Children’s engagement in different classroom activities

Abstract

A multiple case study is reported aiming at identifying the degree of taking part and of being engaged in classroom activities for children with and without reading and writing difficulties/dyslexia. The aim was also to investigate the accordance between ‘effective literacy teaching’ and children’s expressed interest and observed taking part and engagement in different kinds of activities. The study is exploratory and the generalizability of the results limited. Three observations each were made of five children with reading and writing difficulties/dyslexia and five comparison children; the observations concerned accessibility, taking part in and engagement with two types of classroom activities, namely basic skills training and practice of higher‐level language skills as a means of thinking at a higher level. The results are presented in relation to quality criteria for teachers’ effective literacy teaching. Results found that the instruction was concerned more with the practice of basic skills in reading and writing than practice of the language as a means of thinking at a higher level for all children, and the children with reading and writing difficulties were less engaged in reading and writing skills training than the comparison children, but took part equally well in activities focused on practice of the language at a higher level. Most of the teachers had lower expectations regarding those children with reading and writing difficulties than children without reading and writing difficulties. The results are discussed in relation to the goals in the subject Swedish.

Keywords:

• Effective literacy teaching
• Engagement in instruction/taking part in instruction
• Reading and writing difficulties/dyslexia

Acknowledgements

The study was conducted as part of the project ‘The classroom as an environment for learning for students with reading and writing difficulties’, given financial support by The Faculty Board of Education at Mälardalen University.

Notes

1. Visuo‐motor speed was assessed using Teckenkedjor (sign chains); word recognition ability was assessed using Ordkedjor (word chains); and semantic and syntactic ability was assessed using Meningskedjor (sentence chains) (Jacobson, 2001).