Advertisement

International Review of Education

, Volume 64, Issue 5, pp 651–677 | Cite as

Hamburg’s Family Literacy project (FLY) in the context of international trends and recent evaluation findings

  • Gabriele Rabkin
  • Stefanie Geffers
  • Ulrike Hanemann
  • Meike Heckt
  • Marcus Pietsch
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

The authors of this article begin with an introduction to the holistic concept of family literacy and learning and its implementation in various international contexts, paying special attention to the key role played by the notions of lifelong learning and intergenerational learning. The international trends and experiences they outline inspired and underpinned the concept of a prize-winning Family Literacy project called FLY, which was piloted in 2004 in Hamburg, Germany. FLY aims to build bridges between preschools, schools and families by actively involving parents and other family members in children’s literacy education. Its three main pillars are: (1) parents’ participation in their children’s classes; (2) special sessions for parents (without their children); and (3) joint out-of-school activities for teachers, parents and children. These three pillars help families from migrant backgrounds, in particular, to develop a better understanding of German schools and to play a more active role in school life. To illustrate how the FLY concept is integrated into everyday school life, the authors showcase one participating Hamburg school before presenting their own recent study on the impact of FLY in a group of Hamburg primary schools with several years of FLY experience. The results of the evaluation clearly indicate that the project’s main objectives have been achieved: (1) parents of children in FLY schools feel more involved in their children’s learning and are offered more opportunities to take part in school activities; (2) the quality of teaching in these schools has improved, with instruction developing a more skills-based focus due to markedly better classroom management und a more supportive learning environment; and (3) children in FLY schools are more likely to have opportunities to accumulate experience in out-of-school contexts and to be exposed to environments that stimulate and enhance their literacy skills in a tangible way.

Keywords

literacy family literacy FLY (Hamburg) intergenerational learning lifelong learning parental involvement improvement of learning conditions 

Résumé

Le projet d’alphabétisation familiale de Hambourg (Family Literacy project FLY) dans le contexte des tendances internationales et des derniers résultats d’évaluation – Les auteurs commencent cet article par une introduction sur le concept holistique de l’alphabétisation familiale et de l’apprentissage familial ainsi que sur sa concrétisation dans divers contextes internationaux ; ils portent ici une attention particulière sur le rôle central des notions d’apprentissage tout au long de la vie et d’apprentissage intergénérationnel. Les tendances et expériences internationales qu’ils présentent ont inspiré et étayé le concept d’un projet primé d’alphabétisation familiale baptisé FLY, testé en 2004 à Hambourg (Allemagne). Cette initiative vise à établir des liens entre structures préscolaires, écoles et familles, en impliquant activement les parents et d’autres membres de la famille dans l’alphabétisation des enfants. Ses trois piliers principaux sont 1) la participation des parents aux cours de leurs enfants, 2) des sessions spéciales pour les parents (sans les enfants), et 3) des activités communes extra-scolaires pour enseignants, parents et enfants. Ces trois piliers aident les familles essentiellement issues de l’immigration à se familiariser avec les écoles allemandes et à participer plus activement à la vie scolaire. Afin d’illustrer comment le concept FLY est intégré dans la vie scolaire quotidienne, les auteurs présentent une école participante de Hambourg. Ils détaillent ensuite leur récente étude relative à l’impact du projet FLY sur un groupe d’écoles primaires de Hambourg qui l’appliquent depuis plusieurs années. Les résultats de l’évaluation indiquent clairement que le projet a atteint ses principaux objectifs : 1) Les parents d’élèves des écoles FLY s’estiment plus impliqués dans l’apprentissage de leurs enfants et reçoivent davantage d’opportunités de participer aux activités scolaires ; 2) La qualité de l’enseignement s’est améliorée dans ces écoles, l’instruction accordant une priorité à l’acquisition de compétences, et ce manifestement grâce à une meilleure gestion de classe et à un milieu plus propice à l’apprentissage ; 3) Enfin, les enfants de ces écoles bénéficient davantage d’opportunités d’accumuler des expériences dans des contextes extra-scolaires, et sont plus exposés à des milieux qui stimulent et enrichissent de manière tangible leurs compétences de base.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic, R. (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bekman, S., & Koçak, A. (2010). Mothers reporting: The mother-child education program in five countries. Istanbul: Mother-Child Education Foundation Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Borman, G., Hewes, G., Overman, L., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Börner, O., & Eckeberg, M. (2014). The British concept of literacy. In G. Rabkin & S. Roche (Eds.), Learning to Fly: Familienorientierte Bildung im Raum Schule – Family-oriented literacy education in schools (pp. 208–210). Hamburg: Landesinstitut für Lehrerbildung und Schulentwicklung (LI) and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL).Google Scholar
  6. Brooks, G., & Hannon, P. (2013). Research issues in family literacy. In J. Marson & J. Marsh (Eds.), The Sage handbook of early childhood literacy (pp. 194–207). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooks, G., Pahl, K., Pollard, A., & Rees, F. (2008). Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy: A review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally. Reading: CfBT (Centre for British Teachers) Education Trust. Retrieved 28 February 2018 from https://www.educationdevelopmenttrust.com/~/media/cfbtcorporate/files/research/2008/r-effective-and-inclusive-practices-in-family-literacy-review-2008.pdf.
  8. Carpentieri, J., Fairfax-Cholmeley, K., Litster, J., & Vorhaus, J. (2011). Family literacy in Europe: Using parental support initiatives to enhance early literacy development. London: National Research and Development Centre (NRDC), Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  9. Dickinson, D. K., St. Pierre, R. G., & Pettengill, J. (2004). High-quality classrooms: A key ingredient to family literacy programs’ support for children’s literacy. In B. H. Wasik (Ed.), Handbook of family literacy (pp. 137–154). Mawah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. EC (European Commission) (2012). EU High-level group of experts on literacy: Final report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  11. Elfert, M., & Hanemann, U. (2014). The collaboration between FLY and the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning: The international dimension. In G. Rabkin & S. Roche (Eds.), Learning to Fly: Familienorientierte Bildung im Raum Schule – Family-oriented literacy education in schools (pp. 66–75). Hamburg: Landesinstitut für Lehrerbildung und Schulentwicklung and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.Google Scholar
  12. Elfert, M., & Rabkin, G. (Eds.) (2007): Gemeinsam in der Sprache baden: Family Literacy. Internationale Konzepte zur familienorientierten Schriftsprachförderung [Taking a language bath together: Family literacy. International concepts for family-oriented literacy support]. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Sprachen.Google Scholar
  13. Hamilton, M., & Hillier, Y. (2006). The changing face of adult literacy, language and numeracy 1970–2000: A critical history. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.Google Scholar
  14. Hanemann, U. (2014). Early literacy: A stepping stone for lifelong learning. In J. Maas, S. Ehmig, & C. Seelmann (Eds.), Prepare for Life! Raising awareness for early literacy education (pp. 254–271). Mainz: Stiftung Lesen.Google Scholar
  15. Hanemann, U. (2015). Learning families: Intergenerational approaches to literacy teaching and learning. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.Google Scholar
  16. Hanemann, U., & Scarpino, C. (2016). Learning families: Promising experiences of intergenerational approaches to literacy teaching and learning from the Global South. Presentation at the 2016 Conference of the Comparative and International Education Society, Vancouver, Canada, 7 March 2016 [unpublished].Google Scholar
  17. Hannon, P., Brooks, G., & Bird, V. (2007). Family literacy in England. In M. Elfert & G. Rabkin (Eds.), Gemeinsam in der Sprache baden: Family Literacy. Internationale Konzepte zur familienorientierten Schriftsprachförderung (p. 11). Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Sprachen.Google Scholar
  18. Hansen, B. B., & Bowers, J. (2008). Covariate balance in simple, stratified and clustered comparative studies. Statistical Science, 23(2), 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harder, V. S., Stuart, E. A., & Anthony, J. C. (2010). Propensity score techniques and the assessment of measured covariate balance to test causal associations in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 234–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009): Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hayes, A. (2006). High-quality family literacy programs: Adult outcomes and impacts. Family literacy research and statistics. Louisville, KY: National Center for Family Literacy.Google Scholar
  22. Heckt, M. & May, P. (2009). FörMig-Hamburg – Abschlussbericht der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung der Hamburger Teilprojekte – Zusammenfassung [FörMig-Hamburg – Final report of the scientific support of the Hamburg subprojects – Summary]. Hamburg: LI. Retrieved 28 February 2018 from http://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/4026980/9134687bb9c5c3fb296d7ea1e81c223a/data/pdf-fly-abschlussbericht.pdf.
  23. Heintze, A., & Müller-Krätzschmar, M. (2014). FLY and the Hamburg language learning strategy. In G. Rabkin & S. Roche (Eds.), Learning to Fly: Familienorientierte Bildung im Raum Schule – Family-oriented literacy education in schools (pp. 88–92). Hamburg: Landesinstitut für Lehrerbildung und Schulentwicklung (LI) and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL).Google Scholar
  24. Helmke, A. (2006). Was wissen wir über guten Unterricht? [What do we know about good teaching?] Pädagogik, 58(2), 42–45.Google Scholar
  25. Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2009). CEM: Coarsened exact matching software. Journal of Statistical Software, 30(9), n.p. Retrieved 28 February 2018 from https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v030i09.
  26. IfBQ (Institut für Bildungsmonitoring und Qualitätsentwicklung) (2012). Jahresbericht der Schulinspektion Hamburg. Schuljahr 2010/2011 [Annual Report of the Hamburg Schools Inspectorate for the school year 2010/2011]. Hamburg: Institut für Bildungsmonitoring und Qualitätsentwicklung. Retrieved 28 March 2018 from http://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/4022710/8426f908ea93cb4efcd7c23632334a04/data/pdf-jahresbericht-2010-2011.pdf.
  27. Klieme, E. (2011). Standards für die Unterrichtsqualität. Kann es das geben? [Standards for teaching quality. Are they possible?] Presented at the University of Zürich on 20 November 2011.Google Scholar
  28. Kontopantelis, E. & Reeves, D. (2009). MetaEasy: A meta-analysis add-in for Microsoft Excel. Journal of Statistical Software, 30(7), n.p. Retrieved 28 February 2018 from https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v030i07.
  29. Leist, S., Pietsch, M., Tosana, S. & Bardowicks. S. (2009). Item- und Skalenhandbuch der Schulinspektion Hamburg: Dokumentation der quantitativen Erhebungsinstrumente [Item and scales manual of the Hamburg Schools Inspectorate: Documentation of the quantitative survey instruments]. Hamburg: Behörde für Schule und Berufsbildung (BSB).Google Scholar
  30. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. May, P. & Eickmeyer, A. (2007). Das FLY-Projekt aus Sicht der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung [The FLY project from a scientific monitoring point of view]. In M. Elfert & G. Rabkin (Eds.), Gemeinsam in der Sprache baden: Family Literacy. Internationale Konzepte zur familienorientierten Schriftsprachförderung [Taking a language bath together: Family literacy. International concepts for family-oriented literacy support] (pp. 58–64). Stuttgart: Klett Sprachen.Google Scholar
  32. Nickel, S. (2007). Family Literacy in Deutschland [Family literacy in Germany]. In M. Elfert & G. Rabkin (Eds.), Gemeinsam in der Sprache baden: Family Literacy. Internationale Konzepte zur familienorientierten Schriftsprachförderung [Taking a language bath together: Family literacy. International concepts for family-oriented literacy support] (pp. 65–84). Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Sprachen.Google Scholar
  33. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2001). Knowledge and skills for life. First results from the OECD Programme for international student assessment (PISA) 2000. Paris: OECD. Retrieved 27 March 2018 from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/9601141e.pdf?expires=1522138198&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=D843598FE730AEB23502EC750FD9DE9D.
  34. Pan, W., & Bai, H. (2015). Propensity score analysis: Fundamentals and developments. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  35. Pant, T. R. (2014). The UNESCO Office in Kathmandu and family literacy in Nepal. In G. Rabkin & S. Roche (Eds.), Learning to Fly: Familienorientierte Bildung im Raum Schule – Family-oriented literacy education in schools (pp. 211–213). Hamburg: Landesinstitut für Lehrerbildung und Schulentwicklung (LI) and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL).Google Scholar
  36. Pianta, R., & Hamre, B. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational researcher, 38(2), 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pietsch, M. & Ehmke, T. (2015). Die Qualität des Unterrichts an SINUS-Grundschulen: Eine Programmevaluation mithilfe von Daten der Schulinspektion Hamburg [The quality of teaching at SINUS primary schools: A programme evaluation using data from the Hamburg Schools Inspectorate]. In M. Pietsch, B. Scholand & K. Schulte (Eds.), Schulinspektion in Hamburg. Der erste Zyklus 2007–2013: Grundlagen, Befunde, Perspektiven [School inspection in Hamburg: The first cycle 2007–2013: Basics, findings, perspectives] (pp. 295–316). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  38. Pietsch, M., Scholand, B., Graw, S., Hengstmann, E. & Kulin, S. (2013). Skalenhandbuch der Schulinspektion Hamburg. Fragebögen für Pädagoginnen und Pädagogen, Eltern und Schülerinnen und Schüler [Scales handbook of the Hamburg Schools Inspectorate: Questionnaires for educators, parents and pupils]. Hamburg: Institut für Bildungsmonitoring und Qualitätsentwicklung.Google Scholar
  39. Pietsch, M., Scholand, B., & Schulte, K. (Eds.) (2015). Schulinspektion in Hamburg. Der erste Zyklus 2007–2013: Grundlagen, Befunde, Perspektiven [School inspection in Hamburg: The first cycle 2007–2013: Basics, findings, perspectives]. Münster: Waxmann. Retrieved 29 March 2018 from https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2015/11460/pdf/Pietsch_et_al_2015_Schulinspektion_in_Hamburg.pdf.
  40. Pietsch, M., Schulze, P., Schnack, J., & Krause, M. (2011). Elaborierte Rückmeldungen zur Qualität von Unterricht. Über empirisch abgesicherte Bezugsnormen als Grundlage für die Weiterentwicklung von Unterricht und Schule [Elaborated feedback on the quality of teaching. On empirically secured reference standards as a basis for the further development of education and school]. In S. Müller, M. Pietsch & W. Bos (Eds.), Schulinspektionen in Deutschland – Eine Zwischenbilanz aus empirischer Sicht [School inspections in Germany – an interim assessment from an empirical point of view] (pp. 193–216). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  41. Rabkin, G. (2012). Good practice: Beispiele aus elf Hamburger Schulen im Rahmen des Mini King Sejong Preises [Good practice: Examples from eleven Hamburg schools in teh context of the Mini King Sejong Prize]. Hamburg: Landesinstitut für Lehrerbildung und Schulentwicklung (LI).Google Scholar
  42. Rabkin, G. & Roche, S. (Eds.), (2014). Learning to Fly: Familienorientierte Bildung im Raum Schule – Family-oriented literacy education in schools. Hamburg: Landesinstitut für Lehrerbildung und Schulentwicklung (LI) and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). Retrieved 6 May 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002295/229506m.pdf.
  43. Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, D. (1983). The central role of propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, D. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38.Google Scholar
  45. Rubin, D. (2001). Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services & Outcomes Research Methodology, 2(3–4), 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schulte, K., Hartig, J. & Pietsch, M. (2014). Der Sozialindex für Hamburger Schulen [The social index for Hamburg schools]. In D. Fickermann & N. Maritzen (Eds), Grundlagen für eine daten- und theoriegestützte Schulentwicklung – Konzeption und Anspruch des Hamburger Instituts für Bildungsmonitoring und Qualitätsentwicklung (IfBQ) [Foundations for a data- and theory-supported school development: Conception and aspiration of the Hamburg Institute for Educational Monitoring and Quality Development (IfBQ)] (pp. 67–80). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  47. Street, B. (2005). Understanding and defining literacy. Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2006, Literacy for life. 2006/ED/EFA/MRT/PI/92. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 28 February 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001461/146186e.pdf.
  48. Taylor, D. (1983). Family literacy: Young children learning to read and write. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  49. Thoemmes, F. (2014). Propensity score matching in SPSS. Retrieved 12 April 2017 from http://sourceforge.net/projects/psmspss/.
  50. Thoemmes, F., & Kim, E. S. (2011). A systematic review of propensity score methods in the social sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(1), 90–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tuckett, A. (2004). Moving family learning forward. In Adult learning and skills: Family learning edition, Issue 4 (pp. 4–6). Leicester: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE).Google Scholar
  52. UIL (UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning) (2011). Family literacy project (FLY). Effective Literacy and Numeracy Practices Database (LitBase). Retrieved 7 May 2018 from http://litbase.uil.unesco.org/?menu=15&country=DE&programme=67.
  53. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2015). Education 2030 Incheon declaration and framework for action: Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 28 February 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002456/245656e.pdf.
  54. van Steensel, R., McElvany, N., Kurvers, J., & Herppich, S. (2011). How effective are family literacy programs? Results of a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature, and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Independent Professional in the Field of LiteracyHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Schule Kerschensteinerstraße, and Landesinstitut für Lehrerbildung und SchulentwicklungHamburgGermany
  3. 3.Independent International Professional in the Field of Education and DevelopmentHamburgGermany
  4. 4.Institut für Bildungsmonitoring und QualitätsentwicklungHamburgGermany
  5. 5.Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Institut für BildungswissenschaftLüneburgGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options