Standards and quality are essential to education. Learning means changing, and changing implies some continuum of standards along which those changes can be marked. Learning also entails errors, and errors are most useful to learners when they are interpreted in terms of developing competence. (Howard Gardner)
A key principle for the project group was to base the frame of reference on the shared pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986; Verloop, Van Driel & Meijer, 2001) of a varied group of teachers and teacher experts in six European countries, so that the research outcomes would be meaningful for other European teachers.
The first step necessary in the project was to define the existing state of affairs; that is, to examine and describe the situation in the field of education and literary education in each of the countries. How literary education works in the participating countries was assessed, as well as whether it is possible to find similarities, and how to deal with the differences.
III.2 Literary Framework for European Teachers
This project aims to give teachers a pedagogical-didactical instrument to motivate students to read literature and to improve their level of literary competence. The framework will help teachers to distinguish the reading levels of students in secondary education (ages 12 to 18) and to match these levels with appropriate literary texts. The underlying aim is to ensure a smooth literary development for both weak and strong readers so that they can develop further as readers of literature even after they have left school.
III.3 National and international graduated reading lists
The aim is to compile a national reading list for each participating country and an international reading list for ‘Europe’. The ‘national’ lists will consist primarily of books from a country’s own language culture, but this can vary per country. The international list will contain world literature and books translated into English (and other languages) from the national lists.
III.4 Pedagogical-didactical approaches to modelling progression
The framework comprises three dimensions: students, books and didactics. The pedagogical-didactical dimension relates to teacher behaviour in an educational context. The aim is to collect teacher knowledge for each reading level regarding the pedagogical-didactical approach and interventions that encourage the transition to a higher reading level (zone of proximal development).
IV.1 Mapping the European curricular terrain
First, each of the countries presented its educational system, described the formal and functional curriculum, and the position of literary education in relation to it (Groningen meeting, November 2009). Outputs and aims of the literary education were analyzed based on the reader, text, context/author and individual reading competences (e.g. literal understanding of the text, its interpretation, evaluation, etc.) ratio. This analysis served as a basis for the subsequent definition of the reading levels – that is, for the creation of the European literary referential framework. (Comparison curricula, PDF)
IV.2 Developing the literary framework
Assessing the reading levels was one of the central aims of the project, and therefore it took place throughout the process, that is, in the years 2010 – 2012. The qualitative research procedures were conducted in two phases, national and international, in two rounds (one for ages 12-15, and one for ages 15-18), by combining the methods of expert opinion, annotation, and controlled discussion.
I INTRODUCTION
Which literary texts are able to stimulate student literary development under which circumstances is one of the key questions in literature teaching (Beach, Appleman, Hynds & Wilhelm, 2011; Nikolajeva, 2010). It seems to have become even more pressing since the 1990s, when numerous countries switched to a more student-oriented curriculum, and as teachers seek to respond more effectively to the differences they encounter in their classrooms (Bonset & Rijlaarsdam, 2004).Teachers wishing to encourage the development of literary competence in all their students must be able to differentiate and define the zone of proximal development for each individual student. This means knowing which literary texts and reading activities will help a student progress to a higher level (Vygotsky, 1978; Bandura, 1986; Schunk 2000).
However, differentiation seems to be a difficult skill for teachers to master and international studies show that few teachers succeed (Hattie, 2009; Kyrakides, Creemers & Antoniou, 2009). All PISA reports (2000, 2003, 2006, 2009) have shown that teachers achieve relatively good results for the middle group of students, but that they fall short when it comes to weak and very good students.
Apart from the practical problem of the heavy teaching load, there is also a cognitive problem. Teachers do not have an adequate mental frame of reference for observing, labelling and classifying the differences between students, let alone for identifying and labelling the different stages of development (Schunk, 2000; Witte, 2008; Hattie, 2009).
However, differentiation seems to be a difficult skill for teachers to master and international studies show that few teachers succeed (Hattie, 2009; Kyrakides, Creemers & Antoniou, 2009). All PISA reports (2000, 2003, 2006, 2009) have shown that teachers achieve relatively good results for the middle group of students, but that they fall short when it comes to weak and very good students.
Apart from the practical problem of the heavy teaching load, there is also a cognitive problem. Teachers do not have an adequate mental frame of reference for observing, labelling and classifying the differences between students, let alone for identifying and labelling the different stages of development (Schunk, 2000; Witte, 2008; Hattie, 2009).
II PROJECT AIMS
The general aim of this project is to create a frame of reference for the development of literary competence within the context of literature teaching in secondary education (ages 12-18). Such a frame of reference should make it easier to identify differences between students and to provide teaching that stimulates the literary development process of students with different reading levels.- to compare the literature teaching curricula in secondary education in European countries
- to develop a literary framework of reference for teachers to identify different levels of literary competence in their classes
- to compile reading lists (national and international) organized by competence level so that teachers can match books to their students’ reading levels
- to make an inventory of teaching approaches and strategies for every competence level in order to boost the reading level of students at different levels.
A key principle for the project group was to base the frame of reference on the shared pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986; Verloop, Van Driel & Meijer, 2001) of a varied group of teachers and teacher experts in six European countries, so that the research outcomes would be meaningful for other European teachers.
III PROJECT OBJECTIVES
III.1 Mapping the European curricular terrainThe first step necessary in the project was to define the existing state of affairs; that is, to examine and describe the situation in the field of education and literary education in each of the countries. How literary education works in the participating countries was assessed, as well as whether it is possible to find similarities, and how to deal with the differences.
III.2 Literary Framework for European Teachers
This project aims to give teachers a pedagogical-didactical instrument to motivate students to read literature and to improve their level of literary competence. The framework will help teachers to distinguish the reading levels of students in secondary education (ages 12 to 18) and to match these levels with appropriate literary texts. The underlying aim is to ensure a smooth literary development for both weak and strong readers so that they can develop further as readers of literature even after they have left school.
We believe that a literary framework will have a potentially major impact on teachers and curriculum developers, especially if it can be evaluated empirically.
The factor ‘text’ is important when analyzing the linguistic and intellectual demands involved in the teaching of and learning about literature. For pragmatic reasons we focus on one genre: the novel.
A systematic approach to text difficulty and accessibility can make a valuable contribution to finding pedagogical-didactical criteria for text selection. It is often felt that the textual factor is not taken sufficiently into account in the discussion of literary competences and literary education. Some countries take a ‘canonical approach’, despite the difficulties that the classics might present to young learners.
We hope that assessment of text difficulty and accessibility will help in the selection of texts for certain groups of students and that lesser known texts (e.g. young adult literature) will be accepted into the curriculum on the basis of a balanced assessment.
The factor ‘text’ is important when analyzing the linguistic and intellectual demands involved in the teaching of and learning about literature. For pragmatic reasons we focus on one genre: the novel.
A systematic approach to text difficulty and accessibility can make a valuable contribution to finding pedagogical-didactical criteria for text selection. It is often felt that the textual factor is not taken sufficiently into account in the discussion of literary competences and literary education. Some countries take a ‘canonical approach’, despite the difficulties that the classics might present to young learners.
We hope that assessment of text difficulty and accessibility will help in the selection of texts for certain groups of students and that lesser known texts (e.g. young adult literature) will be accepted into the curriculum on the basis of a balanced assessment.
III.3 National and international graduated reading lists
The aim is to compile a national reading list for each participating country and an international reading list for ‘Europe’. The ‘national’ lists will consist primarily of books from a country’s own language culture, but this can vary per country. The international list will contain world literature and books translated into English (and other languages) from the national lists.
Separate lists will be compiled for lower (12-15 age group) and upper (15-18 age group) secondary students. The books will be arranged by reading level, with very simple books for inexperienced and unmotivated readers at the lowest level and highly complex books for very sophisticated and literate readers at the highest level.
The reading lists seek to do justice to literary socialization both in a country’s own culture and in European culture. These lists can also be used in foreign language teaching.
The reading lists seek to do justice to literary socialization both in a country’s own culture and in European culture. These lists can also be used in foreign language teaching.
III.4 Pedagogical-didactical approaches to modelling progression
The framework comprises three dimensions: students, books and didactics. The pedagogical-didactical dimension relates to teacher behaviour in an educational context. The aim is to collect teacher knowledge for each reading level regarding the pedagogical-didactical approach and interventions that encourage the transition to a higher reading level (zone of proximal development).
For teachers, the framework represents a pedagogical-didactical knowledge base: it indicates which reading levels can be identified, which books match those reading levels and which learning activities and pedagogical-didactical strategies help students to reach a higher level. We know of few examples of exploratory or other research that addresses both the question of what should be taught and when, and the question of how this might be achieved. We believe, however, that the answer will be highly dependent on the educational context. Nevertheless, there is also shared knowledge in relation to this question.
An important benefit of a framework is that it gives structure to exchange and discussion regarding the choice of aims of literature teaching, the usability of texts and the choice of pedagogical-didactical approaches and methods. This then allows us to investigate and explore in depth the different educational traditions.
An important benefit of a framework is that it gives structure to exchange and discussion regarding the choice of aims of literature teaching, the usability of texts and the choice of pedagogical-didactical approaches and methods. This then allows us to investigate and explore in depth the different educational traditions.
IV PROJECT APPROACH
The European framework expands research on the development of literary competence in secondary schools conducted in the Netherlands by the project leader coordinator (Witte, 2008). As a result, a blueprint for procedure and approach already exists.A key feature of the procedure was the use of focus groups to explore the shared pedagogical content knowledge of literature teachers (Verloop, Van Driel & Meijer, 2001). This means that consensus regarding knowledge about reading levels and the relative difficulty and accessibility of literary texts has been sought in both the national expert meetings of the participating countries and the international meetings of the project group.
The reason why we are relying so heavily on the knowledge of literature teachers is that we wish to create a framework that contains information familiar to teachers.
The reason why we are relying so heavily on the knowledge of literature teachers is that we wish to create a framework that contains information familiar to teachers.
IV.1 Mapping the European curricular terrain
First, each of the countries presented its educational system, described the formal and functional curriculum, and the position of literary education in relation to it (Groningen meeting, November 2009). Outputs and aims of the literary education were analyzed based on the reader, text, context/author and individual reading competences (e.g. literal understanding of the text, its interpretation, evaluation, etc.) ratio. This analysis served as a basis for the subsequent definition of the reading levels – that is, for the creation of the European literary referential framework. (Comparison curricula, PDF)
IV.2 Developing the literary framework
Assessing the reading levels was one of the central aims of the project, and therefore it took place throughout the process, that is, in the years 2010 – 2012. The qualitative research procedures were conducted in two phases, national and international, in two rounds (one for ages 12-15, and one for ages 15-18), by combining the methods of expert opinion, annotation, and controlled discussion.
Stage 1: Operationalization of literary complexity
The first stage involved operationalizing literary complexity in the context of secondary education (Groningen meeting, November 2009). The partners used Witte’s Quick Scan instrument (QS) in a workshop to explore the complexity of several texts from world literature (Witte, 2008). A Quick Scan is a brief but clearly structured characterization of the examined book (1-2 pages long), containing the basic information about it from both student and textual standpoints.
Each of the project partners (the Netherlands, Germany, the Czech Republic, Romania, Portugal and Finland) organized a day-long workshop with the teachers-experts. They were selected from various school types. Junior and senior teachers were selected.
The QS was modified in the light of these experiences (Joensuu meeting, February 2010), and consensus was reached on the variables for the dimensions of ‘student’ and ‘book’ within the framework (see downloads).
Stage 2: Framework part 1: matching reading levels of students to books
In two rounds (one for lower and one for upper secondary), teacher panels in the six countries classified the books according to level and discussed the features of the books in relation to a particular reading level. The panel discussions were led by the project members.
To ensure an effective structure for this process, the project coordinators developed a detailed manual. The verdicts of the teacher panel were systematically collected and categorized by members of the project group.
The results from the six countries were then combined in matrices, which formed the basis for discussions about lower secondary (Prague meeting, June 2010) and upper secondary education (Braga meeting, October 2010) with the aim of reaching consensus on the number of levels to be distinguished and on the content of the ordinal scales for all sixteen variables.
Stage 3: Compiling and validating reading lists by means of a questionnaire
Together with teacher panels, the project members compiled reading lists for their own countries for lower (12-14 age group) and upper (15-18 age group) secondary students and organized the books according to level. These lists mainly comprise books from their own language culture.
The project group also selected twenty books from world literature, ranging from Harry Potter to Franz Kafka’s The Trial, and added them to the national lists (Hildesheim meeting, February 2011). The reading list (80% national and 20% international books) was sent to teachers via a digital questionnaire in their own language.
The teachers were asked to rate the level of the books and to make suggestions for other books at each level. Nearly 4500 European teachers have started to score their national booklists; more than 1200 teachers spent almost an hour completing the questionnaire. This was the way we chose to acquaint teachers with the literary framework and to increase the ecological validity of the book rating.
Stage 4: Framework part 2: matching reading levels, books and teaching methods (didactics)
In progress (September 2012)
Evaluation
The partners in this project are all experts themselves and have peer-reviewed all the products and procedures. Furthermore, the target group (teachers of literature) was closely involved in developing the framework (panels), in compiling the reading lists (book ranking) and in the design.
The first stage involved operationalizing literary complexity in the context of secondary education (Groningen meeting, November 2009). The partners used Witte’s Quick Scan instrument (QS) in a workshop to explore the complexity of several texts from world literature (Witte, 2008). A Quick Scan is a brief but clearly structured characterization of the examined book (1-2 pages long), containing the basic information about it from both student and textual standpoints.
Each of the project partners (the Netherlands, Germany, the Czech Republic, Romania, Portugal and Finland) organized a day-long workshop with the teachers-experts. They were selected from various school types. Junior and senior teachers were selected.
The QS was modified in the light of these experiences (Joensuu meeting, February 2010), and consensus was reached on the variables for the dimensions of ‘student’ and ‘book’ within the framework (see downloads).
Stage 2: Framework part 1: matching reading levels of students to books
In two rounds (one for lower and one for upper secondary), teacher panels in the six countries classified the books according to level and discussed the features of the books in relation to a particular reading level. The panel discussions were led by the project members.
To ensure an effective structure for this process, the project coordinators developed a detailed manual. The verdicts of the teacher panel were systematically collected and categorized by members of the project group.
The results from the six countries were then combined in matrices, which formed the basis for discussions about lower secondary (Prague meeting, June 2010) and upper secondary education (Braga meeting, October 2010) with the aim of reaching consensus on the number of levels to be distinguished and on the content of the ordinal scales for all sixteen variables.
Stage 3: Compiling and validating reading lists by means of a questionnaire
Together with teacher panels, the project members compiled reading lists for their own countries for lower (12-14 age group) and upper (15-18 age group) secondary students and organized the books according to level. These lists mainly comprise books from their own language culture.
The project group also selected twenty books from world literature, ranging from Harry Potter to Franz Kafka’s The Trial, and added them to the national lists (Hildesheim meeting, February 2011). The reading list (80% national and 20% international books) was sent to teachers via a digital questionnaire in their own language.
The teachers were asked to rate the level of the books and to make suggestions for other books at each level. Nearly 4500 European teachers have started to score their national booklists; more than 1200 teachers spent almost an hour completing the questionnaire. This was the way we chose to acquaint teachers with the literary framework and to increase the ecological validity of the book rating.
Stage 4: Framework part 2: matching reading levels, books and teaching methods (didactics)
In progress (September 2012)
Evaluation
The partners in this project are all experts themselves and have peer-reviewed all the products and procedures. Furthermore, the target group (teachers of literature) was closely involved in developing the framework (panels), in compiling the reading lists (book ranking) and in the design.
V REFERENCES
- Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: a Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Beach, R., Appleman, D., Hynds, S. & Wilhelm, J. (2011). Teaching Literature to Adolescents. Second Edition. Mahwah, New Yersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
- Bonset, H. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2004). Mother-tongue education (L1) in the learning-to-learn paradigm: creative redevelopment of learning materials. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 4(1), 35-62.
- Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning. A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-analyses Relating to Achievement. London and New York: Routledge.
- Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B.P.M. & Antoniou, P. (2009). Teacher behaviour and student outcomes: suggestions for research on teacher training and professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 12-23.
- Schunk, D. (2000). Learning Theories. An Educational Perspective. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
- Shulman, L. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: a contemporary perspective. Teoksessa M. Wittrock (ed.) (1986). Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 3-36). New York, London: MacMillan.
- Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 441-461.
- Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
- Witte, T. (2008). Het oog van de meester. Een onderzoek naar de literaire ontwikkeling van havo- en vwo-leerlingen in de tweede fase van het voortgezet onderwijs [The eye of the master: a study of student literary development in upper secondary education]. Delft: Eburon. (English summary PDF)
- Witte, T.C.H., Rijlaarsdam G.C.W & Schram, D.H. (2011). An empirically grounded theory of literary development. Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge on literary development in upper secondary education. L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 12, 1-34.
