Can action research reveal how to raise
attainment levels in L2 English Functional
Skills writing?
Lisa Williamson
19 June 2013
Declaration
I declare that this research article is the product of my own work and is available for
publication by the IFL or SCOPE.
Signed
Date
L J Williamson
28 February 2013
Research Ethics Declaration
Approval for action research was given by the Director of Centre for Skills for Life. Senior
Management was supportive in allowing me to carry out the research with the students in my
classes.
I understand that in accordance with the principles of ethical research neither the subjects of
my research, or the place of my research, can be identified from this dissertation.
Signed
Date
L J Williamson
28 February 2013 (Revised 16
May 2013)
Acknowledgements
I should like to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to Caryn Loftus, for guiding my
research article preparation. In particular, a special thank you to the students who
participated in my teaching episodes, without which, this action research would not be
possible, in order to inform future practice.
Abstract
The purpose of this research study was to investigate whether the achievement levels in L2
writing ability, for Functional Skills, can be raised. Following observation of Functional Skills
English practice, during the last year, students appeared to readily struggle with the
requirements of the writing curriculum following the introduction of the new qualification.
Overall attainment rates, in the college where I worked, reached only 28. This led me to
consider whether the poor success rate was as a result of:
1. Lack of engagement by students in the curriculum structured to promote
employability skills and future learning.
2. Inadequate teaching, as a result of the introduction of a new curriculum.
3. Inadequate teaching, by secondary schools, in the building blocks for writing skills.
4. Too high, the pass mark set by exam boards.
It would have been beneficial to have compared my college success rates against
national achievement levels for our awarding body, but such information was not
made available for inclusion within this research. This may have highlighted a
national issue and the need not to just improve L2 writing levels within the FE Sector.
The research was conducted in three groups of students within a Further Education setting
utilising diverse activities involving teacher-led and student-initiated experiences for
comparison, based on the principles of Social Constructivism to promote active learning
contexts. The three selected groups consisted of three males and two females, each will
similar social economic backgrounds and abilities. All were aged 17 years of age. One group
was a control group where the standard Functional Skills curriculum was taught for
comparison purposes. My research was conducted over six teaching sessions where
student behaviour, writing performances and behaviours were observed and following the
release of results by the exam board.
The Action Research methodology enabled systematic progression in my inquiries which
were enhanced further by use of Sociological Research methods. All research data was
collated using qualitative methods such as through observation, e.g. triangulation and also
discussion as shown in Appendix 6, p.41.
The main outcome of my research proposes there needs to be a new focus on developing
writing skills in adolescents. There is insufficient preparation for life skills, employability and
study at higher education levels by secondary school. A second finding is that students
actively involved in the delivery and planning of a writing curriculum achieve better results
where the principles of social constructivism are adopted. A unique insight is provided into a
student’s developing literacy world of writing.
The third finding suggests that there are potential benefits for Functional Skills practice in the
acceptance and promotion of an alternative teaching strategy by not purely embedding the
vocational interests of the students. A change is proposed to urge Functional Skills practice
away from the traditional teaching strategies and therefore accept that students require
inspirational, motivating and creative learning contexts to promote attainment of L2 writing
skills actively need to be involved in their education.
The conclusion of this research considers that a specific focus at national level, bridging the
life skills and employability gap between Key Stage 4 and further education, is now
necessary in order to place on track student writing ability; to be fully functional at L2.
Students had insufficient personal experiences of life skills and knowledge of employability
topics to respond fully to exam questions, despite a wealth of resources available. These
need to be taught and with the active curriculum involvement of students to embrace their
own ideas and resources, to support their learning and personal development, in line with
the principles of Social Constructivism. Why then should student creatively and self initiated
responses be curtailed as found within the recommended standard delivery of Functional
Skills for writing?
L J Williamson
Contents
Pages
Introduction
8
Section 1: The issue
8-10
Section 2: The literature review
10-13
Section 3: Intervention
13-21
Section 4: Results and analysis
21-23
Section 5: Discussion, conclusion and 23-26
ongoing research
Bibliography
26-32
Appendices
33-66
Research question and answer
67
Introduction
The organisation I work for is a college of Further Education who provides full and part-time
education from aged 14 years to adulthood. Courses are wide ranging and are diverse in
content and are available to both staff and students. Everyday skills to vocational courses
are taught, encompassing also GCSEs, A levels, Functional Skills as well as First Degrees.
Teacher training is provided, for example, PGCE qualifications. My role is wide ranging,
flexible and diverse as I teach Maths, English and ICT Functional Skills within mixed ability
classes, from Entry Level to Level 2. I am also a staff mentor whereby I train and support
staff.
The issue
Introduction
1.1 Focus
This research study aims to investigate if the current level of L2 Functional Skills writing
ability can be raised as a result of conducting action research, to inform practice. It is
focused upon three groups of five students within English Functional Skills lessons. The
purpose is to ascertain what the issues
are preventing achievement and whether active student involvement within the delivery of
the curriculum holds meaning and value. Will the principles of Social Constructivism have an
impact on student ability? The focus specifically builds on previous research by LLUK
(Lifelong Learning UK, March 2010) and Embedding Functional Skills on vocational course
by the NRDC (National Research Development Centre, 2006) who ascertained the role of
the teacher and relevant qualifications together with embedding within vocational courses
boosted attainment levels of literacy and numeracy. This research focus highlights a need
for change in attitude and practice of curriculum delivery, by implementing key principles in
Social Constructivism, and a direct national focus in writing skills within the UK English
curriculum. This supports the views by Craft (2001b) who proposes teaching strategies
should be open to innovation and constant change in order to reflect the characteristics of
our culture.
My interest for this area of focus derived from teaching Functional Skills English and marking
initial assessments across college which revealed poor attainment of writing skills and the
absence of building blocks necessary to structure appropriate responses for different forms
of writing. The attainment level, for L2 Functional Skills writing, only achieved 28% as a
success rate during the academic year 2011-12 in my workplace.
1.2 Definitions
This research makes frequent reference to both meaning and value. Thompson (1996)
defines meaning as a significant idea whilst value is regarded as being something of worth. It
is important to define, as follows, what Functional Skills, L2 writing and Social Constructivism
terms mean in order to produce consistent clarity during the investigation and notably for
consideration of the conclusion having analysed qualitative data.
A) Functional Skills
Functional Skills (FS) are free standing qualifications covering English, Mathematics and
Information and Communication Technology (ICT). These were developed in response to
employer demands that identified these particular skills gaps when trying to recruit staff.
Following FS piloting during 2007-2010, national implementation occurred in September
2010. O’Grady and Frier (2010) advised Functional Skills were ‘initially a mandatory
component of 14-19 Diplomas: applied qualifications combining academic and practical
learning designed to meet the needs of employers and Higher Education, and introduced in
September 2008.’ Functional Skills have replaced both Key Skills qualifications and Skills for
Life qualifications (2011). The DfES defines Functional Skills as:
‘the core elements of English, mathematics and ICT that provide an individual with
the essential knowledge, skills, and understanding that will enable them to operate
confidently effectively and independently in life and at work.’ Appendix 1 defines the
levels within the FS curriculum for attainment.
B) English Functional Skills (Level 2)
Achievement of the qualification is as follows:

Speaking and Listening Assessment: two assessments (informal and formal) as well
as a formal presentation.

Reading paper and a writing paper (on-line and paper based).
The aim of the curriculum is to equip students with the essential practical skills and
knowledge for employability, life and further study. The DfES (2007, p.22) advises FS
English is necessary to:
‘to encourage learners to demonstrate their speaking and listening, reading and
writing skills in a range of contexts and for various purposes. They are essentially
concerned with developing and recognising the ability of learners to apply and
transfer skills in ways that are appropriate to their situation.’
The Functional Skills Support Programme (2007, p.92) considers ‘Functional writing is about
applying writing to real examples, situations and tasks.’ It believes that adolescents should
be adequately prepared with the necessary writing skills equip them in the workplace and for
further study. There needs to be clarity on who they are writing for, their audience and
purpose as well as familiarity of the different text types for writing e.g. instruction,
persuasion, recount and explanation e.g. reports and articles, discussion, informal and
formal letters, analysis, arguments, evaluation and information. The use of text type
influences the writing structure and the type of sentences needed. At Level 2, the concept of
register must be apparent. It is the way the audience is addressed by the writer; it is not
reliant on the use of vocabulary alone. Within the writing there must be a range of sentence
structures at Level 2, including complex sentences, accurate punctuation such as use of
commas, apostrophes and inverted commas and use of grammar.
There must be a
consistent correct use of tense and familiarity of spelling of everyday words at L2. Appendix
3 details, according to Excellence Gateway (2013), the most commonly misspelt words.
C) Social Constructivism Principles
Social Constructivism highlights the importance of culture and context in learning and
constructing understanding.
It is associated with contemporary developmental theories
notably connected with Vygotsky, Bruner and Bandura for child development. It promotes
inclusive learning. Vygotsky, cited by Brooks (2002, p.1) considers life experiences influence
development and learning. The key principles (p.26) encourage movement away from
standard models of teaching, development and learning. Learning is socially mediated and
the teacher has a limited role. The curriculum is contextually relevant and problem based.
Differing forms of assessment are authentic and meaningful. It is based on specific
assumptions reality (constructed through activity); knowledge (culturally structured through
meaningful actions when engaged in activities) and learning (engaged though a social
process). The opinions of Kukla (2000), Gredler (1997) and McMahon (1997) refer.
The Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
To provide the conceptual framework for my research, it was necessary to read an extensive
list of reference materials as reflected in my bibliography. Not only did I have to consider the
appropriate manner to undertake my research, but generally understand how to promote
active learning within the social context of Social Constructivism. I needed to understand
how students creatively think and best learn as well as reviewing prior research connected
with writing skills. This was deemed necessary to accurately reflect upon my teaching and
student responses during research activities.
2.2 Previous research and influential theory
The origins of Functional Skills lie in the Tomlinson Report (DfES, 2007), in the call for 14-19
education reform and the need for employability as recommended within the Leitch Report
(2006). I was astonished to learn that it was possible to pass a GCSE in English and Maths
without having a satisfactory standard of literacy and numeracy. Only 45% of students
nationally achieve A*- grade C GCSE English or Maths.
The NRDC (National research Development Centre) by Casey et al. considers achievement
of both literacy and numeracy are promoted when the concept of ‘embedding’ is employed.
This is defined as ‘bringing together the vocational or subject teaching (2006, p.8). There are
differing models of delivery, as explored by Eldred (2005), such as two teachers being
timetabled to teach at the same time or being able to teach more than one subject. Learners
were found to achieve a 42% higher level of achievement for literacy as a result of
embedding. However, this would mean there would be a requirement for teaching staff to
plan together and a willingness by vocational tutors to develop their own writing ability,
integrating L2 writing diagnostic results or initial assessment into their vocational teaching.
The research conducted by the Functional Skills Support Programme (2007) clearly defines
the English ‘vision’ and offers teaching and learning strategies to support learners in their
development of English writing skills. This report cites employer’s expectation of a potential
employee’s writing ability. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Report (August 2006)
concluded that many people fell short of the standard required for employment as they were
not considered to be functionally literate for employability.
Previous key research therefore identifies weaknesses in the GCSE English Language
curriculum and lack of skills for employability. It offers, by way of the introduction of
Functional Skills, ‘a solution’ to a national problem supported by a wealth of teaching and
learning strategies and support materials for all subjects. So, to understand further why L2
writing results are so low, if it is not a result of lack of resources surely the reason was to do
with inadequate teaching and learning? Thornton (2006, p.11) considers it is the students,
failing in the first instance, to understand the rudiments of grammar and building blocks of
writing. Once key elements such as verbs, adjectives, pronouns, adverbs, subjects and
objects, using the right form of verb, pronouns and the ability to form complete sentences is
achieved, basic writing errors can be eradicated.
Bonwell and Eisen (1991) highlighted the need for change from traditional methods of
conducting lectures. They proposed that to create ‘excitement’ and motivation in learning,
interactional instructional techniques were needed. Their analysis of the research literature
(Chickering and Gamson, 1987) suggested that students ‘must do more than just listen:
They must read, write, discuss, or be engaged in solving problems’ and be actively involved,
engaged in such higher-order thinking tasks as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Students
needed to be involved in lessons and think about what they are doing. (1991, p. 1). Such
teaching and learning strategies mirrored concepts of ‘active learning’ within social contexts
linked with the principles of Social Constructivism. Such as the view by Au (1998) who
considers that use of a diverse ‘social constructivist perspective’ can boost literacy
attainment in students of diverse backgrounds. Aspects of class management, teaching and
learning and use of resources need to be addressed by educators. She argues that any gap
in achievement is a direct result of cultural and linguistic differences (as personal values are
not followed), discrimination, inferior education and rationales for schooling. Cummins
(1986) proposed
a theoretical framework for empowering students of diverse backgrounds, linking learning
events and the wider society. Appendix 4 shows Au’s (1998) proposed framework for
promoting all aspects of literacy as a result of adopting the principles of Social
Constructivism.
Wink and Putney (2002), cited by Brooks (2002, p. 4), link Vygotskian theories, on the
importance of culture and social context for cognitive development, with more contemporary
views of social construction for specific application in the classroom. Such views have
influenced the preparation of my research intervention. The outcomes of which are
discussed in section 3 that follows. The table in Appendix 10 shows key elements of their
theories.
2.3 Examiner Reports
All Edexcel examiner reports available for on-screen testing and paper based were
reviewed in order to understand further the weaknesses of students. The writing paper
requires students to complete two writing tasks for which marks are awarded for form,
communication and purpose and spelling, punctuation and grammar use. 40% of marks are
for spelling, punctuation and grammar. In the Chair of Examiners Report (2011-2012), online testing, unsuccessful learners were found to have a lack, in their answers, of:
a) Development
b) Clarity and accuracy.
c) Sequencing of ideas, yet bullet points in exam questions to aid learners to structure
their responses were not used.
d) Inner logic.
e) Correct structure for letter layouts and omission of key details.
f)
Paragraphs.
g) Correct spelling: common errors included missing possessive apostrophes and those
used in plural nouns. In e-mail responses i was used instead of a capital letter for the
pronoun.
Such findings mirror paper based tests by examiners. Generally, it seems, that work
produced in exams is not fit for purpose, learners fail to read the question and attention
is required to address spelling, grammar and punctuation to achieve the pass mark
percentage of 70%.
2.4 Conclusion
My review of literature has enabled me to formulate ideas and opinions to prepare for my
intervention. There is agreement amongst Social Constructivist theorists that learners can be
actively engaged in cognitive learning. The model of Brooks (2002) will therefore play a
significant role in promoting understanding, development and achievement of L2 writing
skills amongst my selected three groups of students. The new study programme proposed
by the government (DfES, 2012) will have big implications for the FE sector. Of key
importance, is that Maths and English are at the centre of the proposals, which will increase
Skills for Life/ Functional Skills provision owing to the rise in numbers of learners taking
qualifications. Raising achievement levels in literacy is even more paramount.
The intervention
3.1 Introduction
This section addresses the relevance, purpose, actual implementation and outcomes of
each teaching episode in relation to my research aims. The table in Appendix 6, p.41
conveys the data collection methods utilised for each teaching episode. A systematic and
consistent approach was therefore adopted throughout the research program as shown in
Appendix 5. Each of the episodes, for simplistic purposes, have been summarised and
highlight my main findings.
3.2 Teaching Episodes
Teaching Episode 1 (Adult-led activity for elicitation)
Aims

To elicit student opinion towards Functional Skills.

To elicit how writing skills could be improved to achieve L2 writing.
Analysis and assessment

Analysis of student responses on audio-tape.

Comparison of triangulation data.

Completion of a questionnaire on Functional Skills.

Observation of general student responses.
Relevance and context
This activity was selected to elicit student’s thoughts towards Functional Skills and their
thoughts on student writing ability and how they could improve existing skills. To carry out
the discussion activity, each group of students were sat at one table in the classroom. The
teaching episode was concluded following completion of the survey. To prevent a distortion
of data, students were then asked to sit separately within the classroom.
Main findings
The findings from this activity suggest that students feel restricted and negative towards
Functional Skills English. All forms of writing are generally disliked and they prefer to rely on
technology ‘to get them by.’ My journal entry extract for discussion and survey results are
contained within Appendix 6.
Reflection
I was surprised at the level of enthusiasm to participate in the study. This was a common
factor amongst all three groups of students. In addition, each group arrived at the same
question, unaware of the responses of other groups in the research- How can written skills
be improved without a recent assessment and at what level? Initial assessments had been
made during the start of the academic year, together with weekly feedback on work on how
to progress grammar, punctuation and spelling. Each group felt it was still important to have
an interim writing assessment to see any evident progression. It was therefore agreed that I
would incorporate a current assessment in the next lesson.
Teaching Episode 2 (student-led activity for planning and assessment)
Aims

To elicit student ideas for teaching topics or embedded interests to promote writing
achievement.

Assess current writing ability and Functional Skills Level.

To plan together the next teaching session, following completion of a second
questionnaire.
Analysis and assessment

Analysis of student responses on audio-tape.

Comparison of triangulation data.

Completion of initial assessment.

Observation of general student responses.
Relevance and context
This activity was selected to build on student requests from the first teaching episode. I had
to change my original planning for the control group to accommodate their desire to be
assessed too. A free piece of writing was used, a standard type question for L2 exams by
Edexcel. It was to write a letter of complaint about unsatisfactory venue facilities and the
poor experience following an evening out with friends or family. The assessment was carried
out under exam conditions. Students agreed to produce their ‘best piece of work.’ Letter
writing had not been taught previously so students could demonstrate prior knowledge.
Discussions then took place within groups A and B to ascertain interests and topics to
promote writing skills, following completion of the second questionnaire. For the control
group, they asked what topics they would be covering within the standard English scheme of
work. This was shared.
Main findings
Following assessment of writing skills, interim assessment revealed:
Group
Results:
Control Group
Only 1 would achieve L2. 4 were currently at
L1.
Group A
Only 1 would achieve L2. 4 were at L1.
Group B
Only 1 would achieve L2. 4 were at L1.
In each group, attention was needed to letter structure, sequence of logical ideas, use of
formal language and spelling. This mirrored the findings of the Chief Examiner’s report in
2011-12. There were apparent gaps in their prior knowledge.
Main topics for promoting interest in writing skills were found to be Facebook (currently
forbidden within class), hobbies and personal interests and creating imaginative resources
by incorporating humour. This was as a result of group interviews and student feedback
through completed second questionnaires. I was surprised to learn that each group did not
wish the embedding of writing skills, within their vocational course of study, as
recommended by the NRDC report (2006). This was asked following completion of the
questionnaire.
Groups A and B independently asked if the questionnaire completed in
teaching episode 1 could be re-completed in the final teaching episode to see if use of Social
Constructivism key principles had any effect on their learning and development. This
surprised me; I had planned to complete a more general review. Teaching episode 6
therefore had to accommodate student requests.
Reflection
The interim results confirmed that I had correctly formed the groups to conduct my research.
Each were of the same ability for writing skills. Interestingly, students from each group were
surprised at their levels of ability, despite consistent feedback given in class and previously
marked work. They thought they had progressed further than they had. This led me to
consider how I could rectify this. I would need to address this in the next teaching episode.
Teaching Episode 3 (student-led activity for promotion of writing an argument)
Aims

To ask students how to inform further their relevant writing skills level.

To share tutor experience on how to raise standards when writing sentences.

To promote the development of a balanced argument, should Facebook be banned
in lessons?
Analysis and assessment

Analysis of student responses on audio-tape.

Comparison of triangulation data.

Completion of writing task, incorporating tutor feedback from marked work.

Observation of general student responses.
Relevance and context
This activity was selected to develop the construction of a balanced argument (a previously
untaught topic) on a popular interest of students. Planning, drafting and proofreading, prior to
handing in the work was required.
Main findings
The control group feedback revealed they liked the idea of writing about a familiar topic.
However, generally observations showed that the students struggled to place thoughts down
on paper. I also observed that they lacked the motivation of groups A and B who were
animated. Both these groups self-initiated a discussion on how best to write the article and
asked for the sharing of my expertise for structuring, notably use of sub-headings. Group B
even had an impromptu debate on the arguments for and against Facebook to promote
balanced peer thoughts when writing. A main finding of this session was that students in
groups A and B were unaware of what a good piece of L2 writing looked like. They
independently asked me to model, on the Activ Board, an example offered by one student by
grading the level (in both cases, Level 1) then writing a sentence at L2 to compare the
difference. The skills needed for writing sentences were then discussed at each level.
Appendix 2 refers. For the control group, standard direct teaching was used for sentence
construction work.
Reflection
The student responses confirmed my emerging hypothesis that students need to write on
topics of interest. For teaching episode 4, groups A and B were asked how they could
promote writing skills further. Both, independently, asked for a current affairs style lesson
incorporating writing skills by writing an article, in line with the planned scheme of work. As a
result of the Activ-Board sentence construction levels for groups A and B; I will alter my
future practice to show such examples in future English lessons for all my students. Group A
said collectively that each were unaware of the standard needed to achieve L2. Responses
collectively from group B were similar.
Teaching Episode 4 (student –led activity for the promotion of writing an article)
Aims

To promote development of writing an article (previously untaught), independently
researched from current affairs. The focus was ‘what is in the news today?’

To consolidate prior learning by revising how to structure paragraphs and logically
sequence ideas to formulate an article.
Analysis and assessment

Analysis of student responses on video recording.

Comparison of triangulation data.

Completion of writing task, incorporating tutor feedback from marked work.

Observation of general student responses.
Relevance and context
This article supported the independent requests of Groups A and B from the prior teaching
episode. It promoted the teaching of writing skills needed to structure an article as well as
revision of grammar, spelling and punctuation techniques.
Main findings
The control group took time in searching current affair topic to base their article on. Revision
techniques were discussed for writing an article but responses were vague. Students were
disinterested. Group A self-initiated a ‘Have I got news for you’ style, linked to the popular
BBC TV programme. Each, within the first 15 minutes of the teaching episode, had provided
a cloze sentence to find the missing key word for the title of a headline for a key topic in the
news and used as a quiz within the group. They then decided on the same topic to write their
articles on- should horsemeat be allowed in the British Food chain? Responses were then
independently planned, discussed and compared before they wrote their article separately
with referral to me for support or sharing of expertise. A similar situation arose for Group B;
they planned and discussed using a key topic in the news- the extent of the snowfall in the
UK at the time. Each one took turns to write a section of the article: introduction, research,
disruption, future recommendations and conclusion. Again, my expertise was shared when
asked.
Teaching Episode 5 (student-led activity for the refinement of creative and imaginative
writing skills)
Aims

To promote the development of writing skills using student self-initiated resources
linked to a free writing activity of what’s my story?

To learn how to use sequence cues to structure creative responses and writing
(previously untaught).

To refine techniques, based on feedback received from the tutor.
Analysis and assessment

Analysis of student responses on video recording.

Comparison of triangulation data.

Completion of writing task, incorporating tutor feedback from marked work.

Observation of general student responses.
Relevance and context
To meet student requests for groups A and B in teaching episode 2, creativity was
introduced. Students in these groups self selected comical pictures sourced on-line and
chose to compose their story line using logical sequence clues e.g first, then, next and
finally. For the control group, students self-selected four images, linking altogether with an
appropriate story line using cues.
Main findings
Groups A and B were animated and highly motivated. They each tried to find a comical
situation and pictures were combined to form a PowerPoint. I set a challenge, could a story
be produced by linking all the pictures or events together?
Reflection
This activity promoted much enjoyment. In all groups, students were eager to see pictures
selected. However, a common factor in groups A and B, they desired to read out their stories
and peers offered recommendations independently on how their work could be improved
further as a story line. There was an eagerness to share thoughts and opinions and even
their own ‘expertise’ in writing.
Teaching Episode 6 (student-led activity (Peer teaching for exam revision)
Aims

To share exam topic techniques and strategies for the achievement of L2 writing
skills.

To complete the final questionnaire for comparison against teaching episode 1.

To share collectively, thoughts and opinions on the success of the teaching episodes
for research.
Analysis and assessment

Analysis of student responses on video recording.

Comparison of triangulation data.

Sharing of peer strategies for revision and examination techniques.

Observation of general student responses.
Relevance and context
This activity was selected to promote revision skills and to observe student responses on
typical exam topics. Research so far had demonstrated animated responses on topics of
interest. The completion of the questionnaire was in response to student requests for groups
A and B, following the ending of the teaching episodes.
Main findings
All groups were asked to share thoughts and opinions on how to prepare for the forthcoming
Functional Skills writing examination. The control group advised this could be achieved by
revising and by sitting further mock papers. In contrast, groups A and B independently asked
if they could research on-line past papers for the types of topic covered and offer exam
techniques and strategies based on independent research. All groups were also given to
revise key spellings from the Dolch list (Appendix 3). For the questionnaire, no real
differences in attitude for the control group, but for groups A and B, a positive shift towards
excellence in teaching and learning. Collectively, groups A and B felt the research showed
students learn better in an active environment with the teacher only sharing expertise. 13/15
felt they were inadequately prepared by secondary school for English language attainment
(Appendix 6, p.56).
Reflection
Groups A and B listed the full range of everyday exam type topics, from writing a letter of
complaint to writing an article on why people should visit where they live. For a letter, two
group members asked to use the Activ board so that could demonstrate best where
addresses and titles should be displayed in group A. For Group B, one member used the
active board to produce an impromptu spider gram showing initial thoughts to plan an
answer for an article. Again, such animated responses were not portrayed by the control
group who lacked motivation from direct teaching and exam practice questions, even though
this was at their request.
Results and analysis
4.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the outcome of my implementation, in relation to my aims, having
analysed and evaluated the data collected throughout my research.
4.2 General observation
Diverse research activities were purposely planned on untaught topics to segregate Groups
A and B from the normal provision for writing activities. This was deemed necessary to
ascertain response and see if there was value in the adoption of the key principles in Social
Constructivism.
Adult-led and student-led initiated teaching episodes were utilised for
comparison of student responses. Real differences were observed when compared to the
responses and results of the control group. I discovered across the six episodes a central
trend emerged. The concept of value arose, in the promotion and acceptance of Social
Constructivism principles by practice.
4.3 Impact of intervention on practice
Standard lessons are normally lively in my class and I actively encourage student
participation in order to boost achievement levels.
My workplace actively encourages
embedded vocational provision and I am currently on a working party to promote crosscollege provision. Despite this, the intervention had a considerable impact on my practice.
Students need to be allowed to think for themselves in a creative and active way. By giving
them ownership of their learning, they are actively involved and have a say in the delivery of
the curriculum. There was a common trend across all groups in that contrary to the findings
of the NRDC (2006), students did not wish to have their English curriculum within their
vocational course of study. Teaching episode 2 refers. Students in groups A and B felt it was
more relevant to learn actively from each other and for the role of the tutor to be more of an
educator/ facilitator by sharing opinion and expertise as shown in teaching episode 6.
Extracts from my journal entry, Appendix 6 page 62 refers.
4.4 Informing future practice
This research informs practice by adopting a series of recommendations as shown in
Appendix 9. The key principles of Social Constructivism promote teaching and learning. It
offers a potential, as a teaching strategy, for all other subjects. The research also reveals the
following:
a) Students consider their written skills to be of a higher standard than diagnostic
assessment levels.
b) Students have negative feelings towards Functional Skills and the relevance as a
qualification.
c) Motivation is apparent when the key principles of Social Constructivism are adopted.
d) 87% of the students felt they had been inadequately taught at secondary school for
the standard of L2 writing skills.
What worked well was the planning and discussion with the students. Ideas were shared and
students in groups A and B wanted to be involved too in preparing the resources (teaching
episode 5) and peer teaching (teaching episode 6). They willing shared how things could
even promote learning further in the following teaching episode. There was real value in the
proposed conceptual framework for teaching by Au (1997) and by Brooks (2002) as shown
in Appendices 4 and 9.
4.5 Qualitative data
To aid my constant interpretation of developing events, I utilised the systematic cycles for
Action Research as suggested by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) to encourage reflective
practice (Appendix 5). It involved use of situational, collaborative, self-evaluative,
participatory, therapeutic and diagnostic methodologies. It was a method that also allowed
me to discover new teaching approaches, through constant and relevant purpose. It further
offered the challenge of dealing with concrete problems in immediate situations, reflecting
the opinion of Cohen and Manion (1989).
As Hitchcock and Hughes (1995) recommend use of qualitative methods for educational
research, this study specifically incorporated use of proven methods such as triangulation.
This technique offered a three-way perspective during observations, providing a degree of
authenticity to each teaching episode. In placing students within specific research contexts,
rather than based on essential attributes, I also promoted the view of McNamee and Bridges
(2002) that postionality produces qualitative research.
The results show that:
One student in the control group achieved a pass at 70% for L2 writing. A 20% success rate
was therefore only achieved. In contrast, Group A and B showed an 80% success rate.
These are based on on-line exams taken on the same day, 14 January 2013, by the same
exam board (Appendix 8). The graph shows the striking impact the intervention made on
student achievement.
When analyses further: individual achievement rates were as follows:
There were no borderline passes in
achievement for groups A and B unlike
the control group.
Group:
Number
Control
1
Group A
4
Group B
4
Average percentage
70% Borderline pass
Average pass
75% rate
Average pass
78% rate
4.6 Summary
I had considered, at the start of this research that students may fail writing exams owing to
limited life experiences based on everyday exam topics e.g. writing a letter of complaint. The
same weaknesses in logical sequencing of ideas, constructing thoughts and opinions were
apparent in each teaching episode on previously untaught topics. Each of the students
within the three groups came from different secondary schools. This led me to question if the
GCSE English Language curriculum is adequately preparing students for life, further
education and employability. The skills were simply not there at the start of the research
amongst my students.
Discussion, conclusion and ongoing research
5.1 Discussion
Teaching episodes for groups A and B revealed that students were animated, engaged and
highly animated in their learning in contrast to the standard delivery of the Functional Skills
Curriculum as given to the control group. Students in groups A and B self-initiated their
responses and notably in teaching episode 4, group A even formed a quiz based on a BBC
programme ‘Have I got News for you?’ Donaldson (1978) considers all learners have the
ability to demonstrate their skills as thinkers and language users. There was a real flow of
passion, thus concurring with belief of Somekh (2003) that literacy progress can be made for
all when animated and engaged with a creative activity.
5.2 Meaning and value, the journey towards writing achievement
The outcome of teaching episodes 2 to 6 reveals that differing contexts and diverse activities
enhance the promotion of students writing skills. I discovered use of the key principles of
Social Constructivism offer an alternative literacy learning vehicle for students in promoting
use of their emotions, perceptions, thoughts, creativity and imagination. My findings, for all
six episodes, therefore concur with the view of Millard (1997) that the journey to literacy must
encompass diverse and experimental teaching approaches. Students want to actively
participate, share personal experiences and knowledge with peers. The role of a facilitator of
education is welcomed by sharing expertise and experience. For example, in teaching
episode 3 positive responses were received in sharing the different attainment levels for
sentence construction.
5.3 Reflection and potential benefits of acceptance by practice
Kellogg (1969) considers learning should be without oppressive guidance, as evident in
teaching episode 6, in preparation for exams. My research therefore proposes that there are
potential benefits in the acceptance of Social Constructivism principles by providing active
learning environments for students as a teaching strategy for literacy. The results (Appendix
8) show that significant improvements can be made in writing achievement. However, as
with any research, I realise that elements of subjectivity may arise during discussion of
findings, therefore further investigation would be necessary to ascertain the extent of such
potential benefits in order to validate the outcome of my work.
Practice should not dictate formulised delivery of the Functional Skills curriculum. It is not a
prescriptive process, as found with the control group. The findings of activities 2 to 6 for
Groups A and B convey positive student responses and motivation. The results show that
an increase in achievement can occur (Appendix 8). This therefore concurs with the opinion
of Kyriacou (1997) that teaching and learning activities should promote active learning time.
My findings have been discussed with both my Director of Centre and Head of School. As a
result, they have asked me to present to all staff within Functional Skills. There has already
been a sharing of ideas and discussion amongst my IFL peer study group (Appendix 10).
5.4 Limitations of research
Despite my research, I encountered limitations when conducting my study. The composition
of field notes, journal entries and transcripts proved time consuming. I found that these
required practice, to prevent any element of subjectivity arising. I also constantly had to
remain focused as any prospect of unreliability had to be addressed as the work of Cohen
and Manion (1986) suggests the reliability of data decreases validity. This research therefore
has all the elements of a personal enquiry without fulfilling the potential, thus a reflection of
the view of McNiff (1992) when conducting Action Research, as it reflected the outcome of
only a small scale study.
5.5 Conclusion
This research concludes that L2 writing achievement levels can be raised by promoting key
principles of Social Constructivism. Student involvement has a real value in their journey
towards literacy achievement. Recommendations for future practice are therefore as
follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
For a national focus or initiative to be established for raising writing standards.
Increased timetabling/ amount of lessons for English.
For students to share prior experiences in Literacy.
For students to self-assess their Literacy skills, followed by a diagnostic assessment
to compare.
5. Model examples on how to raise levels, use sentence construction, grade it before
the class and model or invite collective responses on how to raise the standard to the
next level?
6. Involve students in your planning. Use the theoretical framework by Brooks (2002)Appendix 10.
7. Let students have ownership of learning; involve them actively in lessons including
having a voice or spotlight in the lesson as part of a normal lesson structure. Adopt
Social Constructivism principles as shown below.
8. Allocate topics to peer teach the class on a writing subject.
9. Learn key spelling/ Dolch list.
10. Allocate peer buddies- higher/ lower paired ability to work together.
11. Let students make their own resources.
Attainment levels can be raised for L2 Writing- assumptions should not be
made that it is just the ability of the student preventing achievement.
Proposed structure for future lessons:
Starter
Adult-led activity (5-10 mins)
Student spotlight
Student led initiated activity linked to
planning (10 mins)
Main
Adult-led activities with student initiated
contributions. Including peer teaching.
(Time-dependent on length of session).
Plenary
Student feedback- what went well?
Adult-led with student initiated
contributions. (5-10 mins)




Key principles for Social Constructivism teaching:
Learning is socially mediated.
The teacher has a limited role.
The curriculum is contextually relevant and problem based.
Differing forms of assessment are authentic and meaningful.
Based on reality, knowledge and learning within active social contexts.
Kukla (2000), Gredler (1997) and McMahon (1997).
As a result of collating student responses for Groups A and B, there also appears to be
insufficient preparation at GCSE English Language to prepare students for employability,
life skills and further study based on their diagnostic assessments and elicitation in teaching
episodes 1 and 2 and discussion in teaching episode 6 (Appendix 6, p.56). Standards for L2
writing were simply not there during my small scale research. There were apparent gaps in
knowledge to construct different forms of writing, especially using formal language. All
students came from different secondary schools. A choice purposely made to compare prior
student literacy experiences. Yet, the 2010 GCSE English speculations have functionality
embedded within them the teaching and learning of Functional Skills. It is therefore
recommended that a national focus is needed for the development of writing skills in
adolescents. My interview with a Head Examiner for Functional Skills English agreed with
such a proposal (Appendix 7). I would like to extend my own professional development by
being involved in such an extensive study, to inform policy at national level. Appendix 11
evidences that there is a firm answer to the posed research question with implications
for future practice.
5.6 Ongoing Research
To ensure that my control group did not miss out on the opportunity to benefit from Social
Constructivism approaches, my research was not only extended, after the pilot, to this group
of students but to all classes. This includes Functional Maths and ICT, as well as BTec
Vocational work Skills units. The full extent of such research will not be determined until the
end of the academic year.
Revised word limit: 6540
Bibliography
Au, K. (1998) Social Constructivism and the School Literacy Learning of students with
diverse backgrounds, Journal of Literacy Research, vol 30, 2, pp. 297- 319.
Bonwell, C and Eison, A. (1991) Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom,
ERIC Digest, vol 9 (1), pp. 1-5
Brooks, M. (2002) Drawing to Learn, Canada, University of Alberta.
Casey, H., Cara, C., Eldred, J., Grief, S., Hodget, R., Ivanic, R., Jupp, T., Lopez, D. and
McNeil, Bethia. (2006), Research Development Centre Research Report, London: NRDC.
Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1989, 3rd edn.) Research Methods in Education, London:
Routledge.
Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1986) Research Methods in Education, London: Croam Helim
Ltd.
Craft (2001b) Creativity in Education and Learning, London: Kogan Page Ltd.
Chickering, Arthur W., and Zelda F. Gamson. March 1987. "Seven Principles for Good
Practice." AAHE Bulletin 39: 3-7. ED 282 491. 6 pp. MF-01; PC-01.
Confederation of British Industry (2006) Working the three R’s, London: CBI
Cummins, J. (1986) Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention, Harvard
Educational Review, 56, 18-36.
Department for Education and Employment (2007), The Functional Skills Support
Programme, 14-19 Education and Skills, Managing delivery of Functional Skills, Sudbury:
DfES Publications.
Department for Education and Employment (2012) Study Programmes for 16-19 year olds, A
Government Response to Consultation and Plans for Implementation, Sudbury: DfES
Publications.
Donaldson, M. (1978) Children’s Minds, London: Croon Helm Ltd.
Edexcel (2012) Chair of Examiner’s Report, London: Edexcel.
Eldred, J. (2005), Developing embedded literacy, language and numeracy: Supporting
achievement. Leicester: NIACE
Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (3rd ed). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hitchcock, G. and Hughes, D. (1995) Research and the Teacher: A qualitive introduction into
school-based research, London: Falmer Press Ltd.
Kellogg, O. (1969) Foundations of Potential Theory, New York, Dover Publishing.
Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1982, 3rd edn.) The Action Research Planner, Victoria:
Deakin University.
Kukla, A. (2000). Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Science. New York:
Routledge.
Kyriacou, C. (1997, 2nd edn.) Effective Teaching in Schools, Theory and Practice,
Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd.
Leitch, S. (2006) Prosperity for all in the global economy- world class skills, Norwich: HMSO.
McMahon, M. (1997) Social Constructivism and the World Wide Web - A Paradigm for
Learning, Perth: ASCILITE.
McNiff, J. (1992) Creating A Good Social Order Through Action Research, Poole: Hyde
Publications.
McNamee, N (2002) ‘Whose Ethics, Which Research?’ in McNamee, M. and Bridges, D.
(eds.) The Ethics of Educational Research, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Millard, E. (1997) Differently Literate, London: Falmer.
O’ Grady, A. and Frier, H. (1999) All our futures: Creativity, Culture and Education, London:
National Advisory Committee On Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE).
Somekh, B. (2003) Theory and passion in Action Research, Educational Action Research
Journal, Vol. 11, no.2, pp.247-264.
Thompson, D. (1996) The Oxford Compact English Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Thornton, R. (2006) Adult Learners Writing Guide, Edingburgh: Chambers Harrap Publishers
Ltd.
Further reading
Alderson, P. (1995) Listening to Children: Ethics and Social Research, Ilford: Barnardos.
Alexander, R. (1992) Policy and Practice in Primary Education, London: Routledge.
Anderson, L. (1991) Increasing Teacher Effectiveness, Paris: UNESCO.
Annarella, L. (1999) Encouraging Creativity and Imagination in the Classroom, Illinois:
Viewpoints.
Arnheim, R. (1967) Visual Thinking, London: Faber and Faber.
Ausubel, D. (1968) Educational Psychology. A Cognitive View, New York: Holt Rinehart and
Winston.
Barber, M. (1997) The Learning Game: Arguments for An Education Revolution, London:
Indigo.
Beard, R. (1993) Teaching Literacy Balancing Perspectives, Bath: Hodder and Stoughton.
Bell, J. (1993, 2nd edn.) Doing your Research Project, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Besemer, S. and Treffinger, D. (1981) Analysis of Creative Products: Review and Synthesis,
The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 15, 3, pp.58-77.
Bottery, M. (1992) The Ethics of Educational Management, London: Cassell Educational Ltd.
British Educational Research Association (1992) Ethical Guidelines cited 24 April 04
http://www.bera.ac.uk/guidelines.html
Brown, S. and McIntyre, D. (1981) An Action Research approach to innovation in Centralised
Educational Systems, European Journal of Science Education, 3, 3, pp.243-258.
Bruner, J. (1966) Studies in Cognitive Growth, New York: Wiley.
Burgess, R. (1988, ed.) Strategies of Educational Research: Qualitive Methods, Lewes: The
Falmer Press.
Clay, M. (1998) Different paths to different outcomes, York, Maine: Stenhouse.
Craft, A. (2003) Creativity and learning, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Craft, A. (2004) Enabling Creativity, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Creemer, B. (1994) The Effective Classroom, London: Cassell.
Cropley. A. (2001) Creativity in Education and Learning, London: Kogan Page Ltd.
Cruickshank, D. (1990) Research that Informs Teachers and Teacher Education,
Bloomington (Ind): Phi Delta Kappa.
Department for Education and Employment
(2005a)14-19 Education and Skills:
Implementation Plan, Sudbury: DfES Publications.
Dodds, M. (2003) Dissidence, difference and diversity in Action Research, Educational
Research Journal, Vol. 11, No.2, pp.265-282.
Edwards, S. (2004) Supporting Writing, London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd. Washington
DC.
Evans, K. (1984) Planning Small Scale Research, Windsor: The NFER Nelson Publishing
Company Ltd.
Evans, K. (1984, 3rd edn.) Planning Small Research, Windsor: The NFER-NELSON
Publishing Company.
Fisher, C. (1995, 2nd edn.) ‘Academic Learning Time’ in Anderson, L. (ed.) International
Encyclopaedia of Teaching and Teacher Education, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Fryer, M. (1996) Creative Teaching and Learning, London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Gagné, R. (1985, 4th edn.) The Conditions of Learning and the Theory of Instruction, New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Holdaway, D. (1979) The Foundations of Literacy, London: Ashton Scholastic.
Hopkins, D. (1993, 2nd, edn.) A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research, Buckingham: Open
University Press Ltd.
Kaplan, A. (1973) The Conduct of Inquiry, Aylesbury: Intertext Books.
King, C. (2001) The role of talk within the literate circle, Reading, Literacy and Language
Journal, 1, 25, pp.32-37.
Kitwood, T. (1977) Values in adolescent life: towards critical description, School of Research
in Education, Bradford: University of Bradford.
Kluckhohn, F. (1940) The participant observation technique in small communities, American
Journal of Sociology, 46, 3, pp.331-43.
Kress, G. (1997) Before Writing: Rethinking the Paths to Literacy, London: Routledge.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leach, J. (2001) ‘A hundred possibilities: creativity, community and new technologies’ in
Craft A., Jeffrey, B. and Leibling, M. Creativity in Education: current perspectives on policy
and practice, London: Continuum.
Littledyke, M. (1998) ‘Constructivist ideas about learning’ in Littledyke, M. and Huxford, L.
(ed.) Teaching the Primary Curriculum for Constructive Learning, Trowbridge: David Fulton
Publishers Ltd.
Littledyke, M. (1998 ‘Teaching for constructive learning’ in Littledyke, M. and Huxford, L.)ed.)
Teaching the Primary Curriculum for Constructive Learning, Trowbridge: David Fulton
Publishers.
Lowenfield, V. and Brittain, W. (1982, 7th edn.) Creative and Mental Growth, New York:
Macmillan.
MacNaughton, G. (2003) Shaping Early Childhood: Learners, Curriculum and Contexts,
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Massialas, G. and Zevin, J. (1967) Creative encounters in the classroom, New York: John
Wiley and Sons Inc.
Mercer, N. (1995) The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk amongst Teachers and
Learners, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
McLaughlin, C. (2003) The feeling of findings out, the role of emotions in research,
Educational Research Journal, Vol. 11, No.2, pp.65-77.
Measor, L. (1988) Interviewing, a strategy in qualitative research in Burgess, G. (ed.)
Strategies for Educational Research, Thame: Imago Publishing Ltd.
Miles, M. and Huberman, M. (1984) Drawing meaning from Qualitive Data: toward the
shared craft, Educational Research, 13, 5, pp.20-30.
Millard, E. (1997) Differently Literate, London: Falmer.
Monteith, M. (2002) IT for Learning Enhancement, Bedford: Intellect Books.
Mooney, R. (1963) Explorations in Creativity, London: Harper and Row.
Pendlebury, S. and Enslin, P. (2002) ‘Representation and Trust: Towards and Ethics of
Educational Research’ in McNamee, M. and Bridges, D. (eds.) The Ethics of Educational
Research, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Piaget, J. (1959, 3rd edn.) The Language and Thought of the Child, New York: Basic Books.
Polanyi, M. (1958) Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy, London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Pole, C. (1993) Assessing and Recording Achievement, Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Prosser, J. (1998, ed.) Image-based Research: A Sourcebook for Qualitive Researchers,
London: Purcell-Gates.
Reid, G. (1998, 2nd edn.) Dyslexia, A Practitioner’s Handbook, Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons Ltd.
Rogers, C. (1945) The non-directive method as a technique for social research, American
Journal of Sociology, 50, pp.279-83.
Rowland, K. (1976) Visual Education and Beyond, London: Looking & Seeing.
Scheerens, J. (1992) Effective Schooling, Research, Theory and Practice, London:
Dotsesios Ltd.
Seltzer, K. and Bentley, T. (1999) The Creative Age, London: Demos.
Skidmore, D. ‘Having your own voice valued’ in Goodwin, P. (ed.) The Articulate Classroom,
London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd.
Smeyers, P. (2002) ‘Qualitive Versus Quantative Research Design: A Plea for Paradigmatic
Tolerance’ in McNamee, M. and Bridges, D. (eds.) The Ethics of Educational Research,
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Torrance E.P. (1974c) Torrance tests of Creative Thinking, Lexington, MA: Ginn and
Company.
Vygotsky, L. (1987) The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky, New York: Plenum Press.
Walford, G. (1994, ed.) Researching The Powerful Education, London: UCL Press.
Walker, R. (1990) ‘Methods: issues and problems’ in Moon, B., Isaac, J. and Powney, J.
(ed.) Judging Standards and Effectiveness in Education, Sevenoaks: Hodder and Stoughton
Ltd.
Wearmouth, J., Soler, J. and Reid, G. (2002) Addressing Difficulties in Literacy
Development, London: RouteledgeFalmer.
Wellington, J. (2000) Educational Research Contemporary Issues and Practical Applications,
London: Continuum.
Winch, C. (2002) ‘Accountability and Relevance in Action Research’ in McNamee, M. and
Bridges, D. (eds.) The Ethics of Educational Research, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Wood, P. (2001) ‘Creative Literacy’ in Craft, A., Jeffrey, B. and Liebling, M. Creativity in
Education, London: Continuum.
Wray, D. and Lewis, M. (1997) Extending Literacy, London: Routledge.
Significant Websites
http://www.ncation.org.uk
http://www.creative-partnership.com
http://www.learningalive.co.uk and http://www.naht.org.uk
Appendices
Appendix 1
Source: Functional Skills Support Programme (2007, p.11)
Appendix 2
Source: Functional Skills Support Programme (2007, p. 93)
Activ-Board
Sentence construction comparison
Entry Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
It snowed in my road.
It snowed heavily in my
road which is very steep
and is on the side of a
hillside.
It snowed heavily during
the night, in my road which
is very steep on a hillside,
preventing access to the
lower road causing major
disruption.
Horsemeat should not be
in beef-burgers.
Beef-burgers should be
made with a 100% beef
because horses are not for
food.
Beef-burgers should be
made with a 100% beef,
because horses are
normally bred for equine
sport in the UK and not for
human consumption.
Appendix 3
accommodate
acknowledge
Most common, miss- spelt
words and spelling
progression
mischievous
Source: FS Support
misspell Programme (2007)
acquire
murmur
all right
necessary
apparent
negotiate
bachelor
noticeable
beginning
occasionally
benefited
occurred
budgeted
occurrence
business
omitted
calendar
originally
committee
parallel
competent
parliament
completely
pastime
concede
permanent
conscientious
perseverance
definitely
personal
discrete
personnel
embarrass
precede
embarrassment
preceding
exaggerate
prejudice
existence
preliminary
focused
privilege
fulfil
procedure
gauge
proceeds
government
professional
grammar
pronunciation
grievance
psychology
harass
publicly
hierarchy
questionnaire
humorous
received
immediately
recommended
incur
referred
incidentally
relieved
independent
restaurant
indispensable
rhythm
innovative
seize
inoculate
separate
intelligence
separately
interrupt
sincerely
irresistible
successfully
knowledge
supersede
liaise
surprising
livelihood
synonymous
maintenance
tragedy
medicine
transferred
Mediterranean
truly
millennium
Wednesday
minuscule
weird
withhold
Spelling progression
Source: Functional Skills Support Programme (2007, p. 93)
Appendix 4
Source: Au (1997, p.307) See Appendix 10 for Brooks (2002)
Appendix 5
Adapted
Appendix 6
Teaching Episodes 1-6
Teaching
Episode 6Review of
research for all
three groups.
All engaged in
discussion
completing the
final
questionnaire.
Methodology for collation of data: Teaching Episodes 1-6
Method
of 1
2
3
4
5
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
data
collection
Triangulation
(combined
level)
Triangulation
X
X
X
X
X
X
Audio- tape or X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(methodical
level)
video
recording
Discussion
X
Student work
Field notes
X
X
X
X
X
X
Journal
X
X
X
X
X
X
Photographs
X
X
X
X
X
X
Survey
X
X
X-
At
request
of
students
Each teaching episode (one hour) will occur in the same teaching week for each group, but
at different times. This is for comparative purposes and to maintain anonymity. No
responses or outcomes will be shared between groups. For anonymity purposes, students
asked for recordings to remain within the workplace. All 15 students are aged 17 years of
age.
Teaching Episode 1:
Journal entry transcript extract:
The following questions were asked to each group.
1. How do you feel about Functional Skills?
2. How do you feel about your writing skills?
3. How do you think your writing skills can be improved to attain L2?
The key responses were as follows:
Control Group:
1. Functional Skills is a waste of time. We have GCSE- why can’t the
Government leave us alone. We have had already five years of English,
Maths and ICT. (line 5)
2. Functional Skills maybe the only way I get a grade C equivalent. Only got
Grade E at school. (line 7)
3. I’m ok about my writing skills. I can get by. I don’t need any improvement.
(line 12)
4. If I can’t spell, I use the computer. Why improve? (line 19)
5. Why do we need to write letters? I just mail. My skills are fine for me. (line
22).
Group A:
1. I would not have joined my course it I thought we had more English
lessons. (line 5)
2. Why do we need to write? I’m going to join up for the forces. I don’t need
to write in the battle field. (line 9)
3. I have Dyslexia. I’ll never learn to spell or write properly. Who cares? I can
never improve. (line 13)
4. English is pointless. I am what I am and so is my standard for English. I
don’t need to be in class. (line 16)
5. Writing? I’m bad- who cares? (line 22)
Group B:
1. FS is a waste of time. I won’t pass so don’t care. (line 4)
2. Don’t need English- will work for my Dad. Don’t need any improvement.
(line 9)
3. Can’t stand the thought of having more English lessons and needing still
to improve when I have done 5 years in secondary school. (line 13)
4. I think I need help with putting ideas together. Struggle a bit, you
know…(line 17)
5. Improve- this is too much! (line 19)
Results from Functional Skills Questionnaire: Teaching Episode 1
Control Group
Questions
Definitely Mostly
agree
agree
Neither
agree or
Mostly
Definitely
disagree disagree
disagree
X
xxx
1
The work I
do in class
is
interesting
2
The work I
do in class
is
challenging
xxxx
3
X
The
worksheets
and
resources
used in
class help
me to learn
xxxx
4
I am taught
well
X
x
xx
5
X
I know
what I
have to do
to pass this
subject
x
xxx
6
The
feedback
on my
work helps
me to
improve
X
7
I am
satisfied
with my
progress
x
8.
Student
comments
Student
comments
to improve
learning
x
x
x
x
x
xxx
x
xx
x
No
comments
No idea
Enabling
student to
start off
where
they were
before in
school
etc,
instead of
having to
start at
the
bottom
again- L1.
Nothing.
Group A
Questions
Definitely Mostly
agree
agree
Neither
agree or
disagree
Mostly
Definitely
disagree disagree
1
The work I
do in class
is
interesting
xxx
xx
2
The work I
do in class
is
challenging
xxxx
x
3
The
worksheets
and
resources
used in
class help
me to learn
xxxx
x
4
I am taught
well
xxx
xx
5
I know
what I
have to do
to pass this
subject
xxx
x
6
The
feedback
on my
work helps
me to
improve
xxx
xx
7
I am
satisfied
with my
progress
xxxx
x
8
Student
comments
to improve
learning
X
x
Make in
more
interesting.
Get us
involved.
Group B
Questions
Definitely Mostly
agree
agree
Neither
agree or
disagree
1
The work I
do in class
is
interesting
xxx
2
The work I
do in class
is
challenging
xxx
3
The
worksheets
and
resources
used in
class help
xxxxx
Mostly
Definitely
disagree disagree
xx
x
x
me to learn
4
I am taught
well
xx
5
I know
what I
have to do
to pass this
subject
xxxxx
6
The
feedback
on my
work helps
me to
improve
xxxx
x
7
I am
satisfied
with my
progress
xx
xxx
8
Student
comments
to improve
learning
x
xxx
No
comments
X4
Just more
activities
This questionnaire was adapted from a standard in house Functional Skills
questionnaire.
1. Question: The work I do in class is interesting?
Group
Definitely
Mostly
agree
agree
Control
group
1
Neither
agree or
disagree
Mostly
disagree
3
Definitely
disagree
1
Group A
Group B
Totals
1
2. The work I do in class is challenging?
Group
Definitely
agree
Control
group
Group A
Group B
Totals
3
3
9
0
Mostly
agree
0
Neither
agree or
disagree
Mostly
disagree
4
4
3
11
0
3. The worksheets and resources used in class help me to learn.
Group
Definitely
Mostly
Neither
agree
agree
agree or
disagree
Control
group
Group A
Group B
Totals
4. I am taught well.
Group
Control
group
Group A
Group B
Totals
1
1
Definitely
agree
1
1
1
5. I know what I have to do to pass this subject.
Group
Definitely
Mostly
agree
agree
Control
group
Group A
Group B
Totals
1
1
6. The feedback on my work helps me to improve.
1
1
1
2
3
2
7
0
Definitely
disagree
1
2
3
6
Mostly
disagree
3
3
5
11
1
2
Definitely
disagree
Mostly
disagree
Neither
agree or
disagree
1
1
Mostly
disagree
Neither
agree or
disagree
1
Definitely
disagree
1
1
2
4
4
5
13
0
Mostly
agree
0
2
2
5
0
Definitely
disagree
1
1
1
1
Group
Definitely
agree
Control
group
Group A
Group B
Totals
Mostly
agree
1
1
7. I am satisfied with my progress.
Group
Definitely
agree
Control
group
Group A
Group B
Totals
Neither
agree or
disagree
3
3
4
10
0
Mostly
agree
Mostly
disagree
Neither
agree or
disagree
1
1
1
1
Definitely
disagree
1
2
1
4
Mostly
disagree
2
4
2
8
0
Definitely
disagree
1
1
3
5
0
Summary results show that:
1. Question: The work I do in class is interesting?
Group
Definitely
Mostly
agree
agree
Neither
agree or
disagree
Mostly
disagree
Definitely
disagree
Control
group
Group A
Group B
Totals
1
1
2. The work I do in class is challenging?
Group
Definitely
agree
Control
group
Group A
Group B
Totals
3
3
3
9
0
Mostly
agree
0
Neither
agree or
disagree
Mostly
disagree
4
4
3
11
0
3. The worksheets and resources used in class help me to learn.
Group
Definitely
Mostly
Neither
agree
agree
agree or
disagree
Control
group
Group A
Group B
Totals
4. I am taught well.
Group
Control
group
Group A
Group B
Totals
1
1
Definitely
agree
1
1
1
5. I know what I have to do to pass this subject.
Group
Definitely
Mostly
agree
agree
Control
group
Group A
Group B
Totals
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
7
0
Definitely
disagree
1
2
3
6
Mostly
disagree
3
3
5
11
1
2
Definitely
disagree
Mostly
disagree
Neither
agree or
disagree
1
1
Mostly
disagree
Neither
agree or
disagree
1
Definitely
disagree
1
1
2
4
4
5
13
0
Mostly
agree
0
1
2
2
5
0
Definitely
disagree
1
1
1
1
6. The feedback on my work helps me to improve.
Group
Definitely
Mostly
agree
agree
Control
group
Group A
Group B
Totals
1
1
7. I am satisfied with my progress.
Group
Definitely
agree
Control
group
Group A
Group B
Totals
Total
Percentage
Neither
agree or
disagree
Neither
agree or
disagree
1
1
1
6
5.71
Teaching episode 6
1. Question: The work I do in class is
interesting?
3
3
4
10
0
Mostly
agree
Mostly
disagree
Definitely
disagree
1
2
1
4
Mostly
disagree
0
Definitely
disagree
1
2
4
2
8
1
1
3
5
0
3
2.86
69
65.71
19
18.10
8
0
Group
Definitely
agree
Mostly
agree
Neither
Mostly
Definitely
agree or disagree disagree
disagree
Control
group
Group A
Group B
1
3
2
1
2
3
2
Totals
6
6
2
2. The work I do in class is
challenging?
Group
Definitely
agree
Mostly
agree
Control
group
Group A
Group B
3
4
2
1
Totals
7
3
1
0
1
Neither
Mostly
Definitely
agree or disagree disagree
disagree
4
4
1
0
1
3. The worksheets and resources used in class help me
to learn.
Group
Definitely Mostly Neither
Mostly
Definitely
agree
agree
agree or disagree disagree
disagree
Control
group
Group A
Group B
5
0
4. I am taught well.
Group
Control
group
Group A
Group B
Totals
4
3
1
2
7
3
Definitely
agree
Mostly
agree
5
0
0
Neither
Mostly
Definitely
agree or disagree disagree
disagree
1
4
5
1
1
3
10
2
3
0
0
5. I know what I have to do to pass this
subject.
Group
Definitely Mostly
agree
agree
Control
group
Group A
Group B
Totals
1
5
5
2
2
11
2
2
6. The feedback on my work helps me to
improve.
Group
Definitely Mostly
agree
agree
Control
group
Group A
Group B
Totals
Neither
Mostly
Definitely
agree or disagree disagree
disagree
1
5
5
11
7. I am satisfied with my progress.
Group
Definitely
agree
Control
group
Group A
Group B
4
5
Totals
9
0
0
Neither
Mostly
Definitely
agree or disagree disagree
disagree
4
0
Mostly
agree
4
0
0
Neither
Mostly
Definitely
agree or disagree disagree
disagree
2
1
3
3
3
0
0
Results from Functional Skills Questionnaire: Teaching Episode 2
Control Group
Student assessment of current writing ability:
Question 1. How would
1
2
3
you rate your writing skills
for the following?
Grammar
x
4
5
xx
xx
Punctuation
xxx
xx
Spelling
x
Planning ideas
x
x
Proof reading
x
Writing creatively
x
x
xxx
xxxx
Sequencing ideas
Writing for a specific
audience: e.g. report/
article
x
xx
xx
xxxx
x
x
xxx
xxx
Writing persuasively
x
xx
xx
Writing a letter
xx
xxx
xxx
Writing an e-mail
x
x
Use of informal language
x
x
x
xx
Use of formal language
x
x
x
xx
Key:
(1 being the lowest and 5 the highest in value)
Question 2. What strategies of assistance would help you improve your writing skills?
Comment
Student answer
1.
Practise
2.
Writing different formal and informal styles of
writing.
3.
None- I’m fine
4.
Not sure. Getting us to write more creativelyarguments and articles. The structure and
layout.
5.
More interesting. Find it hard writing.
Question 3: Do you need extra lessons or support in class?
Comment
Student answer
1.
No
2.
No
3.
No
4.
No
5.
No
Question 4: What topics interest you?
Comment
Student answer
1.
Personal interests, sport, Facebook, hobbies
and practical things.
2.
Sport, health and nutrition. Humour.
3.
Motocross, Facebook, hobbies.
4.
Personal interests or hobbies. Facebook.
5.
Facebook, writing creatively, articles and
reports. Something funny.
Question 5: How would you feel if you were involved in the planning and delivery of your
lessons?
Comment
Student answer
1.
Yes- more alive and interesting.
2.
Feel happy that I could include my thoughts
within the planning of a lesson.
3.
Would be better. Our personal English
experiences would be better known.
4.
Yes- but not sure how. Can we plan with
you?
5.
Yes- ask us and then challenge us or make
us laugh.
Group A
Student assessment of current writing ability:
Question 1. How would
1
2
3
you rate your writing skills
for the following?
Grammar
x
Punctuation
4
5
xxx
x
xx
xxx
Spelling
xx
xxx
Planning ideas
x
xxxx
xx
xx
Sequencing ideas
x
Proof reading
xx
Writing creatively
Writing for a specific
audience: e.g. report/
article
x
Writing persuasively
xxx
xx
xxx
x
xxx
xxx
xx
Writing a letter
xxx
xx
Writing an e-mail
x
x
xxx
Use of informal language
xx
x
xx
Use of formal language
xx
x
xx
Key:
(1 being the lowest and 5 the highest in value)
Question 2. What strategies of assistance would help you improve your writing skills?
Comment
Student answer
1.
More interesting- too like school.
2.
Not sure.
3.
-
4.
Make us practise more. Papers? Writing is
hard.
5.
More interesting.
Question 3: Do you need extra lessons or support in class?
Comment
Student answer
1.
No
2.
No
3.
No
4.
No
5.
No
Question 4: What topics interest you?
Comment
Student answer
1.
Hobbies. Facebook.
2.
Facebook.
3.
Interests, Facbook- being creative with
writing, reports etc.
4.
Hobbies, all writing types and Facebook.
5.
Facebook- being creative, arguments and
reports.
Question 5: How would you feel if you were involved in the planning and delivery of your
lessons?
Comment
Student answer
1.
Yes. Let’s have some fun.
2.
Yes- be better.
3.
Yes.
4.
Yes- but unsure. Would it make a real
difference?
5.
Yes. We need to enjoy and have a laugh.
Group B
Student assessment of current writing ability:
Question 1. How would
1
2
3
you rate your writing skills
for the following?
4
5
Grammar
xxxx
x
Punctuation
xxx
xx
Spelling
x
xx
xx
Planning ideas
x
xxxx
Sequencing ideas
xxx
xx
Proof reading
x
xx
xx
Writing creatively
xxx
xx
Writing for a specific
audience: e.g. report/
article
xx
xxx
Writing persuasively
xxxx
x
x
xx
Writing a letter
xx
Writing an e-mail
xx
xxx
Use of informal language
xxx
xx
Use of formal language
x
xx
xx
Key:
(1 being the lowest and 5 the highest in value)
Question 2. What strategies of assistance would help you improve your writing skills?
Comment
Student answer
1.
More interesting. Why do we have to do
Functional Skills? We had 5 years at school.
2.
Not sure.
3.
Fun? Have a laugh?
4.
-
5.
Don’t know.
Question 3: Do you need extra lessons or support in class?
Comment
Student answer
1.
No
2.
No
3.
No
4.
No
5.
No
Question 4: What topics interest you?
Comment
Student answer
1.
Facebook.
2.
Facebook/ sport.
3.
Interests and Facbook.
4.
Hobbies, writing creatively and Facebook.
5.
Facebook/ gen interests.
Question 5: How would you feel if you were involved in the planning and delivery of your
lessons?
Comment
Student answer
1.
Yes. Would be good.
2.
Yes.
3.
Yes. Would be doing something I would
enjoy.
4.
Yes. I feel I would be able to do more.
5.
Yes.
Teaching Episode 6:
Journal entry transcript extract:
The following questions were asked to groups A and B, following the cessation of
teaching episodes
1. How do you feel the teaching episodes and research went?
2. What did you observe or learn?
The key responses were as follows:
Control Group:
 Just revision and how to pass the exam (line 34)
 Need to learn the spelling to help me pass- still find English difficult
(line 43)
 Lessons are lively but I find writing difficult still.(line 45)
 Unsure (line 49).
 Still hard- I think I might do better. (line 53)
Group A
 We had some fun. I like the way we were involved. (line 12)
 We had a say- it made a difference. (line 16)
 I hope I pass. Learning was very different. I enjoyed the lessons. (line
19)
 The lessons went quickly. It was fun. (Line 23)
 Really different to other tutors. Think I may have learned something
without really knowing! (line 24)
Group B
 What a difference to other Functional Skills lessons (line 15). Hope I
get my English- we worked hard but somehow enjoyable? (line 16)
 We need to learn like this in all Functional Skills lessons. I know how
to structure arguments, reports and creative writing. Always found
these hard. (lines 18/19)
 Same really. Can’t believe I’m saying this but we had a laugh! (line 20)
 Me too, you looked forward to the lessons. Even my parents can’t
believe it as I hated English in secondary school. (lines 21/22)

I think I have more confidence. It was there but not really- don you
know what I mean. I liked the lessons very much. (lines 24/25)
Closing research study question: (See Appendix 12).
Do you consider secondary school equip you with the necessary skills for English Language
attainment to obtain Grade C GCSE and above or L2 writing skills?
Group
Yes
No
Key Comments
Control
2
3
Study too much
literature.
A
5
Things are rushed.
B
5
Too much reading.
Teaching Episode 3- sample Group A
Teaching Episode 4- Sample Group A & B combined
Images were sourced by students to create a purposeful resource.
Images were sourced by students to create a purposeful resource
Teaching Episode 6
Review- completed at the requests of students in Groups A and B
Results from Functional Skills Questionnaire:
Control Group
Questions
Definitely Mostly
agree
agree
Neither
agree or
disagree
1
The work I
do in class
is
interesting
xx
xxx
2
The work I
do in class
is
challenging
xxx
xx
3
The
worksheets
and
resources
used in
class help
me to learn
xxx
xx
4
I am taught
well
xxx
xx
5
xxxxx
I know
what I
have to do
to pass this
subject
6
The
feedback
on my
work helps
me to
improve
xx
xxx
7
I am
satisfied
with my
xxxx
x
Mostly
Definitely
disagree disagree
progress
8.
No
comments
Student
comments
Student
comments
to improve
learning
Group A
Questions
Definitely Mostly
agree
agree
1
The work I
do in class
is
interesting
xxxx
2
The work I xxxxx
do in class
is
challenging
3
xxx
The
worksheets
and
resources
used in
class help
me to learn
4
I am taught
well
5
xxxxx
I know
what I
have to do
to pass this
subject
6
The
feedback
on my
work helps
xxxx
xxxxx
x
xx
x
Neither
agree or
disagree
Mostly
Definitely
disagree disagree
me to
improve
7
I am
satisfied
with my
progress
xx
8
Student
comments
to improve
learning
x
xxx
Wish we
could get
involved
in all
lessons.
Been fun.
Great
ideas
shared.
Feel
confident
to pass.
Hope we
have the
same
tutor next
year.
Group B
Questions
Definitely Mostly
agree
agree
1
The work I
do in class
is
interesting
xxxxx
2
The work I xxx
do in class
is
challenging
xx
3
xxxx
The
worksheets
and
x
Neither
agree or
disagree
Mostly
Definitely
disagree disagree
resources
used in
class help
me to learn
xxxxx
4
I am taught
well
5
xxxxx
I know
what I
have to do
to pass this
subject
6
The
feedback
on my
work helps
me to
improve
xxxxx
7
I am
satisfied
with my
progress
xxxxx
8
Student
comments
to improve
learning
Have
enjoyed
lessons.
Fun
activities
involving
us do
improve
skills
without
knowing!
Key comment: Teacher needs to have a lesser role. Educator not teacher. Facilitator.
This questionnaire was adapted from a standard in house Functional Skills
questionnaire.
Appendix 7
Head Examiner feedback summary following interview on 28 January 2013. The
examiner was asked to grade writing skills based on national findings to date for L2
writing papers.
1. What do you consider are the main areas of apparent weakness in candidates for
writing?
The main areas for weakness are; Spelling, punctuation, sequencing ideas and writing
sentences that are coherent and meaningful.
2. How would you generally rate candidates’ writing skills for the following? (1 being the
lowest, 5 the highest):
Rating
 Grammar
3
 Punctuation
2











Spelling
Planning ideas
Sequencing ideas
Proof reading
Writing creatively
Writing for a specific audience e.g. report, argument and article
Writing persuasively
Writing a letter
Writing an e-mail
Use of informal language
Use of formal language
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
4
3
3. What strategies or skills, do you think, are generally needed to improve writing
attainment levels? More of a focus on spelling, grammar and punctuation, if time
allows for this. I think that the main problem is the time allocated to teaching
writing skills in the curriculum. One hour a week for problems of this
magnitude is woefully insufficient. A good emphasis on teaching to pass a
specific test is essential, so teaching letter writing skills, related spellings,
punctuation and some elements of grammar such as verb/ subject agreement
and conjunctions.
4. Should there be a national focus on raising L2 writing skills in Secondary and
Further/ Higher education? Yes, definitely. Will you be involved in this?
5. I agree with you that a national focus needs to happen to raise literacy
achievement, especially writing in adolescents. The skills are not there at
GCSE English Language, only approx 45% achieve still.
Appendix 8
L2 Writing Results (January Exams 2013)
Group
Student
1
Student 2
Student
3
Student 4
Student 5
Teaching
Delivery
Control
Fail
Fail
Fail
Pass
Fail
Standard
A
Pass
Pass
Pass
Fail ( by 2
marks)
Pass
Social
Constructivism
Pass
Social
Constructivism
Previously
achieved
grade F
GCSE at
Secondary
School
B
Pass
Fail (by 3
marks)
Previously
achieved
grade F
GCSE at
Secondary
school
Pass
Pass
Appendix 9
Framework for the delivery of Social Constructivism: Theory of principles.
Key theory element
Social Constructivism
Knowledge
Changing body of knowledge, mutually
constructed with others.
Learning
Socially
and
culturally
constructed
opportunities through collaboration in social
settings.
Teaching
Co-construct knowledge, share expertise
and knowledge with students.
Motivation
Collective
and
individual
through collaboration.
Role of the Teacher
Mediator and mentor.
development
Actions
Constructing
ideas
and
interactive
opportunities with students.
Role of peers
Responsibility for constructing knowledge
and define opportunities for learning.
Role of student
Active participator and thinker.
Student view of self
Collective problem solver.
Evidence of learning
Process of inquiry and socially competent
participation.
Purpose of education
Creation of new knowledge and learning
strategies Expanding social capabilities and
preparing for social interaction.
Brooks (2002, p.4) adapted
Appendix 10
Evidence of discussion with IFL group members
LW Comments- Key Skills is not Functional
Skills but students need to be motivatedkey point.
LW comments- Included in conclusionGCSE English insufficient based on small
scale research. Gap of knowledge in
teaching provision.
Appendix 11
Research Article
Can action research reveal how to raise attainment levels in L2 English Functional
Skills writing?
Answer:
Small scale research for 15 students (all aged 17 years of age) shows: yes, it can.
General observations of student ability during teaching episodes 1-6 revealed lack of
theoretical knowledge from secondary school. When questioned, at the end of the
research study (Appendix 6, p.56), 13/15 students felt secondary school insufficiently
prepared them to gain standards at L2 writing (grade GCSE C and above) based on
their learning throughout the six teaching episodes. They felt there was more focus
with the curriculum towards studying literature.
Implications for practice: Adoption of Social Constructivism key principles and a
national GCSE focus on raising writing standards.
Lisa Williamson
I currently work in FE as a NEETs and Functional Skills Lecturer and have been teaching for
almost 6 years. I teach BTec work skills units as well as Functional Skills, Maths, English
and ICT from Entry Level to Level 2 vocational students and work based apprentices, within
mixed ability classes. I have a passion for excellence in teaching and learning.