University of Leeds

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

Online Submission of Assessed Work

Student Name Nikoletta Pantouri

Student ID

number 200806644

Degree

programme MA Education

Module code

EDUC 5815M

Module title

Teaching children with learning difficulties

Essay title

Critically analyse two curriculum approaches to children

showing learning difficulties. Identify the strengths and

limitations of each of them.

Word count 6419

1

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................2

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS ON LEARNING DIFFICULTIES..................3

Defining Learning Difficulties

The Medical Model

The Social Model

The Ecological Model

3. INCLUSIVE EDUCATION....................................................................................5

Curriculum dilemmas of inclusive education: commonality versus

differentiation

4. DESCRIPTION OF TWO CURRICULUM APPROACHES FOR CHILDREN

WITH READING DIFFICULTIES.........................................................................8

Reading Recovery

Peer Assisted Learning Strategies

5. CRITICAL EVALUATION OF READING RECOVERY AND PEER

ASSISTED LEARNING STRATEGIES..............................................................12

Strengths and Benefits of the approaches

Limitations and challenges of the approaches

6. CONCLUSION......................................................................................................16

7. APPENDIX............................................................................................................18

Model of different options for curriculum design: considering the balance

between curriculum commonality and differentiation

8. REFERENCES.......................................................................................................19

2

Introduction

Over a number of years, a growing interest towards children showing learning difficulties and

their access to education has been highlighted in the research literature (Anders et al, 2011;

Hammill, 1990; Hodkinson and Vickerman, 2009; Inglis and Swain, 2012). It is identified that

from the very ancient years, people with disabilities or difficulties have been socially

marginalised and excluded since they were regarded as “different” from the norms (Angelides,

2011). Such assumptions have inevitably maintained through the years with disabled people

often treated with fear, disrespect, compassion and even experiencing bullying (Goodley, 2001).

However, such perceptions are now rejected by many people and a lot of effort is being made on

promoting human rights in every aspect of life including education (Rex, 2000). As a result,

children with learning difficulties who have been historically located in separate schools from

the mainstream are nowadays included in ordinary classrooms in many schools worldwide with

educators supporting their right to have access in the national curriculum (King-Sears, 2008).

Consequently, the role of the curriculum to achieve those rights has been widely recognised and

claimed to be the key for the success of inclusive education (Rex, 2000).

Among the different kinds of learning difficulties that children may be facing, reading

difficulties have been also highlighted with a significant number of children nowadays

struggling with acquiring the basic skills that are taught in the first years of schooling (Reynolds

et al, 2011). It is also identified that those children are at high risk of facing marginalisation and

academic failure and this emphasizes the need for an early intervention to help them improve

their literacy skills and build their confidence in reading (Mackley, 2009). Since curriculum has

claimed to be significant for inclusion (Rex, 2000), hence a variety of curriculum approaches are

now implemented to support children’s literacy in their early years of education with Reading

Recovery (RR) and Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) becoming popular and used in

many schools worldwide like Canada, New Zealand, USA and in the UK (Reynolds et al, 2011).

Subsequently, the aim of this essay is to outline the impact of these two curriculum approaches,

RR and PALS and critically evaluate their effectiveness towards children with reading

difficulties. A critical analysis of the theoretical background that defines learning difficulties and

the role of the curriculum to promote inclusive education, are initially discussed in this essay.

Moreover, the impact of RR and PALS including their strengths and limitations are the main

issues to be discussed and criticised.

3

Theoretical frameworks on learning difficulties

Defining Learning Difficulties

Many researchers have tried to define learning difficulties and all agree that this concept is

actually complicated (Anders et al, 2011; Hammill, 1990; Hodkinson and Vickerman, 2009;

Inglis and Swain, 2012). While the first attempts to define learning difficulties started in 1962

(Hammill, 1990), Inglis and Swain (2012) highlight that until today learning difficulties are still

hard to define because of their many different meanings clarified by different educational

systems around the world.

Despite its problematic definition, learning difficulties in many countries like Canada, New

Zealand, USA and in the UK (Crown, 2012; New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2014; Ontario

Ministry of Education, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2014) are under the umbrella term

of Special Educational Needs (SEN) which is defined by policy makers and refers to “children

who have learning difficulties or disabilities that make it more difficult for them to learn or

access education than most children of the same age” (Hodkinson and Vickerman, 2009, p.4)

and hence they are children who need special educational provision (Anders et al, 2011). This

definition, however, varies between countries worldwide with many educators still using the

term “learning disabilities” instead of “learning difficulties” (e.g. in the USA) (U.S. Department

of Education, 2014). Also, some educators may even confuse SEN with Special Needs causing

various issues regarding both the identification of the children who have a learning difficulty as

well as their educational provision (Hodkinson and Vickerman, 2009).

Nevertheless, learning difficulties or disabilities can be further explained by three different

models that share their own understandings and treatment of difficulties according to their

theoretical frameworks. These models are defined by Bricout et al. (2004) as “medical model”,

“social model” and “ecological model” and they are operated by using different causation,

intervention and level of focus.

The Medical Model

The medical model’s focus is mainly on the individual child and it locates the child’s difficulties

within his or her individual pathology (Hodkinson and Vickerman, 2009). Such models view any

physical or cognitive impairment as the main cause of disability or a learning difficulty (Taylor,

2005). Therefore, through a process of identification based on this model, negative terms are

used and refer to children’s limitations as medical issues through emphasising “syndromes” and

4

“difficulties”, while in order to address disabilities, these models emphasise on diagnosing,

labelling and treating a person to reduce the pathology associated with disability (Bricout et al,

2004).

In addition, since according to this model special needs come from psychological or neurological

limitations of the child’s inner world, this child will need to be treated by professionals (Jacklin,

2011). Hence, schools during the 19th

century that were based on these models were increasingly

involved in identifying and placing children with disabilities in separate educational systems.

Until today, students with severe learning difficulties are still placed in separate schools in many

schools worldwide (e.g. Greece, UK, USA) and their teaching and learning is supported by drug

therapy or any other therapeutic intervention that needs to be made for them as suggested by

doctors and psychologists (Angelides, 2011; Hodkinson and Vickerman, 2009).

The Social Model

According to the literature, medical model has received much criticism largely because it denies

people with disabilities their human rights and therefore, social model has emerged as a response

to reject the medical model’s definition (Taylor, 2005). Social models describe disability and

any other learning difficulty as the result of society’s values and beliefs that tend to marginalize

people into groups and stigmatize attitudes. According to this aspect, it is the environment that

causes disability and not the individual’s impairment by placing barriers to disabled people in all

aspects of their lives, including education (Hodkinson and Vickerman, 2009).

More specifically, social models argue that people with specific difficulties are labelled as

“others” because of their diversity that fells outside the norms of the society (Inglis and Swain,

2012). With regard to education, in contrast to medical models, social models support that

schools should be accessible for all children regardless of their diversity. In other words, social

models highlight that schools need to create an ethos that will reject any stereotypical attitude

towards disability by reviewing their curriculum approaches, their classrooms organisation and

their teachers’ perceptions (Hodkinson and Vickerman, 2009).

However, it should be noted that either social model is left without criticism. It is argued that the

cause of disability may actually reside both in the individual’s impairment and the social barriers

(Taylor, 2005) and therefore it is suggested that society cannot remove all the barriers related to

impairment (Jacklin, 2011).

5

The Ecological Model

Following the medical and social model, the ecological model at the microsystem level identifies

that learning difficulties are influenced by the ways in which schools are organized. Particularly,

this model recognizes that the limited dynamics that some schools offer to children with specific

difficulties may affect and exaggerate their experience of disability (Hodkinson and Vickerman,

2009). Ecological model at the mesosystem level identifies that such dynamics may be

interpreted as the interaction of children with difficulties and their families between schools,

social service agencies as well as other factors (e.g. personal relationships) that may influence

their quality of life (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Therefore, interventions based on these models

would mostly be aiming at eliminating any kind of barrier against children with specific

difficulties (e.g. changing schools’ infrastructure to be accessible for all) and developing a well

founded relationship between children with difficulties and their families, their teachers as well

as their peers (Bricout et al, 2004).

Summarising, it is understandable that all these different models are equally essential since they

define our understandings of learning difficulties and disabilities. Their tendency to explain this

complex phenomenon from a single perspective, however, may not be the best way forward

(Angelides, 2011). Even if one model receives much more criticism than the others, it should be

recognised that no model on its own can provide a complete definition of learning difficulties or

a single form of approach to meet the needs of children with specific difficulties (Hodkinson and

Vickerman, 2009; Jacklin, 2011).

Inclusive Education

Despite of all these different arguments, however, it is demonstrated that we nowadays live in

century where inclusive education is generally wanted (King-Sears, 2008; Osberg and Biesta,

2010; Rex, 2000; Symeonidou and Mavrou, 2014). Increasingly over the recent years many

countries worldwide have moved towards a more inclusive education and abandoned the

educational systems that wanted children with learning difficulties to be located in separate

schools from the mainstream (Symeonidou and Mavrou, 2014). It is important, however, to note

that this essay is mainly focused on the inclusion as identified in the educational systems of

Canada, New Zealand, USA and UK since the evaluation of the curriculum approaches analysed

in the following chapters rests on the research findings that were contacted in these countries.

6

Based on the theoretical perspective of the social model, inclusion aims to broaden access to

education for all children regardless of race, culture, religion, gender, ability or any other

discrimination (Osberg and Biesta, 2010). Inclusive education emphasises on those who have

been historically marginalised or have underachieved in schools promoting an approach where

students with disabilities or learning difficulties are educated alongside with their peers, within

the local community (O’Gorman and Drudy, 2010).

However, inclusive education still faces a lot of challenges with some of the debates considering

the appropriateness of full inclusion and various barriers preventing its successful

implementation. For instance, it is identified that in some cases inclusion is being interpreted

only at the level of integration where children with difficulties are physically integrated in

general education but for specific subjects they are still educated separately from their peers and

by special teachers (Symeonidou and Mavrou, 2014). In addition, inclusion may still be a matter

of concern for some schools considering their students’ academic performance suggesting that

both students with and without SEN may somehow be influenced by inclusion and may be left

behind academically (Farrell et al, 2007).

Nevertheless, as Rex (2000) argues, integration does not necessarily mean inclusion and it is

illustrated that inclusion becomes a reality only when students build inclusive relationships with

their peers and teachers and were learning is collaborative. It is therefore understandable that

teacher’s role in promoting these principles is really important although it is identified that not

all teachers support inclusive education for many different reasons (e.g. some teachers believe

that it is not practically applicable) (O’Gorman and Drudy, 2010).

Furthermore, the role of the national curriculum to support inclusive education has been also

recognized with many researchers describing curriculum as the “heart” of educational policies

and practices that will influence the level of children’s access to education (Symeonidou and

Mavrou, 2014). More specifically, the meaning of curriculum can be clarified in different terms.

On one hand curriculum can be interpreted as the decisions made by the government to drive any

issue regarding the administration of education (e.g. the preparation of educational bills)

(Young, 2013), while it is also interpreted as the content of the subject areas to be taught based

on specific pedagogy and ideology (Osberg and Biesta, 2010). As Obserg and Biesta (2010)

argue, whatever the meaning of the curriculum, it is identified as the most important barrier

towards inclusive education creating a variety of issues and dilemmas to be considered.

7

Curriculum dilemmas of inclusive education: commonality versus differentiation

Over the years, many researchers have located learning difficulties within the curriculum that is

presented to the child and claimed that all children need to have equality of access to a broad,

balanced, coherent and relevant curriculum (Rex, 2000). It is suggested that for schools to

achieve inclusion they need to offer a curriculum that will build social community, appreciation

of diversity, practises of supportive academic skills and a culture of success (King-Sears, 2008).

Even if translating those rights into reality is actually difficult, teachers need to meet their

students’ needs successfully and maximize their access to the national curriculum (Charlton and

Jones, 1992). It is demonstrated, however, that without the appropriate curriculum, teachers

cannot achieve inclusion within their classrooms (Rex, 2000).

With regard to such issues, an interesting dilemma has been highlighted in the literature and

questions whether the school curriculum, particularly the subject areas to be taught, should be

common to all children regardless of their abilities or differentiated to meet individual needs. On

one hand, providing a common curriculum for all recognizes that all learners have the right to an

equal access in education and it also protects children with difficulties from getting labeled

(Norwich, 2013). On the other hand, teaching a common curriculum causes central challenges if

we consider the fact that each learner is different with unique interests and needs (King-Sears,

2008).

In addition, it is suggested that children’s interests, abilities and concerns need to be at the centre

of their curriculum in order to build inclusive teaching and learning relationships (Charlton and

Jones, 1992). Differentiated techniques serve the needs of diverse students and promote their

active involvement in learning. Without differentiation it is claimed that students might be left

behind and “...it may not seem that every child does matter” (King-Sears, 2008, p.61). Hence, it

is identified that a level of differentiation is generally necessary and not only for students with

SEN but for all (Rex, 2000).

Such dilemmas have been underlined by a majority of teachers and administrators in the USA

and UK highlighting the need for resolution. Some of the resolutions were expressed in terms of

balancing common and different aspects of the curriculum (e.g. to change teaching/instruction

but have the same objectives and have the same general areas but differentiated programmes)

(Norwich, 2013). In other words, it is suggested that to achieve commonality (inclusive

education, equality) and relevance (differentiation), the best way forward is to have both ways as

far as possible, although the balancing can still be really hard and create tensions (Norwich,

8

2008). More specifically, it is recognized that it may be useful for educational systems around

the world to design their curriculums based on the distinction between four aspects, principles,

programme areas, specific programmes and teaching and that for each of these aspects there can

be either commonality or differentiation creating options for common-different forms (see

Appendix) (Norwich, 2013).

Description of two curriculum approaches for children with

reading difficulties

In an attempt to address children’s learning difficulties, many researchers have focused their

attention on the way curriculum approaches can broaden their access to education (Charlton and

Jones, 1992; Cox and Hopkins, 2006; Patterson, 2013; Renyold et al, 2011). Among the different

kinds of difficulties that young people may be facing, it is that of reading problems which is the

main focus of this essay. According to the literature, a significant number of children (20%) are

nowadays struggling with reading especially in their first years of schooling (Reynolds et al,

2011). Learning to read is in fact a very complex process with many children experiencing

reading problems such as decoding difficulties (e.g. dyslexia) and reading comprehension

difficulties (Snowling and Hulme, 2011), while others may have limited language proficiency

due to their different linguistic background (Mackley, 2009).

Reading is identified as the key factor in accessing the national curriculum since it is one of the

most important and basic curriculums taught throughout a student’s education (Charlton and

Jones, 1992). Children who experience reading difficulties in the early years of their education

and do not receive any support are at high risk of increasing their existing difficulties and fall

further behind their peers (Patterson, 2013). Children who struggle with reading usually have a

low self-esteem and motivation to read while the continuing presence of their difficulties may

influence their future careers leading to job dissatisfaction (Reynolds et al, 2011).

It is therefore argued that an early and effective intervention is necessary to support children’s

literacy development and protect them from experiencing marginalisation and academic failure

(Mackley, 2009). It is suggested that early interventions (e.g. those provided in the first years of

elementary education) can help struggling readers to catch up and remain within the average

range of achievement and thus these interventions are considered as much more effective than

those implemented in the later years (Askew et al, 2002).

9

As a result, schools around the world are now implementing various programmes and methods

to increase children’s reading skills such as “Early Intervention in Reading Program”,

“Lindamood Phonemic Sequencing Program”, “Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies”, “Reading

Recovery”, “Start Making a Reader Today”, “Success for All” with more research evidence

supporting “Reading Recovery” as the best mean to develop early reading (Reynolds et al,

2011). In this essay, the content of Reading Recovery and Peer Assisted Learning Strategies are

outlined below since both of them have been used globally and therefore provide a variety of

scientific evidence regarding their effectiveness.

Reading Recovery

Reading Recovery (RR) is a short-term intervention for children showing the lowest

achievement in literacy in their first years at school with almost 12,500 children entering RR

across the UK (ECRR, 2014). RR was originally developed by New Zealand professor Dr. Marie

Clay in the late 1970s (WWC, 2013). Its aim is to early identify and promote the literacy

development of children by fostering their reading and writing strategies in order to catch up

with their peers and participate successfully in the regular classroom (O’ Connor and Simic,

2002).

RR is based on the idea that reading is a meaning-making process and thus learners need to be

educated how to self-monitor reading strategies through engaging in meaningful activities,

identifying problems and finding solutions (Jesson and Limbrick, 2014). Drawn upon the theory

of scaffolding, RR aims at developing the learners’ interest in carrying out tasks that are

simplified by the teacher to meet their needs according to their Zone of Proximal Development

(Siegler, 2002). During the activities of RR students are provided with feedback in order to

understand their progress and the aim is for learners to become independent readers who will no

longer need additional help in the regular classroom (Hurry and Sylva, 2007).

More specifically, children who are most in need are identified through teachers’ nominations

and students’ performances of reading and writing based on six literacy tasks; letter

identification, word test, concepts about print, writing vocabulary, hearing and recording sounds

in words and text reading (O’ Connor and Simic,2002). In addition, students who are recognised

as most in need are withdrawn from class and receive a daily 30 minutes individual tutoring

from a trained RR teacher during an average of 12-20 weeks (ECRR, 2014).

Depending on each student’s strengths, RR teacher provides incorporate instructions based on

six components; rereading familiar texts (e.g. students read two books at their current level that

10

they have read during previous lessons), reading the previous day’s new book, word work (e.g.

students work with magnetic letters to learn the basic principles of how words work), writing a

message story (e.g. students write one to three sentences with support from teacher),

reassembling a cut-up story (e.g. students cut-up a story into parts and put it back together) and

introducing and rereading a new book (O’ Connor and Simic,2002). Each of these components

is designed to meet the needs of individual learners which are reflected by their response during

the lesson, while the RR teacher keeps a running record of each child’s progress (Cox and

Hopkins, 2006).

Once students demonstrate the ability to read at the average level of their grade, they are

discontinued from the programme, whereas those who make progress but do not reach the

average level after 20 weeks of RR are referred for further assistance (WWC, 2013). There is

also evidence that apart from the referred group there are children who may have an incomplete

program because their lessons may be suspended due to funding withdrawal or because they may

themselves leave school (ECRR, 2014).

Peer Assisted Learning Strategies

In contrast to RR which is a short-term intervention implemented only at the first years of

schooling (Reynolds et al, 2011), Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) can be implemented

from pre-school to elementary and middle school (Patterson, 2013). PALS were originally

developed by Lynn and Doug Fuchs in 1997 and like the RR, PALS’ aim is to help children

improve their reading skills, especially those who are at high risk of academic failure in their

high school and future education (Mackley, 2009). Drawn upon behavioural approaches and the

social theory of learning, PALS is based on the idea that learners are more likely to learn when

they are working collaboratively by observing the actions of others and being provided with

feedback (Patterson, 2013).

More specifically, PALS is a process designed to match high-performing students (the tutor) to

work with lower-performing students (the tutee) in a 35-45 minute session 3 times a week within

their classroom and under the leadership of a teacher (Nguyen, 2013). The concept of PALS

assumes that since peer tutors are closer to their peer learners regarding their learning

experiences, they can have a better understanding of the challenges they face (Stone and Meade,

2012). Hence, for a student to become tutor, he or she must go through a training course which

includes addressing a list of specific expectations and emphasizes the development of positive

peer relationships, leadership strategies and commitment to the program (Nguyen, 2013).

11

Throughout the program, students are assigned to different pairs and have the opportunity to be

both provider and recipient of tutoring (Mackley, 2009). During the process students need to

read aloud, listen to their partner read and provide feedback through different activities to

improve reading accuracy, fluency and comprehension (WWC, 2012). These activities include

partner reading where the tutee reads aloud and the tutor provides corrective feedback (the

stronger reader is expected to read first so that the weaker reader reviews difficult words), retell

where the second reader retells text and the first reader uses direct questions on a card,

paragraph shrinking where the first reader reads one paragraph at a time and the second reader

has to find the main idea of each paragraph (e.g. who or what the passage is about) and finally

prediction relay where the first reader has to predict what is going to happen next and then reads

half a page to check for correct answers (Patterson, 2013). All these activities are used

differently according to each grade level and the teacher provides support when necessary, while

each pair needs to earn points for academic processes and cooperative behaviour (Mackley,

2009).

Having clarified the concept of both interventions, it could be suggested that while RR presents a

tendency towards a more differentiated curriculum by offering a different program to students at

individual level, PALS presents a tendency towards a more common curriculum by offering a

common program to all students at group level (Norwich, 2013). Nevertheless, since both

interventions have been used globally, it is important to discuss and criticise their strengths and

limitations as identified in different educational systems. It should therefore be noted that the

research findings analysed in this essay are based on studies conducted in Canada (Mattatall,

2009), New Zealand (Jesson and Limbrick, 2014), USA (Askew et al, 2002; Cox and Hopkins,

2006; Mackley, 2009; Nguyen, 2013; O’ Connor and Simic, 2002; Patterson, 2013; Pinnell, et al,

1994; WWC, 2012 and 2013) and in the UK (ECRR, 2014; Hurry, 2012; Hurry and Sylva, 2007;

Stone and Meade, 2012).

12

Critical evaluation of Reading Recovery and Peer Assisted Learning

Strategies

Strengths and Benefits of the approaches

Both RR and PALS have generally claimed to be effective for the majority of low-achieving

students leading to their successful literacy development and protecting those who are most in

need from experiencing academic failure and marginalisation (Cox and Hopkins, 2006;

Patterson, 2013). According to What Works Clearinghouse (2012 and 2013), RR and PALS can

have positive effects on general reading achievement including alphabetics, reading fluency and

reading comprehension.

Additionally, a number of studies have shown that when students receive either RR or PALS,

they perform significantly higher scores of reading tests in contrast to their comparisons groups

who receive only traditional instructions (Cox and Hopkins, 2006; Hurry, 2012; Hurry and

Sylva, 2007; Jesson and Limbrick, 2014; O’ Connor and Simic,2002; Mackley, 2009; Patterson,

2013). According to the literature, 84% of children in the UK who completed RR, estimated for

the year 2012-13, reached the age-appropriate levels of literacy highlighting a high level of RR’s

success which tends to maintain over the years (ECRR, 2014). Hurry and Sylva (2007), also

illustrate that the majority of children who enter RR, almost 89%, complete the program

successfully and gain effective reading and writing strategies, while O’ Connor and Simic

(2002), suggest that even if children do not complete the program successfully (the referred

group), they still make a progress of their literacy skills. Similarly, Mackley (2009), Nguyen,

2013) and Patterson (2013) recognise that PALS students raise their performance levels

significantly higher compared to the non-PALS students and all agree that this program can

benefit not only the low-achieving students (tutee) but the high-achieving students (tutor) as well

(e.g. by offering them the chance to learn the information they are going to present to their

peers).

Moreover, the fact that both interventions can be implemented in the early years of education is

identified as one of their main advantage since in this way children who are at risk of increasing

their existing difficulties can be recognized as soon as possible and provided with support

(Reynolds et al, 2011). It is demonstrated that struggling readers can benefit much more by an

early intervention than a one implemented in the later years since this will help them reach the

average age-related expectations (Mackley, 2009).

13

Furthermore, it is identified that these interventions can encourage a more positive atmosphere to

the school and the wider community and promote the inclusion of all children regardless of

diversity (Cox and Hopkins, 2006; Patterson, 2013). Both programmes have the potential to

support children from different linguistic backgrounds (e.g. Spanish speakers in USA schools

achieve higher scores when they enter PALS) (Patterson, 2013) and close the gap between

economically disadvantage children (who are expected to have low opportunities for literacy

development) and their peers (ECRR, 2014; O’ Connor and Simic, 2002). It is also demonstrated

that these programmes reduce the proportion of students at risk for special education by helping

them to bring up their scores in reading (O’ Connor and Simic, 2002; Patterson, 2013). For

example, 1558 children who received RR in the UK could be removed from the SEN register

during 2012-13 as estimated by the European Centre of Reading Recovery (2014).

What is also worth noting is that the range of activities provided in both RR and PALS, allow

students to be actively involved in their own learning and therefore become independent readers

while increasing their self-esteem (Jesson and Limbrick, 2014; Nguyen, 2013). The activities

that take place in RR, for instance, encourage students to build their meta-cognitive skills and

strategies about reading and therefore to think critically and independently (Cox and Hopkins,

2006). Similarly, enabling students to learn through PALS and cooperate with their peers, fosters

their enjoyment for reading if this is based on a supportive communication in which the low-

achieving students can learn a lot from their high-achieving peers and vice versa (Mattatall,

2009; Stone and Meade, 2012).

However, although there are clear benefits with the implementation of these programmes and

there is no doubt that their goal is to provide support for students in need, there are still some

important limitations that need to be taken into account (Cox and Hopkins, 2006; Hurry and

Sylva, 2007; Jesson and Limbrick, 2014; Nguyen, 2013; Patterson, 2013). Can these

programmes be implemented successfully without any barrier? Do the positive outcomes gained

from these interventions maintain for a long time period? These challenges are analysed below.

Limitations and challenges of the approaches

One of the challenges faced by one of these interventions is the fact that, like other programmes,

RR is actually costly and sometimes hard to implement, compared to PALS which is cost

effective (Reynolds et al, 2011). PALS can be easily implemented within a class-wide setting

and with a minimum of teacher training hours and resources (Patterson, 2013), whereas for RR

14

teachers need to take a long year of training which may cause financial issues (e.g. local

governors may not be able to fund the training for the whole period) (Reynolds et al, 2011).

Also, the fact that this program is delivered individually to students may affect its successful

implementation since RR teachers have extra responsibilities (e.g. senior managers) that may

influence their RR teaching (e.g. they may miss some of their days for teaching) (ECRR, 2014).

Due to these issues it is therefore recognised that some schools may find it hard to implement

and sustain RR with the risk of children who are most in need to be neglected or dropped out

from the program (O’ Connor and Simic, 2002).

As a result, it is identified that a “whole school approach” to support these programmes is really

necessary for their successful implementation (King-Sears, 2008). This means that all members

of the school community, including the collaboration between school principals, local governors,

classroom teachers, assistant teachers, students and parents need to have a clear understanding of

the goals and visions of these interventions to successfully address any issue that may occur and

more importantly to support students’ needs (Rex, 2000).

Moreover, since inclusive education is generally wanted, it is worth noting that between RR and

PALS, it could be suggested that PALS may promote inclusion much more effectively (Nguyen,

2013). This is mainly because PALS enable differentiated learning to be implemented in a

regular class setting, while the fact that students work with their peers protects them from getting

labelled (Mackley, 2009). In contrast, RR may on one hand provide differentiated learning

which promotes inclusion, but this learning does not take place in a regular classroom and thus

children with reading difficulties may be negatively stigmatised (Hurry and Sylva, 2007).

However, PALS are not always seen as the best way forward for addressing reading difficulties.

More specifically, although a one-to-one tutoring may be an effective strategy to increase

student’s confidence in reading, it is argued that this kind of tutoring is much more effective

when delivered by teachers (e.g. in RR) than when delivered by other instructors or volunteers

(e.g. in PALS) (Reynolds et al, 2011). For example, interventions in which students are mostly

taking actions, like in PALS, students may perceive learning as less important since it is not led

by teachers, whereas teachers may feel less responsible for supporting their students’ difficulties

and thus students may not receive the necessary attention (Patterson, 2013). It is also argued that

a peer tutoring may sometimes be problematic, especially in the first years of schooling, were

peer tutor’s young age may not allow him/her to provide the appropriate instructions required to

meet the needs of the low-achieving students (Reynolds et al, 2011). According to these aspects,

RR could be considered as a much more sufficient approach (Patterson, 2013).

15

Furthermore, while both interventions are claimed to have positive effects in increasing students’

reading skills (WWC, 2012 and 2013), they still may not be effective for all (Reynolds et al,

2011). It is suggested that since children have different needs and abilities while coming from a

different background of oral language and literacy experiences, no literacy program or set of

activities can guarantee that it will meet the needs of every child and provide them with positive

outcomes (Cox and Hopkins, 2006; Patterson, 2013). With regard to PALS, for example, Saenz

(2005), (sited in Patterson, 2013), explains that the reading outcomes of children with high

incidence disabilities who enter PALS are not strong enough in reading fluency and this may

suggest that each individual should receive a different kind of intervention and not always the

one offered by the school. It is also recognised that the main type of learner that is being affected

positively in PALS is the struggling reader while the high-achieving reader may not gain any

significant outcomes regarding reading (Patterson, 2013). Reynolds et al (2011), also identify

that RR may be less effective for students who are most at risk since there are still areas that

need to be improved (e.g. a more systematic approach to the teaching of phonics).

In addition, what is also worth noting is that the key for the successful implementation of both of

these approaches is the training of the teachers and peer tutors who are involved in these

programmes. In RR’s case, for instance, teachers need to realise that it is their professional

expertise and confidence that will influence the reading outcomes of students (ECRR, 2014). It

is therefore necessary for the RR teachers to be well trained in literacy development and be able

to observe the child’s progress to design and provide them with the appropriate learning

resources and activities, based on their interests and acknowledges (Cox and Hopkins, 2006).

Likewise in PALS, teachers need to train tutors how to teach effective learning strategies and

maintain positive and supportive relationships with their tutees. Apart from the initial training

that tutors receive at the start of the program, it is suggested that if they continue their training

sessions throughout the school year, this may positively reinforce their tutoring practises

(Nguyen, 2013).

Nevertheless, perhaps the most important challenge of these programmes is related to their long-

term effectiveness since both of them are early implemented to protect struggling readers from

later difficulties. With more reference to RR, some of the studies suggest that the majority of

students who enter these programs can maintain their positive outcomes in the later years

(ECRR, 2014; O’Connor and Simic, 2002; Pinnell et al, 1994). In their study, Pinnell et al.

(1994) found that children who entered RR were still performing better than the control group

eight months after they completed the intervention.

16

Other studies, however, have doubted the long-term effectiveness of these programs claiming

that long-term outcomes are actually difficult to be measured due to many variables (e.g. which

groups to be compared?) and thus students who receive early interventions cannot maintain their

gains in literacy over time (Jesson and Limbrick, 2014). When Hurry and Sylva (2007)

examined the effect of RR in schools in the UK, they found that struggling readers who received

this intervention at the age of 6 were still behind the national norms at the age of 10. Similarly,

Jesson and Limbrick (2014) found that after two to four years of the successful implementation

of RR in a school in New Zealand, there were 40% of discontinued RR students who were still

not achieving at the average levels of reading.

In other words, it is suggested that while early interventions may be effective at the time of the

delivery, there is no guarantee that learners will sustain their gains when the interventions end

and it is also difficult to collect long-term data to prove this assumption (Hurry and Sylva, 2007).

Even if children complete the programs successfully, they may still be at risk of reading

difficulties and whatever the reasons that caused them to fall behind in reading initially (e.g.

cognitive abilities, home or school environment) may still be ongoing (ECRR, 2014). While

reading development is an ongoing process and it is the key for children’s access in the

curriculum, it is therefore necessary for schools to ensure that their students will sustain their

gains even after the interventions and teachers will always encourage their students’ confidence

for reading (Jesson and Limbrick, 2014).

Conclusion

Overall, a number of international studies have shown that both of the interventions discussed in

this essay have the potential to boost the general reading achievement of children with

difficulties (Cox and Hopkins, 2006; Hurry and Sylva, 2007; Jesson and Limbrick, 2014;

Mackley, 2009; Nguyen, 2013; Patterson, 2013; Reynolds et al, 2011; WWC, 2012 and 2013).

Both RR and PALS seem to promote inclusive education for all children regardless of diversity

by enabling their education in the mainstream, with PALS providing a more common curriculum

compared to the differentiated curriculum provided by RR (Nguyen, 2013; Hurry and Sylva,

2007). The fact that both of these approaches can be early implemented is seen as one of their

main advantage since in this way children who are at risk of reading problems will be identified

and provided with support as soon as possible to reach the average performance level of their

peers (Askew et al, 2002).

17

Despite their potential benefits, however, it is identified that both of these approaches face

important limitations and no program on its own can be regarded as better than the other. While

the tutoring provided by teachers (e.g. in RR) can be considered as much more sufficient than

the tutoring provided by students (e.g. in PALS), RR is in fact costly intervention compared to

PALS which is cost effective and easy to implement (Patterson, 2013; Reynolds et al, 2011).

Other challenges criticised in this essay are related to the complexity of collecting long term data

to prove whether the positive outcomes gained from these early interventions can be sustained

over the years with findings suggesting that schools need to provide an ongoing support for all

children (Jesson and Limbrick, 2014).

In conclusion, it is illustrated that inclusive education has been embedded within the educational

systems of many countries worldwide with curriculum approaches such as those analysed in this

essay trying to meet the needs of all children regardless of their difficulty (Rex, 2000). However,

since curriculum on its own cannot significantly reduce educational inequalities, it is essential

for all educators to work collaboratively and design effective interventions that will support

every child’s learning and broaden their access to education (King-Sears, 2008; Young, 2013).

Bearing in mind the term “learning difficulties”, it is most important to note that the term itself

means that people want to learn (Goodley, 2001) and thus people with difficulties should be

“treated” as everyone else (Curtice, 2006).

18

Appendix

Model of different options for curriculum design: considering the balance between

curriculum commonality and differentiation

Source: Norwich, B. (2013). Addressing tensions and dilemmas in inclusive education: living

with uncertainty. London: Routledge.

Norwich (2013), presents the above model of different options that can be used to analyse

curriculum design and change in different countries around the world. According to this model,

curriculum can be analysed within four aspects; principles (e.g. general aims for a school

curriculum), programme areas (e.g. areas of worthwhile learning with their goals and general

objectives), specific programmes (e.g. more specific programmes of study with their objectives)

and teaching (class teaching practises). For each of these aspects there can be either

commonality or differentiation creating options for common-different forms (Norwich, 2013).

For example, option 1 and 5 present consistent commonality and differentiation respectively

among all these aspects, while it is identified that none of these options on its own is preferred

when international decisions about curriculum are made. Option 2 presents a tendency towards

more commonality while option 4 presents a tendency towards more differentiation. As Norwich

(2013) identifies, what is worth noting is that even if one option tends towards commonality (for

example option 2) there is still a need of differentiation and vice versa (for example option 4).

Design options

Principles

Programme

areas

Specific

Programmes

Teaching

1 Common Common Common Common

2 Common Common Common Different

3 Common Common Different Different

4 Common Different Different Different

5 Different Different Different Different

19

References

Angelides, P. (2011). From “special” to inclusive education in Cyprus (Από την ‘’ειδική’’ στην

συμπεριληπτική εκπαίδευση στην Κύπρο). In: Αγγελίδης, Π. (Επιμέλεια). Παιδαγωγικές της

συμπερίληψης. Αθήνα: Διάδραση.

Anders, Y. et al. (2011).The influence of child, family, home factors and pre-school education

on the identification of special educational needs at age 10. British Educational Research

Journal. [Online]. [Accessed 7 February 2014].37 (3), pp.421-441. Available from:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25822378

Askew, B. et al. (2002). Making a case for prevention in education. Literacy Teaching and

Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing. 6 (2), pp. 43–73.

Bricout, J.C. et al. (2004). Linking Models of Disability for Children with Developmental

Disabilities. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation. [Online]. [Accessed 7

February 2014]. 3 (4), pp.45-67. Available from:

http://cmhsr.wustl.edu/Resources/Documents/Linking%20models%20of%20disability%20for%2

0children%20with%20developmental%20disabilities.pdf

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In International

Encyclopedia of Education, 3, 2nd

Ed. Oxford: Elsevier. Reprinted in: Gauvain, M. & Cole, M.

(Eds.), Readings on the development of children, 2nd

Ed. (1993, pp. 37-43). NY: Freeman.

Charlton, T. and Jones, K. (1992). Learning difficulties in primary classrooms: delivering the

whole curriculum. London: Routledge.

Cox, B.E. and Hopkins, C.J. (2006). Building on theoretical principles gleaned from Reading

Recovery to inform classroom practice. Reading Research Quarterly. 41 (2), pp. 254-267.

Crown. (2012). Review of Special Educational Needs and Inclusion. Department of Education.

[Online]. [Accessed 6 May 2014]. Available from:

http://www.deni.gov.uk/review_of_special_educational_needs_and_inclusion.htm

Curtice, L. (2006). How is it going? A survey of what matters most to people with learning

disabilities in Scotland today. The Scottish consortium for learning disability. [Online].

[Accessed 28 January 2014]. Available from:

http://www.scld.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/how_is_it_going.pdf

European Centre for Reading Recovery (ECRR). (2014). Reading Recovery annual technical

report for the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland: 2012-13. Institute of Education

University of London.[Online]. [Accessed 13 March 2014]. Available from:

http://www.ioe.ac.uk/research/4399.html

Farrell, P. et al. (2007). SEN inclusion and pupil achievement in English schools. Journal of

Research in Special Educational Needs. 7 (3), pp. 172–178.

20

Goodley, D. (2001). Learning Difficulties’, the Social Model of Disability and Impairment:

challenging epistemologies. Disability & Society. [Online]. [Accessed 7 February 2014]. 16 (2),

pp. 207-231. Available from:

http://www.academia.edu/485187/Learning_Difficulties_the_Social_Model_of_Disability_and_I

mpairment_Challenging_Epistemologies

Hammill, D.D. (1990). On Defining Learning Disabilities: An Emerging Consensus. Journal of

Learning Disabilities.[Online]. [Accessed 30 January 2014]. 23, pp.74-84. Available from:

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/23/2/74

Hodkinson, A. and Vickerman, P. (2009). Key issues in special educational needs and inclusion.

London, SAGE.

Hurry, J. (2012). The impact of Reading Recovery five years after the intervention. A report for

the Every Child a Reader Trust. [Online]. [Accessed 2 May 2014]. Available from:

http://www.ioe.ac.uk/about/documents/Hurry_London_follow_up_2012_Report_december_12.p

df

Hurry, J. and Sylva, K. (2007). Long-term outcomes of early reading intervention. Journal of

Research in Reading. 30 (3), pp. 227-248.

Inglis, P.A. and Swain, J. (2012). Men with learning difficulties doing research: challenging

views of learning difficulties. Disability and Society. [Online]. [Accessed 30 January 2014]. 27

(3), pp. 339-352. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.654986

Jacklin, A. (2011). To be or not to be ‘a disabled student’ in higher education: the case of a

postgraduate ‘non-declaring’ (disabled) student. Journal of Research in Special Educational

Needs Early View. 11(2), pp.99-106.

Jesson, R and Limbrick, L. (2014). Can gains from early literacy interventions be sustained? The

case of Reading Recovery. Journal of Research in Reading. 37 (1), pp.102-117.

King-Sears, M. E. (2008). Facts and Fallacies: Differentiation and the General Education

Curriculum for Students with Special Educational Needs. Support for Learning. 23(2), pp. 55-

62.

Mackley, S.R. (2009). Kindergarten Peer-assisted Learning Strategies with English Language

Learners: an Empirical Dissertation. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine

Department of Psychology. pp.1-121.

Mattatall, C.A. (2009). Peer Assisted Learning Strategies: The Potential and Promise of Peer-

Mediated Learning for Struggling Readers in Elementary School Classrooms. Canadian Society

for the Study of Education Annual Conference. pp.1-16.

21

New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2014). Named learning difficulties. [Online]. [Accessed 6

May 2014]. Available from:

http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/SpecialEducation/PublicationsAnd

Resources/ResourcesForEducators/AQuickGuideToExtraSupport/LearningDifficulties/NamedLe

arningDifficulties.aspx

Nguyen, M. (2013). Peer tutoring as a Strategy to Promote Academic Success. Research Brief.

pp.1-8.

Norwich, B. (2008). Dilemmas of difference, inclusion and disability: international perspectives

on placement. European Journal of Special Needs Education. [Online]. [Accessed 20 February

2014]. 23 (4), pp. 287-304. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856250802387166

Norwich, B. (2013). Addressing tensions and dilemmas in inclusive education: living with

uncertainty. London: Routledge.

O’ Connor, E.A. and Simic,O. (2002). The effect of reading recovery on special education

referrals and placements. Psychology in the Schools. 39 (6), pp.635-646.

O’Gorman, E. and Drudy, S. (2010). Addressing the professional development needs of teachers

working in the area of special education/ inclusion in mainstream schools in Ireland. rJournal of

Research in Special Educational Needs. 10 (1), pp.157–167..3_

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2014). Special Education. [Online]. [Accessed 6 May 2014].

Available from:http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/parents/speced.html

1

Osberg, D. and Biesta, G. (2010). The end/s of education: complexity and the conundrum of the

inclusive educational curriculum. International Journal of Inclusive Education. [Online].

[Accessed 20 February 2014]. 14 (6), pp. 593-607. Available from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603110802530684

Patterson, L.J. (2013). What are the effects of peer assisted learning strategies on reading

achievement in elementary students in an urban area? Submittted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Education. pp.1-37.

Pinnell, G.S. et al. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk

first graders. Reading Research Quarterly. 20 (1), pp. 9–39.

Rex, L. A. (2000). Judy constructs a genuine question: a case for interactional inclusion.

Teaching and Teacher Education. 16 (3), pp. 315-333.

Reynolds, M. et al. (2011). What recent reviews tell us about the efficacy of reading

interventions for struggling readers in the early years of schooling. International Journal of

Disability, Development and Education. [Online]. [Accessed 14 February 2014]. 58 (3), pp.257-

286. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2011.598406

22

Siegler, R. S. (2002). Πώς σκέφτονται τα παιδιά (How children think). Βοσνιάδου Σ. Αθήνα:

Gutenberg.

Snowling, M.J. and Hulme, C. (2011). Evidence-based interventions for reading and language

difficulties: creating a virtuous circle. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 81(1), pp. 1-23.

Stone, A. and Meade, C. (2012). Peer-assisted learning in research methods and statistics.

Higher Education Academy. pp.1-8.

Symeonidou, S. and Mavrou, K. (2014). Deconstructing the Greek-Cypriot new national

curriculum: to what extent are disabled children considered in the ‘humane and democratic

school’ of Cyprus? Disability & Society, 29 (2), pp. 303-316.

Taylor, R.R. (2005). Can the social model explain all of disability experience? Perspectives of

persons with chronic fatigue syndrome. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. [Online].

[Accessed 7 February 2014]. 59 (5), pp. 497–506. Available from: http://cfids-cab.org/cfs-

inform/Cfsliving/Taylor05.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Children and Youth with Disabilities. Institute of

Education Sciences: National Center for Education Statistics.[Online]. [Accessed 8 March

2014]. Available from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). (2012). Peer-Assisted Learning/ Literacy Strategies . WWC

Intervention Report. [Online]. [Accessed 13 March 2014]. Available from:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_reports/wwc_pals_050112.pdf

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). (2013). Reading Recovery. WWC Intervention Report.

[Online]. [Accessed 13 March 2014]. Available from:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_reports/wwc_readrecovery_071613.pdf

Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: a knowledge-based approach.

Journal of Curriculum Studies. [Online]. [Accessed 14 February 2014]. 45 (2), pp.101-118.

Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.764505