Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)]On: 27 March 2014, At: 04:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Early Child Development and CarePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20
Trainee Teachers' Perceptions of the Effectiveness ofthe Literacy Hour in Primary Schools in EnglandMary Williams aa School of Education , Brunei University , 300 St. Margarets Road, Twickenham, TW1 1PTPublished online: 07 Jul 2006.
To cite this article: Mary Williams (2001) Trainee Teachers' Perceptions of the Effectiveness of the Literacy Hour in PrimarySchools in England, Early Child Development and Care, 166:1, 53-61, DOI: 10.1080/0300443011660105
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443011660105
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Early Child Development and Care, 2001, Vol. 166, pp. 53-61Reprints available directly from the publisherPhotocopying permitted by license only
© 2001 OPA (Overseas Publishers Association) N.V.Published by license under
the Gordon and Breach Publishers imprintPrinted in Singapore.
Trainee Teachers' Perceptions of theEffectiveness of the Literacy Hourin Primary Schools in England
MARY WILLIAMS
School of Education, Brunei University, 300 St. Margarets Road,Twickenham, TW1 1PT
(Received 20 October 2000)
This article presents the findings of a small scale survey comparing trainee teachers'perceptions of the effectiveness of the Literacy Hour during its first two years operationwith the OFSTED evaluation of the first year of implementation published in 1999.Trainees were asked to identify, from their perspective, the strengths and weaknessesof the National Literacy Strategy, as well as indicate what their future concerns for theteaching of literacy were. As the Strategy is intended to raise standards of literacy inthe future, the perceptions of these teachers at the start of their careers will be ofsignificance, as it is in their hands that its destiny lies.
Key words: National literacy strategy, literacy hour, OFSTED
INTRODUCTION
As part of ongoing research — Brunei Research into Literacy Project [BRIL] (1999)— into the teaching of literacy at Key Stages 1 and 2, trainee teachers were askedto engage in a process of critical reflection based on evaluation of their ownteaching and observations of at least two Literacy Hour lessons in order to gaintheir perceptions of the National Literacy Strategy's (1998) effectiveness during itsfirst two years of implementation. The trainees surveyed in the first year (1998/9) were 16 primary English PGCE specialists and 38 Year 2 primary BA (QTS)students. In the second year (1999/00) 35 Year 2 BA (QTS) students were askedto undertake a similar exercise. When the evaluation by OFSTED (1999) of the firstyear of the National Literacy Strategy became available it seemed appropriate tocompare their perceptions with what was in the report After undertaking a fiveweek School Experience both cohorts were simply asked to record what theythought were the strengths and weaknesses of the Hour and to indicate any con-cerns they had about its ability to raise standards of literacy in the future. The firstsurvey was undertaken in January and February of 1999, when the Strategy had only
53
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)]
at 0
4:07
27
Mar
ch 2
014
54 M. WILLIAMS
been in place for a term, so their responses were fairly immediate. The secondsurvey was undertaken at the identical point the following year. This second groupof trainees were aware of the interim findings of OFSTED inspectors (Spring, 1999)but had not necessarily read it in depth.
TRAINEE TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE LITERACY HOUR DURING ITSFIRST TWO YEARS OF IMPLEMENTATION
What follows is a summary of these trainee teachers' perceptions of the LiteracyHour analysed in terms of its strengths, weaknesses and their concerns for thefuture.
Strengths
1998 Cohort
Trainee teachers perceived that, as a direct result of the National Literacy Strategy,literacy was being given a high profile in schools and that there was more uniformityin the way it was being taught. The National Literacy Strategy 'termly objectives'provided a useful framework for literacy teaching, and the structure which the Houroffered, along with the planning this involved, helped them to be clearer about theirlearning intentions. This view is echoed in the OFSTED report (1999) where, inaddition, many teachers found the framework for teaching 'extremely helpful inillustrating where to pitch the level of work to be taught'. This detail enabled trainees toknow what pupils had covered the year before. They were positive about offeringmore pace in lessons and were aware that high levels of questioning were usefulfor assessment purposes. OFSTED agreed, suggesting that such questioning hadenabled teachers to 'assess what pupils knew and to challenge or broaden' their rangeof experience. An emphasis on active learning, based on quality interactions, wasessential for the direct teaching offered during 'shared' reading and writing andfocus group work. It meant, according to one PGCE specialist, that
'lessons must be worked through at a lively pace with a sense of urgency engen-dering enthusiasm and concentration'.
Most trainees were aware that high expectations of pupil performance wererequired and that pupils' subject knowledge was being enhanced at text, sentenceand word level with one BA (QTS) trainee realising that this:
'exposure to complex language has made an amazing difference'.
As a result, many more pupils were becoming proficient in spelling, grammar andphonic knowledge with word work being offered from an ever-widening range of'Big Books' which helped make discussion at word, sentence and text level moremeaningful. The range of genre to which children were being exposed had widened
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)]
at 0
4:07
27
Mar
ch 2
014
TRAINEE TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS 55
as a result of the National Literacy Strategy with more non fiction texts being usedand the ability of children to infer and deduce — to 'read between the lines' —being actively encouraged (Fisher & Williams, 2000).
Trainees had observed many "good" literacy lessons characterised by the qualityof the direct teaching during 'shared' reading or writing which was the mosteffective element of the Literacy Hour: a view endorsed by OFSTED althoughinspectors were concerned that not enough 'shared' writing was being offered.Whole class teaching enabled teachers, through the use of discussion and specifi-cally targeted questions, to diagnose difficulties in pupils' understanding as well asto extend their knowledge and understanding of literacy.
Group work, as required under the Literacy Hour, meant that the literacy cur-riculum was being differentiated more widely than in the past ICT formed partof independent work in only a few lessons but was 'an excellent rotational activity'.During independent work children learnt how to study on their own which wasthought to be an important skill for later life.
1999 Cohort
After a furdier year trainees commented that the Strategy ensured that childrenwere receiving an hour of literacy a day and offered continuity when they movedschools. They acknowledged that the 'framework of objectives' gave a solid struc-ture to lessons, in the words of the OFSTED report, it provided 'a clear and detailedset of teaching objectives1 giving both lesson cohesion and a high focus to a particularaspect of literacy. It was useful for determining learning intentions which neededto be shared with pupils in written and oral form at the beginning of lessons. Alot of learning could take place when the pace was swift and levels of questioninghigh. Through the use of fiction and non fiction texts links between reading andwriting could be forged which increased awareness of genres. At sentence levelchildren were able to learn from their teachers as well as each other. This wasseen as critical to raising standards of spelling, grammar and punctuation and wasaided by using a correct metalanguage. OFSTED, after one year, had suggestedthat teachers needed more training in this, so these trainees were experiencingan improvement in the right direction. Children's vocabulary at word level wasbeing extended on a daily basis (although little reference was made to phonicswork).
Each feature of the Hour was useful with the 'shared' aspect in which teachersmodelled strategies for reading and writing, for example, demonstrating how tomatch styles to audiences and purposes considered as a very effective means ofdemonstrating specific aspects of writing. Guided group work, with the intensiveinput which could be given to a small group of children, enhanced differentiationwhich suggests another improvement on the situation seen the year before (83).Pupils gained confidence and knowledge in working collaboratively on some inde-pendent activities. The plenary session was useful for consolidating learning; providingnecessary opportunities for pupils to learn from each other and for teachers toevaluate what had been learnt. Trainees perceived that standards were rising as thequality of work was improving.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)]
at 0
4:07
27
Mar
ch 2
014
56 M. WILLIAMS
Summary
Certain themes persisted throughout the two years of survey which relate to highquality lessons being seen as those which are active in nature, have pace and includehigh levels of questioning. By the second year of data collection the emphasis hadmoved away from organisational issues to consideration of how best to offer wholeclass, group or individual teaching. The 1999 cohort were aware of the importanceof sharing learning intentions with pupils at the beginning of lessons, knowing howuseful these could be for keeping learning on-track and for setting the agenda forthe plenary. Trainees were aware of the importance of integrating ICT into literacybut were not always finding this exemplified in schools.
Weaknesses
1998 Cohort
Trainees argued that thirty minutes of shared work was too long for many pupilsin Key Stage 1. There were concerns about classroom management particularlyduring independent work when some pupils managed to complete very little workat all, or where the activities were so low in educational quality that they lacked value.This perception was shared by inspectors who were concerned that many teachersfound it hard to provide worthwhile tasks for all pupils working independently,although it was recognised that this was improving. Trainees found noise levelsdifficult to control at this point with some pupils becoming so disruptive that theeffectiveness of the guided group work was impaired. Time constraints of the 'Hour'itself could lead to teaching being rushed with too little time to revisit aspects ofthe learning intentions, or to pursue a child's particular interest. This had a knock-on effect on the plenary session which often was cancelled as a result-
Trainees observed that it was difficult to cater for pupils at both ends of the abilityspectrum. The less able were inclined to 'switch off and became demotivatedduring shared work when it was difficult to give them the additional support theyrequired. The pace of the lesson was often more suitable for able children but theycould easily be left to coast along. As one BA (QTS) trainee pointed out:
'It is difficult to maintain the pace and involve the weaker children. You tendto question the brighter children to get a quick response, so you can move on'.
There were problems associated with differentiating the curriculum which 'toomany tasks' made unmanageable: similarly in the OFSTED report it was noted that' understandably, many teachers are finding it difficult and extremely time consuming to designfour or five worthwhile tasks for their groups'. At the point of change over from sharedto guided group/independent work, too lengthy or complex explanations dis-rupted the flow of the lesson.
Some trainees were unhappy that 'old and well-tried' approaches to teachingreading such as hearing children read individually (Guppy & Hughes, 1999) werebeing dropped. OFSTED noted that where this was still being maintained it was
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)]
at 0
4:07
27
Mar
ch 2
014
TRAINEE TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS 57
outside the Literacy Hour with an 'interested adult' such as a volunteer or teachingassistant
1999 Cohort
Weaknesses persisted in terms of trainees' perceptions that there was too little timeto go back over aspects of learning which had not been fully understood with'lessons moving on whether they had completed the work or not' Pupils neededtime to think and this was not always possible when so much had to be crammedin. Over-running time-wise resulted in the plenary being shortened or cancelledwhich meant that an important aspect of the Hour was missed. A situation madeeven worse when the plenary was not probing enough with OFSTED agreeing thatthis was 'the weakest part of the Literacy Hour'. Organisational problems — althoughnot as high focus as die year before — were there. These related to children beingconfused about what they had to do next, particularly where diere was 'over-com-plicated organisation' which resulted in 'transition' times being too lengdiy and pupilsfinding it difficult to concentrate; or when they needed to resolve problems duringindependent work which made the allocation of additional adult support ideal.Where extra helpers could not be found pupils were often given "holding activities"such as worksheets or completing simple sentence tasks which they found boringand unchallenging. It was recognised that to overcome this pupils needed a widerange of strategies for supporting each other and for finding out what they shouldknow for themselves.
Trainees working in Key Stage I continued to be concerned diat pupils founddie 'shared' aspect of the Hour too lengdiy with some finding it very difficult tobase work around a single book for a week. By Thursday many children were boredwith the chosen book.
However, in line with the OFSTED report, die teaching of writing was found tobe die weakest aspect of the Literacy Hour widi one trainee concluding diat 'writingdoesn't seem to be very high on the list of priorities'. Above all, there was insufficienttime for pupils to develop a piece of writing. Anodier trainee was worried diat shewas unable to get her class of Key Stage 2 children to complete a whole piece of writingwidiin the Hour or to give diem individual feedback at die point where it was needed.It was diought diat some children reacted unfavourably to having to write underpressure all die time, aldiough diis is a necessary skill for later life. These problemsrelated, in some part, to teachers who lacked die confidence to be flexible or,according to OFSTED, were unable to see diat die writing process could be 'taughtas part of a sequence of lessons'. Fears were expressed diat SATs considerations were diemain criteria when it came to planning which made writing lessons less creative andoriginal than diey used to be. As one trainee concluded, die Hour could 'becomequite tedious if teachers don't breadie some fun into it'.
Trainees were increasingly aware of die need to differentiate but found tinsdifficult to achieve during 'shared' work because it was hard to know where to pitchlessons. As a result, botii ends of die ability spectrum could suffer. SEN Childrenwere picked out as being particularly vulnerable if diey could not keep up widi dierest of die class. Such children give up very easily so were likely to lose attention
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)]
at 0
4:07
27
Mar
ch 2
014
58 M. WILLIAMS
during shared work time, when they might fail to gain the attention of the teacherwho, as a result, might overlook their mistakes or misconceptions.
Summary
Several weaknesses, as perceived by the trainees, persisted across the two year periodof the research. These related to the Literacy Hour being too long for some KeyStage 1 pupils; the difficulty of finding challenging and motivating independentwork which could be managed with minimum adult support; problems relating totiming when the different aspects of the Hour over-ran or where there was the needto go back over some learning objectives. Also, there were difficulties in providingappropriate differentiation at both ends of the ability spectrum.
The main weakness was in the teaching of writing where it was felt that there wasinsufficient time for pupils to develop pieces of work and for the full 'plan, draft,edit, revise, proofread, present, discuss and evaluate' process (National Curriculum:English, 2000, p28) to be carried out
Future Concerns
1998 Cohort
These trainees, at the start of their professional careers, expressed a number ofconcerns about the Literacy Hour and the effect that it would have on the primaryschool curriculum. They were worried that pupils — also teachers — would becomebored with the format and wondered whether it would be possible to keep up thepace and challenge required every day over a large number of years. Traineesreflected that some teachers 'who lacked flair for English were interpreting thestructure too rigidly' and were offering 'boring' or 'shallow' lessons [OFSTEDreported that one in eight lessons in the summer term (1999) was still weak]. Itwas felt that there should be more flexibility once the basic approach had been fullyunderstood, although care should be taken not to lose the uniformity given by theStrategy, which was one of its strengths. As one BA (QTS) trainee suggested:
'I always feel frustrated at having to move on when I know many children needmore time on an aspect of learning.'
Trainees also felt that handwriting, 'speaking and listening' and drama were beingneglected, which was regretted, and the potential of ICT was not being fully utilised.
Wider concerns were expressed about the effect die Literacy Hour — and theNumeracy Hour — would have on the whole primary curriculum. It was feared thatit was becoming too narrow and that learning in many of the foundation subjectswould suffer as a result
1999 Cohort
One issue which continued to concern trainees was whether it is possible to meetthe needs of all children — the less able and the more able — in die same lesson.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)]
at 0
4:07
27
Mar
ch 2
014
TRAINEE TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS 59
Pupils operating at level 3 and level 6, but in the same class, have very differentlearning requirements. The OFSTED report acknowledged these concerns but didnot offer a definitive conclusion. It pointed out that some schools have over-comeit by setting across a year group (a course of action not available to small schools).However, some teachers believe that this runs counter to 'the inclusive principles ofthe National Literacy Strategy and that pupils benefit from learning from each otherduring 'shared' work.
The over-riding concern for the future related to whether the Strategy would beable to withstand flexibility. It was acknowledged that it provided a good structurefor literacy teaching but rigid adherence to it day-in-and-day-out could provedemotivating for pupils and teachers alike. Different age groups had differentneeds, for example, a reduction in 'shared' whole class teaching might benefit someKey Stage 1 pupils whereas more time was needed for 'extended' writing at KeyStage 2. Some trainees questioned whether it was necessary to have a plenary sessionat the end of every lesson which might provide additional time for writing. Overall,it was suggested that for Key Stage 2 more time was needed for writing: that it shouldbecome a "Literacy Hour and a Half!", as one trainee put it although it wasrecognised diat diis would mean problems in fitting in the rest of the primarycurriculum.
Summary
Future concerns related to fears diat the Strategy would become boring over aperiod of time. There would be a need to infuse new life into it to make sure thatcreativity and originality were not lost. It was recognised that pace was an essentialpart of this but should not give way to over-load or a lack of opportunity to revisitpartially understood aspects of learning. Greater flexibility in terms of timing wasessential, particularly when it came to writing.
CONCLUSION
In the main, the trainees' perceptions of the effectiveness of the National LiteracyStrategy align with those in the OFSTED report. These teachers of the future arebroadly in support of its aims and objectives although they are aware that it hassome inherent weaknesses. In conclusion, diey viewed its strengths and weaknessesas follows:
Strengths
1. It provides uniformity and continuity for teaching based on a clearly definedset of 'termly objectives'.
2. These objectives provide a firm basis for planning learning intentions whichneed to be shared with pupils in a way they understand.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)]
at 0
4:07
27
Mar
ch 2
014
60 M. WILLIAMS
3. It is predicated upon interactive forms of teaching which demand pace and highlevels of discussion and questioning.
4. Through shared text and sentence level work standards are being raised andchildren's vocabulary is being widened at word level.
Weaknesses
1. The teaching of writing is constrained because of lack of time for 'extendedwriting' which can result in work being unfinished.
2. Trainees are finding it difficult — in some schools — to integrate ICT into thelearning intentions of literacy lessons either because teachers themselves lackconfidence in how to do this or hardware provision is inadequate.
3. Trainees know that the plenary is important, as it offers a means of consolidatinglearning and can be used for assessment purposes, but sometimes find thatteachers are not including it or that they run out of time to introduce forthemselves.
4. The effectiveness of phonics teaching was not given a high priority in the dataso this needs to be given more focus in both university and school-based training.Trainees need to know how to teach it in a 'lively, dynamic atmosphere' whichthe 'progression in phonics' (1999) has set out to achieve.
There were a number of concerns for the future which raised questions aboutthe long term effectiveness of the National Literacy Strategy. There were that
• children and teachers might become bored with the Literacy Hour format overtime and that there would be difficulties in keeping up the pace so the momen-tum would drop;
• because of the pressure SATs, or where teachers lacked flair, creativity andoriginality, quality in writing would be lost;
• children who were lagging behind would not catch up (although it was hopedthat booster classes and 'additional literacy support' (1999) help to overcomethis) and able children might not be receive sufficient challenge;
• more flexibility is needed so that timings can be altered to suit the needs ofparticular groups of children and that work can be gone over again, whennecessary;
• the whole curriculum is being squeezed by the National Literacy and NumeracyStrategies which will result in a narrowing of experience for children.
In the words of a PGCE student, training in 1998,
"time will be the true judge of the merits of the National Literacy Strategy'
which is what appears to be happening. For example, the 1999 cohort of traineesseem much more convinced that the Strategy will help to raise standards in literacythan their counterparts the year before. Trainees, working to the Standards of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)]
at 0
4:07
27
Mar
ch 2
014
TRAINEE TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS 61
Circular 4/98, should find it easier to bring about the rise needed than many oftheir more experienced colleagues because of the focus given to the Literacy Hourin their training, including, for example, access to relevant subject knowledge, moreinsight into the teaching of phonics and greater confidence in teaching literacythrough ICT.
John Stannard, Director of the National Literacy Strategy (2000) said that in 1998he had "set out to change behaviour before minds". The first cohort of traineeswere mainly concerned about issues relating to the delivery and structure of theLiteracy Hour but the second cohort seem to be much more interested in the qualityof teaching and are more convinced that the Strategy will work. Nevertheless, if theimprovement in teaching is to be maintained there are a number of questions whichstill need to addressed as oudined above. In particular, the challenge ahead is toraise standards in writing similarly to those in reading, and to see a decline in under-achievement in boys as a fundamental aspect of this. Raising standards will best beachieved in a spirit of critical inquiry where research feeds into pedagogy in waywhich will benefit all pupils.
References
CHMI (1999). The National Literacy Strategy: An Evaluation of The First Year OfThe National Literacy Strategy,Office For Standards In Education.
DfEE (1998). Teaching: High Status, High Standards, Circular 4/98, London, UK.DfEE (1998). The National Literacy Strategy, London, UK.DfEE (1999). The National Curriculum for England: English, London, UK.Fisher, R. and Williams, M. (2000). Unlocking Literacy. David Fulton, London, U KGuppy, P. and Hughes, M. (1999). The Development of Independent Reading, Open University, Buckingham,
UK.OFSTED (1999). The National Literacy Strategy: An Interim Evaluation, Office for Standards in Education,
London, UK.Stannard, J. (2000). 'The National Literacy Strategy', Address at SEU/TTA Conference, Hotel Russell,
June 21 st 2000.Williams, M. (1999). 'Raising Standards In English Teaching At Key Stage 2 - Teachers' Perceptions
Of The English National Curriculum (1990-1995) And The Relevance Of This To The NationalLiteracy Strategy (1998)', Early Child Development And Care, 154, 49-62.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)]
at 0
4:07
27
Mar
ch 2
014
