This article was downloaded by: [University of Waterloo]On: 06 November 2014, At: 14:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Childhood EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uced20

Promoting Preschool Literacy: A Family Literacy Program forHomeless Mothers and Their ChildrenAurelia Di Santo aa Associate Professor, School of Early Childhood Studies, Ryerson University , Toronto , CanadaPublished online: 22 Jun 2012.

To cite this article: Aurelia Di Santo (2012) Promoting Preschool Literacy: A Family Literacy Program for Homeless Mothers and TheirChildren, Childhood Education, 88:4, 232-240, DOI: 10.1080/00094056.2012.699855

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2012.699855

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

232 \ Childhood Education

Literacy programs often target preschool children who are from minority groups, are from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and are second language learners, as they are deemed to be at risk for academic diffi culties. Th e family literacy program described in this article is unique in that it focuses on families who have an additional risk factor—homelessness. Compared with children living in permanent homes, homeless children suff er more from a lack of educational opportunities and from developmental delays (Raising the Roof, 2004) and deal with many stresses that other children do not experience. Children who are homeless deal with disruptions to their home, school, and family structure; consequently, they tend to perform poorly in school (Community Social Planning Council of Toronto, 2006).

by Aurelia Di Santo,Associate Professor, School of Early Childhood Studies, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada

PROMOTING

PRESCHOOL LITERACY

A Family Literacy Programfor Homeless Mothers

and � eir Children

© Arman Zhenikeyev

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

4:11

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

July/August 2012 / 233

Thus, the aim of this project was twofold. The first was to offer, to preschool children living in precarious circumstances, literacy experiences that would result in sustained home exposure to reading and writing. The second was to empower their mothers by affirming their role as their preschool child’s first literacy mentor. Offering the mothers an opportunity to engage in a family-based literacy program with their children exposed them to literacy strategies that they could then employ with their children; thus, the families could continue to engage in various quality family-based literacy activities after the program was complete.

TheoreTical FrameworkSituated within a sociocultural framework, the project was guided by the concept of “funds of knowledge” (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992, p. 133). Through the lens of funds of knowledge, researchers and program facilitators “recognize that daily family activities constitute funds of knowledge that serve as important learning experiences for children” (Riojas-Cortex, Flores, & Clark, 2003, p. 3), “identify and draw on . . . parents’ and children’s funds of knowledge in order to recognize and celebrate them” (Andrews & Yee, 2006, p. 436), and “value and develop an understanding of the knowledge, skills and learning which resides or takes place in . . . communities” (Andrews & Yee, 2006, p. 436). Hence, the mothers and their children participating in this program were viewed as competent and knowledgeable, and their life experiences were respected. This approach is critical, especially when early childhood educators, teachers, and researchers are working with marginalized populations—specifically, homeless children and their mothers, who may have had limited exposure to quality life experiences. The program was intended to offer children and their mothers a literacy experience that would enhance the mothers’ understanding of the importance of their children engaging in literacy activities and to provoke the children’s interest in literacy. As a theoretical framework, funds of knowledge helps us understand children who live in households (in the case of this project, a shelter) that are “usually viewed as being ‘poor’ not only economically but in terms of the quality of experiences for the child” (Moll et al., 1992, p. 132). Offering an on-site family literacy program for both mothers and their preschool children would draw upon the mothers’ funds of knowledge and build on it, highlighting the important role that they play as their child’s first literacy mentors. It also would help build

children’s funds of knowledge, which they could then apply to their education setting.

inFluence oF The home environmenTon children’s liTeracy skills

Literacy and language skills are crucial aspects of children’s development; these skills allow them to interact in meaningful ways with others and to acquire skills in all subject areas (Carter, Chard, & Pool, 2009). The frequency and quality of the language and literacy interactions that children have with their parents prior to starting school can influence their success once they begin formal schooling (Carter et al., 2009). Examining children’s motivation for reading in relation to parent beliefs and literacy experiences in the home, Baker and Scher (2002) found that children’s motivation for reading was predicted by parental identification of pleasure as a reason for reading. In fact, parents who viewed reading as pleasurable conveyed this attitude to their children either explicitly through their words, or indirectly through the literacy experiences they provided (Baker & Scher, 2002). Shared book reading also has been found to increase children’s literacy skills. Senechal and LeFevre (2001) examined how home experiences are related to the development of children’s language and literacy skills and found that mothers’ use of language during shared book reading with their children is richer than the language used during mealtimes, toy play, or dressing. Senechal and LeFevre (2001) concluded that shared storybook reading has a direct impact on children’s vocabulary development, and found that children who have a variety of home literacy experiences, such as direct instruction in emergent literacy skills and storybook reading, are most likely to succeed at reading. Generally, these findings help us to understand the influence that mothers have on their children’s literacy success. Thus, it is important that parents understand the ways in which they can impact their children’s literacy development. Such understanding may be particularly important to promote with homeless mothers, who are transient and, as a result, may have limited access to print materials and other literacy-based resources.

impacT oF homelessness on children’s liTeracy developmenT

As being homeless and living in a shelter can restrict children’s literacy development (Walker-Dalhouse & Risko, 2008), it is crucial that preschool children in such environments be exposed to literacy experiences. More importantly,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

4:11

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

234 \ Childhood Education

these programs should include their mothers. Shelter-based literacy programs must be designed to empower mothers to continue supporting their children’s literacy development upon completion of the program and, more critically, upon leaving their transitional housing for other forms of semi-permanent or permanent housing. Since the transience necessarily associated with homelessness will lead to discontinuity in school, home, and community environments, the literacy-based program described here focused on the mothers as the primary source of educational stability for their preschool children. Homeless mothers may have limited access (or no access) to literacy resources in their “home” environment; therefore, engaging in literacy episodes with their children may be challenging. In fact, two of the mothers informed us that they could not borrow books from the community public library because they did not have personal identification showing a permanent address. Such restrictions limit the opportunity for homeless children to engage in literacy episodes while in their home environment. In addition, it is often assumed that when participating in home-based literacy activities, children feel safe and have their own space to relax; however, this is not necessarily the case for homeless children (MacGillivray, Ardell, & Curwen, 2010). Children who live in a shelter often lack play and study space (Community Social Planning Council of Toronto, 2006). If we are to provide effective support, it is important to understand the challenges that homeless mothers and their children face if and when they want to engage in literacy episodes.

The FamiliesIn total, 12 mothers with their 13 preschool children (8 girls and 5 boys; M age = 3.6 years) living in the shelter participated in the literacy program. On average, mothers and their children attended five out of the six sessions. The families were from diverse cultural backgrounds that reflect the urban setting where this program took place. Nine of the mothers reported that English was the primary language spoken with the child. Spanish, Twi, and English/Patois were reported by the other three mothers as the primary language spoken with their children.

TransiTional shelTerThe shelter, also referred to as a transitional shelter, is an integrated family-centered education and training center for homeless single mothers and their children and is located in a major urban area

in southern Ontario, Canada. Families may be referred through an agency or another shelter and may live at the shelter for up to two years. Shelter staff support these families on their journeys to economic self-sufficiency and stability by helping women to become independent and develop feelings of self-worth. In addition to providing living facilities, the shelter offers children from birth to age 5 the opportunity to attend an on-site early childhood development program. All of the children who participated in the family-based literacy program attended the early childhood development program as well.

The Family-Based liTeracy programLearning Begins at Home: A Research-Based Family Literacy Program Curriculum¹ (Doyle, Hipfner-Boucher, & Pelletier, 2008), which is a nine-week program, was chosen for this project; however, due to the nature of the shelter setting and the transient nature of the families, the curriculum was revised to offer the families a six-week program. The principal investigator and two research assistants combined topics and revised several activities in order to offer the curriculum in a shorter time frame. This curriculum was chosen for several reasons. First, it is in keeping with the notion that when parents are involved in a literacy program, children’s literacy progress is enhanced (Barnes & Freude-Lagevardi, 2003, as cited in Melhuish et al., 2008). Second, the strategies outlined in the curriculum call attention to the importance of reading and writing for pleasure and to the parent-child interaction during literacy episodes (Pelletier, Hipfner-Boucher, & Doyle, 2010). Finally, this curriculum is in keeping with the “funds of knowledge” framework (e.g., breakout times recognize and draw upon the mothers’ experiences and knowledge). The program was offered one evening per week for six weeks and was implemented in the preschool room of the early childhood development center, as the children were familiar with the space and it was a child-friendly environment (e.g., child-size furniture). The sessions lasted for 1 ½ hours, from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m., and each session highlighted a literacy topic. Each session began with the facilitators, mothers, and their children gathering in the preschool room for light refreshments, a 15- to 20-minute introduction to the evening’s session, and a story time. This was followed by a 30- to 45-minute breakout time. For the breakout times, the children remained in their preschool room with four facilitators, who were responsible for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

4:11

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

July/August 2012 / 235

implementing the activities. Two facilitators and the mothers moved to the shelter’s board room for their breakout time. Five of the facilitators were enrolled in an early childhood education degree program at a university located in southern Ontario, Canada. One research assistant, who was the lead facilitator for the mothers’ breakout times, was a registered early childhood educator and social worker. The sessions concluded with the mothers returning to the preschool room to engage in a short activity with their children. This provided them with an opportunity to implement the strategies they discussed during their breakout time. The mothers and children also participated in a storybook time and a good-bye song. At the end of each session, the mothers and their children received a copy of the evening’s featured storybook, and a range of materials and ideas for take-home activities. The aim was to provide children with accessible print materials. In addition, by giving the families quality materials for literacy-based activities, we hoped that we would raise the mothers’ motivation to engage their

children in reading and writing activities. Table 1 presents the topics and related key messages for each session and the featured storybooks that each family received.

Introduction to the SessionsEach session began with an introduction and followed the same format: a welcome song, a nursery rhyme, and a family story time. To provide consistency, the same welcome song was sung each week. Pelletier et al. (2010) note the importance of families building a repertoire of nursery rhymes; therefore, the nursery rhymes varied from week to week. Each week also featured a storybook. We used the reading of the storybook as a basis for modeling strategies, such as introducing the name of the author and illustrator, asking questions, highlighting text features, and encouraging children to participate in the story telling.

Breakout Sessions Session One. Session one focused on different types of children’s books and strategies for choosing

Table 1

Session Topics Key Messages Featured Books1 Introduction/Children’s

Literaturei) Types of Children’s Booksii) Choosing Books for Children

Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See? (Martin & Carle, 1967)

2 Talk With Your Child/Environmental Print

i) Children’s Oral Language Development: Why It Matters for Literacy Development

ii) Ways To Develop Children’s Oral Language

iii) The Importance of Environmental Print

iv) Using Environmental Print To Support Children’s Literacy Development

City Signs (Milich, 2002)

3 Thinking About Words and Sounds

i) The Importance of Words and Sounds

Silly Sally (Wood, 1992)

4 Early Writing/Print Awareness and Letter Names and Sounds

i) The Importance of Supporting Children’s Writing Development

ii) The Importance of Teaching Letter Names and Sounds

Chicka Chicka Boom Boom (Martin & Archambault, 1989)

5 Storytelling and Reading With Your Child

i) The Importance of Reading Aloud to Children

ii) The Usefulness of Storytime Prompts

Growing Vegetable Soup (Elbert, 1987)

6 Number Sense i) The Importance of Teaching Children About Numbers and Counting

The Very Hungry Caterpillar (Carle, 1969)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

4:11

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

236 \ Childhood Education

books. After an overview of the program, each mother received a worksheet titled “Remembering our favorite stories and books.” We asked the mothers to think about their favorite stories from their childhood, which they then shared within the group. The goal was to show the wide range of stories or books that exist, which led into a discussion about different types of children’s books (e.g., picture, poetry, alphabet, counting, concept, wordless). We also asked the mothers to talk about their children’s interest in books, what type of books they would like their children to read, and how they chose books. This formed the basis for our discussion about factors to consider (e.g., children’s interest, book format, illustrations, language) when choosing books for children. The breakout time ended with mothers reading different books. While the mothers were in their breakout time, the children were participating in a group time, which consisted of singing, finger plays, and listening to a story (The Magic Hat by Mem Fox, 2002). They then participated in a story book extension activity (hat making). Session Two. Session two consisted of two topics: talking with children and environmental print. Facilitators gave an overview of why language development matters for reading and writing and covered the milestones of language development. In small groups, mothers shared their ideas regarding how they could foster their child’s language development while engaging in their day-to-day activities. Ideas were recorded and then shared with the larger group. In following the advice of Pelletier et al. (2010), the facilitators provided suggestions for supporting language development, such as “asking and answering questions, using words to talk about objects, reciting poems or rhymes and reading stories, telling stories, and playing with your child” (pp. 65-66). We asked mothers to complete a worksheet that encouraged them to think of examples of closed- and open-ended questions, and to consider the types of stories they tell their children and how they can encourage their children to tell stories and extend their language. Following this activity, we discussed the importance of environmental print. The facilitators showed the mothers pictures of environmental signs (e.g., McDonald’s logo, exit sign, stop sign) and talked about examples of environmental print that are found both indoors and outdoors. The mothers discussed ways to foster their children’s interest in environmental print, and how to use environmental print to

promote children’s literacy development. Ideas generated from the mothers’ responses were included in a group discussion about helping children increase their awareness of and knowledge about environmental print. Mothers were given copies of take-home activities that support language development. One activity included reading the featured story book, City Signs (Milich, 2002), and then taking a walk in the neighborhood to look for the different kinds of signs that are in the storybook. During their breakout time, the children played the Symbol Game (Pelletier et al., 2010). They were shown symbols (e.g., McDonald’s logo, exit sign), and then each child received one half of a symbol. They had to look for another child with the same symbol they were holding. When they found the child with the matching half, they sat down together. Once everyone found their partner, the children talked about their symbol and what it represented. The children then participated in making a collage. They were given flyers from the grocery store to use in making a collage of their favorite foods. The children’s breakout time ended with the reading of a wordless story book, Pancakes for Breakfast (DePaola, 1978). Children were encouraged to participate by looking at the pictures and telling the story. Session Three. For session three, we discussed the importance of words and sounds. Facilitators used Polar Bear, Polar Bear, What Do You Hear? (Martin & Carle, 1991) to illustrate repetitive text. In addition, the facilitators presented different finger plays that use repetitive words and the mothers shared rhyming songs and finger plays that they knew. Facilitators demonstrated the use of clapping to introduce syllables (Pelletier et al., 2010) and offered suggestions as to how to do this activity with the children (e.g., clap the syllables in “mommy” or in their own name). As a take-home activity, the mothers received a pack of animal cards they could use to introduce letter sounds (e.g., choosing a card and giving the child two clues about the animal: the beginning sound of the animal’s name and the sound that the animal makes). During their breakout time, children sang songs, recorded sounds, listened to a story, and engaged in book-making. For the recording activity, the children were divided into three groups to tape record sounds (e.g., clapping their hands, stomping their feet). They came back together as a large group and listened to the recordings made by other groups, trying to identify the sounds. One facilitator then read the story Polar Bear, Polar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

4:11

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

July/August 2012 / 237

Bear, What Do You Hear? (Martin & Carle, 1991). This was followed by a book-making activity that gave children an opportunity to illustrate their own “What Do You Hear?” book. Session Four. Session four highlighted early writing, print awareness, and letter names and sounds. First, small groups of mothers shared examples of writing activities they engage in with their child. The focus was to show how their examples help children “learn about the different kinds and purposes of print; be more willing to try to create their own print; [and] develop knowledge of letter formation and ‘how print works’ (e.g., moves left to right in English)” (Pelletier et al., 2010, p. 120). Facilitators then presented ways to support writing development and print awareness, illustrating why it is important for children to witness writing and to engage in the writing process. Mothers also shared their ideas about how to help their children learn letter names and sounds. As a take-home activity, each mother received stencils to spell their child’s name, and a sheet of activity ideas that support print awareness, writing, and letter names and sounds. These activities included using real-life daily experiences as an opportunity to write, such as making a grocery list and then naming the first letter of an item; using craft materials (such as stencils) to print the child’s name; finding the letters in their child’s name in newspapers or flyers, and cutting them out and gluing them on a sheet of paper to spell her/his name; and looking at letters in the environment (Pelletier et al., 2010). During their breakout time, children listened to a story, went on a letter scavenger hunt, and made nameplates. For the letter scavenger hunt, the letters of the alphabet were hidden in the classroom. The children were asked to find the letters and place them in paper bags. Once the letters were all found, the children arranged the letters they had found in front of them. The facilitator started by asking which child had the letter “a.” She then placed the letter onto chart paper and repeated the process with the rest of the alphabet. Upon completing this activity, children engaged in making a nameplate. Each child received a nametag board on which her/his first name had been printed as a dotted line. The facilitators helped the children trace their names with glue; then, the children used various art materials to decorate their nameplate. Session Five. The fifth session focused on storytelling and mothers reading with their children. The facilitators began the mothers’

breakout time by introducing prompts to engage children in literacy activities. Mothers were asked to describe how they might use prompts to encourage their children to share their daily experiences with them. This question formed the basis for a discussion about why reading aloud is important for children’s literacy development. Facilitators then discussed techniques that the mothers could use while reading aloud with their child. Mothers were given handouts that listed different types of prompts they could use while reading to their child and tips for reading aloud to their child. After hearing the featured book Growing Vegetable Soup (Elbert, 1987), children played an adapted version of The Farmer in the Dell and drew a picture of their favorite vegetable. The facilitator made a simple graph listing each vegetable that was drawn, and the children taped their vegetables to the graph. The facilitator then led a discussion and asked the children questions about the graph (e.g., Which vegetable did the children like the most?). This topic segued into the final session, which focused on number sense. Session Six. The final session highlighted number sense and its relationship to literacy. Pelletier et al. (2010) suggest that parents understand that “numeracy is a form of literacy because children need to learn the symbolic function of numerals” (p. 143). During their breakout time, the facilitators discussed such concepts as number sequence, one-to-one correspondence, quantity, mathematical language (e.g., more/less, bigger/smaller, longer/shorter), and using environmental print for noticing numbers (e.g., license plates, road signs). The mothers were asked to think about their daily activities and how these activities could provide opportunities for teaching counting. Dear Zoo (Campbell, 1982), Mushroom in the Rain (Ginsburg, Aruego, & Dewey, 1990), and Silly Sally (Wood, 1992) were used to reinforce counting. Strategies for teaching children about numbers and counting were discussed. For example, the mothers could engage their children in such activities as counting and comparing objects in terms of size and quantity, reading counting books, playing board games, and pointing out numbers in the environment. Children began their breakout time by singing “Five Little Monkeys.” They also engaged in group games that promoted the mathematical concept of matching. The facilitator asked each child to find a partner. She then asked them to match their body parts (e.g., back to back, elbow to elbow). The children then engaged in a Color Hunt. Prior

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

4:11

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

238 \ Childhood Education

to beginning the evening’s session, the facilitators had hidden various pattern blocks around the classroom. Children were given paper bags and shown an example of a pattern block, and then were asked to go on a hunt for the pattern blocks. Once all the pattern blocks were found, the children organized the pattern blocks into colors. The breakout time ended with the children singing “One Little Elephant.”

Mother and Child Together TimeEach session ended with the mothers, children, and facilitators gathering in the preschool room for fruit and refreshments. One of the children’s facilitators informed the mothers about the children’s activities during the breakout time. The facilitator began with a nursery rhyme to refocus the mothers’ and children’s attention and continue the efforts to build their repertoire of rhymes. The facilitator then encouraged the mothers and children to engage in a dialogue about what happened during the children’s breakout time. In session two, the families were given disposable cameras to take pictures of their indoor and outdoor environments. They were asked to return the cameras the following week so that the pictures could be developed and returned to them for a book-making activity. During the mother and child together time in session five, they used their pictures to create their own personal books.

whaT did The moThers sayaBouT The program?

Each mother participated in a semi-structured post-program interview so that we could understand what they learned from the program. I discuss their responses in this section. We emphasized using indoor and outdoor environmental print as a means of encouraging reading, and this practice appeared to continue outside of the program time. One mother reported that “due to the program teaching us about land prints . . . every time we go outside, I’ll show him little signs.” Another mother stated, “There is a sign that says ‘enter’ and ‘exit’ [in the shelter]. The [word] exit is kind of scratched out, so every time we go there, we have to spell it.” One mother shared that she had not thought of using environment print as a way to engage in literacy, but after the session and receiving the book City Signs (Milich, 2002), she said that “wherever we go, he points stuff out.” Several mothers commented that they were aware that they could influence their child’s reading:

“If I’m slacking in terms of not picking up a book at all, and every time he wants to read I’m like ‘No I don’t feel like [it],’ he will eventually get discouraged of reading.”

“By showing interest in what he’s reading or what he wants to read.”

Mothers wanted to make reading interesting for their child, as noted by one mother, who said, “We teach our children through games in order to keep their attention.” They also shared how they used the strategies they learned in the program while they read aloud to their children. These strategies included asking questions about the story’s illustrations and storyline, encouraging the child to tell the story by looking at the pictures, predicting what will happen next, and using an appropriate voice tone. One mother said that when she and her daughter read The Very Hungry Caterpillar (Carle, 1969), the mother would read the text and her child would do the counting. In addition to strategies, mothers also discussed engaging in literacy episodes with their children, as noted by these responses: “[I] spend more time . . . talking about the letters in his name”; “[I learned about] more ways to sit with her and read and do more activities with her”; and “[I] spend more time with them reading. I’m not a good reader but I can do it with them still.” One mother shared that she had not engaged in literacy episodes with her child but that “since we started the program it helped me, encouraged me to read for him.” Many of the mothers reported that they enjoyed the breakout times because they learned “from the other parents” about “different ideas,” “background information,” and “things on how to help their [child’s] . . . development of their reading.” One mother also noted that she enjoyed the concluding time, because she could “see exactly how you can implement some of the ideas we come up with and how you can work with some of the stuff.” In keeping with the theoretical framework of funds of knowledge, one mother noted, “It’s like everyone’s bringing something that is known . . . I know something and maybe they don’t know. And they know something and I don’t know. So we share how your child is doing this and that kind of thing.” Another mother shared that she enjoyed working in groups, “discussing and trying to like improve on it and come up with lots of different ways to how to use [the ideas].” Finally, it is noteworthy to highlight that all of the mothers reported reading the books they received in the program with their child. Their responses illustrate the importance of providing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

4:11

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

July/August 2012 / 239

families with print materials and practices that they could use in their home environment.

conclusionProviding children with a literacy-rich home environment is key to literacy development. As such, the current family literacy program’s goals were to offer preschool children living in a shelter meaningful literacy experiences and to empower their mothers by affirming their role as their child’s first literacy mentor. Listening to the voices of this marginalized population of women highlighted the importance of offering a program that aimed to empower them in their role of literacy mentor by drawing upon and building on their knowledge, skills, and previous experiences. Pelletier (2011) suggests that “mobilizing knowledge by sharing it with parents is more effective than just giving them activities to do at home” (p. 2); therefore, literacy programs should involve the family and not be offered only to children in isolation from their parents. Thus, in the literacy program described in this article, the mother’s role as her child’s literacy mentor was further strengthened by providing her with literacy strategies, materials, and storybooks that she could continue to use with her children in the home environment. This article focused on a six-week program adapted from Learning Begins at Home: A Research-Based Family Literacy Program Curriculum (Doyle, Hipfner-Boucher, & Pelletier, 2008) for a specific group of mothers and their children. It is important to note, however, that this program curriculum also has been delivered in a wide range of contexts by professionals, graduate students, and researchers over the past several years, which speaks to the longevity, adaptability, and flexibility of the curriculum. Although a review of each program delivery is beyond the scope of this article, highlights of several programs employing the family literacy curriculum are presented. Harper, Platt, and Pelletier (2011) offered a nine-week curriculum to families whose children were English language learners (ELL). The program took place during the lunch hour in seven elementary schools and was offered to junior and senior kindergarten children. Family interest in the program was so great that in order to meet the demand, it was offered in the fall and winter sessions of the school year. The results from this project illustrated that the literacy program was “most effective in improving the early reading skills of ELL children” (Harper, Platt, & Pelletier, 2011). In addition to offering the program during the school year at different times (e.g., lunch hour,

evenings), it also has been implemented over the summer months. Graham, McNamara, and Van Lankveld (2011) offered the family literacy program to 14 four-year-old children who were identified to be at risk for reading difficulties (and their primary caregiver). The program was delivered twice a week for two hours over a five-week period during the summer vacation. The goal of the program was to examine the efficacy of the family literacy program on the children’s reading achievement. Overall, the authors found that the children showed significant gains in their literacy skills. Furthermore, the curriculum also has been offered to families in a language other than English. Zhang, Pelletier, and Doyle (2010) adapted the family literacy curriculum, culturally and linguistically, to reflect the needs of families in three Chinese communities in Toronto, Canada. The program was delivered over an 8-week period for two hours per week to 42 four-year-old children and their families. The authors’ aim was to examine changes in the families’ literacy practices and to investigate children’s vocabulary development in both English and Chinese. A noteworthy factor is the high retention rates of families participating in the literacy programs using Learning Begins at Home: A Research-Based Family Literacy Program Curriculum. Timmons (2008) suggests a host of reasons (e.g., transportation, babysitting, parent fatigue) as to why it would be challenging to retain participants in family literacy programs. In fact, all of the mothers and their children who started the family literacy program described in this article completed the program. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the high retention rate speaks to the mothers’ interest in participating in a literacy program with their children, and that the program met the needs of the families (e.g., accessible location, meeting at a convenient time for families, offering refreshments). Families, no matter their circumstances, should have access to literacy programs that are tailored to meet their unique needs and that offer them meaningful experiences. Working with families and their children to promote the importance of literacy during the early years and encouraging literacy experiences in the home environment by providing useful resources may support children’s emerging literacy, consequently fostering children’s interest in and enjoyment of reading and writing.

Note:Revisions were based on the unpublished version of the curriculum. The curriculum has been published and readers are referred to: Pelletier, J., Hipner-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

4:11

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

240 \ Childhood Education

Boucher, K., & Doyle, A. (2010), Family literacy in action: A guide for literacy program facilitators. Toronto, ON: Scholastic Canada.

ReferencesAndrews, J., & Yee, W. C. (2006). Children’s “funds of

knowledge” and their real life activities: Two minority ethnic children learning in out-of school contexts in the UK. Educational Review, 58(4), 435-449.

Baker, L., & Scher, D. (2002). Beginning readers’ motivation for reading in relation to parental beliefs and home reading experiences. Reading Psychology, 23(4), 239-269.

Campbell, R. (1982). Dear zoo. New York, NY: Little Simon.

Carle, E. (1969). The very hungry caterpillar. New York, NY: Philomel Books.

Carter, D. R., Chard, D. J., & Pool, J. L. (2009). A family strengths approach to early language and literacy development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(6), 519-526.

Community Social Planning Council of Toronto. (2006). Kid builders: Research project – phase II: Supporting the school success of homeless children in Scarborough. Toronto, ON: Author. Retrieved from www.homelesshub.ca/ResourceFiles/Supporting_the_school_success_of_hl_children_in_Scarb.pdf

DePaola, T. (1978). Pancakes for breakfast. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Doyle, A., Hipfner-Boucher, K., & Pelletier, J. (2008). Literacy begins at home: A research-based family literacy program curriculum. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada.

Elbert, L. (1987). Growing vegetable soup. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Fox, M. (2002). The magic hat. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.

Ginsburg, M., Aruego, J., & Dewey, A. (1990). Mushroom in the rain. New York, NY: Aladdin Paperbacks/Simon & Schuster. [Adapted from the Russian of V. Suteyev.]

Graham, A., McNamara, J. K., & Van Lankveld, J. (2011). Closing the summer learning gap for vulnerable learners: An exploratory study of a summer literacy programme for kindergarten children at-risk for reading difficulties. Early Child Development and Care, 181(5), 575-585.

Harper, S., Platt, A., & Pelletier, J. (2011). Unique effects of a family literacy program on the early reading development of English language learners. Early Education and Development, 22(6), 989-1008.

MacGillivray, L., Ardell, A. L., & Curwen, M. S. (2010). Supporting the literacy development of

children living in homeless shelters. The Reading Teacher, 63(5), 384-392.

Martin, B., & Archambault, J. (1989). Chicka chicka boom boom. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Books.

Martin, B., & Carle, E. (1967). Brown bear, brown bear, what do you see? New York, NY: Holt and Company.

Martin, B., & Carle, E. (1991). Polar bear, polar bear, what do you hear? New York, NY: Holt and Company.

Melhuish, E. C., Phan, M. B., Sylvia, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2008). Effect of the home learning environment and preschool center experience upon literacy and numeracy development in early primary school. Journal of Social Issues, 64(1), 95-114.

Milich, Z. (2002). City signs. Toronto, ON: Kids Can Press.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:

Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 131-140.

Pelletier, J. (2011). School-based family literacy intervention programs. Research for Teachers. Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario. ETFO Feed. Retrieved from www.etfo.ca/Resources/ResearchForTeachers/Pages/default.aspx

Pelletier, J., Hipfner-Boucher, K., & Doyle, A. (2010). Family literacy in action: A guide for literacy program facilitators. Toronto, ON: Scholastic Canada.

Raising the Roof. (2004). Hidden homelessness. Retrieved February 19, 2010, from www.raisingtheroof.org

Riojas-Cortex, Flores, B. B., & Clark, E. R. (2003). Los niños aprenden en casa: Valuing and connecting home cultural knowledge with an early childhood program. Beyond the Journal, 1-6.

Senechal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2001). Storybook reading and parent teaching: Links to language and literacy development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 92, 39-52.

Timmons, V. (2008). Challenges in researching family literacy programs. Canadian Psychology, 49(2), 96-102.

Walker-Dalhouse, D., & Risko, V. J. (2008). Homelessness, poverty, and children’s literacy development. The Reading Teacher, 62(1), 84-86.

Wood, A. (1992). Silly Sally. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Zhang, J., Pelletier, J., & Doyle, A. (2010). Promising effects of an intervention: Young children’s literacy gains and changes in their home literacy activities from a bilingual family literacy program in Canada. Frontiers of Education in China, 5(3), 409-429.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

4:11

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14