Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project

1,559

Published on

Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project

Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,559
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Explain here that we are about half way though a Comenius Project investigating the role and use of children’s literature across four countries in Europe – Turkey, UK, Spain and Iceland The presentation is a tentative exploration of some of the issues and interests that have emerged so far – 20 minutes is not enough!
  • Contested- difficult to define – site of argument Bearne and Styles : 2010 Rather a reductionist view
  • Flow state of consciousness- intense concentration- loose track of time Paris/ Mcnauton :200?
  • The PIRLS (Progress in international reading literacy study) and PISA (Programme for international student assessment) data also lead you to make assumptions about the teaching and learning of reading. PIRLS – is administered to grade 4 children (children in their fourth year of formal schooling) every 5 years. Next one is due in 2011. 40 countries participated. It focuses on reading literacy. It is sponsored by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) PISA – is administered to 15 year old students every 3 years. 57 countries participated. It focuses on reading, maths and science; each domain in turn is emphasised each cycle. It is sponsored by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Both define reading as: an active process involving understanding and using written texts. PISA also involves reflecting on texts Both examine the factors associated with literacy development (PIRLS considers home background factors and teaching and learning processes in school; PISA seeks to ‘determine the extent to which young people have acquired the wider knowledge and skills in reading...literacy that they will need in adult life’.
  • This needs to be a brief intro as a way of signposting the rest of the presentation
  • We have had access to the data for a month from the survey and these are the areas that immediately attracted our attention from an initial trawl We have enhanced this with qualitative data, in the form of comments from children from focus groups that we are half way through conducting.
  • We asked children how they say themselves as readers – I love to read, its OK to read or I don’t like reading This mirrors the National Literacy Trust survey of 1,620 children Christina Clark and Sarah Obsorne and Rodie Akerman (2008)
  • One methodological issue may need to be considered here; the Turkish survey was conducted using pen and paper with hard copies of the survey. The other countries administered the survey on line. However, there is a clear difference in the attitudes expressed.
  • Girls were more likely to say they loved reading and less girls hated reading. Again this gender gap was not unexpected – Younger and Warrington (2005) conducted a review of the gender gap in academic achievement. They suggested that ‘ We face a genuine problem of under-achievement among boys – particularly those from working class families’ We looked therefore more closely at out contrasting focus schools.
  • Our data shows a comparison between boys in two contrasting schools – on the left (school 4) is a school in an affluent area with a low FSM indicator This is compared with a school on a large white working class estate with a high incidence of FSMs
  • This piece of data was quite surprising with large numbers across all countries reporting that they never had a bedtime story. What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school Language in Society (1982), 11:49-76 Cambridge University Press Shirley Brice Heath undertook a study in the US of three contrasting communities’ literacy practices and looked at the sorts of oral language that developed around these ‘events’.
  • We looked in the UK at the differences between boys and girls and the bedtime read – and it is the girls who it appears seem to more likely not to have a bedtime read.
  • Boys in the affluent school were much more likely to have a bedtime story 25% of boys in school 4 always had a bedtime story 10% of boys in school 20 always had a bedtime story 28.1% of boys never had a bedtime story (it was 48% across all schools surveyed for all children) in school 4 55.1% of boys never had a bedtime story in school 20
  • 16.9%of girls in school 4 always had a bedtime story 8%of girls in school 20 always had a bedtime story 32.2% of girls never had a bedtime story (it was 48% across all schools surveyed for all children) in school 4 46% of girls never had a bedtime story in school 20
  • 87% of children in school 20 reach level 4 with 29% at level 5 95% of children in school 4 reach level 4 with 57% at level 5 http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/performancetables/primary_09/pdf_09/801.pdf Pause for reflection
  • We have a massive data set! Each country will produce a report for their own country and then we will compare for each questions across countries Final reporting will be at the conference in June/July 2011 and at other conferences. The website is available.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Boundaries and bridges in a European children’s literature project A Comenius Project investigating children’s literature across four countries in Europe: Iceland, Spain, Turkey and UK This project is funded by the European Union Jane Carter Dr Elizabeth Newman
    • 2. What is children’s literature?
      • ‘ Texts written to entertain the young’ Bearne and Styles: 2010
    • 3. Why?
      • Literature stimulates the imagination…it is essential for children’s emotional as well as intellectual development (Pennac, 2006)
      • Learning to read is a vital foundation to becoming a literate, educated person. Reading offers opportunities for enjoyment, for increasing our knowledge of the world and for enhancing our imagination and creativity. It also gives people access to improved life chances – success or failure in becoming a reader is a strong indicator of future progress in school and beyond’
      • Lewis and Ellis (2006:1)
      • When students are engaged in a meaningful task they exhibit motivational ‘flow’ loosing track of time they are so thoroughly immersed in the task…. Engaged and involved readers read more for pleasure and have better comprehension ( Csikszentmihalyi:1990)
    • 4. Aims of the Project
      • Cross national project based on a comparison of the use of children’s literature - reading, learning and teaching
      • Adaptation, development and dissemination of practical and effective pedagogical strategies
      • Encourage diversity and respect for cultural difference
      • Establish a website
      • Produce CPD materials
      • Demonstrate the impact and sustainability of the research
    • 5. Geographical boundaries Country Size Population Iceland 103,000 km² 306, 694 Spain 504,782 km² 40,525,002 Turkey 780,580 km² 76, 805, 524 UK 244,820 km² 61, 113, 205
    • 6. Population Country Ethnic Grouping Official Languages Iceland homogeneous mixture of descendants of Norse and Celts 94%, population of foreign origin 6% Icelandic, English, Nordic languages, German widely spoken Spain 88.0% Spanish, 12.0% other Castilian Spanish 74% (official nationwide); Catalan 17%, Galician 7%, Basque 2% (each official regionally) Turkey Turkish 80%, Kurdish 20% Turkish (official), Kurdish, Dimli, Azeri, Kabardian UK White, 92.1%Mixed race, 1.2%, Indian, 1.8%, Pakistani 1.3%, Bangladeshi 0.5%, Other Asian (non-Chinese)0.4%, Black Caribbean 1.0%, Black African 0.8%, Black (others)0.2%, Chinese 0.4%, Other 0.4% (Census 2001) English, Welsh, Scots Gaelic
    • 7. Points of Comparison Country UK Iceland Spain Turkey Length of Compulsory Education 12 years 11 years 11 years 9 years Annual expenditure on education per pupil 7, 084 (5% of GDP) 7, 897 (7.2% of GDP) 5, 718 (4.1% of GDP) 7, 084 (5% of GDP)
    • 8. Cities in the Study City Location Population % of children learning the national language as an additional language Bristol South-West England 465, 500 3.2% Akureyri North-West Iceland 17, 295 1.9%* Murcia South-East Spain 436,870 1.73% Ankara Central Anatolia 4,650, 802 1.24%
    • 9. PIRLS and PISA UK Iceland Spain Turkey 2006 PIRLS ranking (primary aged pupils) England 19 32 30 2006 PISA ranking (post primary students) UK 17 25 36 38
    • 10. Which boundaries ?
      • Initial challenges
      • Methodological and research boundaries
      • Initial findings – a selection
      This project is funded by the European Union
    • 11. The first meeting Conceptual equivalence and challenges to understanding
      • The first task – books
      • Developing a shared language
      • Research design
    • 12. Survey results – surprising similarities and differences across the boundaries
      • Children
      • Perceptions of ourselves as readers
      • Bedtime stories
      • Reading aloud
      • Response to reading
      • Universal appeal of the sword - Book choices
      • The funny and humorous
      • Naming a favourite author
    • 13. Our approach
      • Survey data from the UK
      • Survey data comparisons with the other countries
      • Digging deeper within the UK data
      • Children’s (UK) voice
      • Comparisons with other studies
    • 14. Perceptions of ourselves as readers - UK
      • 45.4% of children said they loved reading
      • 48.6% of children said it was OK to read
      • 8% did not like reading
      • Mirrors NLT research (2008) Young People’s Self Perception as readers
    • 15. Across the countries – what sort of reader would you say you are? Iceland Spain Turkey UK I love to read 34% 54.4% 78.2% 45.4% It’s okay to read 58.5% 40.8% 17% 48.6% I don’t like to read 9.2% 6.1% 4.8% 6.1%
    • 16. UK - differences between boys and girls
    • 17. Comparing schools – Leafy Glade Primary and Brick Primary
    • 18. The bedtime story in the UK
      • How often does someone in your family read for you in the evening before you go to sleep?
      • 9.6% - always
      • 10.6% - often
      • 23.6% - sometimes
      • 7.3% - seldom
      • 48.8% - never
    • 19. The bedtime story
      • How often does someone in your family read for you in the evening before you go to sleep?
      • Answer: Never
      • Iceland – 47.4%
      • Spain – 55.4%
      • Turkey – 41.9%
      • UK – 48.8%
    • 20. The bedtime story – differences between boys and girls
    • 21. The bedtime story- boys in Leafy Glade Primary and Brick Primary
    • 22. The bedtime story – girls in Leafy Glade Primary and Brick Primary
    • 23. What the children said in Leafy Glade Primary
      • “ My parents stopped when I was around 6 and a half….I could read for myself then”
      • “ I find it relaxing when my mum reads to me.”
      • “ A book sort of tucks you into bed with a good feeling”
    • 24. What the children said in school Brick Primary
      • “ I wouldn’t mind a bed time story but my mum and dad are too busy. My dad is on his x - box and my mum is on the laptop”
      • “ I used to have a bedtime story but I am older now and I can have a TV in my room – I have that on until I go to sleep now”
    • 25. Why is this significant?
      • ‘ ..high performing readers are shaped by their environments in ways that enable them to become better readers, conversely, low performing readers are shaped by their environments that inhibit them and therefore sustain their position as poor readers.’ (Stanovich, 1986)
      • ‘ ..the most accurate predictor of a pupil’s achievement [is the]extent to which parents are able to create a home environment that encourages learning, communicates high, yet reasonable, expectations for achievement’ (Clark, 2007)
      • ‘ parents who promote reading as a valuable and worthwhile activity have children who are motivated to read for pleasure.’ (Gest, Freeman, Domitrovich and Welsh, 2004)
    • 26. Next steps – digging deeper
      • International comparisons – identifying themes
      • Reporting
      • Conference
      • Website and CPD
      • http://www.um.es/childrensliterature/site/
    • 27. Acknowledgments
      • Iceland
      • Prof Kristin Aoalsteinsdottir
      • Guomundur Engilbertsson
      • Spain
      • Dr Purification Sanchez
      • Dr Pascual Perez-Parendes
      • Turkey
      • Dr Ayten Kiris
      • Nihan
      • UK
      • Dr Elizabeth Newman
      • Dr Charlie Butler
      • Jane Carter
    • 28. References
      • Bearne, E. And Styles, M. (2010) ‘Literature for children’ in: Wyse, D. Andrews, R. And Hoffman, J. (eds) The Routledge International Handbook of English, Language and Literacy Teaching. Oxon: Routledge. pp 22 – 33  
      • Brice Heath, S. (1982) ‘What no bedtime story means: narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society 11: 49-76
      • Clark, C. (2007) Why Families matter to literacy London: National Literacy Trust
      • Clark, C. Osbourne, S. and Akerman, R. (2006) Young People’s self-perception as Readers London: National Literacy Trust
      • Clark, C. and Phythian-Sence, C. Interesting Choice: The (relative) importance of choice and interest in reader enagagement
      • Csikszentmihalyi, M ( 1990) The psychology of optimal experience . New York . Harper Collins
      • Gest, S.D. Freeman, N.R. Domitroivich, C.E. Welsh, J.A. (2004) Shared book reading and children’s language comprehension skills: The moderating role of parental discipline practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 19, 319-336
    • 29. References continued
      • Office For Standards in Education (2004). Reading for Pleasure and Purpose. HMI 2393. London: Ofsted Publications
      • Pachtman, A.B. And Wilson, K (2006) What do the kids think? The ReadingTeacher, 59 (7) 680-684
      • Pennac, D. (2006) The Rights of the Reader. London: Walker Books
      • Shiel, G. and Eivers, E. (2010) ‘Comparitive international studies of reading literacy: current approaches and future directions’ in: Wyse, D. Andrews, R. And Hoffman, J. (eds) The Routledge International Handbook of English, Language and Literacy Teaching. Oxon: Routledge. pp 425 – 437 
      • Tartar , M . ( 2009) Enchanted Hunters
      • Stanovich, K.E (1986) Matthew effects in reading : Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21. 360-407
      • Younger, M. and Warrington, M. (2005). Raising boys achievement. RR636. London: DfES
    • 30. References
      • www.multimap.com
      • http://citypopulation.de/Europe.html
      • http://www.bristolpct.nhs.uk/publichealth/healthofbristol/about_the_population/ethnic_composition_bristol.asp
    • 31. References
      • http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_dur_of_com_edu-education-duration-of-compulsory
      • http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf011210.htm
      • http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf
      • http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/640/Iceland-EDUCATIONAL-SYSTEM-OVERVIEW.html

    ×