102097 - Researching Teaching and Learning 2 – 2H 2018

How can parents, school community and teachers impact on the literacy outcomes of
students with low SES?

Part A: Literature Review

There are emerging concerns linking socioeconomic status (SES) and educational outcomes,
particularly in relation to literacy achievement gaps between children from different socioeconomic
backgrounds. Research indicates that students from low SES families tend to acquire language skills more
slowly, exhibit delayed letter recognition and phonological sensitivity, and are at risk of developing reading
difficulties (Buckingham et al., 2013; Hoff, 2013; Aikens & Barbarin, 2008).
In Australia, these concerns have most recently been highlighted by the Australian Curriculum,
Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) in the 2017 National Assessment Program for Literacy and
Numeracy (NAPLAN) report for Achievement in Reading, Writing, Language Conventions and Numeracy. The
report found that across all tested year levels (Year 3, Year 5, Year 7 and Year 9), students with parents in the
Occupation Group 1 category (which includes senior management and other professional roles) have the
highest mean scale of scores within Australia overall, whereas students whose parents did not have paid work
had the lowest mean scores overall.
It is important to note however, that although SES is a variable which considers an individual’s
socioeconomic advantages or disadvantages, it is not limited simply to parental occupation or the subsequent
household income. SES also includes factors such as parent education, local residential or community profile,
access to resources, future aspirations, and perceptions of social class (Buckingham et al., 2013; Bradley &
Corwyn, 2002). Interestingly, the 2017 NAPLAN report also found that across all tested year levels, students
whose parents had higher levels of education scored a higher mean score in all domains (ACARA, 2017).
Additionally, research also indicates that the average SES of a student’s school can affect their academic
performance regardless of their own individual SES (Perry & McConney, 2010; Buckingham et al., 2013).
In support of this, Aikins and Barbarin (2008) argue that mechanisms through which SES affects
reading and literacy achievements are often linked to family, school and neighbourhood influences and are not
exclusively dependant on family income and financial resources alone. Other research papers and journal
articles yielded similar findings, supporting the notion that a combination of factors at home and at school –
particularly factors of parental involvement, school SES compositions and teacher-student relationships – can
significantly impact on the literacy outcomes of students with low SES (McCormick et al., 2017; Benner et al.,
2016; Buckingham et al., 2013).

pg. 1
 102097 - Researching Teaching and Learning 2 – 2H 2018

Parental involvement:
Benner et al. (2016) found that various forms of parental involvement in primary and secondary school
was strongly linked to students’ academic achievements. Parental involvement encompasses both parents’
home-based and parents’ school-based involvements.
Home-based involvement includes actions such as a checking homework, monitoring the completion
of homework and assignments, and other educational enrichment activities (such as going to museums).
Whereas school-based involvement includes parents’ active participation in school organisations (such as the
P&C), volunteering within the school or school events (such as canteen duties and bake sales), and attending
parent-teacher meetings to discuss students’ academic progress and achievements with their teachers.
These aspects of parental involvement have been linked to students’ academic success and other
positive outcomes including higher school grades, reduced absenteeism, improved text scores, increased
school engagement, and improved attitudes and behaviours (Benner et al., 2016; Hohlfeld et al., 2010). With
these findings, Benner et al (2016) reports that low income and less educated parents are more likely to have
lower educational expectations for their children, and therefore tend to disengage from their children’s
education in both home and school contexts. In contrast, Parcel & Dufer (2001) report that more educated
parents tend to have higher expectations of their children’s academic performance.
Parcel & Dufer (2001) state that students’ home environments reflect their parents’ investment into
their wellbeing in the form of providing resources which support child development. In addition to this,
Marks et al. (2006) writes “a home environment conducive to intellectual pursuits and the arts may promote
student performance.”

School SES compositions:

SES inequalities can present itself in a number of ways within schools. For example, wealthy families
have the means of sending their children to elite and prestigious schools, or purchase homes within the local
catchment of high performing public schools (Marks et al., 2006).
Perry & McConney (2010) suggests that although the SES of individual students is strongly linked to
their academic achievements, the SES of a school may have even stronger implications as they report that by
increasing in-school SES, there was a correlative increase in the academic performance of students regardless
of their individual SES.

Teacher-student relationships:
McCormick et al. (2017) and Parcel & Dufer (2001) highlights the importance of developing positive
teacher-student relationships as a strategy for supporting students’ academic achievement, particularly for
students with low SES. Research suggests that high-quality teacher-student relationships are can influence

pg. 2
 102097 - Researching Teaching and Learning 2 – 2H 2018

students to be more motivated and to more actively participate within the classroom, thus improving their
academic achievements.
Furthermore, both Hohlfed et al. (2010) and Marks et al. (2006) reported that students perform better
academically in schools which have strong links to external networks where parents, teachers and local
community members have plenty of opportunities to interact and work collaboratively in order to facilitate
educational success – particularly for students

Understanding the ways in which factors of SES educational achievement gaps is critical in ensuring
that all students receive a high-quality education experience. However, although the effects of SES on students’
academic outcomes (particularly in relation to their literacy skills) is a widely researched and documented topic,
there is limited knowledge on how underlying factors such as parental involvement, school-wide SES
composition and teacher-student relationships can be harnessed to improve the literacy outcomes of students
with low SES.
For example, Perry & McConney (2010) write that although there is a positive correlation between
academic achievement and school socioeconomic composition, there is limited information available regarding
how this correlation varies across groups of students and schools.
Therefore, there is more research to be done on the specific strategies which can be utilised to involve
parents in the effort of supporting their children’s educational performance, and the ways in which teachers
can build positive teacher-student relationships as a means for improving academic outcomes including literacy
capabilities.

pg. 3
 102097 - Researching Teaching and Learning 2 – 2H 2018

Part B: Data Collection Protocol:

Observation Protocol:
The following observation protocol allows observers to categorise student and teacher actions within a classroom setting.

Observation Codes:
STUDENTS ACTIONS: TEACHER ACTIONS:

L Listening to instructor/taking notes, etc. Lec Lecturing (presenting content).

Real-time writing on board, doc. projector, etc. (often checked off along with
Ind Individual thinking/problem solving. RtW
Lec)

Gro Working in groups. TAns Listening to and answering student questions with entire class listening

Student answering a question posed by the instructor with rest of class Moving through class guiding ongoing student work during active learning task
StAns Mov
listening
One-on-one extended discussion with one or a few individuals, not paying
StQ Student asks question 1v1
attention to the rest of the class (can be along with MG or AnQ)
Engaged in whole class discussion by offering explanations, opinion, judgment,
WC Demo Showing or conducting a demo, experiment, simulation, video, or animation
etc. to whole class, often facilitated by teacher

Pres Presentation by student(s) Adm Administration (take attendance, assign homework, return tests, etc.)

Waiting - observing/listening to student or group activities and the instructor

Q Test or quiz W
is not doing so
Waiting (teacher late, working on fixing IT/AV problems, teacher otherwise
W O Other – explain in comments
occupied, etc.)

O Other – explain in comments Lit Proposed activity has a focus on literacy outcomes
 pg. 4

102097 - Researching Teaching and Learning 2 – 2H 2018

Observational Matrix:
Date: ______________ Class: ____________________________ Teacher: _______________________ No. students _______ Observer Name: ________________________
Classroom arrangement? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Time Codes Notes/Comments

5 mins

10 mins

15 mins

20 mins

25 mins

30 mins

35 mins
40 mins

45 mins

50 mins

55 mins

pg. 5
 102097 - Researching Teaching and Learning 2 – 2H 2018

Part C: Data Collection Protocol (Explanation):

The above data collection protocol for observational data was designed based on a protocol and information
presented in ‘The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A New Instrument to
Characterise University STEM Classroom Practices’. The COPUS protocol was initially established to collect
information about the nature of STEM teaching practices to characterise the general state of STEM classroom
teaching, provide feedback for instructors, identify professional development needs and check the accuracy
of faculty reporting (Smith et al., 2013).

While the observational protocol above will be used to characterise the general state of the observed
classrooms for the purposes of undertaking this research, data will not be used to provide feedback to teachers
or check reporting practices. Observations will be recorded and coded with the strict intent of recording and
describing teacher and student actions within the classroom context with the overall purpose of describing
teacher-student relationships and identifying how these relationships affect class engagement and behaviour
– as precursors of academic achievement (Ng & Hung, 2013).

In order to accurately record actions observed during each lesson, the protocol includes a series of codes for
both student and teacher actions, which allows for reliability and consistency in recorded data (Smith et al.
2013). A critical requirement of this protocol is that observers have a passive presence, meaning that although
the researcher will be present in the classroom, they be as unobtrusive as possible and have no interactions
with the participants in order to record notes and observations as accurately as possible (Kervin et al., 2016).

There are two key considerations which researchers must make when using this protocol. They must identify
and acknowledge their biases, assumptions and any values which may impact on the observations they record
and they data they collect, and they must be aware that their presence within the classroom may change
participants’ behaviours regardless of employing the strategy to be a passive presence (Kervin et al., 2016).

Another key consideration is that while using this protocol to observe a class just once can provide a snapshot
view of the classroom and the teacher-student relationships presented within it, multiple observations can
enhance the reliability of notes and observations (Using Teaching Inventories and Classroom Observation
Protocols, n.d.).

pg. 6

102097 - Researching Teaching and Learning 2 – 2H 2018

REFERENCES

Aikens, N.L., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories: The contribution of
family, neighborhood, and school contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 235251.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2017). NAPLAN Achievement in Reading,
Writing, Language Conventions and Numeracy: National Report for 2017. Sydney, Australia: ACARA

Bardsley, D. (2007). Education for all in a global era? The social justice of Australian secondary school education
in a risk society. Journal of Education Policy, 22(5), 493-508.

Bradley, R.H., & Corwyn, R.F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of
Psychology. 53, 371-399.
Buckingham, J., Wheldall, K., & Beaman-Wheldall, R. (2013). Why poor children are more likely to become
poor readers: The school years. Australian Journal of Education, 57(3), 190-213.

Hohlfeld, T.N., Ritzhaupt, A.D., & Barron, A.E. (2010). Connecting schools, community, and family with ICT:
Four-year trends related to school level and SES of public schools in Florida. Computers and Education,
55, 391-405.

Kervin, L., Vialle, W., Howard, S., Herrington, J. & Okely, T. (2016). Research for Educators. Victoria, Australia:
Cengage Learning.

Ng, C. (2013) Examining the self-congruent engagement hypothesis: The link between academic selfschemas,
motivational goals, learning approaches and achievement within an academic year. Educational
Psychology, 34(6), 1-33.

Purcel, T.L., & Dufur, M.J. (2001). Capital at Home and at School: Effects on Student Achievement. Social
Forces, 79(3), 881-911.

Smith, M., Jones, F., Gilbert,S., & Wieman, C. (2013). The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate
STEM (COPUS): A New Instrument to Characterise University STEM Classroom Practices. CBE-Life
Sciences Education, 12(4), 618-627.

Using Teaching Inventories and Classroom Observation Protocols. (n.d.). Retrieved

from https://ctl.yale.edu/Observation-Protocols-Teaching-Inventories

pg. 7