THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM

AFTER 3 YEARS... A REVIEW OF THE

EFFECTIVENESS OF LINUS IN
ENGLISH IN A MALAYSIAN PRIMARY
SCHOOL
By

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.

Abstract
This 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 Contents
Acknowledgement....................................................................................................... i
Abstract...................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables and Figures........................................................................................... vi
List of Abbreviations................................................................................................. vii
1. Introduction............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background of the Problem............................................................................... 2
1.2 Problem Statement............................................................................................ 3
1.3 Purpose of the Study......................................................................................... 5
1.4 Research Questions........................................................................................... 6
1.5 Overview of Methodology.................................................................................. 6
1.6Rationale and Significance.................................................................................7
2. Literature Review................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Definition of terms............................................................................................. 8
2.1.1 Literacy....................................................................................................... 8
2.1.2 Early literacy skills...................................................................................... 9
2.1.3 Remedial intervention................................................................................. 9
2.2 Issues related to literacy learning and instruction...........................................10
2.2.1 Importance of literacy development.........................................................10
2.1.1 Characteristics of learners........................................................................11
2.1.2 Language barriers..................................................................................... 12
2.1.3 Learning environment...............................................................................15
2.3 Early Literacy Skills......................................................................................... 16
2.3.1 Code-focused skills....................................................................................17
2.3.2 Print awareness......................................................................................... 18
2.3.3 Oral language............................................................................................ 18
2.3.4 Writing....................................................................................................... 19
2. 4 Remedial Instruction...................................................................................... 19
2.4.1 Reading Recovery, United States..............................................................20
2.4.2 Canada...................................................................................................... 21
2.4.3 Zimbabwe................................................................................................. 21
2.4.4 Balsakhi Program, Mumbai, India..............................................................22
3

2.4.5 Vacation Reading Program, Nigeria...........................................................23

2.4.6 Competency-based approach, Cameroon.................................................23
2.4.7 Literature review in Australia, New Zealand and United States................24
2.5 Summary of chapter........................................................................................ 25
3. Methodological and Research Design...................................................................26
3.1 Methodological Framework.............................................................................. 26
3.2 Research Design.............................................................................................. 28
3.3 Participant and Sampling Method....................................................................29
3.3.1 FasiLINUS................................................................................................... 29
3.3.2 Lower Primary Teachers............................................................................29
3.3.3 Pupils......................................................................................................... 30
3.4 Data Collection Method...................................................................................30
3.4.1 Interview................................................................................................... 30
3.4.2 Classroom Observation............................................................................. 31
3.4.3 Document Analysis....................................................................................31
3.5 Data Collection Instruments............................................................................ 32
3.5.1 Semi-Structured Interviews.......................................................................32
3.5.2 Observation checklist................................................................................ 34
3.6 Data Collection Procedure............................................................................... 35
3.7 Validity and Reliability..................................................................................... 37
3.7.1 Trustworthiness of data.............................................................................37
3.7.2 Authenticity............................................................................................... 38
3.7.3 Dependability............................................................................................ 38
3.8 Data Analysis Procedure.................................................................................. 39
3.8.1 Interview................................................................................................... 39
3.8.2 Observation checklist................................................................................ 39
3.8.3 Document analysis.................................................................................... 39
3.9 Ethical Considerations..................................................................................... 39
4. Findings................................................................................................................ 41
4.1 Research Question 1....................................................................................... 41
4.2 Research Question 2....................................................................................... 45
4.2.1 Teaching Context....................................................................................... 46
4.2.2 Implementation problems.........................................................................47
4

4.2.3 Assessment............................................................................................... 50
4.2.3 Remedial lessons....................................................................................... 52
4.2.4 Teaching Materials..................................................................................... 53
4.3 Research Question 3....................................................................................... 54
4.3.1 Standardising teaching practice................................................................54
4.3.2 Language exposure...................................................................................54
4.3.2 Material development............................................................................... 54
4.3.3 Professional development.........................................................................55
5. Discussion, Recommendations and Conclusion....................................................56
5.1 Discussion....................................................................................................... 56
5.1.1 Implications for remedial instruction.........................................................57
5.1.2 Implication for effective assessment.........................................................58
5.1.3 Implication for professional development.................................................60
5.2 Recommendations for future research............................................................61
5.3 Conclusion....................................................................................................... 61
Reference................................................................................................................. 63
6. Appendices........................................................................................................... 69
Appendix 1: Turnitin Report................................................................................... 69
Appendix 2: Sample of interview questions..........................................................70
Appendix 3: Sample of observation checklist........................................................78
Appendix 4: Interview transcript........................................................................... 81
Appendix 5: Observation checklist data..............................................................103
Appendix 6: Sample of pupils work....................................................................122
Appendix 7: Sample of permission letter to the headmaster..............................128
Appendix 8: Statement of research.....................................................................129
Appendix 9: Sample of participants information sheet.......................................136
Appendix 10: Sample consent form.....................................................................139

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1: Number and percentage of Year 1 and Year 2 pupils based on the
September, 2014 LINUS screening test....................................................................11
Table 2: Semi-structured interview topics for the FasiLINUS and English teachers...40
Table 3: Pupils LINUS results from 2013 to 2014......................................................48
Table 4: Sample pupils' achievement from 2013-2015.............................................51
Table 5: Comparison between expected results (KPI) and school's actual
achievement............................................................................................................. 52
Table 6: Respondents' background, teaching experience and current teaching
situation................................................................................................................... 53

Figure 1: Data collection procedure..........................................................................40

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

1. Introduction
Literacy 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
8

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 Problem

One 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
9

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
10

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 test

Grade/Darjah

1
2

Special
Needs
f
-

%
1

0.36

LINUS Tegar

LINUS

10

%
3.53

1.09

126
38

Achieved

%
44.5
2
13.8
2

f
147
233

%
51.9
4
84.7
3

Total No.
of Pupils

283
275

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 LINUS

11

2. lack of qualified teachers and technology

3. miscommunication between the MOE, state education department (JPN), district education
department (PPD) and the schools
4. social, economic and political factors
This 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 Study

It 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:
12

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 Questions

This 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 Methodology

This 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-

13

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 Significance

This 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.

14

2. Literature Review
This 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 terms

The following section defines the following terms within the parameters of this study.
2.1.1 Literacy

Generally, 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 appropriately
b) 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.
15

2.1.2 Early literacy skills

While 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 intervention

Grubb 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.
16

2.2 Issues related to literacy learning and instruction

Difficulties 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 development

According 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
17

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 learners

Okebukola (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
18

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 barriers

Since 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

19

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

20

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 poorlyplanned 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

21

possible. This practice has been verbally enforced through routine school visits and classroom
observations by the district officers and FasiLINUS.
2.1.3 Learning environment

It 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.

22

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 Skills

In 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.
23

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 codefocused skills, print awareness, oral language and writing.
2.3.1 Code-focused skills

Code-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.

24

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 awareness

Print 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 language

Oral 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

25

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 Writing

As 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 Instruction
Remedial 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
26

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 States

An 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 Canada

According to Roessingh & Elgie (2009), children exposed to bilingual experiences often show
heightened phonemic awareness and can outperform their unilingual counterparts on these

27

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 Zimbabwe

Ndebele (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
28

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, India

However, 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.

29

2.4.5 Vacation Reading Program, Nigeria

Vacation 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, Cameroon

Instead 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;
30

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 States

A 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 chapter

This 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

31

different contexts. The issues discussed would contribute to the methodology and research design
which is elaborated in the following chapter.

32

3. Methodological and Research Design

This 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 Framework

According 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.

33

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

34

researcher to investigate the experiences and the different perspectives involved in the
implementation of LINUS in the school being investigated.

3.2 Research Design

The 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.
35

3.3 Participant and Sampling Method

The 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 FasiLINUS

The 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 Teachers

There 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
36

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 nonLINUS 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 Pupils

Meanwhile, 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 Method

Three 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 Interview

According 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
37

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 Observation

Classroom 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 Analysis

Document 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
38

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 Instruments

Data 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 Interviews

Semi-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).

39

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 teachers

Questio
ns
1
2

4
5
6

Set 1 (FasiLINUS)

Set 2 (Teachers)

Background and working

experience
FasiLINUS perception of the
school in terms of LINUS results
and learner level of proficiency
based on school visits and
workshops.
Expectations from the school
district towards the school for
Saringan 2 (second
assessment)
Procedures for reading and
writing assessment
Procedures for LINUS lessons
Suggestions to school

Background and working experience

Teachers perception of pupils
performance in LINUS

Teachers expectations towards LINUS

results and implementation

Procedures for reading and writing

assessment
Procedures for LINUS lessons
Suggestions 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.
40

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 checklist

Two 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.

41

3.6 Data Collection Procedure

Figure 1: Data collection procedure

LDCI
N
oUan
cSst
l
uoe
s
mor
seOv
nbi
te
Avw
nt
an
ly
ys
s
s

l
s

r
e

s
n

s
r
a
i

l s

i
i

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

42

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.

43

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 Reliability

In 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 data

According 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.

44

3.7.2 Authenticity

Authenticity 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 Dependability

Dependability, 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.

45

3.8 Data Analysis Procedure

3.8.1 Interview

Interview 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 checklist

The 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 analysis

Pupils 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 Considerations

First, 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
46

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) .

47

4. Findings
This 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 1

4. 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 2014

Coho
rt

Year

201
3
201
3
201
4
201
4
201
5
201
4
201
4
201
5
201
5

Grade
/
Darja
h

Assessm
ent

Tota
l No. Special
of
Needs
Pupi f
%
ls
(N)
1
268

266

273

Results
LINUS
Tegar
f
%

LINUS

Achieved

2.24

175

65.3

87

32.46

0.38

1.13

103

159

59.77

0.37

3.3

44

219

80.22

275

0.36

1.09

38

233

84.73

289

0.35

1.04

22

38.7
2
16.1
2
13.8
2
7.61

263

91

278

23

8.27

114

141

50.72

283

10

3.53

126

147

51.94

279

0.72

60

217

77.78

296

15

5.07

128

41.0
1
44.5
2
21.5
1
43.2
4

153

51.69

Note:
*LINUS assessments are conducted twice in a year. Assessment 1 is usually
conducted from March-April. Assessment 2 is usually conducted from September48

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
49

(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
50

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 2013-2015

Pupi

Year

Assessmen

LINUS

LINUS

Tegar
K1 K2 K3 K4

K5 K6 K7 K8 K9

K1

K11 K1

0
A

2013
2014

2015
2013
2014

2015
2013
2014
2015

1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/

/
/
/

/
/
/

/
/
/

/
/
/

/
/

/
/

/
/

/
/

/
/

/
/

/
/

/
/

4.2 Research Question 2

5. To what extent has the LINUS programme achieved its programme objectives?

51

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 achievement

Year

201
3
201
4
201
5
201
4
201
5
201
5

Grade
/
Darja
h
1

KPI for
Assessm
ent 1(%)

Actual
Achieveme
nt (%)

Differen
ce (%)

KPI for
Assessm
ent 2(%)

Actual
Achieveme
nt (%)

Differen
ce (%)

59

32.46

- 26.36

67

59.77

- 7.23

50.72

- 8.28

51.94

- 15.06

51.69

- 7.31

NA

80.22

+ 5.22

77.78

+ 2.78

91

75

91

52

83

84.73
NA

100

NA

+1.73

4.2.1 Teaching Context

First, 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 situation

Respond
ent

Gend
er

Experience with
LINUS (years)

A
B
C

F
F
F

2
4
4

Teaching
Experience
(years)
9
4
6
53

Current
Class
Year 2
Year 1
Year 1 and

No. of
LINUS
pupils
None
31
40

D
E
F
G

F
F
F
F

2
1
4
1

4
3
3
1

2
Year
Year
Year
Year

3
1
3
2

22
74
None
23

4.2.2 Implementation problems

When 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 constraint

From 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
54

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 size

Time 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 content

Teachers 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

55

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 respondents who mentioned that
material adaptation is done to suit the levels of their pupils. I know that we can improvise based
on the students level. Dont have to follow the steps given (Respondent E). We must adapt the
activities to suit the topic in the textbook (Respondent C).
4.2.2.4 Expectations to achieve KPI

Interestingly, one teacher mentioned the interference from the FasiLINUS as a problem with
implementing LINUS. Respondent B was clearly frustrated when she recounted how pupils
results have to be adjusted because they did not achieve the required KPI. She said,
I want to be able to do it without PPD interfere (interfering). Well, the impact of
the program cannot be seen because the results (are) not accurate. Theres no
honesty. PPD ask us to adjust the results. I did the test but PPD interfered so
theres no point to do the test.
56

Since respondent B taught three Year 1 classes, the Year 1 data in 2015 did not represent the
actual achievement of pupils as the results had been modified. This matter had been brought to
the attention of the headmaster of the school. He had since informed teachers in a staff meeting
that teachers do not have to modify LINUS results for the next assessment. Instead, he motivated
teachers to do their best and carried out the assessment with integrity.
4.2.3 Assessment

The preliminary interview with the FasiLINUS informed the researcher of the following
requirements for the reading and writing assessment:
1. Assessment can be conducted with one or up to 3 pupils at one time.
2. Teachers can give guidance as long as they do not provide the answers.
3. Teachers must have the following documents during assessment; lesson plan, screening
instrument, assessment and BPPI forms.
4. Teachers may use teaching aid or phonic gestures as guidance.
5. Teachers can only conduct tests up to 4-6 constructs at one time, so that pupils do not
think of it as a test.
These criteria helped to form the observation checklist that was used to observe teachers in class.
When asked, all of the teachers could elaborate on the assessment procedures in detail, which
signified that information from the MOE had been successfully disseminated to the teachers. For
example, Respondent C listed the documents required for the assessment, And every time we do
the assessment we must have the BPPI, instrument and the manual. Two teachers talked about
the constructs. Maximum do 4 constructs at a time (Respondent C). I know we cannot do all
constructs at once. First day, Contruct 1, 2, 3... The next day 4, 5, and 6...For writing, I let them
do Construct 1 to 6, then Construct 7 to 12 (Respondent D). Finally, they were aware that
guidance could be given to pupils. Then I know we can help them. We can do arm blending
technique. Then we can use games and drills (Respondent B). We can guide them up to 3
57

times. Its the same with writing (Respondent C). Their statements were confirmed in the
classroom observations. For the reading assessment, five teachers were observed displaying all
five criteria by the FasiLINUS. The other two teachers, however, did not display criteria 4 and 5
because pupils could read independently. For the writing assessment, the results were similar to
the reading assessment except that most teachers did not have the BPPI forms with them because
the forms are filled in after marking the pupils test papers.
When asked about how teachers implement the assessment, teachers cited drilling or similar
methods. Teachers would pre-teach the assessment items before conducting the assessment to
individuals or in small groups. Keep repeating and drilling to the students (Respondent D).
For reading I drill the questions first. I photocopy a lot of the reading instruments
for my classes. Then the students will read together and practice in pairs. Then the
pairs will come to me and I will assess both at the same time. I will make sure that
everyone pass one page before we move to the next page (Respondent B).
The drilling method was commonly used by the teachers. After conducting the KSSR lesson,
teachers spent approximately 10 minutes in drilling important phrases and vocabulary related to
the assessment constructs. This left teachers around 20 minutes to do the assessment which was
clearly insufficient. Hence, a few of the respondents took the initiative to do the assessment
during free time in the staffroom.
As for the writing assessment, one teacher used parallel writing method.
And then for writing its easier to ask them to write the same sentences but with
different detail I also drill the questions but I change the questions a bit. Maybe

58

I change the personal details. The actions (verbs) are similar but I change the
details a bit (Respondent B).
There were not much problems with the writing assessment as it was more
straightforward than the reading assessment. Pupils mainly did the assessment
individually while the teacher provided guidance only when necessary.
4.2.3 Remedial lessons

When asked about how teachers teach LINUS, various teaching strategies were cited. Here,
repetition and drilling were also mentioned. Teach whole class the daily lesson. Then I call the
LINUS students and drill them. We do the activity in the module (Respondent G). One teacher
modifies this slightly by making word nametags to teach vocabulary, The name tag I'm making.
Going to start in semester 2 The students will be wearing name tags and they have spell and
read the word every day (Respondent A).One teacher used the buddy system. I think the buddy
system is good. I divide students into pairs. Students on the right is A, and students on the left is
B. A will coach B and then they will take turns (Respondent F). Another teacher mentioned that
using songs to teach phonics is very effective. Use the phonics song for the first two months.
With that I can get the students to Construct 4. Teachers in previous school didnt do it but when
I did it this year I can see the difference (Respondent C). The phonics song was one of the
teaching strategies highly encouraged by the FasiLINUS. Teachers dedicate five minutes before
every lesson for this song as a set induction. However, the teaching of high frequency words was
not conducted even though materials and method were handed out at the beginning of the
semester. This is a gap that needed to be addressed before the second assessment.

59

4.2.4 Teaching Materials

Regarding the teaching materials used to teach LINUS, teachers generally responded that they
referred to the teachers module to teach. However, Respondent E and B did not receive the
teachers module at the time of interview. This problem had since been rectified.
With regards to the frequency of LINUS modules being used, respondent A and B only used
them in class once citing time constraint as a factor. Classroom observations revealed that only
one teacher used the LINUS module in class. Another teacher used the module for homework
purposes. Three teachers provided differentiation in activities and extra guidance.
Teachers said they need more teaching materials to supplement the module.
For Year 3 we need more materials because just 2 years LINUS being
implement(ed). So we need the materials to teachbut if we can have materials
then

its

better.

Whatever

for

our

pupils

we

would

do

it

but

nakmenyenangkankerja(would ease our job) (Respondent D).

It is helpful, very helpful but not enough materials. For example, I need ICT, LCD
to show images. For 1G and 1M, they want movement because they dont like
English. Pictures are not enough. I have to show them videos (InterviewRespondent E).

60

4.3 Research Question 3

6. What suggestions might be recommended for further improvement?
There were four main themes for this question: standardizing teaching practice, language
exposure, material development and professional development.
4.3.1 Standardising teaching practice

The following suggestions were given by the FasiLINUS to ensure the According the
FasiLINUS, the administrative department should ensure standardizing of teaching practice
through observation and reminders so that teachers follow the guidelines set by the MOE and
key in data on time. As for the teachers, she suggested that teachers should set a goal for each
pupil so that they will progress accordingly. According to her, it is important that teachers should
identify and set appropriate TOV/Headcount so that as each assessment is conducted, pupils will
be able to pass more constructs.
4.3.2 Language exposure

Teachers would like learning environment to be richer with English language. They suggested
that classroom walls and belongings should also be labeled with English words. One teacher
suggested that wall murals that are more suitable for young learners should be drawn to capture
learners interest to learn the language. Organising an English Carnival was also suggested to
help motivate learners and expose them to the idea that learning English can be fun and
interesting. They also suggested collaborating with Bahasa Malaysia teachers to help develop a
stronger language foundation among learners.
4.3.2 Material development

Teachers would like to see more teaching aid being made and provided to ease their workload.
More efforts to share materials and worksheets are welcomed by the teachers especially those

61

who are teaching the same topics. A teacher also lauded the use of picture dictionaries for Year 1
and hopes that it will continue. More materials are needed for sounds.
4.3.3 Professional development

As for professional development, a teacher commented that she would like to know more about
mixed-ability teaching and how to provide differentiation in activities. Since there were teachers
with less than 5 years of teaching experience and involvement with LINUS, these teachers
should be given priority for workshops and training courses.

62

5. Discussion, Recommendations and Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of the LINUS 2.0 remedial
program in a national primary school in Malaysia. This research was based on the case study
methodology and employed convenience sampling method in choosing the school and
participants. Semi-structured interviews, classroom observations and document analysis were
used to gather data. Pupils LINUS results from 2013-2015 and work samples were analysed to
study the effectiveness of the remedial program. Then, the FasiLINUS and teachers were
interviewed. Interview data was transcribed and coded in an Excel spreadsheet. Themes were
then identified from similar codes. As a supplement to the interview data, classroom observations
were used to observe teachers in three different teaching situations; during reading assessments,
writing assessments and remedial lessons. Observational checklist was generated from semistructured interview with the FasiLINUS, information from workshops and related official
documents. Data triangulation method was used to answer the research questions.

5.1 Discussion
Based on the data fromdocument analysis, the majority of pupils demonstrated significant
improvement in the subsequent LINUS assessment. To a certain extent, the program was found
to be successful as more pupils were reintroduced into mainstream education. A review of
selected pupils past year and current years work displayed noteworthy literacy development.
Pupils improved from failing to recognise alphabets to being able to construct sentences with
guidance. On a surface level, the statistics showed that the program has achieved its objectives.
The school was on its way to achieve expectations laid out by PPD and MOE. However, there
were several issues regarding implementation that needed to be resolved. The following
subsections discuss the findings of the research in relation to literature review.
63

5.1.1 Implications for remedial instruction

There is a need for a balanced literacy instruction that encompasses all the early literacy skills
mentioned in Chapter 2 (E-Best, 2006). Cowen (2003, as cited in EURYDICE, 2011) is also in
support of a balanced literacy instruction that combines not only the teaching of early literacy
skills, but also the principles of constructivist learning. The findings revealed that there was a
heavy emphasis on drilling in the remedial lessons and literacy assessment. Moreover, teachers
focused on the teachings on phonics but did not teach high frequency words. Teaching practice
needs to be aligned to include all four components of code instruction, oral language, print
awareness and writing as outlined by the National Early Literacy Panel (2008).

Im addition, teachers suggestion for improving language exposure among pupils reflected
EURYDICEs (2001) suggestion, that a learning environment that is rich in spoken and written
language should be created by allocating reading and writing centres within the classroom,
labelling objects and pupils names on belongings, and using routine instructional words and
phrases. These steps will indirectly provide learners with the language input in the classroom.

Correspondingly, Nag and Snowling (2012) believed a good practice of remedial intervention
encompasses a systematic approach that provides ample opportunities for consolidation, revision
and which takes learners needs into consideration. The findings agreed with the United States
Agency International Development (2012) that a consistent circular cycle of diagnosis, grouping
of learners, differential or remedial instruction and assessment benefits learners. For example,
Hollohan (2012), mentioned that learners may have strengths and weaknesses in different aspects
of reading. A learner may be good at identifying sight words but not as successful in reading
comprehension. Thus, it is the duty of the teacher to pinpoint individual learners strengths and
64

weaknesses and work out an intervention that can push learners further. Hollohan (2012) also
stressed that differential instruction should be used in place of what she called generic
worksheets as these do not cater to all learners needs (p.15). She argued that this neglect will
result in learners not being able to progress from one skill to another.
At the same time, teachers should be realistic and set easier lesson goals for remedial pupils so
that they are more manageable (The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region, 2007). EURYDICE (2011) recommended that teachers should work with pupils in small
groups or individual pupils within a lesson. When dealing with learners of different proficiency
levels, teachers should master classroom management strategies that work within their teaching
context. Ankrum and Bean (2007) suggested that teachers should have good organisation and
classroom routines that allow them to work with different groups of pupils within a lesson.
More-able learners should be trained to work independently while the teacher spends more time
with weak learners until these learners are able to catch up with their peers(Ankrum & Bean,
2007).
5.1.2 Implication for effective assessment

Kennedy et al. (2012) suggested that assessment for young children should be formative through
observing learners in their learning environment and involving the perspective of parents on their
childs development.

However, in more formal instructional context, they recommended

assessment tools such as interviews, running records, miscue analysis, oral retelling,
comprehension questions, cloze assessment, reading and writing conferences, and writing
portfolios which are documented using scoring rubrics and other suitable recording tools
(p.328). According to Ankrum and Bean (2007), a good teaching practice should utilise
formative assessment in order to gauge learners continuously and place learners into suitable

65

proficiency groups. This, according to them, would ensure that learners receive differential
instruction that is appropriate for their level. Besides that, they recommended the use of various
assessment tools that are manageable and comprehensive in measuring basic literacy skills to
more advanced skills which are aligned to the principles of early literacy skills. Muralidharan
(2013) argued that formative assessment should be carried out as its purpose is to measure
learning gaps so it does not cause any stress to the learners. In order to execute formative
assessment succesfully, Muralidharans concern was more towards ensuring that assessment
tools are reliable and valid. At the same time, it is stressed that teachers should shift away from
being too reliable on textbooks, instead they should follow a more constructivist approach to
avoid the backwash effect of examinations (Muralidharan, 2013; The Government of the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region, 2007). Learners should also be assessed by classroom
mentors or supervisors for a more impartial appraisal (United States Agency International
Development, 2012).

The research revealed that a gap existed between target language assessmet, target language
instruction and its relationship with pupils mother tongue. Teachers complained that teaching is
made difficult as learners do not practice English outside the classroom. In order to address this
difficulty, Nag, et al. (2014) suggested using vocabulary knowledge task to test learners
knowledge of words that do not follow a transparent sound-symbol mapping. This would allow
educators to assess whether learners fully understand the writing system of the English language.
Otherwise, the assessment would not be reliable as learners would simply rely on the writing
system of their mother tongue to read and write in English. It is therefore imperative that in order
for actual language learning to take place, teaching and assessment have to be adapted in such a

66

way that learners can differentiate between the two writing systems which are Bahasa Malaysia
and English. Learners would benefit from this in the long run because they will have a stronger
foundation in both languages. Moreover, there is a gap for assessment for reading comprehension
skills; oral language skills which comprise of word definition, grammar, narrative and listening
comprehension; high quality teacher administered tools; and observational tools that needs to be
further developed (Nag, et al., 2014).
5.1.3 Implication for professional development

The findings revealed that several of the teachers lacked confidence as there are newly
transferred teachers and non-optionist teachers this year. It is without a doubt that professional
development is crucial for teachers who have minimal teacher training and experience (Bartlett,
2010). However, he remarked that it is only effective if the training is practical and deviates from
the present conventional methods used in classrooms.
An interesting observation discovered that teaching practice was not standardised and there were
minimal sharing of information among teachers. Snow et al. (2005, as cited in EURYDICE,
2011) mentioned that professional development must eventually lead to teamwork and
demonstrate shared expertise among teachers. One way of achieving this is by establishing a
coaching or mentoring system among colleagues in order to ensure consistency of high quality
instruction in schools (United States Agency International Development, 2012).
Teachers should also channel their attention towards a research-based approach as they can
investigate literacy problems and come up with answers for their own teaching context
(Kennedy, et al., 2012, p. 334). For example, Respondent As effort in experimenting with the use
of vocabulary name-tags to teach spelling and vocabulary to her pupils should be an example to
the other colleagues.
67

5.2 Recommendations for future research

The findings of this case study are only applicable to the context of the school being studied. In
order to confirm these findings, research of a larger scale needs to be conducted for schools in
the entire district. As this research is qualitative in nature, it would allow other LINUS
coordinators to investigate the effects of the program. Additionally, they would be able to
identify strengths and weaknesses of the implementation process in their school.
Due to limited resources and time, only several data collection methods were used in this case
study. For a better understanding of the teaching context, other sources of data should have been
included. The findings had focused on the implementation of LINUS 2.0 from the FasiLINUS
and teachers but not from the administrator and pupils. Another recommendation is to include
additional sources such as informal and formal staff meetings, reports of official staff
observations, interview with the administrator and feedback from pupils for a more
comprehensive triangulation of data.
The third recommendation is to conduct a longitudinal study on the internal and external factors
that contributed to the success of remedial pupils reintroduced into mainstream education. This
will inform teachers the formula of success for remediating pupils. Simultaneously, a
longitudinal case study can be conducted on LINUS Tegar and LINUS pupils that did not
perform or displayed slight improvement throughout the program. Further research is required to
understand the language learning difficulties that these pupils face in the context of Malaysia and
to determine possible solutions that can be recommended to aid them.

5.3 Conclusion
This case study investigated the effects of the implementation ofLINUS 2.0 remedial program in
a national primary school in Selangor, Malaysia. The findings revealed that the remedial program
68

has potential in developing learners early literacy skills. Consistent regulation of its
implementation by the FasiLINUS and the LINUS coordinator through interviews, classroom
observation and document analysis is recommended. This is pivotal in order to maintain the
smooth process of assessment and quality of language instruction.

69

Reference
National Institute For Literacy . (2009). Early Beginnings: Early Literacy Knowledge
and Instructions. Retrieved May 15, 2015, from Literacy Information and
Communication System:
https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPEarlyBeginnings09.pdf
Alvarez, M. C., Amstrong, S. L., Elish-Piper, L. M., & Risko, V. J. (2009).
Deconstructing the construct of 'struggling reader': Standing still or
transforming expectations and instruction? American Reading Forum Annual
Yearbook [Online], 29, 1-21.
Amar-Singh, H. S. (2013). Screening and Diagnosing Learning Disabilities. Retrieved
May 13, 2015, from National Early Childhood Intervention Council:
http://www.necicmalaysia.org
Ankrum, J. W., & Bean, R. M. (2007). Differentiated reading instructions. Reading
Horizons, 48(1), 133-146.
Anonymous. (2011, September 21). Action to be taken against school for barring
trio from exam. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com.my/story/?
sec=nation&file=%2F2011%2F9%2F21%2Fnation%2
Anonymous. (2012, November 25). Primary schools to get Linus 2.0 next year. Daily
Express.
Anonymous. (2012, 4 2). Zero to 12: Upgrading the Education System. Retrieved 1
10, 2015, from News Straits Times:
http://www2.nst.com.my/nation/extras/zero-to-12-upgrading-the-educationsystem-1.69792
Ashdown, J., & Simic, O. (2000). Is early literacy intervention effective for English
language learners? Evidence from Reading Recovery. Literacy Teaching and
Learning , 5(1), 27-42.
ASLI-CPPS. (2012). Feedback Report on National Education Blueprint. Kuala Lumpur:
ASLI-CPPS.
August, D. (2003). Supporting the development of English literacy in English
language learners: Key issues and promising practices. The John Hopkins
University . Baltimore: CRESPAR.
Australian Council for Educational Research. (2013). Literacy and Numeracy
Interventions in the Early Years of Schooling: A Literature Review. New South
Wales: Ministerial Advisory Group on Literacy and Numeracy.

70

Balqis, N. (2014, September 21). Further strengthening English language learning.

New Straits Times.
Banerjee, A. V., Cole, S., Duflo, E., & Linden, L. (2007). Remedying Education:
Evidence From Two Randomised Experiments in India. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 122(3), 1235-1264.
Bartlett, S. (2010). Improving Learning Achievement in Early Primary in Low-Income
Countries: A Review of the Research . Geneva: Aga Khan Foundation .
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544559.
Bhola, H. S. (1990). Evaluating "Literacy for Development" Projects, Programs and
Campaigns: Evaluation Planning, Design and Implementation, and Utilization
of Evaluation Results. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education .
Bipoupout, J. C. (2007). The contribution of the competency-based approach to
education for all in Cameroon. Prospects, 37(2), 205-221.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method.
Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Brown, V. (2014). All primary schools to adopt LINUS programme. Retrieved 1 10,
2015, from The Asian Parent : http://my.theasianparent.com/all-primaryschools-to-adopt-linus-program/#
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education (7th
ed.). Oxon: Routledge.
Davey, L. (1991). The Application of Case Study Evaluations. Retrieved July 9, 2015,
from Ericae.net: http://ericae.net/db/digs/ed338706.htm
DES. (2011). Literacy and Numeracy for Learning and Life: The National Strategy to
Improve Literacy and Numeracy Among Children and Young People 20112020. Government Publications : Dublin .
Dowling, P., & Brown, A. (2010). Doing Research/ Reading Research: Reinterrogating Research . Oxon: Routledge.
E-Best. (2006, February ). Accelerated Reading Interventions: Double-Dipping
Reading Strategy. Retrieved July 15, 2015, from Hamilton-Wentworth District
School Board: http://www.hwdsb.on.ca/e-best/files/2011/03/AcceleratedReading-BLAM.pdf
Economic Planning Unit. (2010). Tenth Malaysia Plan 2011-2015: Chapter 5.
Retrieved May 13, 2015, from UNESCO:
71

http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Malaysia/Malaysia_10th_Master_Plan_
Chapter5.pdf
Europe Aid Cooperation Office. (2005, 3 7). Case Study. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from
European Union:
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation/methodology/examples/too_cas_res
_en.pdf
EURYDICE. (2011). Teaching Reading in Europe: Contexts, Policies and Practices .
Brussels: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.
Explorable.com. (2015). Convenience Sampling . Retrieved July 20, 2015, from
Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/convenience-sampling
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research.
The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607.
Gonzalez, J. E., Goetz, E. T., Hall, R. J., Payne, T., Taylor, A. B., & Kim, M. (2011). An
evaluation of Early Reading First (ERF) preschool enrichment on language and
literacy skills. Read Writ, 24, 253-284.
Gova, A., & Cvelich, P. (2011). Early Reading: Igniting Education For All. A Report by
the Early Grade Learning Community of Practice. NC: Research Triangle
Institute.
Grubb, N. e. (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in community
colleges. New Yok: Routledge.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage
Publication.
Hollohan, B. (2012). Children Who Struggle in Early Literacy . Integrated Studies
Project , Anthabasca University , Department of Arts- Integrated Studies .
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2013). Educational Research: Quantitative,
Qualitative and Mixed Research (5th ed.). New York: Sage Publications.
J-PAL . (2009). Abdul Latiff Jameel Poverty Action Lab Executive Training: Evaluating
Social Programs . Retrieved July 15, 2015, from MIT, Cambridge :
https://www.povertyactionlab.org/course
Kennedy, E., Dunphy, E., Dywer, B., Hayes, G., Mcphillips, T., Marsh, J., et al. (2012).
Literacy in early childhood and primary education (3-8 years). Dublin:
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

72

Kiely, R., & Rea-Dickins, P. (2005). Program Evaluation in Language Education . New
York: Palgrave Macmillan .
Lancashire County Council. (2015). The importance of phonics: Securing confident
reading. Retrieved July 15, 2015, from The Lancashire Grid For Learning:
http://www.lancsngfl.ac.uk/curriculum/assessment/download/file/3.pdf
Mackay, R. (1994). Undertaking ESL/EFL programme review for accountability and
improvement. ELT Journal, 48(2), 142-149.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing Qualitative Research . Newbury
Park: Sage Publications.
Mazen, A. R. (2011). The impact of a remedial program on English writing skills of
the seventh grade low achievers at UNRWA schools in Rafah. MA thesis, The
Islamic University of Gaza, Curriculum and English Teaching Methods
Department .
McCammon, B. (n.d.). Semi-structured Interviews. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from
Design Research Techniques:
http://designresearchtechniques.com/casestudies/semi-structured-interviews/
McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research Methods for English Language
Teachers. New York: Arnold.
Melekoglu, M. A., & Wilkerson, K. L. (2012). The use of repeated reading in
afterschool programs: Improving outcomes for struggling elementary
students with reading difficulties. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences,
8(2), 127-139.
MOE. (2015). Manual Am Pentadbiran Instrumen LINUS 2015: Saringan 1 [General
Manual for LINUS 2015 Instrument: First Assessment]. Putrajaya: MOE.
Mohammed Ali, B. (2012). Is it possible for qualitative research to be properly valid
and reliable? . Retrieved July 20, 2015, from Academia.eu:
http://www.academia.edu/997438/Validity_and_Reliability_in_Qualitative_Rese
arch
Muralidharan, K. (2013). Priorities for primary education policy in India's 12th Fiveyear plan. India Policy Forum, 9, 1-46.
Nag, S., & Snowling, M. J. (2012). School underachievement and specific learning
difficulties. In J. M. Rey (Ed.), IACAPAP e-Textbook of Child and Adolescent
Mental Health. Geneva: International Association for Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry and Allied Professions.
Nag, S., Chiat, S., Torgerson, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2014, January). Literacy,
Foundation Learning and Assessment in Developing Countries: Final Report.
73

Education Rigorous Literature Review, Department for International

Dvelopment.
National Early Literacy Panel . (2008). Developing Early Literacy: Report of the
National Early Literacy Panel . Washington D. C.: National Institute for
Literacy.
Nazariyah, S., & Abdul Rahman, I. (2013). Implementation of Linus programme
based on the model of Van Meter and Van Horn. The Malaysian Online Journal
of Educational Science, 1(2), 25-36.
Ndebele, C. (2014). Teacher perceptions on the effectiveness of an English remedial
teaching programme in primary schools in Zimbabwe: Towards an alternative
to the deficit model. International Journal of Educational Science, 6(3), 497508.
Ng, P. F., & Yeo, K. J. (2012). Preschool teachers' beliefs and practices on early
literacy instruction. Retrieved June 6, 2015, from uitm.com:
http://eprints.utm.my/37854/
Okebukola, F. (2006). Adjuticating the reading wars. Literacy and Reading in Nigeria,
11(1), 134-143.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
PEMANDU. (2010). Government Transformation Programme: The Roadmap.
Putrajaya: PEMANDU.
PEMANDU. (undated). Literacy and numeracy: Education NKRA lab. Retrieved
January 10, 2015, from
http://epic.oum.edu.my/epic_upload/resources/HBEF3503/20130220092017_P
EMANDU%20lit%20&%20num.pdf
Rasinki, T., Homan, S., & Biggs, M. (2008). Teaching reading fluency to struggling
readers : Method, materials, and evidence. Reading and Writing Quarterly,
25(2-3), 192-204.
Riege, A. M. (2003). Validity and reliability tests in case study research. Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal, 6(2), 75-86.
Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (2nd edition ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Roessingh, H., & Elgie, S. (2009). Early language and literacy development among
young English language learners: Preliminary insights from a longitudinal
study. TESL Canada Journal, 26(2), 24-45.

74

Roskos, K. A., Christie, J. F., & Richgels, D. J. (2003). The Essentials to Early Literacy
Instruction. Retrieved May 15, 2015, from NAEYC:
https://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200303/Essentials.pdf
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Davis, S. (2010, January).
Effective reading programs for elementary grades: A best-evidence
synthesis. Retrieved June 10 , 2015, from Best Evidence Encyclopedia:
www.bestevidence.org
Soy, S. (2006, 12 2). The Case Study as a Research Method: Uses and Users of
Information . Retrieved July 10, 2015, from ischool.utexas.edu:
https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~ssoy/usesusers/l391d1b.htm
Special Module for National Service Trainees: Malaysia. (2011, September 12).
Retrieved July 7, 2015, from http://news.asiaone.com/print/News/AsiaOne
%2BNews/Malaysia/Story/A1Story20110912-299006.html
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Coryn, C. L. (2014). Evaluation Theory, Model, and Application
(2nd ed. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, P. C., & Medina, M. N. (2013). Educational Research Paradigms: From
Positivism to Multiparadigmatic. Retrieved April 21, 2015, from
Academia.edu:
http://www.academia.edu/2635980/Educational_research_paradigms_From_po
sitivism_to_multiparadigmatic
The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. (2007, July 1).
Chapter 3 - Remedial Teaching Strategies. Retrieved July 15, 2015, from The
Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region:
http://www.edb.gov.hk/en/edu-system/special/resources/serc/irtp/book3.html#1
Topkaya, E. Z. (2010). An evaluation of 4th and 5th grade English language teaching
program. Elementary Education Online, 9(1), 52-65.
Udosen, A. E., Udofia, N., Ekukinam, T., & Akpan, L. (2010). Empowering primary
school pupils through literacy remediation project in Uyo local government
area. African Research Review, 4(3b), 55-70.
UNESCO. (2015). Education for All 2015 National Review: Malaysia. Retrieved May
14, 2015, from UNESCO:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002297/229719E.pdf
United States Agency International Development. (2012). 2011 USAID Education
Strategy: Reference Materials. Washington: USAID.

75

Usha, N., Karunanidhi, R., & Nirmala, D. (2014). Reading literacy in primary schools
in South Africa: Educator perspectives on factors affecting reading literacy
and strategies for improvement. International Journal of Educational
Sciences, 7(1), 155-167.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd edition ed.).
London: Sage Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd Edition ed.).
London: Sage Publications.

76

6. Appendices
Appendix 1: Turnitin Report

77

Appendix 2: Sample of interview questions

Interview Question Set 1
Bi
l
1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of

your background regarding the
LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as a

Fasilinus?

b) What is your job scope like?

c) What activities or support in general have

you provided for this particular school?

2.

What was your initial

impression of this particular
school in terms of the LINUS
results in the past three years?

a) Why do you believe it to be so?

b) Compared to other schools in the same

district, where does the school stand in terms
of LINUS results?

78

c) Compared to other schools in the same

district, how would you rate the
implementation of LINUS? Please elaborate.

3.

What are your expectations for

the school this year?

a) Results

b) Implementation

4.

Based on the workshops, I

understand that there are
certain steps and procedures
to carry out the reading and
writing test. Please elaborate
what the PPD expects from
teachers?

a) Based on your school visit during the LINUS

reading test, what is your impression of the
way our teachers carry them out?

b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices?

Please elaborate.

79

c) Have you noticed any practices that should

be avoided? Please elaborate.

5.

Based on the workshops, there

are also guidelines to carry out
the LINUS module. Can you
elaborate what the PPD
expects from teachers?

a) Based on your school visits, what is your

impression of the way our teachers carry them
out?

b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices?

Please elaborate.

c) Have you noticed any practices that should

be avoided? Please elaborate.

80

6.

Any further advice you would

like to recommend to our
school to further improve the
implementation of the
programme?

a) Admin

b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS

c) Teachers

81

82

Interview Question Set 2

Bi
l
1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of

your background regarding the
LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as an

English teacher?

b) Which year are you teaching this year?

c) How many of your pupils are classified as

LINUS/ LINUS TEGAR?

2.

What was your initial

impression of this particular
school in terms of the LINUS
results in the past three years?

a) Why do you believe it to be so?

b) Have you noticed any areas of progress in

our school?

c) Have you noticed any areas that need to be

83

worked on?

3.

What are your expectations for

the school this year?

a) Results

b) Implementation

4.

Based on the workshops, I

understand that there are
certain steps and procedures
to carry out the reading and
writing test. Please elaborate
what you have understood
from these workshops?

a) How do you rate the information and

support you have received from the workshop?
Why?

b) What are the best practices that you have

seen/experienced when conducting the tests?
Please elaborate.

84

c) Have you noticed any practices that should

be avoided? Please elaborate.

5.

Based on the workshops, there

are also guidelines to carry out
the LINUS module. Can you
elaborate what teachers are
supposed to do?

a) What is your general opinion of the module?

b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices

that you have seen/experienced when carrying
out the module? Please elaborate.

c) Have you noticed any practices that should

be avoided? Please elaborate.

85

6.

Any further advice you would

like to recommend to our
school to further improve the
implementation of the
programme?

a) Admin

b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS

86

c) Other teachers in school

87

Appendix 3: Sample of observation checklist

Observation checklist for reading assessment
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents?

a) assessment manual
b) BPPI form
c) assessment instruments
Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

4.

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher cover no more than 4
constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

88

Yes

No

Comments

Observation checklist for writing assessment

Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents?

a) assessment manual
b) BPPI form
c) assessment instruments
Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

4.

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher cover no more than 4
constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

89

Yes

No

Comments

Observation checklist for LINUS lesson

Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher refer to the LINUS teachers

module?

4.
5.

Did the teacher use the LINUS module?

Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

6.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

7.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher provide differentiation in
activities?

8.

9.

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

Did the teacher provide differentiation in

worksheet?
Overall comment:

90

Yes

No

Comments

Appendix 4: Interview transcript

Interview Question Set 1
Bi
l
1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of

your background regarding the
LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as a

Fasilinus?
1 year.

FasiLINUS BI.
b) What is your job scope like?
Watching, coaching and mentoring level 1
teachers and their pupils. I work hand in hand
with teachers to help cater to pupils' basic
literacy. Besides that, I handle courses,analyse
data and conduct workshops.
c) What activities or support in general have
you provided for this particular school?
Mainly coaching and mentoring. I assisted one
of the teachers recently, to guide her for
reading and writing assessment. I observe PdP
(teaching and learning) and the screening
process.
2.

What was your initial

impression of this particular
school in terms of the LINUS
results in the past three years?

a) Why do you believe it to be so?

Pupils are weak.

Pupils cannot really communicate in English

independently unless it is scripted.

Most teachers are strict during

the screening.
Pupils should have more
chances to pass because this
is basic literacy especially for
Year 3 pupils.
Pupils need drilling because in

But even then I can see that teachers are very

creative.

No communication in English between pupils.

Maybe for the first 2 classes but for the rest
teachers only use English because it is
compulsory.
b) Compared to other schools in the same
district, where does the school stand in terms
of LINUS results?
91

some schools English is like

their 4th language.
Teachers lack time so they
only give one or two chances
to the pupils during screening
because they have mixedability pupils in the class.

Most schools in the district are similar in

background.Not that bad compared to SJKC or
SJKT or Orang Asli school. I would say middle or
average.
c) Compared to other schools in the same
district, how would you rate the
implementation of LINUS? Please elaborate.
As I wasn't able to see all the teachers during
my visit. I think may 60% to 70% are
implementing LINUS right.30% because lack of
experience or not conducting the lessons in
English.Maybe they do not have the exposure
and they are non-optionistteachers.Schools
need English teachers. I can see that the
district lacks English teachers.Some admin just
fill in the post with other option teachers. To
train them will take a long time because we
can only train one teacher from each school at
one time.The school is large so it is impossible
to train all teachers because training is based
on rotation.

3.

What are your expectations for

the school this year?

a) Results
School should try their best to achieve KPI (Key
Performance Index). Year 3 90% pass for the
first screening and 100% pass for the second
screening. This is based on MOE.
b) Implementation
Teacher should deliver content based on
students' level instead of assuming they are all
at the same level.Don't expect students to
understand high level of English.No mother
tongue. Teacher should use less translation.
They shouldn't be too dependent on
translating.

4.

Based on the workshops, I

understand that there are
certain steps and procedures
to carry out the reading and

a) Based on your school visit during the LINUS

reading test, what is your impression of the
way our teachers carry them out?

92

writing test. Please elaborate

what the PPD expects from
teachers?
There are four items that are
compulsory to have; lesson
plan, screening instrument,
assessment manual and BPPI
form.For reading, you can do
the assessment one to one or
up to 3 pupils maximum at the
same time.Guide, teachers can
guide as long as they don't say
the answer.You can use
teaching aid or gestures.For
writing, you can only do 4 to 6
Construct in a period or a
lesson.To avoid pupils thinking
it's a test. It's not a test. It's
just screening.
5.

Based on the workshops, there

are also guidelines to carry out
the LINUS module. Can you
elaborate what the PPD
expects from teachers?
The module is written based
on phonics. It is fundamental
for students especially for
weaker pupils.Teachers should
use it as it is good.The level is
lower than the activity
book.Use it thoroughly so that
it will help the students.

6.

Any further advice you would

like to recommend to our
school to further improve the
implementation of the
programme?

I only observed that one class at the time.I

observed a Year 2 class. The teacher used
English in her instruction.But the atmosphere
is not conducive because the students were
standing. They should be sitting down.
b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices?
Please elaborate.
Her voice was clear. The instructions were
simple and she used the phonics song.
c) Have you noticed any practices that should
be avoided? Please elaborate.
Classroom control She supposed to give
worksheet to preoccupy the other students.

a) Based on your school visits, what is your

impression of the way our teachers carry them
out?
They gave me good feedback.They said the
tasks were simple. Number of task not
many.The module suits pupils' needs.
b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices?
Please elaborate.
Not yet. This year it's still early. Not like last
year.
c) Have you noticed any practices that should
be avoided? Please elaborate.
Don't give the module to pupils who have
already mastered LINUS.
a) Admin
Remind teachers to make sure they know all
the KPIs so that you are on the right track.Also
need to observe teachers in teaching LINUS
93

pupils.Make it (observation) periodically so that

teachers will be on the right track. Sometimes
teachers tend to do things their own way.
Admin can do this as pencerapan (annual
observation).
b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS
Disseminate information on how to write
proper lesson plans, conduct screening, using
the module and textbook so that teachers are
always updated.Keying in data on time.Remind
them (teachers) of due dates.
c) Teachers
Must identify LINUS pupils make them sit in
front of the class so that they can focus.Know
TOV /Headcount so that they have target to
pass.Example, if the pupil is at Construct 1 , for
the next screening teacher must make sure the
pupils pass 6 constructs and the next
screening another 6 constructs.

94

Interview Question Set 2

Teacher A
Bi
l
1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of

your background regarding the
LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as an

English teacher?
9 years.

2 years when LINUS started.

b) Which year are you teaching this year?
Year 2.
c) How many of your pupils are classified as
LINUS/ LINUS TEGAR?
None.
2.

What was your initial

impression of this particular
school in terms of the LINUS
results in the past three years?
There are too many pupils in
this school. I think their
prestasi (results) are
average.
X

a) Why do you believe it to be so?

In my class I have mixed ability pupils and its
difficult to teach them because English is not
their language. Also they do not speak English
at home. So thats why I think they are only
average.
b) Have you noticed any areas of progress in
our school?
I think their writing is ok.
c) Have you noticed any areas that need to be
worked on?
First is reading. I think their pronunciation
needs more practice. They cannot speak
certain words. Spelling. You know, like words
that sound the same. What do you call them?
Homophones. Yes, they are confused with
homophones. And lack of vocabulary. Thats it.

3.

What are your expectations for

the school this year?

a) Results

95

In my class, I hope that everyone pass the

constructs.
b) Implementation
Well, we have to teach ABC song for phonics. I
just started. And when they are reading, I have
to notify (teach) the sounds. I want them to
know the different sounds. Then, for my
kajiantindakan (action research) with Teacher
(Puan) Hajar. You know about it. The name tag
Im making. Going to start in semester 2. The
students will be wearing name tags and they
have to spell and read the word every day.
Then we will test them with spelling test and
see if they know the words.
4.

Based on the workshops, I

understand that there are
certain steps and procedures
to carry out the reading and
writing test. Please elaborate
what you have understood
from these workshops?
Reading. Oh you mean the
test? Which one? The one we
did in April?
I just do pre-teaching. I teach
the words and sentences first.
Then when they are ready I
call them one by one. Then I
know we can give them clues.
Have to try and help them.
For writing... I just give them
the questions. If (constructs
are) not achieved, we can give
guidance until they can do it.

5.

Based on the workshops, there

are also guidelines to carry out
the LINUS module. Can you

a) How do you rate the information and

support you have received from the workshop?
Why?
I dont know because Ive never been to a
workshop. I only get information from other
teachers. In-house training. I think the
information is sufficient.
b) What are the best practices that you have
seen/experienced when conducting the tests?
Please elaborate.
-

None

c) Have you noticed any practices that should

be avoided? Please elaborate.
I know that when we do pre-teaching, we
shouldnt give same activity. I give them
something different. I change the names a bit.
I change the sentences a bit. So they have to
think.
a) What is your general opinion of the module?
I think too high level for pupils. In the book, for
96

elaborate what teachers are

supposed to do?
I know we use for each class
with Linus students. No, I
dont. I dont have time to use.
You know we got the (LINUS)
test. Then we got PPT (midyear test). No time. I only used
once this year. Banyakkerja
(too much workload).

reading they have past tense. And then writing

in present tense. Susah nakajar(Difficult to
teach). But the book is good for writing
(penmanship). When I teach I must follow the
textbook. I dont have time to teach twice. I
think they must revise the book to lower the
standard for vocabulary.
b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices
that you have seen/experienced when carrying
out the module? Please elaborate.
-None.
c) Have you noticed any practices that should
be avoided? Please elaborate.
-None.

6.

Any further advice you would

like to recommend to our
school to further improve the
implementation of the
programme?

a) Admin
-None.
b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS
Need to give more exposure to students. We
need to have one day for students to enjoy
English. Maybe we can have a workshop... no...
an English Carnival for 3 hours? You know, we
can target speaking and reading skills. We can
do stations and students can do different
activities. Then, we must implement more
action research to the whole school so that (we
can) improve students vocabulary.
c) Other teachers in school
Maybe they can label classroom with English
words. Other teachers do with Malay words. So
if we have English words pupils can also read
English words.

97

98

Interview Question Set 2

Teacher B
Bi
l
1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of

your background regarding the
LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as an

English teacher?
Since 2012... So 4 years.

2 years
b) Which year are you teaching this year?
Year 1.
c) How many of your pupils are classified as
LINUS/ LINUS TEGAR?
In I Jauhari 11 pupils. 1 Delima 30 plus
students are LINUS.
2.

What was your initial

impression of this particular
school in terms of the LINUS
results in the past three years?

a) Why do you believe it to be so?

Because from my Jauhari class I can already
see there are weak students and Jauhari is the
4th class.

Average.
b) Have you noticed any areas of progress in
our school?
No. Not yet.
c) Have you noticed any areas that need to be
worked on?
Um... maybe implementation. We need to think
how to manage mainstream and Linus
students in one class without neglecting
students.
3.

What are your expectations for

the school this year?

a) Results
I hope pupils results will improve.

99

b) Implementation
I want to be able to do it without PPD interfere
(interfering). Well, the impact of the
programme cannot be seen because the
results (are) not accurate. Theres no honesty.
PPD ask us to adjust the results. I did the test
but PPD interfered so theres no point to do the
test.
4.

Based on the workshops, I

understand that there are
certain steps and procedures
to carry out the reading and
writing test. Please elaborate
what you have understood
from these workshops?
For reading I drill the questions
first. I photocopy a lot of the
reading instruments for my
classes. Then the students will
read together and practice in
pairs. Then the pairs will come
to me and I will assess both at
the same time. I will make
sure that everyone pass one
page before we move to the
next page. Then I know we can
help them. We can do arm
blending technique. We have
to teach the topic of the day
for 30 minutes before the
LINUS. Then we can use
games and drills.
For writing same thing. 30
minutes to teach. I also drill
the questions but I change the
questions a bit. Maybe I
change the personal details.
The actions (verbs) are similar
but I change the details a bit.
If they (pupils) dont pass then

a) How do you rate the information and

support you have received from the workshop?
Why?
The information is ok but I dont have time to
do everything. No time to do the test. Only 30
minutes every day I can only do for 3 students.
The standard of the test is too high. Some
students cannot read the sentences, they can
only read (at) words (level) but teacher have to
pass the students.
b) What are the best practices that you have
seen/experienced when conducting the tests?
Please elaborate.
The easiest thing for me is to photocopy the
(instrument) sets for reading. And then for
writing its easier to ask them to write the
same sentences but with different detail
(parallel writing). Must lessen the number of
sentences for reading
c) Have you noticed any practices that should
be avoided? Please elaborate.
Kevins idea (native speaker mentor). When he
helped me with the LINUS, he only said the
instructions. Students cannot understand (oral
instruction). So I think that is not good. I must
write the instructions down. So must have
spoken and written instructions together. Then
only students understand.

100

I can ask them to do again.

But I only do this for the weak
ones. No need to do for Arif.
5.

Based on the workshops, there

are also guidelines to carry out
the LINUS module. Can you
elaborate what teachers are
supposed to do?
I dont know because I didnt
have the teachers module.

a) What is your general opinion of the module?

Just once. I can only do 3 words with the pupils
in one page. The content is not the same with
the textbook so it is hard to teach. Blur
because dont know how to use the module.
Students cannot repeat the words. They know
the sounds but they dont recognise the
letters. Not enough time to teach. I dont have
time to make the ABM (material). No time to
make flashcards.
b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices
that you have seen/experienced when carrying
out the module? Please elaborate.
Not yet.
c) Have you noticed any practices that should
be avoided? Please elaborate.
No.

6.

Any further advice you would

like to recommend to our
school to further improve the
implementation of the
programme?

a) Admin
Need 1 class for LINUS (separate remedial
classes). I think cannot mix the mainstream
and LINUS students. Very hard to control. And
we cannot be the remedial teacher. Must have
another remedial teacher to help.
b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS
I know how to do LINUS but no time. And too
result-oriented. Cannot expect so many
students to pass. If we can make or find video
on how to teach two groups of students at the
same time then it can help a lot.
c) Other teachers in school

101

Maybe we need to work together with BM

(Bahasa Malaysia) teachers. We need to work
together to help students to learn the letters
(letter recognition).

102

Interview Question Set 2

Teacher C
Bi
l
1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of

your background regarding the
LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as an

English teacher?
6 years

Since 2012 during the first

penataran ()... So about 4
years.

b) Which year are you teaching this year?

Year 1 and 2
c) How many of your pupils are classified as
LINUS/ LINUS TEGAR?
40 for Year 1 classes. Year 2 semuamenguasai
(all achieved)

2.

What was your initial

impression of this particular
school in terms of the LINUS
results in the past three years?
I got the average classes so I
cant really say because I dont
teach weak classes so I cannot
compare. I think it depends on
the teacher to push the
students.

a) Why do you believe it to be so?

Maybe its the strategy the teacher used. 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.
b) Have you noticed any areas of progress in
our school?
I cant say because I just got transferred here. I
can only say in Saringan 2 (2nd assessment)
c) Have you noticed any areas that need to be
worked on?
I cant answer this question because it
depends on the teacher. How the teacher push
students. Different teachers have different
styles.

3.

What are your expectations for

the school this year?

a) Results

103

I want to cut down the number of LINUS pupils

to half. At least half.
b) Implementation
I want to focus more on reading. The Year 1
students know the sounds and letters but they
are mostly stuck on Construct 6 and above.
They cannot read sentences.
4.

Based on the workshops, I

understand that there are
certain steps and procedures
to carry out the reading and
writing test. Please elaborate
what you have understood
from these workshops?
Maximum do 4 constructs at a
time. We can guide them up to
3 times with guidance. Its the
same with writing. Make sure
we jot down the date for
screening. And every time we
do the assessment we must
have the BPPI, instrument and
the manual.

a) How do you rate the information and

support you have received from the workshop?
Why?
Enough. If we understand the information then
we can do it.
b) What are the best practices that you have
seen/experienced when conducting the tests?
Please elaborate.
Use the phonics song for the first two months.
With that I can get the students to Construct 4.
Teachers in previous school didnt do it but
when I did it this year I can see the difference.
c) Have you noticed any practices that should
be avoided? Please elaborate.
Maybe we cannot do more than 4 constructs. It
depends on the teacher.

5.

Based on the workshops, there

are also guidelines to carry out
the LINUS module. Can you
elaborate what teachers are
supposed to do?
We must adapt the activities
to suit the topic in the
textbook. We can skip topics in
the module to suit the
syllabus.

a) What is your general opinion of the module?

It was chaos in 2012.
The module should be used before the
Saringan 1 (first assessment). If they
(students) pass then dont need to continue
the module. Its too late if done after saringan.
I dont have problems with Year 1 and Year 2.
But the module must be conducted from day 1
(of semester).

104

b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices

that you have seen/experienced when carrying
out the module? Please elaborate.
Do it as homework because it is difficult to
teach 2 sets (groups) of pupils.
c) Have you noticed any practices that should
be avoided? Please elaborate.

6.

Any further advice you would

like to recommend to our
school to further improve the
implementation of the
programme?

a) Admin
Must use the module for Year 1 from Day 1.
We have a lot of materials but must make sure
that we use it (close monitoring).
Continue using the Year 1 dictionary.
b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS
Nothing because everyone has different duties.
We cannot expect the head of department to
do everything. We must play our part also.
Maybe more boards and markers.
c) Other teachers in school
Keep up with the good work. Keep sharing
materials with other teachers. Well, compared
to other schools, this school is like heaven.
Everyone has so many materials and ideas and
we share them.

105

Interview Question Set 2

Teacher D
Bi
l
1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of

your background regarding the
LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as an

English teacher?
4 years.

Started LINUS in 2013.

b) Which year are you teaching this year?
Year 3.
c) How many of your pupils are classified as
LINUS/ LINUS TEGAR?
I am teaching 2 classes with LINUS students 3
Geliga and 3 Mutiara... About 22 of them are
LINUS.
2.

What was your initial

impression of this particular
school in terms of the LINUS
results in the past three years?

a) Why do you believe it to be so?

This years Year 3 is weak,

very weak.

b) Have you noticed any areas of progress in

our school?

Lack of vocabulary. They dont even know how

to pronounce he properly. They will say her.

After implementing the ABC phonic song with

3M. Last year, the teacher already taught
them.
So I also use with 3G this year, and I can see
the improvement.
c) Have you noticed any areas that need to be
worked on?
For Year 3 we need more materials because
just 2 years LINUS being implement(ed). So we
need the materials to teach. The Linus Year 3
module. Although we have to learn the
dipthong but the topics not aligned with the
106

textbook so its hard to teach students.

3.

What are your expectations for

the school this year?

a) Results
All of 3G must pass the second screening. For
3M half of them must pass the second
screening.
b) Implementation
I have to separate them (students) into groups.
Its hard for me to teach LINUS in 30 minutes
every day so I only do it 2 hours in a week.

4.

Based on the workshops, I

understand that there are
certain steps and procedures
to carry out the reading and
writing test. Please elaborate
what you have understood
from these workshops?
Keep repeating and drilling to
the students.
I know we cannot do all
constructs at once. First day,
Contruct 1, 2, 3... the next day
4, 5, and 6... For writing, I let
them do Construct 1 to 6, then
Construct 7 to 12. If the
students cant get it, then we
can do it again the next day.

a) How do you rate the information and

support you have received from the workshop?
Why?
Enough... but if we can have materials then its
better. Whatever for our pupils we would do it
but nakmenyenangkankerja(would ease our
job).

b) What are the best practices that you have

seen/experienced when conducting the tests?
Please elaborate.
I use visual aids. I show segmented word cards
in front of them. And then not just point at the
test paper (assessment instrument) but I do it
like teaching.
c) Have you noticed any practices that should
be avoided? Please elaborate.
No.

5.

Based on the workshops, there

are also guidelines to carry out

a) What is your general opinion of the module?

107

the LINUS module. Can you

elaborate what teachers are
supposed to do?
I use the teachers LINUS
module.

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.
b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices
that you have seen/experienced when carrying
out the module? Please elaborate.
One week two times for LINUS because more
than half of 3M is LINUS so I can do it as a
class.
c) Have you noticed any practices that should
be avoided? Please elaborate.
no problem yet. Just very time consuming.

6.

Any further advice you would

like to recommend to our
school to further improve the
implementation of the
programme?

a) Admin
I need pictures or materials but photocopy
policy in the office say we need to give it a day
before. Sometimes materials not photocopied
on time. Admin should consider changing the
photocopying policy.
b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS
Good because I received materials from head
of department and penyelaras LINUS so its
good but its better if we can have more ABM
(teaching materials) like flashcards, picture
cards, slides and mini projectors.
c) Other teachers in school
I think our colleagues are very helpful because
we ask materials and help each other.

108

Interview Question Set 2

Teacher E
Bi
l
1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of

your background regarding the
LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as an

English teacher?
2013... so about 3 years.

Started last year in 2014.

b) Which year are you teaching this year?
Year 1.
c) How many of your pupils are classified as
LINUS/ LINUS TEGAR?
Can I estimate? 1G about 34, 1M about 36 and
1A 4 students.
2.

What was your initial

impression of this particular
school in terms of the LINUS
results in the past three years?
Compared to previous school,
this year is better even though
Ive only been teaching for
four months.

a) Why do you believe it to be so?

Previous school have 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.
b) Have you noticed any areas of progress in
our school?
The use of pictures. Teacher Z (English
teacher) showed Teacher S (Bahasa Malaysia
teacher) how to use different sets of materials
for different classes. For example, 1A 1 set, 1M
and 1G another set. The content is the same
but with different method. So its good.
c) Have you noticed any areas that need to be
worked on?
First impression of 1A, the LINUS students are
lazy and day dreaming. But with 1A, I do a lot
of repetition. Then they can do it (reading and
109

writing activities)
With 1G and 1M, it is difficult even with
repetition. I must show pictures and sing songs
with them. They dont know how to read so I
show them and introduce the vocabulary then
they can sing.
3.

What are your expectations for

the school this year?

a) Results
For 1 Arif, hopefully all of them will pass.
For 1M and 1G, at least half. At least I want to
see some improvement to show our effort.
b) Implementation
This year I want to make more ABM (teaching
materials). For example, I want to make
flashcards shaped like fish with sounds printed
on them to teach phonics. So when they read
the fish will grab their attention. Repetition is
very important.

4.

Based on the workshops, I

understand that there are
certain steps and procedures
to carry out the reading and
writing test. Please elaborate
what you have understood
from these workshops?
We can mix language when we
give instruction (use both
Bahasa Malaysia and English
language). We can help them
if they dont know... can give
them guidance. Can help them
as much as possible. If they
get 2 out of 3 questions
correct then they pass the
construct. Do the constructs
bit by bit.

a) How do you rate the information and

support you have received from the workshop?
Why?
No, I cant comment because I have no
experience going into a workshop in this
district. Im still a new teacher (just
transferred). I need more workshop (s). I need
to find out more for weak students so that they
can achieve the KPI (key performance index).
b) What are the best practices that you have
seen/experienced when conducting the tests?
Please elaborate.
Not yet. Still blur especially for weak
students. Im a new teacher in a new teaching
environment. And with the time constraint. So I
lack good practices.
c) Have you noticed any practices that should
110

be avoided? Please elaborate.

Because of this assessment, students cannot
differentiate a real test from LINUS
assessment. Students expect the teacher to
guide them one by one during the exam. The
students cannot finish the exam questions. So
something must be done so that students
dont expect so much from teachers.
5.

Based on the workshops, there

are also guidelines to carry out
the LINUS module. Can you
elaborate what teachers are
supposed to do?
Bolehlah (Its alright) because
I have used it in my previous
school. But this year I have not
received the teachers module.
I know that we can improvise
based on the students level.
Dont have to follow the steps
given.

a) What is your general opinion of the module?

It is helpful, very helpful but not enough
materials. For example, I need ICT, LCD to
show images. For 1G and 1M, they want
movement because they dont like English.
Pictures are not enough. I have to show them
videos.
b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices
that you have seen/experienced when carrying
out the module? Please elaborate.
Not yet for myself. Only seen Teacher Z sharing
with Teacher S. Um, phoneme segmenting is
good. Year 1 still need method.
c) Have you noticed any practices that should
be avoided? Please elaborate.
No, because other teachers are very
committed.

111

6.

Any further advice you would

like to recommend to our
school to further improve the
implementation of the
programme?

a) Admin
We need to host an English Carnival. We need
to make more murals for phonics. I have
noticed new murals but they are not for lower
year students. Make more pictures, banners or
decorations in English to attract students. Like
we have multiplication for mathematics, so its
the same for English because students will see
it every day and not rely on the teacher. I think
the more they see the more they will retain.
b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS
I want more workshops. I have been to KSSR
but not LINUS workshops. I need to be clearer
about instructions from PPD about guidelines.
The manual is given but sometimes not clear.
c) Other teachers in school
I want more sharing of information with
teaching materials and pedagogy. Share
exercises and worksheets.

112

Interview Question Set 2

Teacher F
Bi
l
1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of

your background regarding the
LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as an

English teacher?
3 years.

4 years but Im not involved

with LINUS this year.
b) Which year are you teaching this year?
Year 3
c) How many of your pupils are classified as
LINUS/ LINUS TEGAR?
None.
2.

What was your initial

impression of this particular
school in terms of the LINUS
results in the past three years?
Worse

a) Why do you believe it to be so?

Because too many students still cant read.
They cannot pronounce simple words correctly.
They dont know the phonic sounds and they
are in Year 3.
b) Have you noticed any areas of progress in
our school?
After teaching phonics and the phonic song,
students show slight improvement.
c) Have you noticed any areas that need to be
worked on?

3.

What are your expectations for

the school this year?

None.
a) Results
Increase number of non-LINUS students.
b) Implementation
None.
113

4.

Based on the workshops, I

understand that there are
certain steps and procedures
to carry out the reading and
writing test. Please elaborate
what you have understood
from these workshops?
For reading, I teach before
carrying out the paper
(assessment). I do the
constructs one by one. Then I
record their results in a form
(BPPI). I keep these forms in a
file. If they (students) are
LINUS then I have to work on
them, if not then I continue to
teach as normal.

a) How do you rate the information and

support you have received from the workshop?
Why?
Resource production workshop is good.
b) What are the best practices that you have
seen/experienced when conducting the tests?
Please elaborate.
I think the buddy system is good. I divide
students into pairs. Students on the right is A,
and students on the left is B. A will coach B
and then they will take turns.
c) Have you noticed any practices that should
be avoided? Please elaborate.
Not sure. When doing communication activities
they can do with guidance.

For writing its the same

procedure.
5.

Based on the workshops, there

are also guidelines to carry out
the LINUS module. Can you
elaborate what teachers are
supposed to do?
Dont know because Im not
involved with LINUS yet.

6.

Any further advice you would

like to recommend to our
school to further improve the
implementation of the

a) What is your general opinion of the module?

b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices
that you have seen/experienced when carrying
out the module? Please elaborate.
c) Have you noticed any practices that should
be avoided? Please elaborate.
a) Admin
-

114

programme?

b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS

The head of department is active and she
keeps contact with the other teachers. She
always asks opinions and gives fast feedback.
So everything is ok.
c) Other teachers in school
I think teachers have to be honest in teaching
LINUS students. Dont ignore them and dont
simply say they are special needs students,
must try teaching techniques and methods
first. Dont just send them to another school.

Interview Question Set 2

Teacher G
Bi
l
1.

Main Questions

Additional Questions

Can you tell me a little bit of

your background regarding the
LINUS programme?

a) How long have you been working as an

English teacher?
1 year.

I have been involved with

LINUS Mathematics for 3
year... LINUS English this year.

b) Which year are you teaching this year?

Year 2.
c) How many of your pupils are classified as
LINUS/ LINUS TEGAR?
23 in 2D.

115

2.

What was your initial

impression of this particular
school in terms of the LINUS
results in the past three years?

a) Why do you believe it to be so?

Good, students are getting

better.

b) Have you noticed any areas of progress in

our school?

After introducing phonics, the students can

read a few words and in short sentences.

Students reading skills.

c) Have you noticed any areas that need to be
worked on?
We have to push the students to know sounds
like /wh/ and /ch/ so that its easier for them to
recognise words.
3.

What are your expectations for

the school this year?

a) Results
All clear from LINUS.
b) Implementation
Call Mr.Keven (Native speaker mentor) for
different ideas.

4.

Based on the workshops, I

understand that there are
certain steps and procedures
to carry out the reading and
writing test. Please elaborate
what you have understood
from these workshops?

a) How do you rate the information and

support you have received from the workshop?
Why?

First, I give them the

instructions. Second, I read the
questions to the last class.
Third, I make sure everyone
answer the same question,
then we move on to the
second question.

b) What are the best practices that you have

seen/experienced when conducting the tests?
Please elaborate.

I have never been to a LINUS workshop yet for

English but the information given to me by the
other teachers is enough.

Focus on the questions one by one so that I

dont skip or miss any students.
c) Have you noticed any practices that should
be avoided? Please elaborate.

116

No.

5.

Based on the workshops, there

are also guidelines to carry out
the LINUS module. Can you
elaborate what teachers are
supposed to do?
Teach whole class the daily
lesson. Then I call the LINUS
students and drill them. We do
the activity in the module.

a) What is your general opinion of the module?

It is helping the children. It is easier than the
daily lesson. The words are easy.
b) Have you noticed any exemplary practices
that you have seen/experienced when carrying
out the module? Please elaborate.
c) Have you noticed any practices that should
be avoided? Please elaborate.
-

6.

Any further advice you would

like to recommend to our
school to further improve the
implementation of the
programme?

a) Admin
No.
b) Head of department/ Penyelaras LINUS
More ABM for sounds. If children recognise the
sounds then they can read.
c) Other teachers in school
No.

117

Appendix 5: Observation checklist data

Subject: A
Class: 2B
Observation checklist for reading assessment
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents?

a) assessment manual
b) BPPI form
c) assessment instruments
Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher cover no more than 4
constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

118

Yes

No

/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/

Comments

Subject: B
Class: 1J
Observation checklist for reading assessment
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents?

a) assessment manual
b) BPPI form
c) assessment instruments
Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher cover no more than 4
constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

119

Yes

/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/

No

Comments

Subject: C
Class: 2A
Observation checklist for reading assessment
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents?

a) assessment manual
b) BPPI form
c) assessment instruments
Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question

7.

No

/
/
/
/

/
/
/

Did the teacher cover no more than 4

constructs in a lesson?

Overall comment:

120

Comments

All pupils
could read
fluently so no
need for
prompting
Pupils could
complete the
assessment in
one go.

Subject: D
Class: 3M
Observation checklist for reading assessment
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents?

a) assessment manual
b) BPPI form
c) assessment instruments
Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher cover no more than 4
constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

121

No

/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/

Comments

Subject: E
Class: 1 G
Observation checklist for reading assessment
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents?

a) assessment manual
b) BPPI form
c) assessment instruments
Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher cover no more than 4
constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

122

Yes

/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/

No

Comments

Subject: F
Class: 3A
Observation checklist for reading assessment
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents?

a) assessment manual
b) BPPI form
c) assessment instruments
Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question

7.

Yes

No

/
/
/
/

/
/
/

Did the teacher cover no more than 4

constructs in a lesson?

Overall comment:

123

Comments

Pupils could
read
independently
without
guidance.
Pupils could
complete the
assessment in
one go.

Subject: G
Class: 2D
Observation checklist for reading assessment
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents?

a) assessment manual
b) BPPI form
c) assessment instruments
Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher cover no more than 4
constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

124

No

/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/

Comments

Subject: A
Class: 2P
Observation checklist for writing assessment
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents?

a) assessment manual
b) BPPI form
c) assessment instruments
Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question

7.

Yes

No

/
/
/
/

/
/
/

Did the teacher cover no more than 4

constructs in a lesson?
Overall comment:

125

Comments

Pupils could
do
assessment
independently

Subject: B
Class: 1D
Observation checklist for writing assessment
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents?

a) assessment manual
b) BPPI form
c) assessment instruments
Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher cover no more than 4
constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

126

Yes

No

Comments

/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/

Lesson was
spent on
drilling

Subject: C
Class: 1C
Observation checklist for writing assessment
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents?

a) assessment manual
b) BPPI form
c) assessment instruments
Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher cover no more than 4
constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

127

No

Comments

/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/

Lesson was
spent on
drilling.

Subject: D
Class: 3G
Observation checklist for writing assessment
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents?

a) assessment manual
b) BPPI form
c) assessment instruments
Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher cover no more than 4
constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

128

No

Comments

/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/

Lesson was
spent on
drilling

Subject: E
Class: 1M
Observation checklist for writing assessment
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents?

a) assessment manual
b) BPPI form
c) assessment instruments
Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher cover no more than 4
constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

129

No

/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/

Comments

Subject: F
Class: 3A
Observation checklist for writing assessment
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents?

a) assessment manual
b) BPPI form
c) assessment instruments
Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher cover no more than 4
constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

130

Yes

No

Comments

/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/

Pupils could
work
independently.
Pupils could
complete the
assessment in
one go.

Subject: G
Class: 2D
Observation checklist for writing assessment
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher have the following documents?

a) assessment manual
b) BPPI form
c) assessment instruments
Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

4.

5.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

6.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher cover no more than 4
constructs in a lesson?

7.

Overall comment:

131

No

/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/

Comments

Subject: B
Class: 1D
Observation checklist for LINUS lesson
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher refer to the LINUS teachers

module?

4.
5.

Did the teacher use the LINUS module?

Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

6.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

7.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher provide differentiation in
activities?

8.

9.

Did the teacher provide differentiation in

worksheet?
Overall comment:

132

No

/
/

/
/
/
/

Comments

Subject: C
Class: 1C
Observation checklist for LINUS lesson
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher refer to the LINUS teachers

module?

4.
5.

Did the teacher use the LINUS module?

Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

/
/

6.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

7.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher provide differentiation in
activities?

8.

9.

Did the teacher provide differentiation in

worksheet?
Overall comment:

133

No

Comments

as homework

/
/
/
/

Subject: D
Class: 3M
Observation checklist for LINUS lesson
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher refer to the LINUS teachers

module?

4.
5.

Did the teacher use the LINUS module?

Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

/
/

6.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

7.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher provide differentiation in
activities?

8.

9.

Did the teacher provide differentiation in

worksheet?
Overall comment:

134

No

Comments

today is
purely a LINUS
lesson

not applicable
as the whole
class is LINUS
not applicable
as the whole
class is LINUS

/
/
/

Subject: E
Class: 1M
Observation checklist for LINUS lesson
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher refer to the LINUS teachers

module?

4.
5.

Did the teacher use the LINUS module?

Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

/
/

6.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

7.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher provide differentiation in
activities?

8.

9.

Did the teacher provide differentiation in

worksheet?
Overall comment:

135

No

/
/
/
/

Comments

have not
received
teachers
module

136

Subject: G
Class: 2D
Observation checklist for LINUS lesson
Bi
l.
1.

Procedures and steps carried out in lesson

Yes

Did the teacher use the phonic song?

2.

Did the teacher incorporate high frequency

word in lesson?

3.

Did the teacher refer to the LINUS teachers

module?

4.
5.

Did the teacher use the LINUS module?

Did the teacher give suitable instructions to
students?

/
/

6.

Did the teacher carry out the KSSR lesson for

30 minutes?

7.

Did the teacher prompt students?

a) arm blending technique
b) phonics gestures
c) personalised question
Did the teacher provide differentiation in
activities?

8.

9.

Did the teacher provide differentiation in

worksheet?
Overall comment:

137

No

/
/
/
/

Comments

138

Appendix 6: Sample of pupils work

139

140

141

142

143

144

Appendix 7: Sample of permission letter to the headmaster

Suria 2-1-8,
Cyber Heights Villa,
PersiaranTasik,
63000, Cyberjaya.
1st March 2015.

Guru Besar,
SekolahKebangsaan _________________,
______________________________,
_____________________________,
Selangor, Malaysia.
Seeking Permission to Conduct Study in School
I am writing to seek your permission to conduct a case study in your school
regarding the LINUS remedial program. This study is for a dissertation to complete
my MA TESOL degree in University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus.
The research topic is entitled, After 3 years... A review of the effectiveness of LINUS
in English in a Malaysian primary school.
The identity of the school and its staff will not be revealed as an act of protection
and in compliance with the ethics of research. I hope you would consider approving
this request.

Yours sincerely,
Lean Zu Lee.

145

Appendix 8: Statement of research

School of Education

STATEMENT OF RESEARCH ETHICS

Name of
student:

Lean Zu Lee

Supervisor:

Dr. Too We

Course of
Study:

28 November 2014- 28 July 2015

Date:

10 April 20

Title of
assignment /
dissertation:

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

PRIMARY SCHOOL

Sections 1-4 are to be completed by the student; Sections 5 / 6 are to be completed

by the tutor / supervisor.

Section 1
Briefly outline your research questions or aims

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 2
Briefly outline your proposed methods and sites of data generation and your
proposed methods of sampling

Mixed-method
1. Qualitative data
146

- Semi-structured interviews with the Fasilinus and teachers of SK Kebun Baharu

- classroom observations
-Doc analysis of pupils homework

2. Quantitative data
- doc analysis of pupils LINUS results
Sampling
-quota sampling
-1 Fasilinus
-8 lower primary teachers
-pupils who are LINUS
-pupils who are LINUS Tegar
-pupils who have been reintroduced into mainstream education
Section 3
Briefly explain how you plan to gain access to prospective research
participants

Participants
Participants will be recruited through quota sampling: 1 Fasilinus of PPD Kuala Langat, 8
lower primary teachers of SK Kebun Baharu, Kuala Langat, pupils who are classified as
LINUS, pupils who are classified as LINUS Tegar and pupils who have been
reintroduced to mainstream education.
Their permission to use their responses will be sought. It will be made clear that their
responses will be anonymized and kept confidential.

Ethical Considerations
All participants will be provided with a project summary (information sheet), and an
ethical consent form. This consent form will make clear the commitments and
expectations relating to the project (commitments to anonymity and confidentiality,
details about uses of data). The consent form will offer a range of issues for which
consent will be sought, and each participant will be asked to indicate positively their
support for each one (for example, digital recording of interviews will involve specific
consent).

All participants will be asked to provide active consent. All participants will be assured
that they will not be identifiable in any resulting presentations or publications arising
147

from the study. It will be made clear to potential participants that non-participation will
have no negative consequences.
All ethical issues and risks will be communicated to the participants.
Assurance of anonymity and non-traceability of research participants
No individuals or individual institutions will be named in the writing up of the research
project, and any resulting reports.
Completed research questionnaire will be stored securely on password protected
computers. Data will be stored in a way what makes it non-traceable to individuals
(using codes for individuals).

Risks to participants
Generally the research might be considered to face no more than standard risks. The
subject matter does not involve sensitive issues, and most of the methods of data
collection are commonly understood.

Section 4 (a)
I have read and discussed with my supervisor the British Educational Research Associations Revis
1.
for Educational Research (BERA, 2004) and/or guidelines of the appropriate professional associatio
2.

I have read and discussed with my supervisor the Code of Research Conduct and Research Ethics
Nottingham:http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/fabs/rgs/documents/code-of-research-conduct-and-res
approved-january-2010.pdf

3.

I am aware of and have discussed with my supervisor the relevant sections of the Data Protection
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980029.htm

4.

Data gathering activities involving schools and other organizations will be carried out only with the
head of school/organization, or an authorised representative, and after adequate notice has been
permission (e.g. email) will need to have been seen by your supervisor.

5.

The purpose and procedures of the research, and the potential benefits and costs of participating (
their time involved), will be fully explained to prospective research participants at the outset.

6.

My full identity will be revealed to potential participants.

7.

Prospective participants will be informed that data collected will be treated in the strictest confiden
reported in anonymised form, but that I will be forced to consider disclosure of certain information
strong grounds for believing that not doing so will result in harm to research participants or others
continuation of) illegal activity.

8.

All potential participants will be asked to give their explicit, normally written consent to participatin
and, where consent is given, separate copies of this will be retained by both researcher and partic

9.

In addition to the consent of the individuals concerned, the signed consent of a parent, guardian o
will be required to sanction the participation of minors (i.e. persons under 16 years of age) or thos

148

capability or other vulnerable circumstance may limit the extent to which they can be expected to
voluntarily to undertake their role. (BERA, 2004, para 14-16).
10.

Undue pressure will not be placed on individuals or institutions to participate in research activities.

11.

The treatment of potential research participants will in no way be prejudiced if they choose not
project.

12.

I will provide participants with my contact details (and those of my supervisor), in order that th
contact in relation to any aspect of the research, should they wish to do so.

13.

Participants will be made aware that they may freely withdraw from the project at any time withou

14.

Research will be carried out with regard for mutually convenient times and negotiated in a way tha
disruption to schedules and burdens on participants.

15.

I have considered carefully to what extent, if any, my research might expose me to any kind of ris
safety. I have also discussed this with my supervisor, and appropriate steps taken to respond to a
Where such a strategy has been agreed, a record of it is attached to this submission.

16.

At all times during the conduct of the research I will behave in an appropriate, professional manne
ensure that neither myself nor research participants are placed at risk.

17.

The dignity and interests of research participants will be respected at all times, and steps will be ta
no harm will result from participating in the research.

18.

The views of all participants in the research will be respected.

19.

Special efforts will be made to be sensitive to differences relating to age, culture, disability, race, s
sexual orientation, amongst research participants, when planning, conducting and reporting on the

20.

Data generated by the research (e.g. transcripts of research interviews) will be kept in a safe and
will be used purely for the purposes of the research project (including dissemination of findings).
research colleagues, supervisors or examiners will have access to any of the data collected.

21.

Research participants will have the right of access to any data kept on them.

22.

All necessary steps will be taken to protect the privacy and ensure the anonymity and non-traceab
e.g. by the use of pseudonyms, for both individual and institutional participants, in any written rep
and other forms of dissemination.

23.

Where possible, research participants will be provided with a summary of research findings and an
debriefing after taking part in the research.
Does your research involve (please tick ALL that apply):

24.
groups?

Schools?

Vulnerable Adults?

149

Children?

a) Will your research be conducted in (please tick ONE BOX only):

UK only?

Outside the UK only?

UK and outside the UK

25.
b) If outside the UK, please name the country(ies) involved:
Malaysia

FOR ALL STUDENTS UNDERTAKING RESEARCH INVOLVING SCHOOLS, CHILDREN (UNDER 18) A
ADULTS AT A LOCATION WHERE THE STUDENT IS NOT CURRENTLY COVERED BY AN EXISTING E
RECORDS BUREAU (CRB) DISCLOSURE
26.

I have received Enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosure through the University of N
School of Education Postgraduate Office has the reference number. This applies even when data
of the UK.

NB: All students must remember to apply for their University of Nottingham CRB disclosure wh
the UK.
FOR ALL NON UK STUDENTS
27.

I have received a Certificate of Good Conduct (where one is available)* and the School of Educatio
Coordinatorshave a copy of this**.

* Countries that produce a Certificate of Good Conduct are: Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Irish Republic, Italy, Jamaica, Latvia, Malaysia, Malta, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Philippines, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden & Turkey.
** UK students who have lived in one of the above countries for 6 months or more may also need to apply for one
of these.

Section 4 (b)
Please provide further information below in relation to any of the above statements which
you have not been able to tick, explaining in each case why the suggested course of action
is not appropriate:

150

When you have completed Sections 1-4 email the form to the relevant supervising
tutor, together with:

(1)

a draft information sheet to be provided to prospective participants;

(2)

a draft consent form to be used with prospective participants.

Section 5

Supervising tutor
I have discussed the proposed research outlined on this form with the student and I am
satisfied that the work will be carried out with due regard to
ethical protocol and participants interests.

NAME:

Date:

Section 6
Course Leader/ second reviewer
I have reviewed the proposed research outlined on this form and I am satisfied that the
work will be carried out with due regard to ethical protocol and participants interests.

NAME:

Date:

Note to supervising tutor:Please email the completed form to the course leader who will
forward the final version to the appropriate administrative assistant. When the Course
Leader is also Supervising Tutor (Section 5) they should get a second member of

151

/
/

their course team to check

and review the form. The administrative assistant will email the student (cc yourself and
course leader) with confirmation of ethical approval to begin collecting data and proceed to
the next stage of the dissertation.

Updated 10/10/2012

152

Appendix 9: Sample of participants information sheet

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

General Information Sheet

You are invited to take part in a research study. This research is to produce an MA dissertation
for the School of Education. Before you agree to take part it is important to understand why the
research is being done and what it will involve.
Please take time to carefully read the following information. Please ask me if there is anything
that is not clear, or if you would like more information. Please think about it carefully and then
decide whether you would like to take part or not.
What are the aims of the research?
This study aims to assess the implementation of LINUS of this school. It is hoped that this study
will provide insight and future direction into improving the programme in the context of the
school being studied.
Who else is and can be involved?
Besides you, the Fasilinus of the district, lower primary teachers of the school, pupils who are
classified as LINUS, LINUS Tegar, pupils who have been reintroduced to mainstream education
will be asked to participate.
What sorts of methods are being used?
This research is based on data collected via an interview with the Fasilinus. For teachers, data
will be collected through interviews and classroom observations. For pupils, data will be
gathered through LINUS results and homework samples.
Why have you been chosen?
You have been invited to participate in this study because you are directly involved with the
implementation of LINUS in this school.
What are you being asked to do?
For Fasilinus- You are being asked to be interviewed and give permission to the researcher to use
your responses as data.
For teachers- You are being asked to be interviewed, be observed and give permission to the
researcher to use your responses as data.
For pupils- You are being asked to give permission to the researcher to use your results in the
LINUS tests and homework as data.

Will my taking part in this study be kept confidential?

The data we collect will be treated confidentially, and only members of the research team will
have access to the raw data. All information collected while carrying out the study will be stored
on a database which is password protected and strictly confidential. The digital and textual data
will be kept in a secure and confidential location. Your name will not appear on any database or
any information which is then published. Instead, a number will be used as an identifier on all
data associated with you. The master copy of the names associated with each number will be
kept in a separate, secure and confidential location.
We will report the results anonymously. When results are reported all individuals and institutions
(e.g., individual schools and zones) will be anonymized, so neither you nor your affiliations will
be identifiable.

We are committed to carrying out our research according to the ethical guidelines provided by
the British Educational Research Association (online at http://tinyurl.com/6r5juen).
What will happen to the results of the research study?
The data gathered will be used to write an MA dissertation.
Do you have to take part?
Your participation is entirely voluntary. It is important you understand that you do not have to
participate in the project at all, and even if you decide to take part you are still free to stop at any
time and without giving a reason.
What are the possible disadvantages of taking part?
We realize that some people may find being interviewed tiring or difficult and we understand that
for some this may cause feelings of discomfort or anxiety. Otherwise, we do not believe there are
any risks or disadvantages to you in taking part.
What are the possible benefits to me of taking part?
We hope that your views, and those of others, will us better understand and improve the
implementation of LINUS in the school being studied.
Who is paying for this research and who is carrying it out?
The research is being carried out by myself. I am a student at the University of Nottingham,
School of Education. I am being supervised by D. Too Wei Keong. If you have any questions or
concerns about the research you can contact me or my supervisor:
Lean Zu Lee
e: kabx2lze@nottingham.edu.my
p: 019-7914858

Dr. Too Wei Keong (Supervisor)

e: kabzwkt@nottingham.edu.my
p: +6 (03) 1234 5678

If you agree to take part in this study, please:

1. Keep this copy of the Information Sheet for your records
2. Sign the attached Consent Form

Appendix 10: Sample consent form

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

A MALAYSIAN PRIMARY SCHOOL

Consent Form

1. I have read the Information Sheet.

2. I understand the nature and purpose of this research.
3. I have received enough information to make an informed decision about taking part.
4. I understand that I can raise questions, offer criticisms and make suggestions about
the project.
5. I understand that I can decide not to participate in this project at any time after
agreeing to.
6. I agree to contribute to this research.
7. I agree for my responses to be analyzed for this research.

I consent to take part in this project after considering the information provided.
NAME (capital letter): ________________________________
Signature:___________________________________________
Date: ______________

Participant Code (for research team use): _____________