS and STARS (Comprehensive Assessment of Reading Strategies, and Strategies To
\nAchieve Reading Success; see Hawker Brownlow Education, 2012);
\n\u2022\t PAT-R (Progressive Achievement Tests in Reading; see ACER, 2012).
\nIn many cases it is the classroom teachers\u2019 responsibility to administer these tests, and then analyse
\nand interpret the data provided by the results.
\nEconomists such as Pugh and Foster (2014) are especially interested in \u2018third party\u2019 access to
\n\u2018big data\u2019 collected in Australia through the MySchool website. They cite the UK\u2019s approach to their
\nNational Pupil Database that includes \u2018test and exam results, prior attainment and progression at
\ndifferent key stages and data on gender, ethnicity, first language, eligibility for free school meals,
\nspecial educational needs, attendance and exclusions\u2019 (p. 260). Pugh and Foster suggest there are
\n\u2018encouraging signals\u2019 (p. 262) that both federal and state level departments are increasing access for
\nacademics and other researchers to \u2018student-level\u2019 data for Australia.
\nQuantification of everything
\nThe first part of this paper has described a context where there is much enthusiasm and great promises
\nfor the use of large sets of data to help improve teaching and learning. The message from governments,
\nprivate enterprises and researchers appears to be that these sets of quantitative data are the way of
\nthe future. They claim that we will be able to track a student\u2019s attendance, record and correlate that
\nwith performance on standardised tests, while at the same time factoring in language background
\nand the schooling history of the parents. Teachers will be able to draw up records on each student to
\nshow, for example, that on 27 May one student completed 8\/10 spelling words correctly, while on 2
\nJune the student only completed 5\/10 correctly. The student will be directed to complete a series of
\nexercises in an online spelling program, where every day for 15 minutes the student sits in front of
\na computer screen and identifies words spelt correctly or incorrectly from a range of multiple choice
\nitems. The student is quiet; headphones play audio directions, even pronunciation Helpance; whistles
\nand dancing bears perform in response to a correct guess.
\nBoth these current emphases \u2013 the importance of \u2018big data\u2019 and the value of quantitative results \u2013
\nshift our thinking about the possible measurements of student performance. Consider the difference
\nbetween using numbers to describe student performance (15\/20 for a spelling test) and words
\n(frequent use of appropriate sentence structures for this text type). While both provide the reader
\nwith information about student learning, the number appears to carry with it an assumption about
\nranking. It is so commonplace today to use numbers in this way that it could be assumed that we
\ncan quantify anything. Mayer-Sch\u00f6nberger and Cukier (2013) explain that \u2018to datafy a phenomenon
\nis to put it in a quantified format so it can be tabulated and analysed\u2019 (p. 78). The quantification of
\nperformance allows tabulation; tabulation allows ranking; rankings assume categories of best and
\nworst. Hierarchical thinking is taken for granted; students are assigned numbers to identify their level
\nof performance in relation to others (in their class, other classes, other states, even other nations).
\nFor example, media releases from government ministers include statements such as: \u2018Queensland now
\nranks fourth in the proportion of students achieving the national standard on all strands in Years 3
\nand 5 \u2013 with the exception of writing\u2019 (Langbroek, 2014).
\nMedia reports focusing on education\u2019s perceived failures commonly use such rankings. For
\nexample:
\n60
\nLiteracy Learning:
\nthe Middle Years
\nVolume 23
\nNumber 3
\nOctober 2015
\nAustralian teenagers\u2019 reading and maths skills have fallen so far in a decade that nearly half lack basic
\nmaths skills and a third are practically illiterate. The dumbing down of a generation of Australian
\nteenagers is exposed in the latest global report card on 15-year-olds\u2019 academic performance. (news.com.
\nau, 2013)
\nIt was many many years ago that Charles Dickens delighted his audience with a critical and satirical
\nview of the quantification of everything, personified in Thomas Gradgrind in Hard times (Dickens,
\n1961) who was a man \u2018with a rule and a pair of scales, and the multiplication table always in his pocket,
\nsir, ready to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to\u2019
\n(p. 12). In Chapter 2 of Hard times we are introduced to \u2018Girl number twenty\u2019:
\n\u2018Girl number twenty unable to define a horse!\u2019 said Mr. Gradgrind, for the general behoof of all the little
\npitchers. \u2018Girl number twenty possessed of no facts, in reference to one of the commonest of animals!\u2019
\n(pp. 13\u201314)
\nIt appears at times that Gradgrind would find the classrooms of the 21st century very familiar, as the
\npush to measure every \u2018parcel of human nature\u2019 becomes so easily accommodated into our schooling
\nsystems.
\nImportantly, this rethinking about measurement and performance tends to push aside the
\nclassroom teacher\u2019s expertise, knowledge and understanding of qualitative data. Indeed, the impetus
\nfor this paper was working with teachers who appeared to belittle this knowledge they had, who
\nbrushed aside their existing understanding and skills with qualitative data in their eagerness to learn
\nhow to interpret the graphs and tabulations provided in NAPLAN reports.
\nImportance of qualitative data
\nQualitative data describes, but does not measure, observes what is there (often called naturalistic
\nobservations), and can be useful to help us explain different aspects of occurrences. Here is an example
\nof the differences between a quantitative and qualitative analysis of data. In one project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) that I worked
\non (van Krayenoord, Gillies, Honan, Moni, Western & Brereton, 2011), we designed and distributed
\na survey to parents and the wider community surrounding participating schools. This survey was
\ndesigned to investigate community perceptions about the value of reading. Figure 1 shows a graph
\nthat represents the responses given to one question in the survey that was related to the teaching of
\nreading.
\nThere are some points about community attitudes to the teaching of reading that we can draw
\nfrom this graph.
\n\u2022\t Nearly all items have high level of agreement;
\n\u2022\t The message about parent involvement seems to have worked;
\n\u2022\t Level of disagreement is strongest around the item about rich children finding it easier to
\nread;
\n\u2022\t There is a strong agreement with the statement about individuals learning at different rates;
\n\u2022\t There is a large number of \u2018grey\u2019 responses that neither agree nor disagree with the
\nstatement about teaching using traditional methods \u2013 but then there are quite strong
\nopinions expressed about the teaching of grammar and the use of literature \u2013 which are the
\nspecifics of a so called traditional approach.
\nYet there are a number of unanswered questions about these responses. For example, there is
\nstrong agreement with the statement about individuals learning at different rates. Does this reflect
\nunderstanding about the different theories about the teaching of reading, or are the respondents
\nsending a message to schools and teachers? (Don\u2019t try to put everyone into the same box, or into the
\nsame box of levelled readers).
\n61
\nLiteracy Learning:
\nthe Middle Years
\nVolume 23
\nNumber 3
\nOctober 2015
\nThere appears to be some sense that the respondents have embraced the messages that continually
\nappear on the front pages of our newspapers that \u2018much more must be done\u2019 which appears to
\ncontradict the responses to other statements. And what are the reasons for the level of disagreement
\nbeing strongest around the item about rich children finding it easier to read? Because the community
\nthinks all kids should have the same opportunities? Because the community is reflecting the egalitarian
\nmyth of \u2018all Australians are equal\u2019?
\nNone of these questions can be answered through an analysis of the graph or of the data that lie
\nbehind the graph. The only way of exploring the reasons for survey responses is to ask the respondents
\nfurther questions, through interviews or focus group discussions. These techniques for collecting data
\nare explored in the next section of this paper.
\nCollecting qualitative data
\nMost classroom teachers will collect both quantitative and qualitative data about their students\u2019
\nlearning and their own teaching practices. It is important to think about the problem or issue that is
\nbeing investigated first, and then make decisions about the type of data that would provide the most
\nuseful information about that problem. Here are some examples of questions that teachers might be
\ninterested in investigating and that would be best explored through collection of qualitative data.
\nNote the framing of these questions as open-ended and requiring exploration rather than a positive
\nor negative response only.
\n\u2022\t Why do the boys in Grade 3 complain about reading lessons?
\n\u2022\t How is reading comprehension taught in this class, school, district, state?
\n\u2022\t How are digital texts used in literacy classrooms?
\n\u2022\t Why is there a gendered difference in NAPLAN spelling results in Year 5 classrooms?
\n\u2022\t How does an understanding of the reading process impact on student performance on
\nstandardised reading comprehension tests?
\nWhile standardised tests and surveys can provide useful data about student learning, examining
\nFigure 1. Survey responses, from Honan, 2013
\n62
\nLiteracy Learning:
\nthe Middle Years
\nVolume 23
\nNumber 3
\nOctober 2015
\nthe reasons behind results and providing more nuanced accounts of the knowledge students have
\nabout particular aspects of literacy are more likely to be completed using qualitative instruments. For
\nexample, recording the interactions and behaviours of students with texts, as well as their knowledge
\nof how texts work, can be completed through observation and documentation techniques, such as
\nrunning records, anecdotal records, checklists, and portfolios. Many of these techniques are practised
\nby classroom teachers as part of their classroom assessment routines. However, systematic recording
\nand analysis of these data is sometimes ignored.
\nCollecting data about teachers\u2019 pedagogical practices can be useful for a variety of purposes:
\n\u2022\t demonstrating and modelling effective or new strategies;
\n\u2022\t promotion or appraisal;
\n\u2022\t demonstrating impact of professional learning on practice;
\n\u2022\t reflecting on own pedagogy;
\n\u2022\t identifying and answering research questions.
\nTools that can be used to collect data about pedagogical practices include:
\n\u2022\t classroom observation tools;
\n\u2022\t interviews \u2013 pre and post observation;
\n\u2022\t video and audio recordings;
\n\u2022\t ethnographic observations \u2013 rich and thick, using templates;
\n\u2022\t stimulated recall and reflection;
\n\u2022\t reflective journals.
\nIn some cases, classroom teachers find it useful to use an action research cycle to plan their use of
\ndata tools. As noted in the example of an action research cycle provided below, data collection occurs
\nat various stages, from the first step of identifying the problem to looking at what happened and using
\nresults to update and modify the plan.
\nFigure 2. Action research cycle (from Honan, Evans, Paraide, Reta & Muspratt, 2012)
\nAnalysing qualitative data
\nAs mentioned earlier, classroom teachers regularly collect the type of data I have referred to above.
\nHowever, they are sometimes less likely to spend time on systematic organisation or analysis of these
\ndata. This section of the paper provides some relatively simple techniques for interpreting data results
\nusing qualitative methods.
\n63
\nLiteracy Learning:
\nthe Middle Years
\nVolume 23
\nNumber 3
\nOctober 2015
\nThe first point to be made is that the use of the terms \u2018qualitative and quantitative data\u2019 can be
\nmisleading. Data that are often analysed using quantitative techniques such as surveys and tests can
\nalso be analysed qualitatively. Documentary data can provide useful insights into the practices of
\nteachers and schools, such as timetables, lesson plans, units of work, newsletters and letters to parents,
\nschool policy documents, and texts used in classroom literacy lessons. Lesson observations, interviews,
\nrecorded conversations and interactions between students and teachers are also useful.
\nIn deciding how and what to analyse, it is useful to begin again with your problem or the issue
\nyou want to investigate. The first step in collecting data is to ask: What data are available? This can be
\nfollowed by identifying sources of other data to be collected, and then thinking and planning for new
\ninstruments that may need to be produced.
\nFor example, if a classroom teacher wanted to examine the question, \u2018Why do the boys in Year
\n3 complain about reading lessons?\u2019, then she\/he could begin with collecting the available data,
\nincluding test results, anecdotal records, the teachers\u2019 own reflective journal where there is evidence of
\nthese complaints and\/or evidence of the effect of these complaints on student performance, classroom
\nenvironment and so on. The teacher might then hold an informal focus group discussion in the
\nclassroom where the students are encouraged to express their opinions about reading lessons, and
\nshe\/he could take notes or even record this discussion. The teacher could then decide that a parental
\nperspective might be useful and write a letter home with two to three questions for parents to answer.
\nThe teacher might ask a teaching partner or colleague to observe reading lessons using a simple
\nobservation schedule that tracked boys\u2019 engagement and interactions.
\nOnce all data are collected, it is important to use some organisational techniques to begin the
\nanalysis and interpretation stages. Sorting, classifying and categorising data helps in the interpretation.
\nAt this stage, some data are discarded, some bits ranked as more important than other bits, some
\nmessage or themes are identified and used to develop categories. Patterns begin to emerge, the
\nmost useful often being those identified across more than one data set. Referring back to the earlier
\nexample, it might be observed that parents mention take-home readers frequently; that in anecdotal
\nrecords disruptive behaviour is noted at the end of reading lessons when take-home readers are being
\norganised, and that in the focus group discussion the teacher noted some students complaining
\nabout the take-home readers being \u2018boring\u2019. This pattern might then lead the teacher to conduct
\nsome analysis of the take-home reader collection, considering the age, suitability, gendered appeal,
\nreadability and so on.
\nIn literacy classrooms, sometimes the important questions to ask about the data collected are what
\ncould be perceived as the simplest. For example, \u2018What are the stories about literacy being told in these
\ndata?\u2019 \u2018What counts as literacy in these data?\u2019
\nImportantly, it is not a search for the \u2018right\u2019 or \u2018correct\u2019 answer that drives most qualitative data
\nanalysis. Rather, analysis and interpretation of data can provide some possible reasons. It is always
\ninteresting to compare one person\u2019s interpretation with others, making collaborative teacher project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s
\na worthwhile strategy. Rather than asking \u2018What do these data mean?\u2019, it is more useful to ask: \u2018What
\nis a possible story that could be told from these data? What do I think the data mean? What messages
\ndo I hear?\u2019
\nFor example, in one interview, a teacher told me about her first interactions with a new English
\ncurriculum:
\n64
\nLiteracy Learning:
\nthe Middle Years
\nVolume 23
\nNumber 3
\nOctober 2015
\nAnn: I came to the first key teaching thing. They were talking about Year 2 Net, and blah
\nblah blah, and this is in this book, and blah blah blah, this is here, and everyone should
\nhave one, and every teacher should have one. And I went back and said \u2018Where are
\nour books?\u2019 You know, I\u2019ve just been told that every teacher should have this set of
\nbooks, and they were all wrapped in plastic in shelves in piles.
\nThis was last year, middle of last year, and I said \u2018Right I\u2019ll take my books\u2019 and I took
\nthem, and I unwrapped them. And I took two sets because I was with someone else.
\nAnd I took them in and \u2018We\u2019re meant to have these\u2019, so we unwrapped them, went,
\nflicked through them, stuck them on the shelf. \u2018Right, we\u2019ve got ours\u2019.
\nMy interpretation of this interview excerpt related to the lines that I have bolded. It appeared to
\nme that Ann\u2019s initial interest in the texts grew from her knowledge that something was due to her; she
\nhad a right to copies of the texts. The access to the texts was more important than the text itself. Once
\naccess was gained, she had no intention of reading them from cover to cover, or of gaining a secure
\nworking knowledge (which was the intention of the curriculum writers). This interpretation helped me
\nin my discussion of the relationships between teachers, policy writers, curriculum advisers and the
\nEnglish curriculum (see Honan 2001).
\nSomeone else, another researcher with a different question or another teacher, or even Ann herself,
\nmight think something else is going on in this excerpt; that there is a different message to hear;
\nsomething that I have missed or ignored.
\nAnother example comes from an analysis of a curriculum document (see Rowan & Honan, 2005),
\nthe Early Years Literacy Program (EYLP) in Victoria, which provided teachers with advice about the
\nstructure of their program. This is reproduced in Figure 3.
\nMy interpretation of the messages to teachers embedded in this program included the following
\npoints:
\n\u2022\t Literacy is best taught in uninterrupted two-hour blocks of time;
\n\u2022\t Reading and writing are two distinct and separate components of literacy that should be
\ntaught separately;
\n\u2022\t Speaking and listening learning occurs as part of reading and writing while at the same
\ntime separated from the other modes;
\n\u2022\t The organisation of the class in the block is whole class-small group-whole class with
\nemphasis on individual success and interactivity between groups of children and the teacher.
\nIn workshops and presentations, others have pointed out that the positioning of the words
\n\u2018teaching speakers and listeners\u2019 on the side of the figure with no elaboration sends a message that
\nspeaking and listening skills are not important and can be ignored.
\nFinally, another example of qualitative analysis (also drawn from Rowan & Honan, 2005) is of
\nan amalgam classroom snapshot. In this snapshot, I drew on multiple classroom observations of
\nmany different classrooms using the \u2018Literacy Block\u2019 approach to teaching literacy in the early years.
\nThis snapshot was developed to provide an illustration of the perceived outcomes of the curriculum
\nprogram outlined above. In reading this snapshot, I invite you to consider what counts as reading and
\nwriting in this classroom.
\nThe classroom wall clock reads 9.10am. There are about 22 small children sitting cross legged on a
\nlarge square of carpet at one end of the classroom. Their posture is largely determined by their distance
\nfrom the teacher, who sits on an upright chair in front of the group. So those directly under her gaze
\nsit straight backed, hands neatly folded in their laps. As the distance grows, so the posture deteriorates
\nuntil you find, hidden from the teacher\u2019s gaze by the bodies of the rest of the class, two small boys lying
\non their backs. One is quietly humming to himself and rocking his lower body and legs from side to
\nside, almost as an adult does in a physiotherapy exercise. The other boy is wriggling his whole body in a
\nsnakelike attempt to move closer to his neighbour.
\n65
\nLiteracy Learning:
\nthe Middle Years
\nVolume 23
\nNumber 3
\nOctober 2015
\nThe teacher\u2019s chair is located close to a blackboard that stretches the width of the classroom. On
\none part of the board is a brightly coloured chart, with the heading Task Board, and a table of five
\ncolumns and four rows. The days of the week form the headings for the columns. At the beginning of
\neach row is a pictograph, a symbolised representation of one of the teaching strategies from the EYLP.
\nFor example, guided reading is represented by an image of four heads and a book. There are four
\nsmall cards attached to the chart with velcro, and each card holds the image of an Australian animal,
\nplatypus, wombat, kangaroo, echidna.
\nOn the other side of the teacher\u2019s chair is an easel, on which are pinned some large pieces of blank paper.
\nLeaning against this paper is a large \u2018big book\u2019. The teacher is reading the big book to the class. The
\nclass all seem familiar with the text, with some children reading loudly along with her. Two children talk
\nloudly to each other about what is coming up, describing in some detail to each other the contents of
\nthe following pages. As with the posture of the children, their attention to the book reading seems to
\nbe directly related to their proximity to the teacher. The teacher\u2019s gaze seems to be divided between the
\npages of the book she is reading, and those children who sit close to her. There is an invisible circle of
\nliterary appreciation drawn around the teacher and those eight or so children who appear to be enjoying
\nthe reading.
\nThe teacher finishes the reading of the big book and draws the children\u2019s attention to the Task Board.
\nFigure 3. Excerpt from the Early Years Literacy Program (see Rowan & Honan, 2005, p. 204)
\n66
\nLiteracy Learning:
\nthe Middle Years
\nVolume 23
\nNumber 3
\nOctober 2015
\nShe elicits group and individual responses to her questions from the class. To the two wriggling boys
\nat the back, she asks: \u2018What group are you in Troy and Toby?\u2019 The boys sit up and call back, \u2018Wombats
\nmiss!!\u2019 \u2018And what will the Wombats be doing this morning?\u2019 After a few seconds of silence, she asks,
\n\u2018Can one of the Kangaroos help the Wombats \u2013 what will the Wombats be doing this morning, Sarah?\u2019
\nSarah, one of the girls sitting directly at the teacher\u2019s feet replies, \u2018Reading with you miss.\u2019 \u2018Good girl,
\nSarah. And what will the Kangaroos be doing?\u2019 There is a choral response as many of the class shout,
\n\u2018Sheets!!!\u2019 \u2018That\u2019s right, Kangaroos will be working on their worksheets at their desks.\u2019 The other two
\ngroups of children are reminded of their activities (reading from the Book Boxes, and reading with a
\nparent helper, who is sitting quietly at the back of the classroom, close to the door). The teacher reminds
\nthe class of the rules for the morning: \u2018What happens when I\u2019m working with the Wombats, girls and
\nboys? \u2013 what do you have to remember \u2013 Echidnas?\u2019 The Echidnas\u2019 responses are varied: \u2018Don\u2019t talk to
\nyou\u2019; \u2018Stay away!\u2019, \u2018Sit in our seats \u2019til we\u2019ve finished.\u2019 \u2018That\u2019s right, good girls, when I\u2019m working with
\nthe Wombats I don\u2019t want to be interrupted, so you read your book quietly, and if you finish reading
\nyour book, what do you do?\u2019 \u2018Read it again!\u2019, the Echidnas reply in unison.
\nThe signal to move is almost invisible to the outsider. The teacher merely says, \u2018Right, off we go,\u2019
\nand many of the children stand immediately and walk purposefully around the room. One girl goes
\nto a corner and pulls out a large plastic crate filled with \u2018levelled readers\u2019. Another girl goes to the
\nteacher\u2019s desk and collects a cardboard folder with a Kangaroo drawn on the cover. Five children cluster
\naround the parent helper, who appears not to notice them, as she is bent over her own daughter who
\nis whispering in her ear. The Wombat group, four boys and two girls remain on the carpet. Some
\nchildren sit at desks and pull out pencil cases containing pencils and coloured markers. Within a few
\nminutes all children seem to be \u2018on task\u2019, reading quietly or aloud, writing on worksheets, or responding
\nto questions from the teacher. There is a \u2018working buzz\u2019 in the room. Gradually though the buzz is
\nsubsumed by the sounds of giggles and loud conversations.
\nThe Echidnas have all read their Book Box readers, and have obeyed the instruction to read them
\nagain. All five children have now read their texts twice, and now discard the books. They are giggling,
\ntelling stories; there is the occasional pinch or tweak of an arm or leg.
\nThe Platypus group with the parent helper are taking turns to read aloud from a reader. They too
\nhave finished this \u2018round robin\u2019 once, but the parent has begun the reading again. The children who are
\nwaiting for their turn do not follow the text, but whisper to each other.
\nThe Wombats are still working with the teacher, but she seems to find it difficult to hold all their
\nattention at once \u2013 so when she asks one girl a question about the text they are reading, the other five
\nchildren appear to be daydreaming.
\nThe Kangaroo group seems to be the quietest, and seems to still all be on task. They have all finished
\nanswering the questions on their worksheets, and are quietly and carefully colouring in the illustrations
\nthat border the sheets.
\nOccasionally the teacher looks up from her reading and questioning and glances at the wall clock.
\nAt exactly 9.40 am, she stands up and claps her hands in a short rhythmic pattern. The children all fall
\nquiet, some instantly while others are nudged into silence by their neighbours or by a certain look from
\nthe teacher.
\n\u2018Right, thank you Grade 1s, onto the carpet please\u2019, the teacher commands. While most children
\nscamper and scramble to reach the carpet square, some detour to return books to the crate, and a small
\ngroup cluster around the teacher, eager to inform her of exciting developments during the 20 minute
\nactivity time. She hushes some, listens carefully to a couple, and gives permission for two to go to the
\ntoilet. She then resumes her straight backed chair at the front of the class \u2013 this again seems to be an
\ninvisible signal to the class, many of whom begin to try to catch her attention \u2013 hands waving frantically
\nin the air, calling out, \u2018Miss, Miss, me please, me!!\u2019 The teacher selects one child, \u2018Tanah, your turn
\nI think today.\u2019 The small girl clambers through the group and stands beside the teacher. The teacher
\nasks, \u2018What did you do today Tanah?\u2019 Tanah replies looking directly at the teacher. During her reply
\nthe teacher gently holds her shoulders in an attempt to direct her gaze towards the class, but Tanah\u2019s
\nbody resists the gentle pushes and swivels around again to look at the teacher. Tanah\u2019s reply seems
\nwell rehearsed; there are phrases within her reply that the teacher mouths silently along with Tanah.
\n\u2018This morning, the Kangaroos wrote a lot of B words. Then we wrote our words in sentences. Then we
\ncoloured in our pictures of balls, and baskets and biscuits. Then we packed up our sheets.\u2019 The teacher
\nasks three other children, representing each of the four groups, to come to the front one at a time. They
\neach describe the activity engaged with, each using similar words and phrases. The other children sit on
\nthe carpet in much the same positions and postures as they had taken at the beginning of the morning.
\nThe same children sit upright and cross legged close to the teacher and the same two boys lie on their
\nbacks on the edge of the carpet square, hidden from the teacher\u2019s gaze by the other children. (Rowan
\n& Honan, 2005, pp. 213\u2013214)
\n67
\nLiteracy Learning:
\nthe Middle Years
\nVolume 23
\nNumber 3
\nOctober 2015
\nMy interpretation of what counts as reading in this classroom snapshot included these points:
\n\u2022\t Reading involves being organised into small groups;
\n\u2022\t Teachers read to the whole class; children read aloud in small groups;
\n\u2022\t Reading is writing words beginning with the same consonant;
\n\u2022\t Reading is colouring in pictures of words beginning with the same consonant;
\n\u2022\t There is a connection between ability to read, and ability to listen to instructions, recall
\nprevious activities, and sit with straight backs and crossed legs (see Kamler, Maclean, Reid
\n& Simpson, 1992);
\n\u2022\t Reading is about reading the same text repeatedly until you are completely familiar with the
\ntext;
\n\u2022\t Reading is about gaining operational skills, or being able to draw on codebreaking
\nresources to make meaning from a text (Freebody & Luke, 2003);
\n\u2022\t When we talk about reading, we talk about what we do with texts, rather than our feelings
\nor understandings of the content of the texts.
\nOf course there are many other interpretations of this classroom scene, and importantly these
\nreflect our own ideas, beliefs and values about the teaching of literacy. One interesting exercise could
\nbe for a group of teachers to compare and contrast their views of what is happening in this snapshot.
\nConclusion
\nThe push towards collecting large sets of quantitative data seems to be unceasing and unstoppable.
\nHowever, \u2018big data\u2019 and other forms of quantitative data cannot capture the in-depth and complex
\nrelationships amongst teachers, students, texts and policies that operate within literacy classrooms.
\nI have provided here some examples of interpretations and analyses of qualitative data that could
\nbe used as models or guides by classroom teachers. Other more structured advice and guidelines
\ncan be found in diverse sources, including textbooks used in postgraduate courses that are available
\nin university libraries, online professional development courses, professional association workshops,
\nseminars and conferences. One particular source is that provided in teacher education schools and
\nfaculties at universities. Most of us who work in these contexts are interested and enthusiastic about
\nsharing ideas for doing classroom-based research with teachers. Importantly, we are interested in
\nhelping teachers gain the research tools required to shape the curriculum to suit their particular
\nsituations and contexts. Collecting, analysing and interpreting qualitative data within a classroom
\ncontext sheds significant and in-depth light on the nature of student learning and performance, a light
\nthat cannot be provided solely through the collection of quantitative data or through the analysis of
\n\u2018big data\u2019 sets.
\nReferences
\nAustralian Council for Educational Research. (2015). Progressive Achievement Tests in Reading (PAT-R)
\n(Webpage). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.acer.edu.au\/pat-reading
\nAustralian Council for Educational Research. (2005\u20132015). Tests of Reading Comprehension (TORCH, 3rd
\ned.) (Webpage). Retrived from https:\/\/shop.acer.edu.au\/acer-shop\/group\/TORCH-3
\nBroadfoot, P., Timmis, S., Payton, S., Oldfield, A. & Sutherland, R. (2012). Rethinking Assessment \u2013 Learning analytics
\nand technology enhanced assessment (TEA). Discussion Paper 4. Bristol, UK: University of Bristol. Retrieved from
\nhttp:\/\/www.bris.ac.uk\/media-library\/sites\/education\/migrated\/documents\/learninganalytics.
\npdf
\nDepartment of Education, Training and Employment (Queensland). (2005\u20132015). Frequently asked questions: What
\nis the School Opinion Survey? (Webpage). Retrieved from http:\/\/education.qld.gov.au\/schoolopinion
\nsurvey\/faq.html
\nDickens, C. (1961). Hard times. New York, NY: Signet Classic Edition.
\n68
\nLiteracy Learning:
\nthe Middle Years
\nVolume 23
\nNumber 3
\nOctober 2015
\nFeinleib, D. (2014). Big data opportunities. In Education big data bootcamp (pp. 173\u2013188). New York, NY:
\nApress.
\nFleisher, L. (2014). Big data enters the classroom: Technological advances and privacy concerns clash. The Wall
\nStreet Journal. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.wsj.com\/articles\/SB100014240527023047561045794
\n51241225610478
\nFreebody, P. & Luke, A. (2003). Literacy as engaging with new forms of life: The \u2018four roles\u2019 model. In G. Bull
\n& M. Anstey (Eds.), The literacy lexicon (2nd ed., pp. 51\u201366). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education.
\nHawker Brownlow Education. (2012). CARS and STARS (Comprehensive Assessment of Reading Strategies,
\nand Strategies To Achieve Reading Success) (Webpage). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.hbe.com.au\/seriescars-and-stars\/cars-how-it-works.html
\nHonan, E. (2001). (Im)plausibilities: A rhizo-textual analysis of the Queensland English Syllabus. (Doctoral
\nthesis), James Cook University, Townsville.
\nHonan, E. (2013). Re-invigorating community-school relations around the teaching of reading. Paper presented
\nat Brave New World, Australian Association of Teachers of English (AATE)\/Australian Literacy
\nEducators\u2019 Association (ALEA) National Conference, Queensland University of Technology, July 4\u20137.
\nHonan, E., Evans, T., Paraide, P., Reta, M. & Muspratt, S. (2012). Action research booklet for teachers. Brisbane,
\nQld: The University of Queensland. Retrieved from http:\/\/espace.library.uq.edu.au\/view\/UQ:320777
\nKamler, B., Maclean, R., Reid, J. & Simpson, A. (1992). Shaping up nicely: The formation of schoolgirls and
\nschoolboys in the first month of school. Canberra, ACT: Department of Employment, Education, and Training.
\nLangbroek, J-P. (2014). Great results for Queensland in NAPLAN tests [Media statement]. Retrieved from
\nhttp:\/\/statements.qld.gov.au\/Statement\/2014\/8\/18\/great-results-for-queensland-in-naplantests
\nMayer-Sch\u00f6nberger, V. & Cukier, K. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and
\nthink. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
\nnews.com.au. (2013). Pisa report finds Australian teenagers education worse than 10 years ago [News article].
\nRetrieved from http:\/\/www.news.com.au\/national\/pisa-report-finds-australian-teenagers-education-worsethan-10-years-ago\/story-fncynjr2-1226774541525
\nReady, D. (2014). Student mathematics performance in the first two years of Teach to One Math. Retrieved from
\nhttp:\/\/www.newclassrooms.org\/resources\/Teach-to-One_Report_2013-14.pdf
\nPugh, K. & Foster, G. (2014). Australia\u2019s national school data and the \u2018big data\u2019 revolution in education
\neconomics. Australian Economic Review, 47(2), 258\u201368.
\nRenaissance Learning. (2015). Renaissance learning (Website). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.renaissance.
\ncom\/about-us
\nRowan, L. & Honan, E. (2005). Literarily lost: The quest for quality literacy agendas in early childhood
\neducation. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Critical issues in early childhood education (pp. 197\u2013223). Milton Keynes,
\nUK: Open University Press.
\nvan Kraayenoord, C., Gillies, R., Honan, E., Moni, K., Western, M. & Brereton, D. (2011). Developing
\nteachers\u2019 knowledge and pedagogical practices in reading in rural and mining communities. Paper presented
\nat the Australian Teacher Educators\u2019 National Conference, Valuing Teacher Education: Policy,
\nPerspectives and Partnerships, Melbourne, Victoria, July 3\u20136.
\nEileen Honan is a Senior Lecturer in Literacy and English Education at The University of Queensland. She
\nhas published in all three of ALEA\u2019s journals, and is a frequent presenter at ALEA National Conferences.
\nShe is an active member of Meanjin Local Council.
\nCopyright of Literacy Learning: The Middle Years is the property of Australian Literacy
\nEducators’ Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
\nposted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users
\nmay print, download, or email articles for individual use.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
57 Literacy Learning: the Middle Years Volume 23 Number 3 October 2015 Small data: Working with qualitative information in the literacy classroom Eileen Honan |\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7316,7318,7317,7315,7319,7321],"tags":[642,618,8825,576,116,631,19,643,473,633,630,628,450,597,594,626,635,574,622,624,620,621,619,623,617,625,627,634,629,632,644,645,42,66],"class_list":["post-113180","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-best-dissertation-writers-uk","category-british-dissertation-writers","category-dissertation-help-online","category-dissertation-writing-services-uk","category-help-with-dissertation-writing","category-uk-dissertation-help","tag-apps-that-write-essays-for-you-free","tag-assignment-writing-services-in-usa","tag-bes","tag-best-dissertation-writing-services","tag-best-essay-writing-service","tag-best-paper-writing-services","tag-best-research-paper-writing-services-in-usa","tag-best-website-to-write-my-essay","tag-cheap-essay-writing-service","tag-cheap-research-paper-writing-service","tag-college-paper-writing-service","tag-dissertation-help-online","tag-dissertation-writing-services","tag-dissertation-writing-services-illegal","tag-dissertation-writing-services-near-me","tag-dissertation-writing-services-usa","tag-essay-writing-service","tag-free-dissertation-writing-services","tag-homework-essay-writer","tag-homework-essay-writer-free","tag-homework-help-global","tag-homework-help-services","tag-homework-help-usa","tag-homework-writing-help","tag-homework-writing-service","tag-legit-research-paper-writing-services","tag-legitimate-dissertation-writing-services","tag-research-paper-writer-online-free","tag-research-paper-writing-services-online","tag-research-paper-writing-websites","tag-write-my-essay-for-me-cheap","tag-write-my-essay-for-me-tik-tok","tag-write-my-essay-free","tag-write-my-paper"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113180","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=113180"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113180\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113180"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113180"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113180"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}