Fisher, Ros. (2002). Inside the Literacy Hour: Learning from Classroom Experience

	Fisher, Ros. (2002). Inside the Literacy Hour: Learning from Classroom Experience. London, U.K.: Routledge Falmer. Pp. ix + 190 $24.95 (Paper)     ISBN 0-415-25673-9 $80 (Cloth)     ISBN 0-415-25672-0 Reviewed by Paul Chamness Miller State University of New York, Cortland July 28, 2003 This book is the presentation of a study of the National Literacy Strategy (NLS) in England during the first two years of its implementation. The study is primarily qualitative in nature, supported with quantitative-descriptive data, examining twenty teachers during their literacy instruction. The purpose of the study was to describe how teachers employed the NLS strategy in their instruction. Other variables examined include the attitudes of the teachers about the NLS and how their instruction changed as they began to adapt their lessons to this new strategy. While the goal of the study was not to measure the effectiveness of the literacy hour on the student’s literacy skills (reading and writing), this was a variable that was measured. Chapter one begins by providing a general background on the current issue regarding literacy in England and around the world. The author provides evidence from previous work of the need to raise the standards for reading and writing in public schools, both concerning the curriculum and its design. The pedagogical implementation of such a curriculum is also considered. There is also a significant discussion presented on the theories of learning and how these theories might affect the implementation of the NLS. The conclusion of the chapter is that the NLS did introduce change in the teaching of literacy and there were indications of improvement in literacy as a result of the NLS, but that this program, like many of its predecessors, is dependent on the individual teacher. The research methods for this study are the perfect example of following proper qualitative protocol: a) the researcher’s perceptivity is clearly revealed, b) the generative promise from the study is described, c) the research questions are clearly indicated, d) sample and data collection methods are explained, e) triangulation methods are disclosed and f) issues of validity and reliability are discussed. The only concern which arises from the methodology is that the author does not clearly identify or establish a theoretical framework on which the study is based. One primary concern raised in this book (chapter three) is how individualized teachers perceived the implementation of the NLS literacy hour. The NLS failed to provide explicit pedagogical information to teachers on how to use this new literacy strategy; this resulted in a variety of interpretations as to the use of the strategy. Some adhered to the prescribed structure, forsaking the quality of instruction, while others abandoned parts of the structure as they deemed appropriate. The arguments in this chapter are supported by vignettes of data from the interviews with some of the teachers who were teaching using the NLS strategy. Perhaps one of the most important assertions supported by the data is that a new strategy does not necessarily just slip into a teacher’s daily routine; rather teachers might need more guidance in making appropriate decisions concerning adapting their teaching to the new strategy. One important finding discussed is that there is quite a difference in the effect the literacy hour has on students. Based on a pretest/posttest design using a standardized test, the author notes that many students performed worse on the posttest than on the pretest, while others performed significantly better on the posttest. Initial data suggest that those with the lowest pretest scores made the most progress throughout the program, while those with the highest pretest scores benefited the least. As the author argues, this is likely to be a result of the law of regression, rather than an actual effect of the literacy hour. Ruling out other possible factors, the author concludes that the only possible explanation for this remarkable variance is the individual teacher. It would seem that the greatest effect from the literacy hour occurs when the teacher a) develops a balance between shared and guided reading in an effort to lead students in becoming independent readers, b) selects texts of good quality, c) involves all her students, d) uses a variety of means for calling students’ attention to important features of the text, e) emphasizes the important relationship between reading and writing, f) teaches skills in context via a piece of text, g) encourages exploration of texts through open-ended means and h) reads aloud to her students from time to time (p. 67). Another important finding is that many of the teachers observed believed that the focus of the literacy hour should be on reading, rather than including writing in the process. Others who did focus on writing in addition to reading observed that their students failed to make a connection of what they learned in the literacy hour to any other free writing. The author notes that the data indicate the successful teachers who worked on reading and writing were those who focused regularly on guided writing as well as guided reading. These claims are supported by two case studies. Yet another important issue raised by the author is how teachers following the literacy hour strategy adapt their teaching style/approach to fit this new strategy. Chapter six describes at great length one teacher identified as successful, having brought her students from a fair to a good level of literacy ability. She was labeled a successful teacher because of: a) her enthusiasm for teaching English to children, b) her sensitivity to her students, their needs and their interactions with her, c) her techniques for teaching how readers and writers think, d) her understanding of the purpose of her lessons, e) her drawing on the students’ previous experience to reinforce learning, f) her ability to balance the structure needed to follow the literacy hour strategy without abandoning the individual student (p. 98). Chapter seven describes another teacher deemed successful, but where the students were already successful prior to the implementation of the literacy hour. This particular teacher was successful at dealing with the literacy hour strategy because of: a) her enthusiasm for making the best of the changes needed, b) her adaptation of new ideas to fit her teaching, c) her understanding of her students and of literacy, the literacy strategy and language, d) her emphasis of meaning and purpose for reading and writing, e) her emphasis on the link between reading and writing, f) her teaching of specific elements of reading and writing, g) her pace while teaching both reading and writing in each lesson, h) her teaching of grammar as needed, i) her enthusiasm for the features of literacy that she was teaching and to what the children brought to the classroom in their own reading and writing, j) her high expectations of her students, k) her respect of her students’ ideas and thoughts and l) her ability to make the lessons relevant to her students’ own lives (p. 116-117). The primary purpose of the study presented in this book was to examine the effectiveness of the literacy hour in mixed-level classes in the rural areas of England. Overall, after having worked for two years with the NLS strategy, most teachers liked the shared reading/writing portion, while many found the guided work difficult to implement in the mixed classrooms. There were mixed feelings about the objectives which came with the strategy. Those who found it useful stated that the objectives provided structure and focus to their lessons, while those who did not like the objectives found them restricting and rigid. Although all classes benefited from the literacy hour as a whole, some teachers were concerned about the planning of their lessons; the literacy hour provided a structure, but was not terribly helpful in developing lessons. A concern that many teachers expressed was in developing lessons for the different levels of students as well as the fear of not providing lessons that were challenging enough for the students. Of special concern to many educators seems to be how to employ the literacy hour with four-year-old children, who are mandated to be part of the NLS requirement of receiving an hour of literacy instruction each day. It was noted that teaching this age group was particularly difficult in the mixed classroom, where the teacher’s attention must be divided among several classes of students. Teachers did feel, however, that the NLS strategy was appropriate for this age, provided the students remained interested and engaged. It is also important that the students have opportunities to develop their skills as independent readers and writers, and that their creativity is not inhibited. At the end of the two-year study, the teachers participating in this study were questioned regarding their opinions about the NLS. Many teachers felt the framework of objectives limited their teaching ability and they expressed disappointment in losing some freedom. Feedom was regained as the teachers became more familiar with the NLS, after which many teachers developed more confidence in implementing this new literacy strategy. The NLS has several goals for teachers and instruction: a) increased direct teaching, b) a clear focus and structure to the lessons, c) discursive and interactive, d) well-paced, e) confident and f) high expectations. The author mentions several potential weaknesses of the literacy hour: a) the skills of listening and speaking are minimized, b) fewer opportunities to focus on literacy across the curriculum, c) the lack of time for students to reflect on what they are learning, d) forsaking the needs of the individual student for the sake of the whole class. The author admits that this research is merely a “snapshot of a handful of classes in the first two years of the NLS” (p. 172), thus preventing any type of generalization. However, this study has demonstrated that there are several valid criticisms against the NLS, as well as many positive aspects to this strategy. This study does not begin to answer all of the questions regarding the complex nature of literacy and the best ways to teach it. The author also suggests that further research is needed regarding: a) how interaction impacts the instruction of literacy, b) what strategies might be used to facilitate reflection in literacy, c) providing teachers with the understanding of pedagogy and content of literacy, d) the teaching of writing. It is also important to keep in mind that this study focused on small, rural schools with mixed classes. It would also be important to study how the NLS has impacted larger schools, where classes are not mixed. This book is written very well. The author explains her arguments clearly and with as much detail as possible. The only potential problem is that there is an underlying assumption that the reader is familiar with the English school system. Someone who is not familiar with the English school system may have difficulty following all of the arguments presented. Despite the fact that this study is concerning recent reform in England, the conclusions of the author may apply to many other countries’ own literacy programs. Educational reform is a common phenomenon across the globe, and literacy is often at the top of the list. The findings would suggest that if reform is to take place, it is important to remember that teachers need more than just a list of standards or objectives to follow. Teachers also need suggestions for implementing changes on a pedagogical level. Literacy is obviously a complex issue, and while this study cannot be generalized, the issues discussed do touch home to many educators, whether in England or elsewhere. About the Reviewer Paul Chamness Miller is Assistant Professor of French and ESL Methodology at the State University of New York in Cortland. His doctorate is in the field of Language and Literacy. His research interests lie primarily in Second Language Acquistion and issues of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, but extend into the general issues of literacy.