AFTER 3 YEARS... A REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LINUS IN ENGLISH IN A MALAYSIAN PRIMARY SCHOOL

THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAMAFTER 3 YEARS... A REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LINUS IN ENGLISH IN A MALAYSIAN PRIMARY SCHOOLBy

LEAN ZU LEE M.A TESOL

Word count: 15,600 words (excluding citations and appendices)Dissertation submitted to the University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts- Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. July 2015.

Acknowledgement

First, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Too Wei Keong, for all his advice and support throughout the process of this dissertation writing. I am particularly grateful for his quick response in responding to my emails. He had given valuable input and encouraged me to think through critical issues especially the methodology section. Second, I would like to express my gratitude to the participants in this study for their willingness to participate in this study and their patience with me throughout the data collection process. Third, I would like to thank my family and friends for supporting me throughout the journey. Special thanks to my fiance, Khairil Anwar Ramli and my friends for helping me proofread every chapter and motivating me during the most crucial moments.

AbstractThis case study investigated the effectiveness and the implementation of the English LINUS and LINUS 2.0 remedial program in a national primary school in Selangor, Malaysia. Within the school context, semi-structured interviews, classroom observations and document analysis were used to investigate the effects of the LINUS programme and to what extent the implementation had been successful in achieving program goals. The findings of the research revealed that the program had been successful in remediating pupils to achieve basic literacy skills to a certain extent. The implementation process required improvement in terms of teaching strategies, material development, assessment and professional development. Keywords: LINUS, remedial program, early literacy skills, case study, Malaysia

Table of ContentsAcknowledgementiAbstractiiList of Tables and FiguresviList of Abbreviationsvii1. Introduction11.1 Background of the Problem21.2 Problem Statement31.3 Purpose of the Study51.4 Research Questions61.5 Overview of Methodology61.6Rationale and Significance72. Literature Review82.1 Definition of terms82.1.1 Literacy82.1.2 Early literacy skills92.1.3 Remedial intervention92.2 Issues related to literacy learning and instruction102.2.1 Importance of literacy development102.1.1 Characteristics of learners112.1.2 Language barriers122.1.3 Learning environment152.3 Early Literacy Skills162.3.1 Code-focused skills172.3.2 Print awareness182.3.3 Oral language182.3.4 Writing192. 4 Remedial Instruction192.4.1 Reading Recovery, United States202.4.2 Canada212.4.3 Zimbabwe212.4.4 Balsakhi Program, Mumbai, India222.4.5 Vacation Reading Program, Nigeria232.4.6 Competency-based approach, Cameroon232.4.7 Literature review in Australia, New Zealand and United States242.5 Summary of chapter253. Methodological and Research Design263.1 Methodological Framework263.2 Research Design283.3 Participant and Sampling Method293.3.1 FasiLINUS293.3.2 Lower Primary Teachers293.3.3 Pupils303.4 Data Collection Method303.4.1 Interview303.4.2 Classroom Observation313.4.3 Document Analysis313.5 Data Collection Instruments323.5.1 Semi-Structured Interviews323.5.2 Observation checklist343.6 Data Collection Procedure353.7 Validity and Reliability373.7.1 Trustworthiness of data373.7.2 Authenticity383.7.3 Dependability383.8 Data Analysis Procedure393.8.1 Interview393.8.2 Observation checklist393.8.3 Document analysis393.9 Ethical Considerations394. Findings414.1 Research Question 1414.2 Research Question 2454.2.1 Teaching Context464.2.2 Implementation problems474.2.3 Assessment504.2.3 Remedial lessons524.2.4 Teaching Materials534.3 Research Question 3544.3.1 Standardising teaching practice544.3.2 Language exposure544.3.2 Material development544.3.3 Professional development555. Discussion, Recommendations and Conclusion565.1 Discussion565.1.1 Implications for remedial instruction575.1.2 Implication for effective assessment585.1.3 Implication for professional development605.2 Recommendations for future research615.3 Conclusion61Reference636. Appendices69Appendix 1: Turnitin Report69Appendix 2: Sample of interview questions70Appendix 3: Sample of observation checklist78Appendix 4: Interview transcript81Appendix 5: Observation checklist data103Appendix 6: Sample of pupils work122Appendix 7: Sample of permission letter to the headmaster128Appendix 8: Statement of research129Appendix 9: Sample of participants information sheet136Appendix 10: Sample consent form139

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1: Number and percentage of Year 1 and Year 2 pupils based on the September, 2014 LINUS screening test11Table 2: Semi-structured interview topics for the FasiLINUS and English teachers40Table 3: Pupils LINUS results from 2013 to 201448Table 4: Sample pupils' achievement from 2013-201551Table 5: Comparison between expected results (KPI) and school's actual achievement52Table 6: Respondents' background, teaching experience and current teaching situation53

Figure 1: Data collection procedure40

iv

List of Abbreviations

district education department (PPD), 6English language learners (ELL), 11Government Transformation Plan (GTP), 2Key Performance Index (KPI), 4KIA2MKelas Intervensi Asas Membaca dan Menulis, 3LINUS district officer (FasiLINUS), 7Literacy and Numeracy Screening (LINUS), 2Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE), 3National Key Result Areas (NKRA), 2national service training recruits (PLKN), 4non-governmental organisation (NGO), 23Parent Action Group for Education Malaysia (PAGE), 5Primary School Assessment Test (UPSR), 4PROTIMProgram Penguasaan Tiga M, 3state education department (JPN), 6

1. IntroductionLiteracy development among primary school children is one of the National Key Result Areas (NKRA) emphasised in the Government Transformation Plan (GTP)("Zero to 12", 2012). Closing the achievement gap for disadvantaged and low performing schools is a pivotal step in ensuring that every pupil is given the same opportunity to excel in education in Malaysia (Economic Planning Unit, 2010). As stipulated in the GTP, children should be able to acquire basic literacy and numeracy skills after the first three years of primary education (PEMANDU, 2010). For this purpose, a remedial intervention program called the Literacy and Numeracy Screening (LINUS)program was introduced in 2010. It was initially a series of literacy screening testsexecuted three times a year in March, June and September (PEMANDU, 2010). The tests aimed to distinguish learners who have achieved the literacy learning milestones from those who have not. The frequency of the screenings was later changed to twice a year ("Primary schools to get Linus 2.0", 2012). Those who were unable to pass the screening tests would be given remedial intervention until they could be placed in mainstream education(Brown, 2014). Modules and training were provided to aid teachers in class. According to the Ministrys Curriculum Development Division Deputy Director,ShamsuriSujak (as cited in Balqis, 2014), all pupils who have not mastered English literacy will be supplied the English Literacy Pupils Module while the teachers who conduct the classes will be supplied with English Literacy Teachers Module. However, remedial teachers were not provided for the English subject. Even though the government claimed that 15, 500 remedial teachers were trained for the purpose of LINUS, these teachers were only for Bahasa Malaysia and Numeracy (Economic Planning Unit, 2010). This means that LINUS pupils would not be removed from the classes but English teachers were expected to conduct both English mainstream and remedial education in the same lesson. Between 2010 and 2011, the percentage of pupils passing the literacy test increased from 87% in Year One to 96.31% in Year Two. Based on the success rate of the pioneer Linus program, the ministry continuedthe second cycle of this program, called LINUS 2.0. However, looking at percentages alone is insufficient. According to Topkaya (2010), a constant cycle of planning, implementation and evaluation is a prerequisite to a teaching program that is up-to-date with the changes in developing society and nation (p.52). In order to truly ascertain that a program has been successfully implemented, we must look into other aspects of the program besides the programs outcomes. For example, not only is it important to analyse students achievement in the screening test, we also need to look at the extent that theprogram objectives are achieved, whether the program caters to the needs of the teachers and the learners, how well-prepared the teachers are in carrying out the program, and how successful the overall implementation of the program is. For this, we need to perform a case study on how a Malaysian primary school implements LINUS and to what extent pupils benefited from the program.1.1 Background of the ProblemOne of the aims of the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE) is to eradicate illiteracy and dropout cases among young learners in school. In 2008, it was discovered through the KIA2M screening tests that 54,000 Year One pupils did not have basic literacy skills. In the same year, 117,000 Year Four pupils did not have basic literacy skills through the PROTIM screening tests. Meanwhile, there were 31,939 dropout cases in 2008 alone(PEMANDU, undated). These statistics areproof that drastic measures are required to overcome this issue. The priority to combat illiteracy at the early stages of schooling is high because it is reported that pupils whodrop out of schools have difficulties coping with the syllabus due to the lack of basic literacy skills (Economic Planning Unit, 2010). Illiteracy is seen as a real problem as it may affect the childrens future in the long run. For example, three Year 6 pupils were barred from taking their Primary School Assessment Test (UPSR) due to their weak academic performance("Action to be taken against school", 2011). This is a serious implication as the Year 6 assessment is one of the three national assessments that is mandatory to Malaysian students. Moreover, the Defence Minister of Malaysia, Abdul Latiff Ahmad revealed that 1,000 out of 11,000 national service training recruits (PLKN) were illiterate in2011 ("Special module for national service trainees", 2011). It is incredulous that youths should be illiterate even after going through eleven years of formal schooling. Hence, tackling the problem through the LINUS program whenthe children have just entered primary school is seen as a potentially effective move. Even UNESCO (2015) recognises the impact of LINUS and recommends its continuation. However, UNESCO (2015) warns that Malaysias utmost challenge lies in improving the professional development of teachers, along with monitoring and evaluating the implementation of its educational policies. This has thus formed the basis for the statement of the problem for this study. 1.2 Problem Statement

The challenge of implementing LINUS emerges when there is pressure to achieve the Key Performance Index (KPI) stipulated by the MOE. According to Amar-Singh (2013), in order to achieve the KPI of learners being fully literate by Year 3, there have been cases whereby teachers have been unloading children with learning disabilities to Special Education classes (p.9). This move is due to the fact that the achievement of KPI is linked to career advancement and learners who are diagnosed as special needs or OKU pupils are exempted from mainstream education. The president of Parent Action Group for Education Malaysia (PAGE) also complainsof the flawed implementation of LINUS as a number of unethical teachers had manipulated pupils results for the sake of achieving KPIs (ASLI-CPPS, 2012).Table 1: Number and percentage of Year 1 and Year 2 pupils based on the September, 2014 LINUS screening testGrade/DarjahSpecial Needs

LINUS TegarLINUSAchievedTotal No. of Pupils

f%f%f%f%

1--103.5312644.5214751.94283

210.3631.093813.8223384.73275

This pressure has also affected how LINUS is being implemented in a national primary school in Selangor. As can be seen in Table 1, by the end of the academic session in 2014, the school has identified 126 LINUS and 10 LINUS Tegar pupils in Year 1 while there are 38 LINUS and 3 LINUS Tegar pupils in Year 2.The school is considered one of the critical schools in the district due to this. The pressure escalates as the MOE expects the passing rate of 83% for Year 2 pupils and 100% for Year 3 pupils by the end of 2015. Therefore, teachers are expected to push the percentage of Year 1 pupils from 51.94% to 83% and Year 2 pupils from 84.75% to 100% in just the span of one year. This has caused significant stress on teachers and the school which resulted in teachers to teach to the test. Indirectly, this has caused teachers to diverge from the main objective of LINUS, which is to help learners overcome illiteracy. Aside from the pressure, multiple case studies conducted by Nazariyah and Abdul Rahman (2013) in four primary schools in Hulu Langat reveal that although headmasters in the school are supportive of the LINUS program, they list four poignant problems that hinder the success of LINUS, namely:1. ineffective dissemination of information regarding LINUS2. lack of qualified teachers and technology3. miscommunication between the MOE, state education department (JPN), district education department (PPD) and the schools 4. social, economic and political factorsThis is an indication that although the statistics show that there is an increment of percentages of pupils passing the LINUS test at national level; there are still problematic areas in implementation that need to be addressed. This is especially evident in schools which are located in suburban and rural areas in Selangor. Hence, the problems of implementation must be rectified at school level. 1.3 Purpose of the StudyIt is my personal belief that case studies should be conducted in a national primary school in order to monitor the implementation of the LINUS program and improve at micro level. Mackay (1994) proposes that school staff of every level should take responsibility and ownership on reviewing their implementation of language programs in the school so that there would be less interference from the bureaucracy, whose approaches in program evaluation may not suit the teaching context of teachers. Although it seems idealistic, schools should not merely wait for input from district officers. Schools should be able to identify their strengths and weaknesses through transparent and systematic methods. Therefore, this research attempts to emulate the idea aforesaid. This research is conducted among teachers and those who are directly involved with the implementation of LINUS 2.0 in a primary national school in Selangor, Malaysia. The purpose of the case study is to conduct a program evaluation in order to thoroughly evaluate the impact of the LINUS 2.0 programme in the school being investigated. The research aims: 1. to assess, through various data collection methods such as document analysis, interviews, and classroom observations the effectiveness of this programme on pupils who have been involved with the programme since 2013. 2. to identify the extent the program has helped to develop basic literacy skills among pupils and how much these pupils have improved under the program. 3. to investigate whether the instructional methods used in the classroom conform to the learning objectives, learning activities and learning outcomes as stipulated by the MOE, Malaysia. Procedural barriers, unintended outcomes, unanticipated issues that may arise will also be identified. 1.4 Research QuestionsThis research will attempt to answer the following research questions:1. What are the outcomes of the LINUS programme after 3 years of implementation in a Malaysian primary school? 2. To what extent has the LINUS programme achieved its programme objectives?3. What suggestions might be recommended for further improvement? 1.5 Overview of MethodologyThis research uses the case study approach in data collection. Quantitative data is sourced from pupils LINUS screening tests results. Qualitative data will be collected from various sources such as semi-structured interviews, classroom observations and samples of pupils work. Convenience sampling will be used to determine the teachers, and LINUS district officer (FasiLINUS) as suitable participants for the study. Meanwhile, stratified purposeful sampling is used to select pupils work for document analysis. Data gathering instruments such as the semi-structured interview questions and observation checklists are generated by the researcher based on the LINUS workshops attended, official documents related to LINUS and input from the FasiLINUS. Further details of data collection procedure, validation process and ethical considerations will be further elaborated in Chapter 3. 1.6Rationale and SignificanceThis research can be an example for schools to conduct their own case studies in order to gauge the programs impact and success of its implementation in a specific context. Also, this research would benefit the English department of the school under study. Teachers may want to adopt this evaluation model for other educational programmes implemented to ensure a smoother implementation.

2. Literature ReviewThis chapter is divided into four main subcategories which will discuss previous and current research related to the topic being investigated namely;a) definition of terms which will explain and define the parameters of terminologies used within this research,b) a description of literacy learning difficulties and how pupils are affected by them, c) early literacy skills which is the prerequisite skills young learners acquire that is pivotal to the development of their language proficiency,d) a critical review of remedial programs conducted in several developed and developing countries.2.1 Definition of termsThe following section defines the following terms within the parameters of this study. 2.1.1 LiteracyGenerally, literacy encompasses the early acquisition of listening, reading and writing skills(Usha, Karunanidhi, & Nirmala, 2014). According to the LINUS 2.0 manual, literacy is defined as:a) Able to communicate with peers and adults appropriatelyb) Able to read and comprehend simple texts and stories c) Able to write a range of texts through a variety of media (MOE, 2015, p. 2)Nonetheless, a more accurate and comprehensive definition of literacy is given by the Department of Education and Skills. According to them, literacy includes the capacity to read, understand and critically appreciate various forms of communication including spoken language, printed text, broadcast media, and digital media (DES, 2011, p. 8). This is especially true as the advent of technology exposes children to diverse forms of oral and written text. Hence, current perspectives of literacy instruction should be geared towards helping learners to not only acquire literacy skills, but also to be able to apply these skills in their daily lives.2.1.2 Early literacy skillsWhile literacy is related to the acquisition of language skills for reading, understanding and appreciating diverse forms of oral and written text, early literacy is greatly related to how children acquire literacy and develop as readers and writers (Ng & Yeo, 2012, p. 2). According to the National Institute For Literacy (2009), children are already aware of some mechanics of oral and written language before they receive formal education. These skills are the keys to which help learners to develop and unlock more complex literacy skills when they reach schooling age. Specifically, early literacy is the acquisition of three main content; oral language comprehension, phonological awareness and print knowledge (National Early Literacy Panel , 2008; see also Nag, Chiat, Torgerson, & Snowling, 2014; National Institute For Literacy , 2009; Roskos, Christie, & Richgels, 2003; Slavin, Lake, Chambers, Cheung, & Davis, 2010). 2.1.3 Remedial interventionGrubb et al. (1999) defines remedial intervention as a class or activity intended to meet the needs of students who initially do not have the skills, experience or orientation necessary to perform at a level that the institution or instructions recognise as regular for those students (p.174). This definition stresses on the certain standards that has been established by educational institutions and if these minimal requirements are not met by the pupils, then they must be provided with a different set of instruction to help them achieve those standards. Another definition by Bipoupout (2007) is "any teaching action that is conducted outside the normal routine and which aims to improve pupils school performance" (p.212). As the context of this research revolves around primary school pupils who are struggling with reading and writing, the following definition of remedial instruction will be used. Remedial instruction is the on-going process of teaching outside the normal classroom routine to help boost learners school performance to the minimal requirements as established by the school.2.2 Issues related to literacy learning and instructionDifficulties in literacy learning should be addressed because of the long-term effects it poses towards learners performance throughout their schooling experience. Melekoglu and Wilkerson (2012) believe that if not promptly remedied, it can affect learners until they enter tertiary education. It is believed that problems that occur among children with low literacy level has always been linked with their ethnic, socioeconomic and linguistic background that causes them to receive less exposure to print and language input (Gonzalez et al., 2011). Similarly, a review of researches on English language learners (ELL) in the US highlights several issues that they face when learning English (August, 2003). Problems range from different sound and alphabet systems between learners mother tongue and target language, learners lack of vocabulary, to the inability to grasp target languages grammatical structure. With regards to bilingual and foreign language learners, research has proven that different languages affect language teaching, learning and assessment (Nag & Snowling, 2012). Meanwhile, using the context of teaching literacy in Ireland, the issues revolve around time constraint, low emphasis of meaningful and authentic language instruction, differentiation in instruction, continuity between literacy programs and curriculum, assessment tools, and professional development (DES, 2011). Hence, the following subsections will discuss the importance of literacy development, characteristics of poor literacy learners, language barriers that impede literacy teaching, learning environment, and conventional assessment practices.2.2.1 Importance of literacy developmentAccording to Gova and Cvelich (2011), there is a reciprocal relationship between the quality of education and the economic growth of a nation. They explain that there is a correlation between dropout rates caused by illiteracy and the quality of workforce. This view is also supported by the United States Agency International Development (2012), quoting that 10% of learners who achieve basic literacy is equivalent to an increment of 0.3% of a nations economic growth (p.6). The rationale for this is simple. It is believed that the development of language skills in children mutually support one another (Kennedy, et al., 2012). Due to this, they further explain that the learning process is so fragile that any difficulty that arises in the process of acquiring a language skill may create a domino effect that hampers the development of other language skills. For example, pupils who have problems with reading will face further problems in learning other subjects and writing as the demand for comprehension increases. Hence, Gova & Cvelich (2011) warn that if policy makers are not quick to act on learners especially at the most critical stage of acquiring literacy, the cost and resources for remediation will escalate as they become older. The first logical step would be to diagnose and identify these learners from their more-able peers. 2.1.1 Characteristics of learnersOkebukola (2006) describes pupils who have dropped out of schools with neither English nor their mother tongue in their repertoire possess the following characteristics: poor decoding skills the inability to read strategically and actively poor spelling weak vocabulary too few reading opportunities outside the school poor motivation, lack of confidence or behaviour all stemming from experiencing too much reading failure (p. 134) Similarly, Hollohan (2012) described that,a struggling reader is normally someone who reads slowly or inaccurately, usually both. Struggling readers often spell words incorrectly and omit words from a story. They also have difficulty comprehending the meaning of a story. Struggling readers get easily frustrated and feel inadequate when they cannot read and keep up to their classmates. Reading for these children becomes a chore and learning is stalled due to a negative attitude (p.12). These characteristics indicate the lack of early literacy skills which are pivotal to the development of learners language proficiency. This in turn causes learners to feel frustrated and de-motivated in learning. For example, statistics revealed that around 50% to 75% of pupils who have dropped out of school suffer from low motivation and self-esteem due to poor literacy (Lancashire County Council, 2015).Despite this, Alvarez, Amstrong, Elish-Piper, and Risko (2009) mentioned that all hope is not lost as these characteristics are situational and not embedded into learners attitude. They reassured that with the right teaching strategies and assessment which build on learners prior knowledge and passion, the situation is still salvageable. Hence, there is a need for a diagnostic literacy test that is comprehensive and able to detect specific literacy difficulties in learners. Moreover, an emphasis on early literacy skills from the commencement of formal instruction is highly recommended in order to enable learners to develop a stronger foundation in literacy development. 2.1.2 Language barriersSince the push for early literacy skills was first highlighted by the National Early Literacy Panel (2008) in the United States and focused mainly on native English language learners, we have to take into considerations how this can be successfully applied to bilingual learners and ELLs. We have to consider the different contexts and language backgrounds learners came from. For example, The situation for many children entering school in developing countries is typically more complex, with children exposed to one or more indigenous languages as well as a national and/or post-colonial language, and potentially arriving at school with limited or no experience of the language of instruction (Nag, et al., 2014, p. 11). In Malaysia, children of different races have to learn Bahasa Malaysia as the language of instruction in school, in addition to English as a compulsory subject. In the context of the school being investigated, pupils are all Malay so they have to learn both their mother tongue (Bahasa Malaysia) and English when they enrol into school. However, problems arise when there are differences in writing system between learners mother tongue and English. The complexity of a language affects the pace of learners in attaining fluency in reading (Gova & Cvelich, 2011, p. 6). According to Nag and Snowling (2012), any attempt at making comparisons about symbol learning across the two types of writing systems is therefore not straightforward. And, as can be expected, when symbol learning demands are different, there is a knock on effect on how word reading, spelling, reading comprehension and expressive writing are developed within each system (p.10).This means that if the alphabet characteristics of the target language are different from the alphabet characteristics of the learners mother tongue, the approach to teaching the target language has to be modified in order to make these differences more explicit to learners. Nag and Snowling (2011) mentioned that language systems which are transparent would pose lessproblems to learners as the symbols would be easily acquired in the span of a year. However, Nag, et al. (2014) warned that the rate of reading and spelling acquisition would be affected by languages, whereby its symbols do not correlate with its sounds such as English, as compared to languages that are more transparent such as Spanish, Finish and German (p.16). This would explain why learners may be struggling with English even when they are in Year 1 and Year 2 as the pronunciation rules for English are more complex and unpredictable when compared to learning Bahasa Malaysia. Therefore, understanding the writing system of the target language would enable researchers to recommend specific predictors of literacy skills for a specific language.

It is believed that instruction in a foreign language poses an adverse effect on learners development in reading and writing skills(Usha, et al., 2014). This may be caused by poorly-planned language programs that are not based on early literacy skills instruction (United States Agency International Development, 2012). Nag and Snowling (2012) commented that it is difficult for children to attain reading comprehension skills in a foreign language, especially when they are taught in a language that they have yet mastered. This would not only challenge learners cognitively, but at the same time affect their confidence and sense of identity (Bartlett, 2010, p. 20). According to the United States Agency International Development (2012), it is recommended that students should not transition to reading instruction in a second language until they are solid readers in a language they understand and have oral language competency in the new language (p.7).Gova and Clevich (2011) explained that children are already aware of the vocabulary and phonemic awareness in their mother tongue which can be transferred to the learning of a foreign or a second language. However, the teaching policy in certain countries do not encourage consolidation of the mother tongue and foreign or second language teaching, hence rendering language teaching difficult as learners are unable to tap into their prior knowledge (Gova & Cvelich, 2011). In the context of the school being investigated, teachers are encouraged to use only English in lessons and to avoid the use of Bahasa Malaysia as much as possible. This practice has been verbally enforced through routine school visits and classroom observations by the district officers and FasiLINUS. 2.1.3 Learning environmentIt is reported that school settings in low to middle-income countries differ in terms of language teaching policy, provision of facilities and materials, class size and assessment from schools in high-income countries(Nag & Snowling, 2012). Bartlett (2010) cited large classrooms, inadequate facilities and materials, and fewer hours of instructions as the main differences. Research has shown that disadvantaged schools especially in low-income countries place a higher emphasis on basic skills over meaningful and authentic language practice (Rasinki, Homan, & Biggs, 2008). However, it is unfair to make such direct comparisons between the implementation of literacy teaching as both teaching contexts are completely different (Kennedy, et al., 2012). As mentioned in the subsection above, in low-income to developing countries, learners come from a complicated language background and sometimes may not be exposed to the target language in primary school. Their progress cannot be compared to the progress of native speakers of English. Thus, it is more practical to focus on basic skills until learners have mastered sufficient level of language proficiency.

Another common dilemma faced by teachers is handling classes with large number of pupils with different levels of language proficiency. J-PAL (2009) reported that large class sizes implicate that more effort is required from the teacher to coordinate the lesson. This compromises the time to address the needs of every pupils especially when remedial pupils require more attention. Usha, et al. (2014) suggested that class sizes should be reduced in order to increase the quality of interaction and contact ratio between teachers and learners.

Meanwhile, Gova and Clevich (2011) lamented that the conventional paper-and-pencil tests that are implemented in low-income countries are not effective in pinpointing the strengths and weaknesses in learners literacy level (p.19). Tests should not be set at a high level as this will fail to identify problem areas or conversely measure any progress among weak pupils(United States Agency International Development, 2012). Due to this, they claimed that teachers are unable to gather enough information to improve their instruction for individual learners.2.3 Early Literacy SkillsIn order to ensure the success of literacy instruction, we have to understand how children acquire language. In brief, Gova and Clevich (2011) explained that learners learn by first identifying the letters; second, letter sounds; third, spelling and pronunciation of the word; then, meaning of the word; and finally, reading and understanding sentences. According to the National Institute For Literacy (2009), children are already aware of some mechanic of oral and written language before they receive formal education. These skills are the keys to help learners to develop and unlock more complex literacy skills when they reach schooling age. According to the National Early Literacy Panel (2008), there are several key predictors that are recognised for reading and school success. Their findings revealed that learners should be able to grasp basic literacy skills such as alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid autonomic naming of letters and numbers, rapid autonomic naming of objects and colours, writing and phonological memory. In a later publication, the National Institute For Literacy (2009) adds print concept, print knowledge, reading readiness, oral language and visual processing to the existing list of key predictors. Their findings and key predictors are currently used extensively in early development programs internationally, from diagnosing children, to teaching early literacy skills and finally for assessment purposes. In practice, it is suggested that teaching and learning activities should be tailored to achieve the following goals: learn the names of the letter-shapes in the alphabet and the sounds the letters made be aware of sounds in language and provide opportunities to practice manipulating sounds remember spoken information develop oral language understand how print works ( National Institute For Literacy , 2009, pp. 10-11).There are four components that should be integrated into the language classroom which are code-focused skills, print awareness, oral language and writing. 2.3.1 Code-focused skillsCode-focused instruction targets the ability to decode sounds and letters through phonological awareness, phonics and alphabet knowledge. Phonological awareness refers to the ability to understand and manipulate the unit of sounds in a language (EURYDICE, 2011). Generally, knowledge in phonology is directly associated with the success of reading due to two reasons. "Writing systems directly represent phonology" and "the segmental units in spoken sounds become better represented because the symbols are visual representations of phonological units"(Nag & Snowling, 2012, p. 17). For example, learners identify that the letter a in the alphabet makes the /a/ sound. Once they know all the sounds that the alphabets represent, they can blend the sounds together to form words. At the most basic level, when learners see words such as cat, they can make the association that the sounds /c/, /a/ and /t/ sound out as cat. Then as learners progress they can move on to analysingsounds and using word families to pronounce more difficult words. This method of identifying and blending of sounds is commonly referred to as the systematic phonics instruction. EURYDICE (2011) and Lancashire County Council (2015), lauded the use of systematic phonics instruction as great improvement can be seen in pupils word recognition and spelling skills. Although there are opponents to this method of teaching as it does not help learners understand meaning of words, this method is not the sole method for early literacy skills and is not meant to be taught in isolation (Lancashire County Council, 2015). 2.3.2 Print awarenessPrint awareness is the teaching of various types of elements and conventions of written materials. Here, the National Institute For Literacy (2009) also stressed that vocabulary must be taught concurrently with grammar and not in isolation. According to EURYDICE (2011), it is insufficient to teach only the meanings of words alone. What is more important is to help learners develop higher order thinking skills to the point of being able to understand words in different contexts. Vocabulary must be taught in context and as such Kennedy, et al. (2012) suggested teachers to use storybooks and discussions to engage learners. 2.3.3 Oral languageOral language is the ability to produce and comprehend spoken language (NELP, 2008, p.43). They encourage the provision of opportunities for children to speak though play and authentic conversations. Teachers should not underestimate the teaching of oral language skills as they are useful for decoding words, making meaning of texts, and expressive writing (Nag & Snowling, 2012, p. 12). Nag and Snowling (2012) further elaborated the benefit of teaching oral language skills to strengthen reading comprehension as it helps learners to obtain information from written text. Also, fluency is an important aspect in any reading instruction as it is directly correlated to reading comprehension (Rasinki, et al., 2008). When learners have mastered the technical aspects of de-coding and are more fluent in reading, they would able to use their cognitive ability to focus on reading comprehension (EURYDICE, 2011).2.3.4 WritingAs for writing, teachers should introduce the mechanics of writing in childrens work so that learners can relate easier (Kennedy, et al., 2012). At the early stages, this can be introduced in the form of symbolic drawings from play and social interaction(Kennedy, et al., 2012). Then, teachers can gradually move on to writing process approach to help learners express their thoughts and ideas.Hence, teachers should understand this process and adapt their classroom practices in order to accelerate learning progress. 2. 4 Remedial InstructionRemedial programs generally follow this route:First, the subjects are targeted at low achievement learners, or under-prepared students. After the teacher diagnoses students learning difficulties, a remedial course will be designed in accordance with students needs. And then the teacher takes initiative in offering the instruction, and an evaluation will be conducted during and after the implementation of the remedial instruction to examine the actual effectiveness of the course. Minor adjustments would be made based on the results of the evaluation to ensure that students are able to catch up in regular classes (Mazen, 2011, p.17-18). Remedial programs are hence essential to ensure that every pupil is given equal opportunity in quality education. However, different countries have different language policies and approaches in providing remediation. This depends on the perception of English, curriculum, length of the program, budget, staff, materials and resources, and support provided. The following literature review looks at various remedial programs for primary school children being implemented in different context. The strength and weaknesses of the programs will be discussed and this information will be able to inform how this can be applied in the study.Bartlett (2010) summarises the following seven criteria for the success of a remedial program in low-income countries. These include community-based knowledge and experience; program models of proven high quality; supportive work environments for teachers; flexible training for teachers; ensuring that government is supportive, financially engaged and able to take leadership; multidisciplinary research, especially longitudinal studies; and mobilization of the public and of policymakers (p.10).2.4.1 Reading Recovery, United StatesAn investigation on the effects of a literacy intervention program called Reading Recovery in New York, United States showed that the program has helped all pupils of different English backgrounds to catch up in their first grade of schooling (Ashdown & Simic, 2000). Reading Recovery is a remedial reading program, whereby at-risk ELL and native speakers of English are given individual tutoring for 30 minutes daily by specially trained teachers for a period of 16 to 20 weeks. Interestingly, ESL pupils were ranked to progress the fastest compared to native speakers and limited English pupils. This phenomenon proves that ELL learners have great potential if proper attention and guidance is given. 2.4.2 CanadaAccording to Roessingh & Elgie (2009), children exposed to bilingual experiences often show heightened phonemic awareness and can outperform their unilingual counterparts on these measures predictive of early literacy success (p.31-32). They believe that a systematic approach incorporating consistent evaluation for early literacy skills such as phonics can help learners to be successful readers. A longitudinal research conducted by Roessingh & Elgie (2009) shows that through early literacy intervention focusing on phonemic awareness, letter recognition, phonics and emergent reading skills, ELL pupils can consistently achieve proficiency level similar to their native speaker counterparts. However, this effect only last until Grade 5 and 6, whereby the same ELL pupils would hit a plateau and tend to stumble over activities that require more complex literacy skills such as story-telling. Apparently, their choice of vocabulary is limited compared to native speaking children who are using more expressive and creative with word choice. Roessingh & Elgie (2009) proposed that early literacy must also take vocabulary development into consideration as learners should learn beyond the list of high-frequency words and to use a wide-range of words in a creative and meaningful way. Hence, it is suggested that the role of intervention must extend beyond helping learners to catch up to the point they are fully proficient in the language.2.4.3 ZimbabweNdebele (2014) investigated the effectiveness of a remedial program in primary schools in Zimbabwe. The program was implemented at national level which was supervised by the Ministry of Education. The program focused on providing one-to-one instruction to pupils who did not pass the diagnostic test in Grade 4 so that they would be able to pass the national Grade 7 examination. The diagnostic test aimed to identify pupils who have not mastered basic literacy skills taught from Grade 1 to Grade 3. This approach is different from the LINUS 2.0 whereby pupils are already diagnosed at the age of 7. The programs objective was purely to support pupils for the purpose of passing the national examination. Pupils who were identified as at-risk would be given 30 minutes of individualised lessons by a remedial teacher in the afternoon during co-curricular activities twice a week. Pupils would remain in the program from six months to two years depending on the pupils progress. The investigation reported disappointing results due to poorly trained remedial teachers, no continuity of learning content between mainstream and remedial education, poorly-motivated pupils, inadequate teaching materials and lack of monitoring from authorities on the program. An implication from this research shows that a poorly planned program with low funding from authorities can affect programs implementation at school level. 2.4.4 Balsakhi Program, Mumbai, IndiaHowever, in the case of Mumbai, India, the remedial program called the Balsakhi Program was found to be effective even though the cost of the program was minimal. In contrast with the remedial program in Zimbabwe, this program was organised by a non-governmental organisation (NGO) called Pratham and not by governmental organisations. A balsakhi is a remedial instructor who was hired to teach a group of 15-20 weak pupils for 2 hours a day. Although balsakhis received only two weeks of training and subsequent follow-ups by NGO staff, pupils results improved by the end of the school year. Banerjee, Cole, Duflo, & Linden (2007) suggested two reasons for the success of this program; one, mainstream teachers are busy and could not provide special attention to weak pupils; and two, pupils could relate to the balsakhis better than their teachers due to their similarity in socio-economic background. This program showed that funding does not play an important role in the success of program implementation, but the presence of a separate remedial teacher made a difference in lowering teachers workload. Also teachers must play a role in understanding learners background to keep them motivated in learning. 2.4.5 Vacation Reading Program, NigeriaVacation reading program was also reported to be successful in Nigeria. The program was held during the school holidays in order to help weak learners catch up before the next school semester. It was reported that the programs success was due to the teaching instruction that used various activties to promote literacy development for different levels of learners(Udosen, Udofia, Ekukinam, & Akpan, 2010). Story-telling, picture reading, songs, quizes, shared reading, were used for beginning readers while dialogic reading, text-talk and print referencing were used for older pupils. The research also cited that because pupils did not have to be removed from their classes for the program, children did not feel stigmatised and labelled as weak. This retained their motivation level to learn because of the safe and fun environment of learning. As this program was only conducted in one state in Nigeria, considerations must be made on how this type of program can be implemented at a national level especially in terms of funding and staff. The small experimental research showed that teaching instruction that is rich in interactive and meaningful activities help improve learners motivation to learn and promote reading habits among weak learners.2.4.6 Competency-based approach, CameroonInstead of focusing on only providing remediation during school holidays, another successful program in Cameroon placed emphasis on competency-based approach (Bipoupout, 2007). Learners had to master minimum literacy standards that are outlined in the curriculum. The main goal was to lower repetition rates and poor performance in examinations. Three main stages of remediation are explained in the review. The first stage was called remedial compensatory teaching at the beginning of the academic year, whereby learners who were diagnosed were given remediation so that they could cope with the current years curriculum. The second stage was called continually adjusted compensatory teaching, which was spread throughout the year; whereby learners would be provided with remediation instruction and continually evaluated to monitor their progress. Third and final stage of remediation was called compensatory education for certification and promotion, which was an intensive program for learners who would be sitting for their primary national examination. Therefore, remediation should not only focused for beginning readers but is a continuous program throughout primary education. 2.4.7 Literature review in Australia, New Zealand and United StatesA literature review was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of literacy and numeracy intervention programs for kindergarten to 3rd grade education in Australia, New Zealand and the USA (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2013). They highlighted some recommendations for school administrators to collect evidence of effective interventions namely: Criteria for supporting an intervention Documenting the use and impact for interventions School literacy and numeracy improvement plans Evaluation plan for new or expanded interventions Consistent and comprehensive costing data Strengthening the knowledge base (p. xiv-xv)The review investigated reading and writing intervention for three different needs, mainstream education, at-risk pupils and high-risk pupils. The review found that consistently implemented interventions, meticulously planned reading and writing lessons, careful selection of materials, assessment, and strong focus on professional development were among the key criteria for the effectiveness of the programs. 2.5 Summary of chapterThis chapter had covered issues related to childrens difficulty in attaining literacy, the process of childrens early literacy developmentand the challenges in conducting remedial education in different contexts. The issues discussed would contribute to the methodology and research design which is elaborated in the following chapter.

3. Methodological and Research DesignThis section outlines the research design which was used to answer the following research questions as stated in Chapter 1:1. What are the outcomes of the LINUS programme after 3 years of implementation in a Malaysian primary school? 2. To what extent has the LINUS programme achieved its programme objectives?3. What suggestions might be recommended for further improvement? Section 3.1 addresses the research paradigm and philosophy that shaped the methodological framework of this research. Section 3.2 elaborates on the research design which is the case study method and the rationale for choosing such a design for the research. Section 3.3 describes the samples and the sampling method used. Section 3.4 explains the data collection method while Section 3.5 describes the types of data gathering instruments used in the research and how they were generated. Data collection procedures are outlined in Section 3.6 while Section 3.7 justifies how validity and reliability were achieved. Section 3.8 explains how the data were analysed. Finally, Section 3.9 explains the measures taken to ensure that the research complied with the ethical practices of research. 3.1 Methodological FrameworkAccording to(Robson, 2002), methodology refers to the sampling strategies, measurement instruments, comparisons, statistical techniques, and other procedures that produce research evidence (p. 4). This means that the researcher should be guided by an underlying research theory for every decision and procedure in the investigation. In this section, the research philosophy, research paradigm and research approach that shaped the methodological framework will be discussed.Research philosophy determines how a research should be executed by considering the aspects of ontology, epistemology and axiology. Ontology relates to how knowledge is being investigated and whether the investigation is objective or subjective. In contrast, epistemology is related to how knowledge is understood, while axiology deals with the value of the research(Kiely & Rea-Dickins, 2005). These aspects help shaped the many research paradigms that are available today. A research paradigm is a perspective about research held by a community of researchers that is based on a set of shared assumptions, concepts values and practices(Johnson & Christensen, 2013, p. 31). This research takes the view of the constructivist which is also known as the naturalistic approach. In terms of ontology, the constructivist paradigm views reality as not absolute (Bhola, 1990). In fact, it is subjected to ones interpretation as it is a social construction (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Bhola, 1990). Stufflebeam and Coryn (2014) added that knowledge (is) to be gained as one or more social-psychological constructions that are uncertifiable, often multiple, and constantly problematic and changing (p.197). As such, with truth being multi-dimensional and unpredictable, it affects the way research is conducted. Epistemologically, the constructivist paradigm is interpretivist, suggesting that human behavior be studied as it naturally occurs, in natural settings, and within its total context (Bhola, 1990, p. 29). The interpretivist researcher views research as a truly unique relationship between the researcher and the participants. This researcher attempts to stand in their (participants) shoes, look through their (participants) eyes and feel their (participants) pleasure or pain (Taylor & Medina, 2013). Hence, interpretivism rejects objectivity but accepts the tenets of subjectivity. This research leaned more towards qualitative research as it was more important for the researcher to investigate the experiences and the different perspectives involved in the implementation of LINUS in the school being investigated.3.2 Research DesignThe case study method was the preferred method for this research. According to Yin (2003), the case study method investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context (p. 13). It allowed the researcher to paint a picture of the context being investigated by answering the hows and the whys to explain the phenomenon occurred (Europe Aid Cooperation Office, 2005). This method is particularly useful in answering concerns related to the implementation of a specific program (Davey, 1991). In the context of this research, this method would significantly bridge the gap between what is required from the Ministry of Education and what goes on in schools during its implementation. This method is based on three principles, "the use of multiple sources of data, the creation of a case study database and the maintenance of a chain of evidence"(Yin, 2003, p. 85). This is the strength of the method as multiple sources and techniques of research are systematically combined to answer the research question. The triangulation of data ensures that findings from these sources validate each other (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). This method is flexible as the research may be modified when new perspectives or anomalies arise as long as the changes are documented (Soy, 2006). However, according to Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2011), its strengths are also its weaknesses as the case is so context specific that it cannot be generalized to other cases. Moreover, extensive care must be taken to ensure that the research is reliable as it is prone to researcher bias (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011). Hence, careful considerations must be made in choosing data collection instruments and data collection procedures to ensure the validity and reliability of the data. This will be discussed further in Section 3.7. 3.3 Participant and Sampling MethodThe naturalistic paradigm of research dictates that sampling should be purposeful rather than random(Bhola, 1990). The sampling method chosen for this research was convenience sampling. Convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling technique where subjects are selected because of their convenient accessibility and proximity to the researcher(Explorable.com, 2015). The school being investigated is a primary national school in Selangor. The school being investigated was chosen because the researcher is directly involved with the LINUS 2.0 program as the LINUS coordinator. The LINUS coordinator is elected among the English teachers in the school to be responsible for ensuring smooth implementation of the program. The researcher is also currently the schools head of English department. Hence, the participants of this study were those directly involved with the researcher and the implementation of LINUS 2.0 in this particular school. 3.3.1 FasiLINUSThe FasiLINUS is a district officer who was elected to monitor the implementation of LINUS in schools within the jurisdiction of the district. The job scope includes disseminating information about LINUS to schools, organising workshops, visiting schools for meetings and field observations, providing assistance and teaching ideas to teachers and collecting data about LINUS. Hence, the FasiLINUS can be a source of information from an outsiders point of view on the schools progress.3.3.2 Lower Primary TeachersThere are a total of 8 English teachers teaching Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 in this school including the researcher. Aside from teaching the main syllabus, teachers themselves conduct screening tests on pupils twice a year in March-April and September-October. They are to record and identify LINUS and LINUS Tegar pupils in the classes that they are teaching. Teachers who have LINUS and LINUS Tegar pupils in their classes would be given an additional LINUS module and teachers guide book. These teachers have to provide differentiation in activities for non-LINUS pupils and LINUS pupils. Seven of these teachers were interviewed and several classroom observations were conducted to monitor how classes and screening tests are conducted. 3.3.3 PupilsMeanwhile, stratified purposeful sampling of the following categories of the pupils was chosen to participate in the research: a pupil who is categorised as LINUS, a pupil who is categorised as LINUS Tegar, and a LINUS pupil who has been reintroduced into mainstream education. These pupils results and work sample would be collected for document analysis. Stratified purposeful sampling is used to capture major variations rather than a common core (Patton, 2002, p. 240). 3.4 Data Collection MethodThree types of data collection methods were used in this research. All three methods, interview, classroom observation and document analysis were mainly qualitative. However, document analysis related to pupils results will contain elements of quantitative method. The following subsections will justify the use of interview, classroom observation and document analysis. 3.4.1 InterviewAccording to McDonough and McDonough (1997), interviews enabled the researcher to gain perspectives from respondents which cannot be acquired through quantitative methods such as questionnaires. Dowling and Brown (2010) mentioned that interviews allowed an in-depth investigation of an issue through prompting and probing respondents for clarifications of their actions. Interviews will be a useful method in identifying the gaps in the implementation of the LINUS 2.0 program. However, Dowling and Brown (2010) also mentioned that interviews can be time-consuming and difficult to analyse. Hence, there must a systematic approach in data collection procedure and data analysis in order to save time and to avoid bias. This will be discussed further in section 3.7 and 3.8. 3.4.2 Classroom ObservationClassroom observations allowed the researcher to gain insight into what went on in the classroom during the LINUS assessment and the remedial lessons. An observation checklist was used to help the researcher note the teaching activities that had been used. This informed the researcher how and to what extent teachers carry out the LINUS 2.0 program in their classroom. Non-participatory classroom observation was used as the researcher was interested in how teachers conducted the classes in their natural setting. Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) explained that the researcher should only observe and not manipulate any variable or activity during such observation (p.450). Hence, it is very important that the researcher should be as unobtrusive as possible. It is very important that observer effect was minimalized as much as possible especially when teachers may be nervous and children would possibly be distracted by the presence of the researcher during the observation. Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) suggested two steps to lessen this effect. First, the researcher should enter the classroom several times prior the actual observation session in order to have the participants get accustomed to being observed. Second, the researcher should not reveal the observation criteria to the teachers. By doing so, the researcher would be able to observe the classroom without the teachers modifying their behaviour. 3.4.3 Document AnalysisDocument analysis is a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents- both printed and electronic (computer-based and Internet-transmitted) material(Bowen, 2009, p. 27). Bowen (2009) recommended document analysis as it coincides with the constructivist approach in research and it is useful for triangulating data. Document analysis in the form of pupils results and homework samples were used to help the researcher analyse their progress and in what areas they have improved or require further attention. The issue with document analysis however, lies in the difficulty in procuring certain documents. Dowling and Brown (2010) highlighted this issue, The producers of information may be in no position to give consent to its recycling as research. Considerations then, must be given to anonymity... Schools, for example, keep much information that has a limited circulation and some that is highly confidential. Researchers have to consider carefully whether such information should be used at all, and if it is, how it should be treated and represented (p.71). The schools and districts identity had to be kept anonymous for this reason. The researcher had to conduct consistent checks with the school administrative department and procure permission to use any document for the research. School and parental consent were obtained especially for documents that were related to pupils results and their homework. 3.5 Data Collection InstrumentsData collection instruments that were used in this research were semi-structured interview questions and observation checklists. This section details the process of generating and testing the data collection instruments. 3.5.1 Semi-Structured InterviewsSemi-structured interview was preferred because it is, designed to elicit specific answers from respondents. Often they can be used for obtaining information that can later be compared and contrasted(Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006, p. 455). The semi-structured interview is advantageous as it allows the interviewer to be in control and at the same time puts the interviewee at ease as it is more informal than a structured interview (McDonough & McDonough, 1997, p. 184). There are several considerations that were kept in mind when constructing semi-structured interview questions. According to (McCammon, n.d.), one must use concise, open-ended questions that are not biased. Therefore, questions were carefully thought-out and based on the research questions prior to the interview sessions. The semi-structured interview questions were divided into two sets; one for the district fasiLINUS and another for teachers teaching Tahap 1 pupils (Year 1 to 3) in the school. Table 2: Semi-structured interview topics for the FasiLINUS and English teachersQuestions Set 1 (FasiLINUS)Set 2 (Teachers)

1Background and working experienceBackground and working experience

2FasiLINUS perception of the school in terms of LINUS results and learner level of proficiency based on school visits and workshops.Teachers perception of pupils performance in LINUS

3Expectations from the school district towards the school for Saringan 2 (second assessment)Teachers expectations towards LINUS results and implementation

4Procedures for reading and writing assessmentProcedures for reading and writing assessment

5Procedures for LINUS lessonsProcedures for LINUS lessons

6Suggestions to schoolSuggestions to school

The table above shows the topics that were covered in the interviews. Note that the interview topics were similar however the questions were slightly re-worded to suit the fasiLINUS and the teachers context (Appendix 2). The topics were chosen in order to investigate several issues: 1. To identify the background of the FasiLINUS and the teachers and their context of teaching.2. To gather their perception towards the school and their expectations in achieving the goals of the program. 3. To identify whether the districts expectation from the school and the teachers understanding of the program correlate each other. 4. To identify whether information regarding the assessment and LINUS lessons has been successfully relayed to the teachers. 5. To gather suggestions from both parties that would be useful for the betterment of the program. Prior to the interview, the interview questions were piloted with a colleague. This was to ensure the suitability of the questions and to modify questions that were ambiguous. Additionally, it had doubled as a practice session for the researcher. 3.5.2 Observation checklistTwo separate sets of observation checklists were made for the purpose of observing teachers in three different teaching situations; one each for reading and writing assessment, and another for LINUS remedial lessons (Appendix 3). The observation items were based on the information from the LINUS assessment manual, teachers LINUS module, workshops, and fasiLINUS responses to Question 4 and 5 in the semi-structured interview. The observation checklist looked into several procedures that are mandatory such as the use of phonic song before lesson commenced, use of high frequency words, documents that must accompany the teacher during the lesson, teaching techniques such as arm blending and phonics gestures, and time allocation for KSSR and LINUS lesson. 3.6 Data Collection Procedure

Figure 1: Data collection procedure

The figure above shows the data collection procedure that was executed for the research. In order to understand the current situation, pupils LINUS results from 2013 to 2014 were gathered and analysed. This was obtained from the school database. The results would be able to indicate the pupils progress throughout the program. It would be apparent then how many pupils were identified as LINUS and LINUS Tegar. Additionally, based on the results, we were able to see how many of these LINUS pupils had been successfully reintroduced to mainstream education and how many still receive remedial intervention throughout the program. Results of several LINUS pupils and LINUS Tegar pupils were also used in order to determine the extent of their progress. By looking at the constructs they had and had not mastered, we would be able to determine the pupils areas of strength and weaknesses in literacy development. Interview sessions were then carried out with the FasiLINUS to understand the districts expectations towards the schools. The rationale behind this was to identify the progress the school had made overall based on the data and observations from the FasiLINUS perspective. The FasiLINUS would also be able to tell the researcher the schools areas of strengths and weaknesses for further improvement. After that, interview sessions were conducted with the seven English teachers. This step was taken to understand the implementation process from their point of view and to identify any problems the teachers may have encountered in the past. All the seven teachers were observed for the reading and writing assessments between March and April 2015. Pupils were not involved in the observation as the main purpose of the observation was to investigate to what extent the teachers understood and executed LINUS in their classes. Similar to the interview, the teachers were given a short explanation and purpose of the observation. However, the criteria that the researcher was looking for was not shared with the teachers in order to ensure that the teachers were carrying out their classes as normal. Their permission was also sought before the observation could take place. Documents such as pupils results for the first assessment in 2015 and samples of pupils work were collected for analysis. One sample was collected from the following pupils; pupil who was categorised as LINUS, pupil who was categorised as LINUS Tegar and pupil who was categorised as LINUS but had been reintroduced into mainstream education. The pupils work would indicate whether they have improved in penmanship, and the ability to write from word, phrase, and sentence level. Finally, based on the Saringan 1 (first assessment) results, classroom observations were conducted with five teachers. The other two teachers were exempted from the observations as they did not have LINUS pupils in their classrooms.3.7 Validity and ReliabilityIn research, validity is associated with the relationship of data and conclusions made(Mohammed Ali, 2012). Internal validity answers how research is conducted while external validity deals with how it is conducted with research integrity (Mohammed Ali, 2012). Meanwhile, reliability is related to how methods and data analysis are conducted to ensure consistency in data (Mohammed Ali, 2012). Within the constructivist paradigm of research, validity and reliability are termed differently compared to the positivist paradigm. Internal and external validity are replaced by the terms trustworthiness and authenticity while reliability is replaced with the terms dependability (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). 3.7.1 Trustworthiness of dataAccording to Riege (2003), trustworthiness of data must answer the following questions: How rich and meaningful or thick are the description? Are the findings internally coherent? Are concepts systematically related? (p.81) According to (Yin, 1994), trustworthiness of data can be increased by cross-checking the results during data analysis. This means that findings from the interview, classroom observation and document analysis can be verified by cross-checking method called triangulation. Triangulation is one the strategies used to test the reliability and validity of a qualitative research (Golafshani, 2003). As mentioned, since the constructivist paradigm accepts that knowledge is ever changing, the use of the triangulation method will result in a more valid and reliable research. 3.7.2 AuthenticityAuthenticity on the other hand must answer these questions: Do the findings include enough thick descriptions for readers to assess the potential transferability appropriateness for their own setting? Are the findings congruent with, connected to, or confirmatory to prior theory? (Riege, 2003, p. 81)Marshall and Rossman (1989) claimed that this can be increased by defining the research design so that analytical generalization can be achieved. Meanwhile Yin (1994) mentioned that linking findings with existing literature so that generalization can be made within the context of the research. 3.7.3 DependabilityDependability, on the other hand, must answer the following questions: Are the research questions clear and are the features of the study design congruent with them? Have things been done with reasonable care? (Riege, 2003, p. 82)For strengthening dependability, Yin (1994) suggested that pilot studies on data collection instruments should be conducted prior to the actual data collection. Guba & Lincoln (1989) also shared how dependability can be achieved by ensuring that the process of data collection is well explained, well documented and checked for bias. In order to test the reliability of the research instruments, pilot tests were conducted with the interview questions and observation checklists. The questions and observation checklists were generated through a review of government official documents, LINUS meetings and workshops attended by the researcher, and input from the fasiLINUS.3.8 Data Analysis Procedure3.8.1 InterviewInterview data was analysed using the 3 stages of thematic analysis. This is also known as the framework method. In the first stage, data was coded using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet template and similar codes that appeared were categorised into themes. In the second stage, the themes were described and summarised. Finally, in the third stage, the patterns were interpreted and reported. This report can be found in the following chapter. 3.8.2 Observation checklistThe three sets of observation checklist was analysed by noting the similar positive and negative teaching behaviour that were observed. Statistical operations were not used because the sample was too small to include statistical methods. Instead, the behaviours were described and used to support the interview data. 3.8.3 Document analysisPupils results was analysed using Microsoft Excel. Data from 2013 to 2015 was calculated to find its percentage. In order to see if there is an improvement from one year to another, a graph will be charted to see its progression. 3.9 Ethical ConsiderationsFirst, unless otherwise agreed to, the identities of all who participated in a qualitative study should always be protected: care should be taken to ensure that none of the information collected would embarrass or harm them. If confidentiality cannot be maintained, participant must be so informed and given the opportunity to withdraw from the study. Second, participants should always be treated with respect... Usually subjects should be told of the researchers interests and should give their permission to proceed. Researchers should never lie to subjects nor record any conversations using a hidden tape recorder or other mechanical apparatus. Third, researchers should do their best to ensure that no physical or psychological harm will come to anyone who participates in the study (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006, p. 441)The excerpt above summarised how a researcher should consider the ethical aspect of research. In compliance with the ethical practice of research, this research followed the guidelines handed out by the University of Nottingham, Malaysia campus and the British Education Research Association (Appendix 8). The researcher understood the importance of respecting the participants and their rights. All participants were briefed about the research and they were made to understand that their participation was strictly voluntary (Appendix 9). They could at any time withdraw from the research and their identity would be anonymous. A written consent from them and the school authorities were obtained before data collection commenced (Appendix 10) .

4. FindingsThis chapter presents the findings to address the three research questions described in Chapter 1. Data from all three methods, semi-structured interview, classroom observation and document analysis will be presented together. This will give the reader a deeper depth of the context and responses given.4.1 Research Question 14. What are the outcomes of the LINUS programme after 3 years of implementation in a Malaysian primary school?Table 3: Pupils LINUS results from 2013 to 2014CohortYearGrade/ DarjahAssessmentTotal No. of Pupils (N)Results

Special Needs LINUS TegarLINUSAchieved

f%f%f%f%

120131126862.2417565.38732.46

20131226610.3831.1310338.7215959.77

20142127310.3793.34416.1221980.22

20142227510.3631.093813.8223384.73

20153128910.3531.04227.6126391

2201411278238.2711441.0114150.72

201412283103.5312644.5214751.94

20152127920.726021.5121777.78

3201511296155.0712843.2415351.69

Note: *LINUS assessments are conducted twice in a year. Assessment 1 is usually conducted from March-April. Assessment 2 is usually conducted from September-October.*Special needs pupils have to be diagnosed by a certified medical officer and are exempted from LINUS. *LINUS Tegar- pupils who did not master Construct 1-Construct 2 in either the reading or writing assessment. *LINUS pupils who did not master any one of Construct 3-Construct 12 in either the reading or writing assessment. *Achieved- pupils who mastered all constructs in both reading and writing assessment.

In order to answer this question, pupils literacy development based on the LINUS assessment results was obtained. Through document analysis method, Table3was generated to show pupils results by cohorts. In general, Year 1 pupils in all three cohorts suggested that they struggled in the first year of formal schooling. A significant number of Year 1 pupils were categorized as LINUS every year. There were 175 (65.3%) LINUS pupils in the first assessment in 2013, 114 (41.01%) LINUS pupils in 2014, and 128 (43.24%) LINUS pupils in 2015. For Cohort 1, there was improvement as the number of LINUS pupils in Year 1 decreased to 103 (38.72%) in the second semester. Even though the number of LINUS pupils in Cohort 2 increased to 126 (44.52%) by the second semester, this was also a sign of improvement as it meant more LINUS Tegar pupils were transferred into LINUS category. As these pupils did not master Construct 3 to Construct 12 in either reading or writing assessment, this signified that these pupils had problems reading and writing from word to sentence level. This could be due to the fact that English is not widely used outside the classroom. One teacher commented during the semi-structured interview, In my class I have mixed ability pupils and it's difficult to teach them because English is not their language. Also they do not speak English at home (Respondent A). Meanwhile, a small percentage of pupils were categorized as LINUS Tegar in Year 1. There were 6 (2.24%) LINUS Tegar pupils in Cohort 1, 23 (8.27%) LINUS Tegar pupils in Cohort 2, and 15 (5.07%) LINUS Tegar pupils in Cohort 3. The problems that these pupils experienced were more severe compared to the LINUS pupils as the test results indicated that they could not even recognize the alphabets and the sounds of the English language. However, there was slight improvement as the number of LINUS Tegar pupils decreased by the second semester. Teachers perception of pupils language proficiency was generally negative as one teacher commented, they (pupils) cannot pronounce simple words correctly. They dont know the phonic sounds and they are in Year 3 (Respondent F). Additionally, another teacher commented, students cannot repeat the words. They know the sounds but they dont recognise the letters (Respondent B). Despite this, the FasiLINUS viewed the schools performance as average and did better compared to vernacular schools and Orang Asli schools in the district. For example, as can be seen with Cohort 1 pupils, the majority of these pupils had shown tremendous improvement by Year 3 as there were only 3 (1.04%) LINUS Tegar pupils, 22 (7.61%) LINUS pupils and 263 (91%) pupils who had achieved the basic literacy constructs in English. Cohort 2 pupils also showed signs of improvement as there were only 2 (0.74%) LINUS Tegar pupils, 60 (21.51%) LINUS pupils, and 217 (77.78%) pupils who had achieved the basic literacy constructs in English by Year 2. The findings suggested that initially, many Year 1 pupils may have lacked early literacy skills in English and required remedial intervention. However, the subsequent assessments showed that a majority of pupils had improved under the program. This is supported by document analysis. Table 4 below shows three individual pupils results from 2013 to 2015. Pupil A is an example of a LINUS Tegar pupil. At Year 3, this pupil only managed to achieve Construct 3, thus placing him in the LINUS category. A sample of his work showed that in the span of one year, he is now able to recognise the alphabets and complete written exercises with guidance (Appendix 6). Pupil B, on the other hand, is an example of a LINUS pupil who was successfully reintroduced into mainstream education. The pupils data revealed that initially she could only recognise letters of the alphabets. However, a sample of her work showed that she improved consistently and by Year 2, she had attained basic literacy (Appendix 6). Finally, pupil C is an example of pupils with inconsistent literacy achievement. According to her teacher, pupil C was not consistent with her reading skills this year. Although she achieved all the literacy skills last year, she could not master the reading skills for Year 3. A sample of her work showed that she had no problems with writing. Hence, further investigation is required to elicit why her reading performance is inconsistent.Table 4: Sample pupils' achievement from 2013-2015PupilYearAssessmentLINUS TegarLINUS

K1K2K3K4K5K6K7K8K9K10K11K12

A20131

2/

20141

2//

20151///

B20131/

2/////

20141////////////

2////////////

20151////////////

C20131//////

2////

20141////////////

2////////////

20151////

4.2 Research Question 25. To what extent has the LINUS programme achieved its programme objectives?In order to answer this, we have to investigate two main aspects of the program. First, whether the school had achieved the KPI outlined by the MOE and second, the implementation of LINUS 2.0. The table below shows the target percentage of pupils who achieved basic literacy skills by year and the actual percentage achieved by the school. Overall, the school did well as it had achieved the KPI for Year 2 and Year 3. However, the school did not achieve the KPI for Year 1. For example, in the first assessment in 2015, passing rate for Year 1 is 51.69% which is slightly under the target rate by 7.31%. The school needed to double its efforts in remediating pupils because by the second assessment in September-October 2015, teachers must ensure that for Year 1, the passing percentage must be increased from 51.69% to 67%. For Year 2, the percentage must be increased from 77.78% to 83% while Year 3 pupils must attain 100% passing rate. Consequently, data from the semi-structured interviews and classroom observations must be used in order to understand why this phenomenon happened and how the implementation of LINUS 2.0 can be improved. The following themes had been identified.

Table 5: Comparison between expected results (KPI) and school's actual achievementYearGrade/DarjahKPI for Assessment 1(%)Actual Achievement (%)Difference (%)KPI for Assessment 2(%)Actual Achievement (%)Difference (%)

201315932.46- 26.366759.77- 7.23

201450.72- 8.2851.94- 15.06

201551.69- 7.31NA

201427580.22+ 5.228384.73+1.73

201577.78+ 2.78NA

2015391910100NA

4.2.1 Teaching ContextFirst, it is pivotal to understand the teachers who were involved with LINUS 2.0. The following table 6 summarises teachers teaching experience and current teaching situation. Respondent B, C, and F had the most experience with conducting LINUS (4 years). Meanwhile, respondent A and D have average experience with LINUS (2 years). Respondent E and G have the least experience with LINUS (one year). Respondent E is a newly transferred teacher from another state. Respondent E confirmed on separate occasions, Im still a new teacher (just transferred). I need more workshop(s) and Still blur especially for weak students. Im a new teacher in a new teaching environment. On the other hand, respondent G is a Mathematics teacher who was asked to teach English this year due to the lack of English teachers in the school. All the teachers have adequate experience with teaching English except for respondent G with only one year of teaching experience. However, she did not mention in the interview whether she was uncomfortable teaching the subject. Out of the 7 respondents, Respondent A and F are not involved with LINUS this year as all their pupils pass the first screening of LINUS in April 2015. Respondent E has the most number of LINUS pupils in her classes with a total of 74 pupils while respondent D has the least number of LINUS pupils with 22 pupils in her classes. This information helped the researcher understand which teachers required more training and assistance in teaching materials and assessment. Table 6: Respondents' background, teaching experience and current teaching situationRespondentGender Experience with LINUS (years)Teaching Experience (years)Current ClassNo. of LINUS pupils

AF2 9 Year 2None

BF4 4 Year 131

CF46Year 1 and 240

DF24Year 322

EF13Year 174

FF43Year 3None

GF11Year 223

4.2.2 Implementation problemsWhen asked about the problems teachers faced in implementation of LINUS 2.0, three themes cropped up repeatedly; time constraint, large class size, and mismatch of content between LINUS module and the textbook. 4.2.2.1 Time constraintFrom the interview, time constraint was cited as one of the main problems in implementing LINUS. Teachers claim that the implementation of screening test, making of teaching materials and the use of LINUS modules were hampered by the requirement to complete the syllabus and the assessment procedure. Respondent B especially mentioned on several occasions, Not enough time to teach. I dont have time to make the ABM (material). No time to make flashcards. She also mentioned, No time to do the test. Only 30 minutes every day I can only do for 3 students. This referred to the assessment procedure whereby 30 minutes of the KSSR lesson must be conducted before the LINUS screening test can be conducted. Teachers were given approximately 30 days to conduct the screening before keying-in pupils results online. There was a specific time-frame to do this before the NKRA website closes. So respondent B felt burdened when she could only assess so few pupils in one lesson and at the same time teach according to the KSSR syllabus. Although she commented that information provided through workshops were sufficient, she replied that she didnt have time to complete all the requirements. Similarly, respondent A cited time constraint as the reason for not using the LINUS module, I dont have time to useYou know we got the (LINUS) test. Then we got PPT (mid-year test) When I teach I must follow the textbook. I don't have time to teach twice. This was confirmed through classroom observations. Especially for the reading assessment, all teachers were observed using the first 30 minutes of class time to teach KSSR content first. Except for respondent A and F, the other respondents only managed to work with approximately less than 10 pupils in a lesson as time was spent in giving instructions for the assessment and prompting. 4.2.2.2 Large class sizeTime constraint was linked to another common problem which was large class size. Based on the number of pupils assessed, there were 296 Year 1 pupils, 279 Year 2 pupils and 289 Year 3 pupils and these pupils were divided equally into 7 classes. Initially 7 classes for every level, but this year an additional class had to be opened for Year 1 in order to cope with the growing number of pupils. Respondent C and E found that they had to adapt their teaching strategies due to the large number of pupils. Its difficult to focus on every pupil because there are too many pupils in this school. In my previous school I had 30 plus students in one class. Here its up to 40 (Respondent C). Previous school have (had) less students. In this school, Im shocked because there are more students. Cultural shock because this is the first time I have to handle so many students so it affects how I teach (Respondent E). 4.2.2.3 Mismatch of module and textbook contentTeachers also complained that the LINUS module was problematic as there was a mismatch of content between the module and the textbook. The content is not the same with the textbook so it is hard to teach (Respondent B). Well, the topics dont match. The vocabulary is different from the textbook. The tenses are different so have to teach 2 different things. Year 3 focuses on grammar but LINUS is about pronunciation (Respondent D). Response towards the LINUS module however was mixed. Although Respondent A praised that the module is good for improving penmanship, other teachers lamented that the content in the module did not complement the textbook hence teachers felt burdened teaching different language content in two different groups of pupils. The Linus Year 3 module. Although we have to learn the dipthong but the topics not aligned with the textbook so its hard to teach students (Respondent D). In the book, for reading they have past tense. And then writing in present tense.'Susah nak ajar' (Difficult to teach) (Respondent A). The same respondent also complained that the vocabulary level in the module is high. I think they must revise the book to lower the standard for vocabulary.I think too high level for pupils (Respondent A).In contrast, three teachers responded positively towards the module. It is helping the children. It is easier than the daily lesson. The words are easy (Respondent G). It is helpful, very helpful but not enough materials. For example, I need ICT, LCD to show images (Respondent E). I dont have problems with Year 1 and Year 2. But the module must be conducted from day 1 (of semester) (Respondent C). Respondent E and C were the only