Investigating the summer learning effect in low SES schools.
Jesson, Rebecca ; McNaughton, Stuart ; Kolose, Tone 等
Variability in the Summer Learning Effect in Years 4-6
Many school systems strive for more equitable outcomes and our
knowledge of how to design more equitable schools has advanced in recent
years (McNaughton, 2011). But a major barrier to generalised success
continues to be the 'summer learning effect' (SLE) where
students' achievement declines over summer. The effect
differentially affects students from low socioeconomic status (SES)
communities and from some cultural groups and creates a barrier to
equity that gets larger over time.
The effect is known internationally to contribute to more than half
of the overall differences in literacy achievement between low and high
SES youth: after 5 years at school the cumulative effect of summer
differences is greater than the differences in school literacy scores
apparent at school entry (Alexander, Entwisle and Olson, 2007).
Resulting achievement gaps contribute to on-going inequity in high
school placements, dropout rates and college attendance. In New Zealand
similar obstacles are apparent. Lai, McNaughton, Amituanai-Toloa, Turner
and Hsiao (2009) identify the 'staircase shape' of achievement
levels, which show reading gains within school years tempered by a
plateau over summer, a pattern similar to those identified in the United
States (Borman, 2000).
In this study we conceive of literacy development as a
co-construction between learners and more expert persons that occurs
through engagement in activities that define the practices of families
and schools. These activities are dependent on resources in these
settings. This means that forms of literacy develop at home through
valued practices, but that families may differ in their focus on, their
access to, and their provision of support for those literacy activities
that relate to development at school. Optimally, guidance at school in
how to read enables the learner to become increasingly self-regulated
and engaged in valued activities such as independent reading, and this
generalises to out-of-school reading. But because development is partly
dependent on the relationships between practices across the settings,
increasing the complementarity of the activities between settings such
as access to, guidance for, and engagement in high-interest texts
appropriate for literacy development at school is predicted to
contribute to the developmental potential of both settings
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Three general sources of influence on literacy development over
summer can be predicted from this view of development. These are, the
child's engagement in literacy activities which relate to school
learning; the school's contributions to that engagement through
direct guidance to students (e.g., in developing strategies for
'independent reading') and indirect influences with the
student and significant family members (e.g., providing access to
engaging books or advice on how to access and use the local library);
and home and community contributions, such as providing activities which
contribute to engagement. This study sought to identify the contribution
of each of these sources to students' learning over summer.
There is research evidence that substantiates the role of the
aforementioned sources on summer learning differences. In terms of
students' practices, Heyns (1978) demonstrated that volume of
summer reading is an indicator of summer loss or gain. According to her
calculations, for every four books read over summer one month's
achievement gain occurred. Importantly, volume of reading was associated
with income level and access to a library.
A necessary condition for volume of summer reading is access to
engaging texts. Disparity of access has been described in communities
and homes (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2009, Neuman & Celano,
2001), and programmes have been implemented to address the disparity,
often, providing books for disadvantaged children (e.g., Duffy Books in
Homes, n.d.). In experimental demonstrations, access coupled with
student selection of books that optimise engagement is associated with
increased achievement (Allington et al., 2010).
However, provision of access does not guarantee most effective
learning from texts. Continued engagement in school-like literacy
practices supported by family and neighbourhood contexts is also
predictive (Anderson, Wilson & Fielding, 1988; Heyns, 1978). While
students might become increasingly independent as they mature, it is
likely that independence is supported by practices and resources at
school and home. The research evidence shows that schools and families
vary in both access and the forms that guidance takes (Anderson, et al.,
1988). Neuman and Celano (2006), for example, observed differences in
quality of library usage. These authors report widespread usage of
libraries by both middle and low income communities, with similar
numbers of children using the library for similar amounts of time,
selecting similar numbers of books. However, differences were apparent
in the types of books selected.
Children from the middle income communities selected appropriately
levelled or challenging books, while children from low income
communities selected more below age-level books. There were also
differences in support and guidance. Children from middle income
communities had adult mentors, who assisted making choices, and issuing
books and using computers productively; children from low income
communities more often came alone, or with a peer or sibling who
provided little specific help. Hence, even given equitable access,
guidance and support seems a necessary ingredient to overcoming the SLE
drop (Kim, 2006).
Several conclusions can be drawn. One is that access to texts
outside of school is a determinant of literacy learning at school. But
the texts need to afford engagement, by being well matched to interest.
Students need productive engagement with these texts, so motivation and
metacognition also contribute, as do forms of teacher guidance for
students and support for their families likely enhance the effectiveness
of this engagement.
How these sources of influence function in the New Zealand context
is unclear. It is not known what access different family groups have to
texts and how that access is associated with variations in learning over
summer, or what the uses of those texts might be. It is also not known
what variations in guidance for summer reading students may receive. We
designed a mapping exercise to identify existing teacher practices,
family practices and student characteristics associated with continued
engagement in school-related literacy activities over summer. The
context was a group of schools with students from low SES families who
were from cultural groups traditionally not well served, but these
schools were demonstrably effective in promoting literacy achievement
while the students were at school.
Methods
The study sought evidence about the nature of an ongoing problem in
these schools with the aim of designing an appropriate programme with
the schools (McNaughton, 2011). An ongoing collaboration with seven
multicultural low SES urban primary schools identified the SLE as a
significant barrier. Reading achievement data were analysed for all
students Years 4-8 (n = 1,495). Of these students, 77% were from Pacific
nationalities; 18% were Maori. Typically, within-year gains had occurred
in reading comprehension but these gains were lost between years. The
SLE averaged -0.55 stanine (SD = 1.23, t(1494) = -14.94, p < .001, d
= -0.45) as measured by Supplementary Tests of Achievement in Reading
(Elley, 2001).
However, within this overall trend, rates of SLE were variable. In
fact, many students showed little or no SLE. The methodological
approach, therefore, was designed to understand this variability within
the context. Within our ecological framing, differences in achievement
outcomes within the community would likely arise from differences in
students' experiences and participation in both home and school
contexts. Thus we sought to understand the differences associated with
rates of SLE at two levels: between high and low SLE classes, and
between high and low SLE students within those classes.
Selection of outliers
Analysis of outliers was employed to understand this variation in
SLE. Outlier classes were identified through analysis of the repeated
measures of reading achievement either side of summer. These analyses
identified eight classes associated with low SLE (n = 4) and high SLE (n
= 4). The classes consisted of four matched pairs, similar in year level
and average end of year achievement profile; differing in average SLE
gives details of the classes selected.
Within each class, two students with end of year scores at or near
average (stanine 5) were selected as high or low SLE. Thus four
categories of students could be identified based on the class SLE and
the student SLE (see Table 2). This categorisation was possible in all
classes except one high SLE class where all students dropped over
summer. In that class two high SLE students (one high, and one higher)
were selected. Of the 16 students, 11 were female and five male. Six
students were Samoan, two Maori, two Cook Island Maori, two Niuean, one
Fijian, one Tokelauan and one was Chinese.
Data sources and analyses
Retrospective interviews after the summer were conducted with the
teachers (n = 8), the students (n = 16), and an adult family member
(n=16). We asked teachers about preparation and follow-up for summer in
four areas identified within the literature as likely to contribute to
differential rates of SLE: student reading skills, metacognition,
engagement and parental guidance. The interviews used a combination of
pre-coded and open response items. Pre-coded items asked whether
participants had employed a particular practice; open-response items
followed up on these, and asked participants to explain how they had
done so. For example, teachers were asked whether they had prepared
their students in any way (yes/no), whether they had provided ideas
about reading or writing (yes/ no), and if so what those ideas were
(open response). Similarly, teachers were asked whether they had
introduced, described or recommended specific programmes (yes/ no), and
if so, what those programmes were (open response). At the end of each
item, a catch-all question was included: 'did you do anything
else'? In this way, the interviews collected both quantitative data
about how many practices were employed and short descriptions of the
nature of those practices.
The interviews with students and families mirrored these and sought
personal and family practices over summer. They also asked about the
resources students and families had access to, including church,
community, libraries, summer programmes and extended family resources.
Analyses of interviews were conducted using a mixed-methods data
analysis approach (Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003) in two phases, using
the participant as the unit of analysis. The first approach to analysis
was purely quantitative: questions were categorised according to whether
participants' answers (yes/no) to the pre-coded interview items.
The second phase of analysis employed content analysis of the open
response items, based on the a-priori categories which framed the
interviews: (student competence, student metacognition, student
engagement and parental guidance). Within each of these categories, the
degree to which the reported practices might affect the degree of summer
learning was considered. Thus, participants' responses were
summarised and sorted into two types within each category: practices
that were specific to the summer, and practices employed throughout the
year, which participants indicated might generalise to summer. The
interview analyses were then subject to a verification phase. Through
discussion and debate, the data and subsequent analyses were reviewed by
the whole research team in a series of weekly meetings to ascertain
whether disconfirming data were accounted for and whether additional
themes emerged which had not been captured by existing analyses.
Disagreements in coding were resolved through discussion in this stage.
The final analysis frame comprised eight categories: general or
specific practices within four areas likely to contribute to reading
achievement gains or losses over summer. Examples included the
following: for a focus on competence reference was made to developing
students' independent reading for summer through the classroom
programme (competence: general) or deliberate teaching of how to use the
neighbourhood library over summer (competence: specific); in
metacognition talking about setting goals for reading (metacognition:
general) or preparing students to develop reading logs over summer
(metacognition: specific); in engagement, employing a classroom
programme that built habits of reading (engagement: general) or
providing individualised selections of high-interest texts for student
use in school and during summer (engagement: specific); in parental
guidance reminders through newsletters to use the library (parental
guidance: general) or end of year meetings with parents at which goals
such as visiting the library were set (parental guidance: specific).
Results
Classroom Contributions
It quickly became apparent that differences between teachers of
high and low SLE classes could not be discerned by counting of number of
reported strategies for preparing students over summer. In terms of the
total number of 'yes' responses to pre-coded items, there were
few clear differences. In terms of preparing students to read over
summer and building students' independent learning strategies,
although teachers of low SLE classes gave the highest number of positive
responses, one teacher of a low SLE class reported the lowest number of
these practices.
Some minor differences in numbers were seen between particular
question items however. Three of the four teachers of low SLE classes
encouraged their students to use the library over the summer break and
three teachers of low SLE classes provided guidance for individual
students. A contrast emerged between three teachers of low SLE classes
who promoted independent reading by helping their students choose
suitable books, and three teachers of high SLE classes reported
providing specific books for parents. Table 3 provides a summary of the
numbers of quantitative responses.
Content analysis of the open ended and the catchall questions
provided some clues as to difference between the teachers'
practices, namely in the degree to which the practices were targeted to
summer. All the teachers reported general strategies for developing
reading competence. All teachers of low SLE classes also reported
practices specific to summer. One teacher reported that she specifically
prompted students to use the Duffy Books (Books in Homes, n.d.) during
the summer break. Another reported reminding students to visit the
public library and to follow up holiday activities with related reading,
which she described as 'looking for opportunities to learn, to use
their reading to inquire'. Similarly, another teacher prompted
students to 'marry physical artefact with texts', by looking
for objects at the museum, that they had learned about in a unit of
work. One teacher of a high SLE class also reported specific practices,
telling students it is 'important to at least read one book or
magazine or newspaper article, even reading labels off breakfast cereal
... or anything that interests [them] in reading.'
Students' metacognition was developed in a general way by two
of the teachers of high SLE classes and by all of the teachers of low
SLE classes. All teachers of low SLE classes also reported specific
reference to summer. Examples included mileage recording sheets, reading
logs, and 'word consciousness' prompts or reminders. One
teacher of a low SLE class explicitly discussed summer reading loss with
her class, through 'ongoing discussion of results, maintaining
levels over holidays. We talked about drops over holidays'. Another
prompted children to use 'Bloom's taxonomy to link it back to
our thinking', and 'mileage sheets to encourage them to look
at the various genres that they're reading -so that they don't
read 'baby' books'. Those sheets also served to
'encourage and challenge them to select appropriate books'.
One high SLE teacher also prompted awareness (possibly not in a positive
way) by reminding students about writing in the following year,
'They know it's [what I did over the summer holidays story]
coming.'
In terms of preparation for engagement, general practices
anticipated to transfer to summer included homework and rewards for
reading mileage. All the teachers of low SLE classes and one teacher of
a high SLE class reported reading to students, and modelling a love of
reading. Practices for student engagement specific to summer included
provision of resources, support for summer internet use, and
recommendations of specific websites. All the low SLE teachers reported
specific practices. Moreover, these teachers' specific practices
seemed to focus on student engagement over summer, by promoting literacy
for leisure or personal challenge. For example, one teacher of a low SLE
class said that she focussed on 'reading for inquiry
thinking'. Another prompted students to 'choose challenging
books that make them think'. The contrast was a focus on skills or
schooling success. For example, one teacher of a high SLE class told
students it was 'important to read to develop skills'. Another
teacher of a high SLE class reported that 'students need to read
for all subjects, and parents should also read [the text] and follow up
with comprehension [questions]'. Another teacher of a high SLE
class had sent home a homework packet of reading and maths, 'not
specifically tied to curriculum'.
In terms of parental support, three of the teachers of low SLE
classes reported general practices such as advice in newsletter; three
also reported specific practices such as goal setting for library use.
As one teacher described her practice, 'the end of year report
talked about what needed to happen at home for coming year ... [there
was a] major emphasis on goal setting at parent interviews'. No
teachers of high SLE classes reported advice to parents specifically
targeted to summer. The quantified results of this content analysis are
presented in Table 4.
In summary, there appeared to be little difference between high and
low SLE teachers in the quantity and variety of practices reported.
However, based on content analysis of the interviews, teachers in low
SLE classrooms more often reported preparing students specifically for
summer rather than just generally in the four areas. Thus the difference
in practices between teachers of low and high SLE classes may have
related to the specificity and focus of the preparation, not simply its
presence.
Students' practices
Quantitative analyses did not reveal marked differences between
high and low SLE students. Most students reported liking books, with
fewer liking other types of reading. All children also reported general
reading at home, and most reported reading at home over summer. The
children all gave similar responses in terms of their motivation for
summer reading: enjoyment.
Comparing students' general responses with those specific to
summer, some slight indications of difference in student practices did
emerge. Over summer, reading variety altered for both high and low SLE
students, with fewer students reading comics, magazines, church
materials or on the internet over summer. While no students reported
reading recipes generally, three said that they read these over summer.
Both high and low SLE children reported reading at family and
friends' houses more over summer. Furthermore, fewer children
reported reading at the library over summer.
Additionally, there were some indications of practices specific to
low SLE students. Slightly higher numbers of low SLE students enjoyed
reading through games, with half of the respondents from low SLE classes
reporting that they enjoyed board games (e.g., Monopoly) and Internet
games (e.g., Moshi Monsters). However, few students reported reading
through games over summer. Conversely, while few students reported
reading 'other' genres in general, over the summer period more
than half of the low SLE students reported reading materials other than
those we listed (including picture books, Christmas stories,
instructions for crafts or drawing). For all of these children, these
other genre included the newspaper, and in particular the local free
newspaper, The Courier. Responses to reading enjoyment did not
distinguish between high or low SLE students, and all except two
students reported regular reading (perhaps the anticipated desirable
response). These responses are presented in Table 5.
Students were also asked about the conditions that supported and
surrounded their reading. Approximately half of the children read to
parents or family. All students reported usually getting books from the
school and local library to read. However, only five said that they had
been to the library over summer. Students from low SLE classes reported
that their teachers had given them ideas about reading over summer. All
low SLE students, and all those from low SLE classes, reported that
someone at home helped them read. Table 6 summarises their responses to
these questions.
Parents' reports
Parents, like their children, identified that the local newspapers
were commonly read. They also commonly reported that their children read
from the bible, although the children hadn't reported this. When
asked why their children read, the parents of low SLE students reported
either prompting or encouragement. Parents of high SLE children either
did not know or reported that it was because the children were
'told to'. This was true in all cases except one, who did
report encouraging her child to read, and having intended to take them
to the library; 'taking her to the library so she could choose her
own books ... we did that once before ... I allow her to choose [at
home] but I sometimes try to push my one [my daughter]'.
Parents also agreed that interest motivated reading. Asked whether
access affected what children read, differences were striking. While no
parents of low SLE students considered that access affected their
child's reading, all the five parents of high SLE students who
responded to this question agreed that access impacted reading,
highlighting The Courier and the Bible as accessible texts.
In terms of guidance for reading, seven parents reported receiving
guidance for general reading: three via school notices and three
directly from the teacher. In addition one parent also reported
receiving guidance 'at the library'. Four parents reported
that their child had received advice about summer reading; three were
parents of children in low SLE classes, and one parent of a low SLE
student, in a high SLE class. There appeared to be a qualitative
difference between those parents who had received guidance. Parents of
high SLE students described this guidance in general terms, for example,
one parent reported that they were told to 'continue on reading at
home and on holiday ... and they watch TV programmes, continue with some
activities'. Parents of low SLE students responded with more
elaboration, which included specific strategies. For example, this
parent of a low SLE child explained, 'spend time with [child]
reading. Get the child to read to you. Correct any words they don't
understand or how to say them. Ask what it's about'. Another
described the advice they received as, 'making time, providing a
quiet place for them to do their homework and assisting where we
can'. Another question asked of parents was whether they knew of or
used programmes that encouraged summer reading. Five parents were aware
of summer programmes; three parents had children who took part.
In summary, students and their parents reported a wide range of
reading. Over summer, reading variety altered to include reading of
newspapers and recipes. Low SLE students were more likely to have
parental support for access to texts, and parental support that
responded to and provided encouragement for reading. They were also more
likely to report guidance from a teacher about summer reading.
Additionally, parents of high SLE students were more likely to report
that access to texts influenced their children's reading practices.
Parents of low SLE children were more likely to report the guidance that
they had received in elaborated or specific terms. Summer programmes
were seldom used.
Discussion
The SLE is a barrier to equitable outcomes that might be considered
outside the domain of the school. Our approach has been to see the
problem as one which schools face to be as effective as possible by
being able to build each year on gains made in previous years. Based on
an ecological approach, it was likely that sources of variation would be
found in four areas of influence over students' development in
reading over summer, each of which would in turn be influenced by
interactions between students, their teachers and their families.
Analysis of outliers allowed us to map the variation at each of these
levels in four areas: access to resources, engagement in reading,
metacognition and monitoring of reading; and support and guidance
available to children and their families.
Access to resources
Theoretically, overcoming barriers to accessing texts would allow
students to engage with literacy over summer (Allington et al., 2010;
Heyns, 1978), and differential access might therefore account for
differences in the amount of summer reading. In this community, while
the students generally reported regular reading over the summer period,
they also reported changes in what they read. However this did not
distinguish high from low SLE students. Books clearly dominated holiday
reading and there was some evidence that students' ability to
access various types of resources was reduced over summer. Teachers all
identified that school libraries were not available to students over
summer, but it did not follow that low SLE teachers provided books for
children. Community newspapers were read more over summer and these were
identified as accessible for students.
What may have distinguished high from low SLE students is the
extent to which access influenced children's choice of what to
read, and therefore the 'match' between students and texts.
Although the students didn't report that access influenced their
choice, parents of high SLE students reported that their child's
choices were influenced by what was accessible. Thus, although texts
were accessible, there was perhaps a differential constraint operating
on students' ability to choose from a wide range of texts. Two
alternative implications are likely. The first is that there might be a
need to talk with students about their ability to access texts, and to
develop strategies that widen their selection, such as seeking out and
choosing engaging texts at libraries or online. But like Neuman and
Celano's (2006) findings this might be more about how where and
with whom students gained access, which suggests more specific guidance
for teachers and parents, not only to provide access to texts, but to
work with students on specific strategies for accessing and selecting
texts. Our data suggests that teachers of low SLE classes did this, not
by providing texts for students, but by working with them on how to
choose.
Motivation and engagement
Perhaps unsurprisingly, engagement in reading over summer seems key
to students' ability to maintain their literacy levels (Heyns,
1978, Anderson, et al., 1988), which, over summer, is more likely if
students are motivated to read. Students were unanimous that their
motivation for reading over summer was purely enjoyment. Their parents
concurred. However their teachers were less united. Whereas low SLE
teachers' responses offered support for developing students'
interests and strategies for choosing texts, a focus on reading skills
was apparent in many high SLE teachers' responses, highlighting the
contrast between a framing of reading as homework and what has
traditionally been conceived as 'recreation' (Anderson, et
al., 1988). Arguably, a homework framing for reading is less likely to
transfer to summer leisure activities than a recreational framing. It is
conceivable that the homework stance may even provide a disincentive to
summer reading, by highlighting boundaries between school and holidays.
If engagement in reading over summer relies on selecting and
enjoying texts as part of leisure activities, this implies that students
may need support to build metacognition focused on their reading
enjoyment. The low SLE teachers in our study provided metacognitive
prompts for 'thinking', 'learning' and
'inquiring', rather than reading skills. This was unexpected,
and runs somewhat counter to prevailing understandings about the need
for goal setting and self-regulation of learning (Paris & Paris,
2001). This needs further investigation. It may be, for example, that
while metacognitive prompts and goal setting focussed on learning which
may achieve higher outcomes within a year, teaching that is explicit for
reading over summer may be best to reinforce monitoring and
self-regulation, not of achievement, but of enjoyment: What is it in
texts that I enjoy? How can I identify and then find texts with these
features?
Support and guidance
Previous studies have found that the nature of support and guidance
for students varies between low and middle income families (Neuman &
Celano, 2006). In our study, students were all part of the same
community, and so might be considered similar in terms of their general
socio-economic status, although we never explicitly asked about parental
income or education. However, like Newman and Celano, we also found
differences in the nature of support and guidance that students
received. Students in low SLE classes were more likely to have received
specific support from their teachers for summer reading. Additionally,
low SLE students also reported support from family to read at home. But
we also found differences in the way that parents talked about the
guidance they received. Parents seemed to differ in their ability to
offer specific or elaborated responses in terms of what guidance for
reading had been offered. Thus, guidance and support from schools seems
to be a powerful ingredient, both at the level of the students, and also
the family. Support for students seems most powerful when specific to
summer and this has been reflected in international interventions.
Kim's (2006) intervention, for example, had very specific
directions for students. Support for parents may also benefit from
specificity; perhaps requiring concrete examples of strategies for
accessing and selecting motivating and well matched texts, rather than
general advice to encourage children to carry on reading over summer.
This finding of specificity is consistent with literature on parent
involvement and parent tutoring which point to the need to have specific
messages and guidance (Robinson, Hohepa & Lloyd, 2009). However, it
is inconsistent with the focus. Whereas parent involvement and parent
tutoring are predicated on a schoolwork framing, we found that in low
SLE contexts students' motivation was interest based, and their
teachers and parents supported this motivation. The resolution of his
might lie in recognising the need to have specific guidance for parents
related to supporting recreational reading over summer which do not have
a remedial or skills building focus.
Conclusion
This study provides initial evidence of differences between high
and low SLE students and classes in a group of schools in a low SES
community in Auckland. Findings suggest a number of practices of the low
SLE students, their teachers and their parents that are likely to be
associated with the maintenance of reading achievement over the summer.
The students considered that they did read over summer, and when they
did so, they read for enjoyment. Their teachers supported this, by
preparing students in ways that had a summer-specific focus. They worked
with students to develop strategies for choosing texts and for seeking
out opportunities to read over summer. Their parents more often reported
strategies for supporting students' reading.
Our study, based as it was on interviews and self-report, is
limited by the responses given, and the threats of socially desirable
responding and misreport. The issue of mileage, for example, crucial
though it is, was not well addressed by the self-report of children
thinking back to the summer break and responding in a school setting.
The apparent solution to this would seem to be reading logs or similar,
which might give a more accurate representation of what children
actually read over summer. However, the evidence that we present here
suggests that additional 'work' for students may not support
the recreational nature of summer reading. Instead, it would seem that
overcoming the SLE requires instead specific focus, support and guidance
for recreational reading.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Teaching Learning Research
Initiative Funding (New Zealand Council for Educational Research). We
warmly acknowledge the substantial contribution of the participating
schools, teachers, students and parents.
References
Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D.R. & Olson, L.S. (2007). Lasting
consequences of the summer learning gap. American Sociological Review,
72, 167-180.
Allington, R.L. & McGill-Franzen, A. (2009, August 24). Why
summers matter in the rich/poor achievement gap. Teachers College
Record. Retrieved from http://www. tcrecord. org/Content.asp?C
ontentID=15757
Allington, R.L., McGill-Franzen, A., Camilli, G., Williams, L.,
Graff, J., Zeig, J. & Nowak, R. (2010). Addressing summer reading
setback among economically disadvantaged elementary students. Reading
Psychology, 31 (5), 411-427. doi:10.1080/02702711.2010.505165.
Anderson, R.C., Wilson, P.T. & Fielding, L.G. (1988). Growth in
reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading
Research Quarterly, 23, 285-303.
Borman, G. (2000). The effects of summer school: Questions
answered, questions raised. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 65(1, Serial No. 260), 119-127.
Duffy Books in Homes (n.d.) Duffy Books in Homes. Retrieved from
http://www.booksinhomes.org.nz
Elley, W. (2001). STAR supplementary test of achievement in
reading: Years 4-6. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for
Educational Research.
Heyns, B. (1978). Summer learning and the effects of schooling. New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Kim, J.S. (2006). Effects of a voluntary summer reading
intervention on reading achievement: Results from a randomized field
trial. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28 (4), 335-355.
doi:10.3102/01623737028004335
Lai, M.K., McNaughton, S., Amituanai-Toloa, M., Turner, R. &
Hsiao, S. (2009). Sustained acceleration of achievement in reading
comprehension: The New Zealand experience. Reading Research Quarterly,
44 (1), 30-56. doi:10.1598/ RRQ.44.1.2
McNaughton, S. (2011). Designing better schools for culturally and
linguistically diverse children: A science of performance model for
research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Neuman, S.B. & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income
and middle-income communities: An ecological study of four
neighborhoods. Reading Research Quarterly, 36 (1), 8-26. doi:
10.1598/RRQ.36.1.1
Neuman, S.B. & Celano, D. (2006). The knowledge gap:
Implications of leveling the playing field for low-income and
middle-income children. Reading Research Quarterly, 41 (2), 176-201.
doi:10.1598/RRQ.41.2.2
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for
analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C.
Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research (pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Paris, S.G. & Paris, A.H. (2001). Classroom applications of
research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2),
89-101. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3602_4
Robinson, V., Hohepa, M. & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership
and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Best evidence
synthesis iteration [BES]. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of
Education.
Rebecca Jesson and Stuart McNaughton
University of Auckland
Tone Kolose
Manurewa South School
Rebecca Jesson is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Education at
the University of Auckland. Her research focuses on raising achievement
in literacy in diverse communities in New Zealand. She works closely
with schools to analyse their profile of teaching and learning to design
instruction that is responsive to context.
Stuart McNaughton is a Professor and Director of the Woolf Fisher
Research Centre at the University of Auckland. His research focuses on
literacy and language development, including the design of instruction
and educational programmes for culturally and linguistically diverse
populations. His current research focuses on the properties of effective
teaching of literacy and language in research-based interventions with
clusters of schools.
Tone Kolose is Principal of a large urban school in South Auckland,
New Zealand. He has been instrumental in schooling improvement
initiatives where schools collaborate to solve achievement issues. Tone
worked closely with researchers on this project to build understanding
of the Summer Learning Effect in the schools' community as a basis
for a summer reading programme.
Table 1. Features of Selected Classes
Class End Class Mean
Year Teacher of Year Mean Gain Over Selected
Pair Level number Stanine (STAR) Summer as
Pair 1 Year 4 1 3.95 -0.70 High SLE
2 3.96 0.13 Low SLE
Pair 2 Year 5 3 4.57 -0.71 High SLE
4 4.19 -0.04 Low SLE
Pair 3 Year 5-6 5 4.86 -1.19 High SLE
6 4.69 0.00 Low SLE
Pair 4 Year 7 7 4.36 -0.73 High SLE
8 4.77 0.23 Low SLE
Table 2.
Summer Stanine Gains and Categorisation of
Participating Students
Student Summer Class Student Category
number Stanine Gain SLE SLE Totals
1 0 low low
2 0 low low
3 0 low low
4 1 low low n = 4
5 -1 low high
6 -2 low high
7 -1 low high
8 -2 low high n = 4
9 0 high low
10 0 high low
11 0 high low n = 3
12 -2 high high
13 -2 high high
14 -2 high high
15 -1 high high
16 -2 high high n = 5
Table 3.
Teachers' Preparation for Summer
('Yes' responses to yes/no items)
Question Low SLE High SLE
1. Did you prepare your students in any way 3 4
to read over summer?
2. If yes, did you provide general ideas 3 3
about reading / writing?
3. If yes, did you introduce / describe / 3 1
recommend specific programmes?
4. If yes, did you provide specific books? 1 1
5. Is there any other programme or guidance 4 4
at your school that might provide guidance
for your students' reading over summer?
6 Did you prepare or provide guidance for 3 1
any single individual student?
7. Did you provide information / ideas / 3 4
resources to any parents?
8. If yes, did you provide general ideas 3 2
about reading / writing?
9 If yes, did you introduce / describe / 1 1
recommend specific programmes?
10. If yes, did you provide specific books? 0 3
11. Do your children like reading by 4 3
themselves?
12. How do you build / promote independent 2 1
reading? By telling them to have lots of
practice?
13. How do you build / promote independent 4 4
reading? By providing time in class to
read (e.g. SSR)?
14. How do you build / promote independent 3 1
reading? By helping to choose a suitable
book?
Table 4. Teachers' General and
Summer Specific Practices
Specific
General Preparation Preparation
Low SLE High SLE Low SLE High
teachers teachers teachers SLE
Competence 4 4 4 1
Metacognition 4 2 4 1
Engagement 1 3 4 1
Parental information 3 1 3 0
Table 5.
Students' Personal Reading ('Yes' responses)
Student Class
Low SLE High SLE Low SLE High SLE
N=7 N=9 N=8 N=8
What things do you like to read?
Books 6 9 7 8
Comics 3 3 4 2
Magazines 2 2 3 1
Internet 2 3 3 2
Games 3 1 4 0
Church materials 3 1 2 2
Recipes 0 0 0 0
Lyrics 1 2 2 1
Other 1 1 1 1
Where do you read?
School 5 9 6 8
Home 7 9 8 8
Church 1 1 0 2
Library 2 3 4 1
Family or friend's house 1 0 0 1
Other 0 2 0 2
Where did you read over the holidays?
Home 5 8 5 8
Church 0 0 0 0
Library 1 0 0 1
Family or friend's house 3 6 6 3
Other 0 1 0 1
What things did you read in the holidays?
Books 5 9 6 8
Comics 1 1 0 2
Magazines 0 1 1 0
Internet 1 0 1 0
Games 0 1 1 0
Church materials 2 0 2 0
Recipes 0 2 1 1
Lyrics 0 0 0 0
Other 4 1 4 1
Why did you read these?
Someone encouraged me 0 1 1 0
Availability 1 2 1 2
Enjoyment 6 7 6 7
School 0 0 0 0
Note. Students are categorised twice: by individual SLE and
by class SLE.
Table 6.
Conditions Supporting Students' Reading ('Yes'
Responses)
Student Class
Low SLE High SLE Low SLE High SLE
N=7 N=9 N=8 N=8
Who did you read with over the holidays?
Parent 4 2 3 3
Other family 3 5 4 4
Friends 0 1 1 0
Other 0 0 0 0
Did anyone read to you? 5 4 4 5
Did you read to anyone? 6 7 7 6
Were there any special trips or activities over summer?
Library 3 2 3 2
School holiday programme 0 1 0 1
Bible study 1 0 1 0
Museum visits 1 0 1 0
Other 2 2 3 1
Did your teacher or someone 6 7 8 5
Did you do what they 5 4 5 4
said / read what they
gave you?
Did anyone at home help 7 6 8 5
you read?
What did they do to
help?
Take to library 2 2 4 0
Helped with reading 2 2 3 1
Read to you 2 0 0 2
Other 3 2 2 3
Did anyone at home help 3 3 3 3
you choose what to
read?
