Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs

7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs

1/37

Review of the Literature:

Family Literacy Programs

March 2009

Prepared by:

Associate Professor Kaye Lowe

Debbie Martens

Kelly Hannett

Ros Tunks


2/37

Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page I

Tis Project is supported by funding from the Australian Government Departmentof Education, Employment and Workplace Relations under the National Projectselement of the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs Program. Any viewsexpressed do not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government De-

partment of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.


3/37

Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page II

Contents

Introduction 1

The literacy context 2

Rationale for parent involvement 3

Defining parent education programs and family literacy 6

Essential criteria associated with effective parent education programs 7

Programs delivered to adults in order to benefit children 16

Course components 22Evaluating parent education programs 25

Implications and recommendations 26

References 28


4/37

Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page III

Review of the Literature: Family Literacy programs

Project Description

Te aim of this Project is to complete an in-depth literature review of world-widefamily literacy programs that actively and successfully support the development ofchildrens literacy skills. Te Project explores the evidence base for successful familyliteracy programs; and identifies the benefits of parental/caregiver involvement inliteracy education programs on educational achievement, reading acquisition, andattitudes towards education.

Project Objectives

o identify the benefits of parental/caregiver involvement in literacy educa-tion programs on educational achievement, reading acquisition, and attitudes

towards education.o explore the evidence base for successful family literacy programs and iden-tify the characteristics that make these programs successful and sustainableo document commonalities across successful family literacy programso compile a set of recommendations for developing family literacy projectsand initiatives for the provision of quality education opportunities for parentsthat reduce fragmentation in services for families; improve program account-ability; raise standards; and expand professional development and technicalresources for programs.


5/37

Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 1

Introduction

Te parent [caregiver] is the primary force that propels the child into the world ofdiscovery, the world of literacy, and the world of success. Gilliam (2004, p.226)

While the intention of this review is to report the research literature on parent in-volvement in the acquisition of reading from K-10, an intensive search reveals thatevidence-based, prolonged research on the effectiveness of parent education pro-grams is lacking. It appears that most programs are short-lived, often school basedand predominantly designed for parents of children in the early years of school (P-3).Few parent programs, according to Wasik (2004), address the needs of children inthe primary grades and beyond. Tere is considerable emphasis on programs con-ducted for families from low socio-economic backgrounds and/or ESL families.

Indepth descriptions of the components of parent education programs, their specificcontent, desired strategies and evaluation processes are often overlooked. An excep-tion is the Canadian Paired Reading program described in research by Cadieuxand Boudreault (2005). Te research involved assessing the effects of a parent-childpaired reading program on reading abilities, phonological awareness and self-concept of at-risk students with 54 kindergarten students divided into control andexperimental groups. raining for parents involved using the paired reading methodwhereby the parent and child read together until the child signals an intention toproceed independently. When the child falters for more than four seconds or makesa mistake, the parent reads with the child again until the next signal. Te results ofthe research indicate positive gains for the experimental group.

Research by Senechal et al (2000) confirms the lack of research evidence. One ofthe most important findings here was the dearth of intervention research on par-ent reading with children in kindergarten to grade 3 (p.20). When it comes to theinvolvement of fathers in the learning of children, there are even fewer studies.While there is a considerable body of research on the effects of literacy interventionswith mothers of young children (Ortiz, 1994, 2004), studies of the impact of literacyprograms with fathers is generally neglected. In general, there is limited researchon fathers contributions to their childrens reading and writing development. As

Ortiz 2004 points out, parent involvement is an important goal of early childhoodeducation programs, but parents often mean mothers. Bronsteins (1984) study ofparent-child dyads indicated a number of differences between maternal and paternalbehaviours. Marks and Palkovitz (2004) made a case for families to have a balanceinvolving fathers.

Nord et al (1997) showed that fathers from two parent families who participated inschool at a moderate or high level had children who usually achieved high marks,enjoyed school and never repeated a grade. Te same outcomes were achieved byfathers who had the same level of involvement but lived outside the home. Gadsden

(2003) stresses that Fathersthrough their presence or absence, their involvement


6/37


or distanceare a critical subset of adults whose uses of and interactions aroundliteracy help to frame literacy expectations and goals of both individual family mem-bers and the entire family unit. (p. 86)

More research is needed to identify parent involvement programs that are effectivefor target populations. Cultural and language differences often preclude parentsfrom attending parent education programs. Parents who for various reasons feel in-timated or threatened in a school context are referred to in the literature as invisibleparents. Te efforts of some schools to reach these parents is commendable. Gaug-ing the depth of information about reading and how best to present it requires a con-certed research effort by the education community. Long term investigations of thetraining requirements of providers are also crucial. As Cassidy & Cassidy (2002-03)point out family literacy is not receiving current or positive attention even though itwas agreed by participants of their research that it should be.

The literacy context

Cadieux & Boudreault (2003) claim that over the last few years there has been an in-crease in the number of pupils experiencing difficulties in normal classrooms. Whenthis is combined with budgetary cuts, limited services are available to students. Asa result, policy makers and education specialists are urged to improve cooperationbetween schools and parents in order to prevent continued academic failure, particu-larly in reading.

In 2009, the percentage of children leaving Year 12 having attained inadequate literacylevels is perplexing. Te Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reported in July 2008 thatliteracy levels among high school students and student leavers has dropped 3.7 percent-age points in the past ten years. Approximately one in two 15- to 24-year olds is unableto read to an adequate level to properly function in society. Te report claims that onlyone in four people achieved a score of three or above in all test areas. Te results wereranked one to five with five being the highest. Te proportion of teenagers aged between15 and 19 with literacy skills above three dropped to 9.3 per cent from 14.1 percent in1996. (www.independentschoolparents.com.au/news/2008/abs_literacy_survey.html)

Te National Assessment Program in Literacy and Numeracy, 2007, reports that onein five Indigenous students in Year 3 failed to meet the reading benchmark. In a mediarelease (19thDecember, 2008) the Hon Julia Gillard MP, stated that the data shows thatIndigenous student achievement is significantly lower than non Indigenous students inall areas tested and in all jurisdictions.

Te problem is not confined to Australia. In the US, A long-awaited federal study findsthat an estimated 32 million adults in the US about one in seven- are saddled with suchlow literacy levels that it would be tough for them to read anything more challengingthan a childrens picture book or to understand a medications side effects listed on a pill

bottle. (nces.ed.gov/naal/estimates/index.aspx)


7/37


Rationale for parent involvement

Parents and caregivers are an under utilised and often undervalued resource. In-

formed parents can make a difference in reducing the burgeoning literacy problemsevident in todays classrooms. In the majority of cases, they have a vested interest intheir children achieving literacy success and have ready access (and in most cases,elect to make time) to provide one-on-one assistance to children experiencing litera-cy difficulties. Research findings from Project ROAR (Reach Out And Read) indicatethat parents are eager to help their children and when instructed in appropriate lit-eracy activities can positively affect the academic progress of their children (Gilliamet al, 2004). Research indicates that training of parents done in conjunction withthe provision of a grab-bag of effective strategies to use at home is the most effectiveform of parent education.

Newmen et al, (1995) concurs that parents are willing, able, and want to help inthe literacy development of their children. Most, however, are unsure of how toteach reading or help their children with literacy development. (Cunningham andAllington, 2003). Te benefits of parental involvement in the early years are welldocumented. If the only thing a parent did in the name of literacy was to read on aregular basis to their children, the benefits would be undeniable. A child betweenages one and six who shares a book with an adult for 15 minutes a day will have had455 hours of individual reading instruction before entering school. A child who isntread to will have none. (Weigel, Behal & Martin, 2001). Parents during reading time

may be unaware that they are contributing to reading acquisition. In reading to theirchildren, they model good reading, demonstrate what readers do, and promote a loveof reading. Children who begin school with knowledge of book language, familiaritywith concepts of print and positive attitudes toward reading are privileged.

Sargent, Hill & Morrison (2006) contend that parental involvement, beliefs, and at-titudes toward reading exert a profound impact on childrens literacy development.Tis notion of parents promoting a positive attitude is stressed in the research ofSnow, Burns and Griffin, (1998) who claim that parents perceptions, values, atti-tudes, and expectations play an important role in their childrens attitudes towardreading and subsequent literacy development.

Unfortunately, research findings highlight the inequities of literacy opportunities inthe early years. Parents who are economically disadvantaged and have limited Eng-lish proficiency rarely read to their preschool children or read themselves. (Gadsdenand Wagner, 1995; Philliber, Spillman & King, 1996). Regretfully, the solid founda-tion of beginning reading is often absent for children born into these families.

Going beyond reading aloud, parents who read to their children in combination withliteracy strategies contributed the most to positive effects. Senechals (2006) meta-analytic review of parent programs concluded that fourteen intervention studiesinvolving 1174 families showed that overall parent involvement had a positive im-


8/37


pact on childrens reading acquisition. Parent programs where parents were taughtspecific literacy skills to use with their children were twice as effective compared tothose where parents listened to their children read and six times more effective thanthose where parents were encouraged to read to their children.

oomey (1993) reinforces that parents listening to their children read contributed toreading improvement of their children. oomey adds that parents who were givensimple but specific strategies on how to read books sent home from school fared betterthan students whose parents were given general strategies. In another study conductedby opping and Lindsay (1992), paired reading was a strategy seen to benefit children.Investigations by Bus, van Ijzendoorn, & Pellegrini, (1995) of the reading strategy jointbook reading revealed an overall positive association between parents reading to theirchildren and childrens emergent literacy or reading achievement.

Darling & Westberg (2004) agree that the most effective form of parent involvement, pro-ducing the best results, is training parents to use a specific reading strategy. Tey arguethat the strategy should be one that children are working on in school. Tey refer to theFamily Fluency Program that combined teacher training and working with children atschool with workshops for parents. Parents were taught a number of different readingstrategies such as echo reading, choral reading, partner reading and repeated reading tohelp support their children at home. Te children also participated in the parent work-shops and practiced these strategies together with support from the trainers.

Te Cooperative Extension Children, Youth and Families team in Nevada used storytell-

ing as their strategy. Tey initiated a family program named Family Storyteller in 1997.Te program held 41 workshops to reach target families and community programs. Teprogram aimed to get books into childrens hands and improve their early literacy skills.

Te child and parent participated in activities together during a series of six workshops.Te children were encouraged to enjoy reading and the parents learned what to do tohelp their children. Tere was a positive response from parents and families who partici-pated in the program with results showing that their children made significant gains intheir enjoyment of reading with parents and an increased understanding of print con-cepts.

Darling and Westbergs (2004) investigation of twenty interventions reinforces the posi-tive effects of parent involvement on childrens reading acquisition.

raining parents to teach their children reading with specific exercises producedgreater results than training parents to listen to children read with or without train-ing.raining parents to listen to their children read was two times more effective thanhaving parents listen to their children without training.Interventions four months or shorter were more effective than interventions longerthan five months.

Te amount of training and feedback parents received had no impact on the effec-


9/37


tiveness of the intervention.Parent involvement had a positive effect on all children K-3Socio economic status of the participating families did not impact on the positiveeffect of the interventions

Te Complexity of Community and Family influences on Childrens Achievement in NewZealand: Best Evidence Synthesis (2003) concluded that:

Parents and caregivers can have a significant influence on childrens achievementParents want the best for their childrenMany parents are prepared to learn appropriate strategies to help them.

Te New Zealand Quality eaching for Diverse Students in Schooling: Best EvidenceSynthesis (2003) found that quality teaching effects are enhanced when there are effectiveschool-home partnership practices which are focused on student learning.

Prevention rather than cure

Research by Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, and Hemphill (1991) demonstrates thatchildren from homes where parents model the uses of literacy and engage children in ac-tivities that promote basic understandings about literacy and its uses are better preparedfor school.

A number of projects focus on supporting parents as the childs first literacy educator.For example, the project Support at Home for Early Language and Literacies (SHELLS)is an early literacy intervention program developed by staff at the University of Newcastle

with an emphasis on rural and remote communities. It is a home-based program forparents with children aged 0-3. Home visits, group meetings, telephone contact, com-munity radio, and newsletters are the means of communication. Te program aims to:

Support childrens literacy by empowering their parents and caregivers in their rolea.as their childrens first literacy educatorsLearn more about the foundations of literacy.b.

Among the outcomes observed are positive changes in family literacy experiences andinteractions as well as increased confidence among parents and caregivers in their lit-eracy educator role. Further, the intervention has provided a collaborative model for early

literacy partnerships between researchers and parents. (Eakle & Garber, 2003).

According to Purcell-Gates (2000), the number of children failing is significantly reducedwhen parents co operate actively in their childrens school education right from the start.In addition, evidence suggests that when teachers and parents partner to support chil-drens reading and academic achievement, at-risk children exhibit demonstrable gains(US Dept of Education 2001, Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performancein itle I Schools).


10/37


Defining parent education programs and family literacy

Te nature and composition of Australian families is changing. According to theAustralian Bureau of Statistics, decreases in marriage rates and increases in divorce

rates over the past twenty years have resulted in changing family structures withinAustralia. Increases in the proportion of babies being born outside registered mar-riages and increases in cohabitation provide evidence that registered marriage as thetraditional social institution for family formation is declining.

Te use of words such as parent education and family literacy has taken on differentconnotations as a result of the changing nature of families. Family members, otherthan mothers and fathers, help children at home. Tere is a growing involvement ofgrandparents as primary carers and providers of education support. If parent educa-tion and family literacy initiatives are to be inclusive, the changing nature of families

and the diversity of communities and cultures must be reflected in the naming ofsuch programs. Recognizing and valuing different forms of literacy and the manyways literacy is supported in homes and communities means that parent educationprograms must embrace diverse cultural and linguistic contexts.

Mui & Anderson (2008) state that:

Families are sites for myriad forms of literacy, not just storybook readingDifferent family members, not just parents, play a roleA complex set of interaction patterns, not just parents or other significant oth-ers transmit reading and writing skills to children in a unidirectional manner(p. 240)

Mace (1998) and Anderson, Streelasky & Anderson (2007) reject the stereotypesoften associated with family literacy the mother reading a book with her youngchild is all too often the norm and appeared as the dominant image on one hundredrandomly selected family literacy websites.

Te literature classifies parent education according to broad categories. Nickse(1991) identifies three types of literacy programs:

Tose delivered directly to adults and children, for example, Project ROAR(exas US), REAL Project (Northern England), Fathers Literacy Program (US),Family Literacy Program (Canada), Paired Reading (Canada), Family FluencyProgram (New Jersey) , Fast Start (US), Bridges to Literacy (Southeastern US),Project EASE (US), Even Start (US), BL (US), Family Storyteller (US), PALS(Canada) and FAB:ulous (US).Tose delivered to children only with benefits for parents, for example, ReadingClinic (US)Tose delivered to parents with expected benefits for children, for example,Parents As eachers Home Visiting Program (Missouri), Reading ogether(New Zealand), oyota Families in Schools Program (US), Intergenerational

Literacy Project (US)


11/37


Another classification of parent involvement involves the location of the program(Fantuzzo et al 2000; Hill and Craft, 2003):

School-based i.e., activities that occur in school environment - volunteering inclassrooms, fundraising, for example, Intergenerational Literacy project (US)Home-school-conferencing communicating between school and home e.g.attending parent teacher interviews, discuss daily routines, for example, ProjectEaseHome based learning that takes place in the home, reviewing homework, forexample, Paired Reading (Canada)

More specific classifications refer to the focus of instruction as indicated by TeBarbara Bush Foundation (2001) as cited in (Lilly & Green, 2004). A four prongedapproach to family literacy programs is identified:

adult literacy instructionemergent literacy experiences for childrentime for parents and children to be togethergroup discussions for parents.

Family literacy on the other hand is more encompassing and has two broad defini-tions. Te first refers to the many ways parents and a child interacts around textsand usually takes into consideration the day to day interactions that occur in thehome. Understanding the myriad ways different households support literacy in amulticultural and multilingual context is essential to the variety of family literacyprograms created. Clay (1993) claims that the definitions of literacy, the values and

functions ascribed to it, and the ways in which it is taught and learned vary from onecultural group and social context to another (Clay, 1993). Te second refers to familyliteracy as a program or curriculum aligned with parent and carer type programs thathave a focus on preparing children for success in school.

Essential criteria associated with effective parent

education programs

Hands on approach

Te literature accentuates the need for parent education programs to be practicaland comprehensible. Te emphasis is in helping parents understand why particularpractices and strategies are important. Parents benefit from opportunities to dis-cuss and practice literacy routines before implementing them on their own at homethrough communication channels that are open, dependable, non intrusive (Shock-ley, Michalove & Allen 1995, p.94).

A workshop approach to family involvement should be a dynamic, relevant op-portunity for families Participants should be active, participating in tasks andactivities. Participants should be considered equals and current strategies in thehome should be recognised. Communication with parents is vitally important


12/37


for building integrated, collaborative literacy partnerships with families. (Lilly& Green, 2004).

Parent education must provide ongoing training, communication, and support.raining includes demonstrations, opportunities for discussion and questions. It isnot uncommon for parents to feel threatened about their own lack of education orability to read. Terefore, the course needs to be sensitive to the needs of parentsand meet them where ever they are at, with ongoing support and personal contact.

Provide authentic reading texts

A key to success is parents reading to children. In reading aloud they model effectivereading and point out pertinent text features. Parents who listen to their childrenread aloud provide the necessary support for their children to succeed. exts mustbe authentic and interesting. Parent courses that provide a choice of reading materi-als and resources are most supportive of parents efforts.

Activities are easy, enjoyable and consistent

ime is an important consideration of a home reading program and ten to fifteenminutes five nights a week is an adequate request. Routines should be simple andeasily established as part of a nightly routine.

Documented home activities

Effective programs encourage parents to document their home involvement. Oftenit is suggested that parents maintain a log of activities posted in an obvious place.Te log serves not only as a reminder, but also documentation of the learners prog-ress and involvement in the program.

Build parents and child confidence through quality and appropriate literature

Families need to provide children with opportunities to access books that will en-hance their perception of competence with print (Barnes et al 2000). Often par-

ent education programs are accompanied by a family lending library. Te librariesprovide an ideal way to encourage the families literacy opportunities at home. Itgives parents the chance to continue with literacy strategies in the home. Te lendinglibrary gives children access to texts that they are excited to read.

Accessibility

According to Morrow et al (2006) involving parents as an integral part of literacyinstruction is crucial. Letting parents know how they can help to support the schoolprogram at home is important, but homeschool programs need to be easy to use.Te timing and availability of courses is important. Most courses were conducted

after school hours. Others offered child care. Te Intergenerational Literacy Project


13/37


offered child care to parents below school age whilst parents attended courses runconcurrently with school hours. Follow up included home visits.

In order to strengthen the accessibility of a program, there were a number of parent

programs combined with other services such as health and social services, for ex-ample, Even Start (US).

Parents involved in the planning

Come and Fredericks (1995) found that the key ingredient to the success of the pro-gram was the involvement of the parents in the planning. Families engage in widelydifferent literacy experiences and practices in their homes and communities. It isimportant to continually recognise and respect the unique and differing ways fami-lies participate and promote literacy in their homes. An effective parent program

builds upon what is already happening in the home and encourages parents to sharetheir literacy experiences with their children. A simple, open-ended questionnaireor interviews are helpful ways to compile this information quickly and easily. (Lilly &Green, 2004).

According to Strickland (2004), successful parent education programs are sustainedand consistent over time. Tey go well beyond specific program activities to includestrong parent outreach in every aspect of home-school relations. Te FAB:ulousprogram goes beyond this brief to endorse the notion of planning as part of a self-educative function of the program. Te FAB:ulous program recommends that an

inclusive team be indentified to create the program and that the planning function beself-educative. Longwell-Grice & McIntyre, (2006) claim that through self-educa-tion, facilitators are empowered and communities grow.

When developing the Family Literacy Program in Rural Atlantic Canada, the follow-ing characteristics were considered as essential that the program should be:

Meaningful to the participants and situated in the family and community con-text (Brown, 1998)Involve parents in the planningInclude activities that are family based

Implement ongoing assessmentFamilies created social networks among each other in the groups (Newman,Caperelli & Kee, 1998).

TeBridges to Literacyproject reported by Waldbart , Meyers and Meyers (2006)conveys the idea of making connections between home and school. Bridges to Liter-acyaims to enhance the quality of childrens literacy interactions with family mem-bers and simultaneously increase family involvement at schools. Implications of theproject contradict the characterization of many parents who are marginalized due torace or class as having low expectations and being unwilling to be involved in theirchildrens schools.


14/37


Meyers, Dowdy, & Paterson (2000) raise the issue of invisible families those whoare reluctant to participate and rarely seen at school events. Tey point out that theMajority perspectives of parent involvement make assumptions that may be incom-patible with the customs and actions concerning the involvement of non majority

families. Tis mismatch between expectations and behaviours contribute to tensionsbetween caregivers and educators (p.60).

Reflect the literacy practices associated with what families already know and do in

their home and community

Students learn to read and write when families provide literacy rich environments,experiences and interactions. Te most effective literacy practices are those thatreflect the literacy practices associated with what families already know and do in

their home and community (Nistler and Maiers, 2000; Saracho, 2002a; ett 2000).Mui & Anderson (2008) stress that As teachers work with increasing numbers ofchildren and families from different cultural groups, it is essential that they recognizeand value the different ways that literacy is supported in homes and communities(p.234). Tis notion is well supported in the literature.

Planning literacy strategies in the home after identifying what the focus shouldbe is a way to ensure a strong literacy environment for children. For example, ifa family has a strong oral tradition the focus may then become involvement withwritten text. Planning the writing of a shopping list, scribing a story or research-ing a topic on the Internet will begin to change the focus to the written text. (Lilly

& Green, 2004).

Reading together research demonstrates that partnerships between home and schoolhelp to raise childrens achievement and to bridge cultures, thereby reducing the neg-ative effects that can occur when the childs language and culture differ from those ofthe school (Biddulph, 1983; Biddulph, 2004a; Biddulph & uck, 1983).

In the Clarke Elementary School case study conducted by Graves Smith (2006), oneof the most important findings was related to the consideration for the needs of

families. It was found that understanding the neighbourhood was critical for suc-cessful development of the parent/family program. Assessing the community led tothe creation of a program that parents attended and were enthusiastic about. It wassuggested that low socio economic school/communities may have differing concernsor willingness when compared with middle to upper class schools/communities. Tisinformation was essential to consider in guiding the program.

Parent programs must overtly ground their efforts in needs as perceived by the com-munities they serve. It is recommended that once a potential program is conceived,specific plans should be outlined to engage the target population in the planning

process. According to Strickland (1996) planning should highlight and build on the


15/37


strengths of the community to be served. In addition, Strickland claims that when acommunity has limited resources, programs should be targeted to the most needy.

Incentives

A number of programs that offered incentives for parents to attend are identified inthe literature. Single parent families, immigrant and low socio-economic familieswere provided with incentives such as child care. Te Family Fluency Program inNew Jersey targeted parents of children in Grade 2 from low-socio-economic areas.Te program catered for families by running three evening workshops where chil-dren, parents and siblings attended together. Parents were instructed in a workshopwhilst the children and siblings were cared for in another room. Later in the eve-ning, parents and children worked together to put the reading activities into practice.Other incentives offered to help parents attend included the serving of refreshments

and certificates such as VIP Certificates for Very Involved Parents.

A number of programs offered incentives such as book give-aways and family din-ners (Project FAB:ulous) and meal sharing (PALS Program). In the PALS Program,parents were identified as working in the program but in reality this term includedcaregivers such as grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles and other caregivers.

REAL Project offered an optional adult education component leading to accredita-tion of parents learning, which gave the opportunity for parents to continue theirlearning in a more formal or structured way.

Project ROAR offered monetary incentives to encourage participation such as pay-ment of $10 per session attended by parents and a $25 bonus on completion of thecourse (Project ROAR) and the Literacy Connection provided gift certificates.

Benefits

Te benefits of parent education programs cannot be underestimated. Te outcomesof such programs are multifaceted and impact not only on the literacy outcomes ofchildren but often have desirable outcomes for parents in areas of confidence build-ing, improved literacy, and a developing sense of community. Schools benefit fromparent education in that parents share the responsibility in an informed way on howto help children identified as struggling readers and supplement school-based inter-ventions. Te benefits of parent programs identified in the literature are outlinedbelow.

Added value

Parent education programs can be designed to serve both parents to improve theirliteracy skills as well as enhance the learning of their children. According to Paratore(2005) the outcomes of such programs are:


16/37


o teach the codes needed to participate fully in the mainstream of Americanlife (Delpit, 1995, p.45)o uncover and build on the household funds of knowledge present in all fami-lies (Moll & Greenberg, 1991)

Research by Darling & Westberg (2004) reinforced these findings stating that literacydevelopment through intentional activities and strategies that engage parents in theirchildrens reading acquisition had positive results. As parents learn about the es-sential skills for reading and practice those skills with their children, they can sup-port their childrens reading acquisition while improving their own (p.776). Handel(1999) claims that family literacy programs seek to enhance the literacy of both gen-erations through participation of family members in a co ordinated literacy program.

Benefits for Fathers

Despite the lack of research around the involvement of fathers in literacy programs,one particular case study by Lenters (2007) looks closely at the role families and spe-cifically, the roles that fathers play in encouraging young children to become engagedwith literacy. Troughout the case study, a boy aged eight and his father were heavilyinvolved in the literacy practice of the family. Te boys father shared his favouritenovels with his son, and the boy in turn shared his favourite books with his father.Te father had a keen interest in cartoons which led to the sharing of his comics andthe development of cartooning skills when illustrating his writing. Te boys fatheralso had an electric guitar and the boy took an early interest in playing the instru-ment. Later, this led to song writing and reading musician magazines together.

Both parents played an important role in this young boys literacy world, encouragingthe use of computers and research on the Internet, using genres of interest for per-sonal writing, reading quality literature, turning plays into book making and writingplay scripts.

Te findings of this study concluded that fathers play an important role in the lit-eracy development of their children. Te mothers role in this young boys literacydevelopment is by no means negligible; however the boys literate practice had beenshaped by his fathers participation in the literacy practice.

In the Fathers Literacy Program, it was apparent that fathers had to see the practicalapplication and meaningful nature of the content that was presented. It was foundthat fathers engaged in literacy practices in the following ways:

1. Stimulated children to explore written language. Fathers demonstrated read-ing and writing and discussed the importance of reading and writing with theirchildren and the children tended to imitate their behavior.

2. Built on knowledge from the community. Fathers used their own interests andthis seemed to motivate the children in print. Literacy related to the daily reali-ties of the children. Fathers selected books that were of interest to the child butalso reinforced the father child relationship.


17/37


3. By embedding literacy in community and family life fathers developed a senseof community and closer relationships with the childs school. Fathers and chil-dren composed joint texts and experienced many writing genres.

Reassurance for parents

Parent programs provide a venue for parents to share their grievances, celebrate theirsuccesses and realize that they are not alone in their quest to improve their childrensliteracy skills. Newmen, Caperelli, & Kee (1998) found that families created socialnetworks within the group. Guilt and shame often associated with reading failurewas alleviated because the parent was involved in addressing the issues with theguidance of trained literacy educators. Tey became familiar with strategies for suc-cess and a resolution to a lingering problem about which they lacked knowledge andunderstanding. Parents enrolled in the PALS program regarded highly the role ofthe facilitator, who helped them develop their understanding of the reading process.

Some parents in this program had traditional views of literacy learning, prompted bymemories of their school days. It was found that parents soon became comfortablewith a more expansive and contemporary view. After print walks, they commentedon how unaware they had been regarding the value of the environment in extendingtheir childrens literacy experience. (Anderson & Morrison, 2007). In addition, ef-fective courses often give parents the confidence and language with which to discusstheir childs learning with the classroom teacher.

A review of a parent literacy initiative, Parents as Literacy Supporters (PALS) in2007 concluded that the program helped parents gain confidence in their own abili-

ties as literacy users. Parents were given an opportunity to address their insecuritiesaround literacy and working with their children. Te program also promoted com-munication about literacy with other adults. (Anderson & Morrison, 2007).

Parents of the PALS program also recognized how the program provided an oppor-tunity to form and maintain social relationships. Parents stated that the programmade them feel a part of something and fostered communication between parentsand school staff which enhanced the childs learning in both settings (Anderson &Morrison, 2007).

Building and restoring relationships with children

Often the relationship between parent and child is fractured when the child fails tolearn despite the parents best efforts to teach. Parent education programs providea means of restoring the bond using strategies geared for success and fun. A num-ber of programs involved parents working alongside their children as they receivedinstructions. Spending time with the child as part of the program proved positive,for example, throughout the PALS program, parents worked one on one with theirchildren. Many parents reported that they lived increasingly busy lives and they val-ued the time they shared in the sessions with their children. (Anderson & Morrison,2007).


18/37


Parents who participated in the PALS program observed that the parent/child bondhad formed and strengthened during their time in the program. Parents stated thatthey valued their time in the program and participating in literacy activities thatwould not have happened if they did not attend the program (Anderson & Morrison,

2007).

Benefits to schools and communities

Darling and Hayes (1996) report that K-12 schools that have high success rates usu-ally also have high rates of parental involvement.

Schools also benefit when university reading services offer reading clinics as a com-ponent of undergraduate reading-methods courses. Research found that graduatesof the excellent programs were more effective than teachers in comparison groups

in creating and engaging their students with a highquality literacy environment(Hoffman et al 2005, p.267). According to Morrow (1999) and Weinberger (1996),there is a need for researchers and teacher educators to help pre service teachersunderstand the multiple literacy environments of the childrens homes and considerhow to use this information to foster effective home and school interactions. Snow,Burns and Griffin (1998) contend that eacher preparation programs need to do abetter job of building conceptual links between classroom, clinical and field-basedexperiences in ways that will prepare future teachers to apply their course work andother pre service experiences to their teaching practice (p. 219).

Te university reading clinics have three benefits.1. Provide training for in-service teachers at the university as they tutor students

in reading.2. Provide experience for pre-service teachers in applying what they had learn in

the university classroom3. Provide tutoring in reading for students and their families.

Sargent et al (2006) contend that parents perceive university reading clinics as ex-tremely beneficial not only to their children but to the whole community. Parentsbelieve their children gain a more positive approach to reading as well as improvedproficiency in reading, confidence and self-esteem.

Te FAB:ulous program in the US focused on community literacy and ways forparents to discover that literacy is really more than just being able to read a book orwrite a story. (Longwell-Grice & McIntyre, 2006).


19/37


Benefits to students

Improved student results

Research evidence shows that parent involvement has a positive and strong influenceon student achievement (Jordon, Snow & Porche, 2000, Westat & Policy Studies As-sociates, 2001). In addition, evidence suggests that parent involvement at home hasa more significant impact on children than it does in school activities (Christenson &Sheridan, 2001).

According to a student performance survey developed by the National Center forFamily Literacy, teachers rated children participating in the oyota Families inSchools (FS) Program higher in nine domains including academic performance,motivation to learn, support from family and likelihood of future school success.Te FS program targets primary school children from low socioeconomic, immi-grant and Hispanic families and their parents. Te program educates parents in basicliteracy skills such as phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and textcomprehension (Darling & Westberg, 2004).

In a parental involvement program at Clarke Elementary School (US) in 2002, GravesSmith (2006) reported that teachers and family workers involved in the program be-lieved that children with engaged parents would be more successful at school, scor-ing higher on tests and earning higher grades. It was found that children who hadparents participating had improved motivation as a positive outcome stemming from

the parents belief s that literacy education was important. eachers who participatedin this program also reported that the children had an improved self esteem in theclassroom and were able to complete homework at a higher level.


20/37


Programsdeliveredto

adultsinordertobe

nefitchildren

Title

Audience

Location

Duration

Focus

DeliveryMode

Content

Literacy

Connec-

tion

Parents

exasUS

15wee

ks

Basiclitera

cyskills,

readingtotheirchil-

dren,self-i

dentified

literacyneeds

Oneonone

directtrain-

ing

Parentmodeled:hol

dinga

book,

Previewinga

book,rea

dingaloud

Culture-value

d

Learnergoal

driven

Makereading

fun

GiftCertificateincentives

forparents

Pro

ject

ROAR

Parentsan

d

Kindergarten

children

exas

US

Elementa

ry

School

low

socio-eco

nomic

area

10sessions

Oncea

month

2hours

5.30-7.3

0pm

Kindergartenstory

telling,pub

liclibrary

choosingb

ooks

,

puppetry,poetry

Groupsessions

forpar-

ents

Introduce

libraryprocedures,storytelling,

readingtochildren,puppetsand

literacy

games,rea

dingan

dwritingpoetry

$10paidpersessiontoparentsattending,

$25

bonusat

finalsession

REAL

Pro

ject

3yearol

dsan

d

theirparents

from

socio-econom-

ical

lydisa

dvan-

tage

dcommunity

Ran

dom

ly

selected

from

differentsc

hool

waiting

lists

Northern

Englan

d18months

Homevisits,pro-

visionofliteracy

resources,centre-

base

dgrou

pactivi-

ties,specia

levents,

postalcom

munica-

tion,optiona

ladult

educationcom-

ponent

leadingto

accreditation

Indivi

dualprogram

base

d

onfamiliesexisting

lit-

eracypractices

Supportforparentsto

deve

lop

literacyskills

Opportunities

for

learning,recog

nitionofthe

childsactivities,interactionwith

thechild

onliteracyactivities,modelofaliteracyuser,

ORIMFramewor

kincluding

four

strandsof

literacyenvironmentalprint,boo

ks,writing,

oral

language

Fathers

Literacy

Pro

gram

Fathersan

dtheir

Kindergarten

children

Universit

yof

Marylan

dMD

5months

Fathersan

dtheir

effectonth

eirchil-

dren

sliteracy

3hour

literacywor

k-

shops,twiceawee

kover

5months

Provisionofobjectsan

dmaterialsinthe

home

environment,deve

lopmentofstrategiesto

enhancecommunicationan

dexten

dthechil-

dren

sun

derstandingofnewinformation

Process:fat

hersse

lecta

book,re

adittothe

child,interactwiththechild,com

pleteactivity,

write


21/37


Title

Audience

Location

Duration

Focus

DeliveryMode

Content

Rea

ding

Clinic

Gra

des1-8

US

12sessions

for1hour

PreparationofUn-

dergra

duat

eteac

hers

toteac

hliteracyskills

Improvedreading

skills

forch

ildren

Oneononeteac

hing

Parentcontactbeforean

d

parent/child/tutorconfer-

enceattheen

d

Rea

dfamiliartext,gui

dedcontextualreading,

skillsan

dstrategies,persona

lrea

dingan

dwrit-

ing

(Wal

kerModel

)

Fam

ily

Literacy

Pro

gram

10familiesidenti-

fiedonaneeds

basis-

low

literacy

leve

ls

Canada

10wee

ks

1.5hoursper

wee

k

Literacyskillsas

identifiedb

ythe

parents

10parentmodulesan

d1

0

childmodules

Homewor

k,parentingan

ddiscip

line,

deco

ding

andphonics,

literacyinan

daroundthe

home,

fluency,gui

dedreading,compreh

ension,lan-

guageexperience,wor

drecognition,wor

king

withsc

hools

Paire

d

Rea

ding

Parentswith

Kindergarten

childrenrecogn-

isedasat-risk

Que

bec

Canada

6training

sessions

Homevisits

Experttuto

rstrain

parentsan

dthen

supervisethem

throug

hho

mevisits

PairedRea

dingStrategy

taug

httoparents

Flas

hcards

lettersand

syllable-materialssuch

ashighinterest

books

supp

lied

Childchoosesa

book

Simultaneousreading

(parentandchildread

alongtogetherwithparentmode

ling,inde-

pendentrea

ding

(childsignalswh

entheywant

totakeoveran

dcontinueuntilco

mingtoa

mistakeor

faltering

for

longerthan4seconds).

Teparentresumesreadinguntil

thenext

childsignal.

Par-

entsas

ea

chers

Home

Visiting

Pro

gram

Pre-natalto

Kindergarten

program

Childrentestedas

tosc

hoolreadi-

ness

Missouri

Notstated

Childdevelopment,

Schoolrea

diness,

Encouragin

gsc

hool

enro

lment

Ear

lyliteracy

Homevisits

Parentgroupmeetings

Kindergartenteac

her

training

Principlesofchilddeve

lopment

Modelactivities,

Rea

dingtochildren,

Enro

llingtheminpreschoo

l,facilitateaccessto

socialan

dsupportiveservices

Rea

ding

og

ether

ParentsofChil-

dren5-15years

old

(Researc

hProject

original

lyin-

volved9-10year

oldchildrenan

d

theirparents)

NewZealand

7wee

ks

75minute

sessions

for

parents

Enab

leparentsto

supporttheirchil-

drenwithreadingat

home

-originally

designed

forstrugglingreaders

butclaims

itcan

be

usedwithcompetent

readersaswel

l

Parentwor

kshops

Rea

dingprocess,

learntoread,strategies,

constructivesupport,se

lectingm

aterial,re

flect

anddiscussexperiences


22/37


Title

Audience

Location

Duration

Focus

DeliveryMode

Content

FS

oyota

Fam

i-

lies

in

Sch

ools

Pro

gram

Parentsofchil-

drenK-3grade

whoareidentified

asat-risk,His-

panic/immigrant

families

USmany

loca-

tions

Various

de-

pendingon

theproject

group

Parenteducationto

helpsuppo

rttheir

childrenin

early

literacy

ESLcourses,childrens

education,parenting

education,Parentan

d

Childogether

(PAC)

activities,andcomputer-

literacyinstruction.

Phonics,phonemicawareness,flu

ency,vo-

cabulary,textcomprehension,pr

intconcepts,

writing

Fam

ily

Fluency

Pro

gram

Parentsan

d

studentsfrom

low

socio-economic

areas

Childrenin

second-gra

dean

d

theirparents

NewJersey,U

S

Oneyear

Improved

fluencyin

Rea

ding

eachersweretraine

d

anddelivereda90-min-

uteprogramtostudents

every

day

Rea

ding

booksweresent

hometwiceawee

kbased

onthe

lessonsinclass

3EveningParentwor

k-

shopsChildrenan

dsib-

lingsattendedaswel

lbu

t

wenttoanot

herroom

withteac

hersupervision

andthenwor

kedwith

theirparentsattheendof

theevening

Developing

fluencythroug

hreadingactivities

suchas:

Echoreading-w

heretheparentrea

dsa

line

andthechildreadsthesame

line

after,gradu-

allyincreasingthenum

berof

line

sreadan

d

echoedasthechildsreadingimproves

(one

storyperwee

k)

Chora

lrea

dingChildan

dparen

treadthe

sametextalou

dtogether

(twicea

wee

k)

PartnerRea

dingChildan

dparenttaketurns

reading.Beginbyreadingonesen

tenceeach

andas

fluencyimproves,rea

dlon

gerpassages

(onceawee

k)

RepeatedRea

dingRea

dthesam

ebookor

storymorethanonceawee

k

Incentivestohelpgetparentstocomealong

includedservingre

fres

hmentsan

dcertificates

VIPVeryInvo

lvedParents

FastStartPrimarygrade

studentsan

d

parents

US

Various

lengths

programs

from5to11

wee

ks

Improvere

ading

skillsofchildren

throug

hho

mein-

volvement

10-15minute

dailyses-

sionwithparentan

d

child

Provisionofauthenticreadingtexts,parent

traininginprovenan

deffectivestrategies,on-

goingtrainingan

dcommunicatio

n,

makeactivitiesenjoya

ble,simplean

d

brief(10-15minutes

),document

homeactivi-

ties


23/37


Title

Audience

Location

Duration

Focus

DeliveryMode

Content

Bridges

toL

it-

eracy

Kindergartenstu-

dentsan

dparents

ata

federa

lly

fundedprogram

for

disa

dvantage

d

childrensc

hool

Sout

heasternUS

Year

long

Creatingstrongcom-

munication

between

schooland

home

eachingp

arents

literacypra

cticesto

supporttheirchil-

drenat

home

In-c

lassan

dmodeled

activitiesaftersc

hool

Homevisits

Newsletters

Len

ding

library

In-c

lassmodelingtoparentsofbalance

d

literacy

base

donFountasan

dPin

nell(1998)

framewor

k

Questionan

dAnswersessionwithteac

hers

andparents

Lending

library

Aftersc

hoolmodelingofsmallgroupguided

reading

forparents

ip-S

heetsent

homeaboutPaire

dRea

ding

Homevisitsincluding

demonst

rationsof

Paired-rea

ding

Semi-structuredinterviews

Intergen-

erational

Literacy

Pro

ject

Newimmi-

grantfamiliesto

America

withpreschoo

l

andelementary

schoolchildren

ChelseaM

assa-

chusettsUS

3wor

kshopsParentsdeve

lop

andextend

their

ownEnglis

hliteracy

andsupporttheir

childrensliteracy

deve

lopme

nt

2hourparentclassesrun

concurrent

lywithchil-

dren

ssc

hoolclasses

Childcareisprovided

forchildren

below

schoolage

Rea

dingan

dwriting

focuse

donc

omprehen-

sion

Ideas

for

helpingtosupporttheir

childrens

literacyat

home

Pro

ject

EASE

(Early

Accessto

Suc

cess

inE

du-

cation)

Kindergarten

Childrenan

d

theirParents

US

Oneyear

Increasefrequency

andquality

of

languagein

terac-

tionsthrou

ghbook

centre

dactivities,

shareinformation

for

engagemen

t

Parenteducation,at-

schoolparent/child

activities,a

t-homemedi-

atedactivities

Strengthenvoca

bulary,exten

dna

rrativeun

der-

stan

ding,letterrecognition,soun

dawareness,

narrativeretellings,un

derstandexpositions


24/37


Title

Audience

Location

Duration

Focus

DeliveryMode

Content

Eve

n

Start

Parentsan

dChil-

dren

US

Year

ly

DirectService

Homevisits

Linkswithot

heragencie

s

Temedunits

built

aroundchildrens

books

Ear

lychildhoodeducation

Adultliteracy

ParentingEducation

InteractiveLiteracyactivities

forparentsan

d

children

Focusison

familyreadingincludingchoosing

literature,readingalou

dtogether,andactivities

base

donreading,promotingpositiveattitudes

andse

lfesteem.

BLBui

ld-

ing

Lan-

gua

ge

og

ether

Parentsan

dtheir

pre-sc

hoolchil-

dren

US

4wor

kshops

andfollow

upactivities

athome

Focusonliteracy

learningof

child

whileparentactsas

faci

litator

FourParentwor

kshops

whichincludeparent

childinteractiontime

includingmany

hands-on

activities

Language

base

dactivities,boo

kc

entred,vari-

etytochoose

from,fol

lowupactivitiestodoat

home

Vocabulary,narrativeun

derstand

ing,nonfic-

tiontext,p

hono

logica

lawareness

,letterrecog-

nition,parentinstruction

Fam

ily

Story-

teller

Parentsan

dtheir

preschoo

lchil-

dren

US-Nev

ada

Sixwor

k-

shopsan

dat

homeactivi-

ties

Focusisto

encour-

age

familiestoread

andtogive

parents

strategiesfor

helping

beginningreaders.

Groupsessionswith

parentsan

dchildren

participatinginactivities

includingvi

deo,ro

leplay

andmaterials

Boo

korientation,readingstrategies,modeling

andviewingqualitymaterialsand

literature.

Par-

entsas

Literacy

Sup

port-

ers(PA

LS)

Parentsan

d3-5

yearol

dchildren

Canada

Across

five

schools,10

-15wor

k-

shopsevery

fortnight

were

held

,

including

reflection

sessionatthe

end

Kindergartenteac

her

runsthepr

ogram

focusingonearly

literacy,lan

guagean

d

mat

hematicsskills.

Encourage,promote

andva

lueliteracy

activitiest

hatengage

familiesin

the

home.

Tegroupsatan

date

dinnerwiththechildren

first,d

iscussionaround

thetopicwasintroduced

,

oneononeactivitieswit

h

parentsan

dchildren,

lit-

eracycentresweresetup

sothatparentsan

dchil-

drencoul

dlearntogethe

r,

reflectionwasattheend

ofeachsession

Alphabet,earlymat

hematics

development,

computers/techno

logy,learningtowrite,en-

vironmentalprint,andreadingwithchildren.

Tereweresessions

leftfree

forrequests

from

theparents


25/37


Title

Audience

Location

Duration

Focus

DeliveryMode

Content

FAB:

ulous

Parentsan

d

primarysc

hool

children

US

FamilyNight

fourmonth

period

Familyliteracy

projectaro

undbooks

andliteracy.Bui

ldon

families

kn

owledge

andinteres

ts,teach

specificwa

ysfamilies

canassistt

heirchil-

drenwithliteracy.

Dinnerwasoffered

first

thenaskillwastaug

ht

andtheparentswou

ldtry

withtheirchildren.

Spel

ling,grammar,p

honicsan

da

four

bloc

k

readingapproach.Tesessionsin

cludedmedia

andcritical

literacyaswel

lasspeaking.


26/37


Course components

Te content covered in most programs is not described in detail. Te componentslisted below were extracted from across all programs researched and exist to varying

degrees. In some cases, the focus was on one reading area such as fluency and thestrategies selected reinforce that one area. In what follows are the types of activities,strategies and content associated with the diverse array of programs available. Telack of in-depth descriptions make it only possible to provide a general overview ofwhat these programs entail.

Strategies for prompting

In many cases, parents were taught strategies for helping children identify unfamiliarwords. Parents were encouraged to use context clues, meaning, and phonic clues.

Parents were discouraged from giving direct prompts. Tey were encouraged topraise their child and delay intervention when the child struggled with a word.

Modeling

Many programs advocated for parents to demonstrate reading aloud. Modeling alsoinvolved the use of specific strategies such as paired reading, simultaneous reading,choral reading, and shared reading.

Vocabulary

In some programs, parents were instructed on the importance of vocabulary andhow vocabulary impacts on reading. Examples of strategies include: how to useextended conversations, book reading, dramatic play, outside activities, sorting andclassifying objects, brainstorming words around a topic chosen by the child and be-ing a scribe for dictated stories.

Te literature supports the inclusion of vocabulary especially with parents withESL backgrounds. As Gadsden (2000) points out a child from economically disad-vantaged homes or homes where English is a second language often has difficultylearning to read. However it is vital that parent education programs cover a range

of literacy components and not just reading. Studies by Hart & Risley (2003) founda stunning difference in childrens access to language. In their study of 42 families,children from the wealthiest families heard over more than 1500 words each hour onaverage, than children from the poorest families (616 vs. 2153). Over four years thisamounts to a 32 million word difference. In addition, they went on to show that thechildrens rate of vocabulary growth and vocabulary use at age 3 was closely associ-ated with their grade three standardized test scores (Hart and Risley, 2003).

Wordless picture books and print walks were used in the Parents as Literacy Sup-porters (PALS) program to help families from cultural backgrounds continue their

tradition and passion for story telling. It also gave families who could not read or


27/37


speak English well the opportunity to participate in the activity (Anderson & Mor-rison, 2007).

Story reading at home

Some programs instructed parents on how to read stories at home. Stories were seento offer unique language opportunities, present rare words, broaden childs horizons,instill confidence, and support the development of comprehension skills throughretelling, dramatic play, and story extensions.

Print related concepts

Parents were taught about concepts of print, phonological awareness and alphabeti-cal principles. In some cases, the following ideas were shared: sorting food according

to beginning sound, using alphabet books, reading and learning nursery rhymes, andplaying with alliteration.

Variety of text types

Parents were instructed in the use of many texts types. Some programs had a par-ticular preference for one text type such as nonfiction texts that was introduced as ameans of capitalizing on the curiosity of the child. Other programs recommendedthe use of environmental print, expository texts, factual texts, and the use of scribedtexts dictated by the child.

Choosing a book

Methods of book selection were often considered in parent programs, for example,the five finger rule was given as a guide to choosing books. Book orientations wereused in many programs to introduce the child to a book and scaffold their success.

Behaviour management and discipline

Some programs included a component that examined ways to manage the childsbehaviour and improve parent-child relationships. Ways to establish and maintain

effective parent-child communication was also a feature of some programs.

Additional areas covered

A number of programs included a component on spelling and writing. A few pro-grams integrated mathematics activities and strategies to assist children at home.

Evaluating parent education programs

Te research reveals that the most common evaluation practices were interviews,

observations and questionnaires/surveys. In most programs, these evaluations were


28/37


conducted prior to the commencement of the program and then again at the conclu-sion of the program. Other factors considered in evaluations included:

levels of family participation (Wagner et al, 2002)frequency of reading sessions (Hannon and Jackson, 1987, Whitehurst et al1994)number of books shared with children (Whitehurst et al, 1994)extent of their involvement as reported by parent (Hebbeler and Gerlach-Downie 2002)Analysis of reports and records of those delivering the programs (Pfannenstieland Seltzer, 1989)Dropout rate (Wagner et al, 2002)Parent reports in combination with outcome measures for children (Kirkpat-rick, 2004)

One program which focused on fathers and their children (Saracho, 2007) usedobservations; samples of childrens work; photographs; in-depth periodic interviewswith children, fathers and teachers; video of fathers working with their children andfield notes written in a notebook. Tese evaluations provided a description of thelearning process.

Te results of this program were fathers focused on the family and community envi-ronments; they chose activities and strategies they most felt comfortable with; andwere engaged in formal and informal literacy activities involving both the parent andchild.

For this particular program to be successful, fathers needed to be actively involvedand interested and engaged in the literacy activity and willing to share their interestswith their child. Tey were asked to select a book with their child, read the book tothe child, follow with an activity and to write a story together. Results showed thatfathers used their own personal style and interests to carry out the strategies theylearned in the literacy program. (Saracho, 2007).

Family literacy programs are evaluated based on student outcomes, (Wagner, Spiker& Linn, 2002)

Evaluations of the programs researched showed that the programs were most effec-tive when:

parents as well as teachers were trained (Whitehurst et al, 1994)parent involvement was crucial to the success of the program [as opposed todropping their children off for tutoring] (Wagner, Spiker & Linn, 2002)

Implications and recommendations

Parents are an over-looked resource, readily available, and keen to assist in theeducation of struggling readers. However, the constraint of not being able to access


29/37


quality education programs that support childrens learning restricts their efforts.Parents are often left feeling bewildered, frustrated and inadequate and children notonly continue to struggle, but often suffer the consequences of their parents guilt.

Te name parent education is misleading and restrictive. Most programs cater fora diverse range of carers mothers, fathers, step parents, aunties, uncles, grandpar-ents, siblings all participating with the hope of improving literacy outcomes forchildren in their care. Research in parent education is limited. Few programs werefound to address the needs of children beyond the early years. Rightfully, the em-phasis has been on prevention (ages 0-5) and supporting success for young children.However, many children continue to fail beyond grade 2 and the chances of parentsreceiving assistance appears to diminish. Assisting parents to support their childrenat any stage of reading development is crucial if the concerns of illiteracy are to beaddressed.

Te following recommendations are made on the basis of the research findings.Te gaps in the research literature highlight the need to examine the role of fathers,school involvement in parent education, evaluation of programs and sustainabilityand quality of effective programs.

Quality strategies

Effective programs combine parent education (such as an understanding of the read-ing process) with the provision of a range of researched strategies to implement at

home. Prior to undertaking a parent program, parents usually draw on their memo-ries of schooling and what they recall of their own literacy experiences when workingwith their children. Providing a repertoire of strategies and an understanding of whythey are important is empowering to the parent and beneficial to struggling readers.

Ease of access

Effective programs offer:

A broad range of times, for example, during school time, afterschool, weekendsMultiple modes of delivery, for example, online, hotline, home visits

Incentives such as child care, links to other service providers, certificates ofachievement

Resources

Effective programs make available resources to complement the education program.A range of quality literature including many text types is on hand for children toborrow. Authentic and high interest literature and student choice are factors to beconsidered in the selection of resources.


30/37


Research

Parent education is under researched. Te role of fathers and the growing involve-ment of grandparents in childrens education are just two areas where the literature

is lacking. If funding bodies, education departments and researchers are committedto improving education for parents and ultimately literacy outcomes for children, thefollowing pertinent questions require further investigation:

What sustains an effective program?What are the essential components of programs that produce results and im-prove learning outcomes for children?What do parents really need to know about literacy to better prepare them tohelp their children at home?How do communities assist in the planning and presentation of workshops inorder to address the specific needs of cultural groups, invisible families and

families in need?What can schools do to enroll parents in supporting quality learning outcomesfor their children?What is being done to improve literacy outcomes for students beyond Year 2?Why are boys failing and how can fathers be supported to play more activeroles in literacy learning?

Technology

Parent education courses provide an opportunity to show case best practice anddemonstrate technology as the medium of todays education. For struggling read-

ers, it can be an incentive to explore new ways of engaging with texts, provide funand entertainment while reading, and give readers access to information about topicsof interest. It is the ideal resource to supplement ongoing literacy practices in thehome. No program mentioned the use of technology to assist parents nor the use ofsoftware programs designed to support struggling readers.

Accountability and evaluation

From the research, it is apparent that parent programs use a variety of evaluativemeasures to assess the effectiveness of programs. Te benefits of programs are mul-

tifaceted and research that accounts for improvements in student literacy outcomes,attitudinal changes, outcomes for parents, benefits to schools and communities, andthe long term impact on childrens literacy achievement must be considered. Te useof evaluative information to inform and improve programs in the future is essential.


31/37


References

Anderson, J. & Morrison, F. (2007) A Great program for me as a Gramma: Caregiv-ers Evaluate a Family Literacy initiative. Canadian Journal of Education 30, 1: 68-89.

Anderson, Streelasky & Anderson (2007). Representing and promoting familyliteracy on the World Wide Web: A critical analysis. Te Alberta Journal of Educa-tional Research, 53(2), 143-156.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (July 2008). Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey,Summary Results, Australia.

Retrieved on 25thFebruary, 2009 from: www.independentschoolparents.com.au/news/2008/abs_literacy_survey.html

Barnes, W. S., Snow, C. E., Hemphill, L., Chandler, J., & Goodman, I. F. (2000).Un-fulfilled expectations: Home and school influences on literacy. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.

Biddulph, J. (1983). A group program to train parents of children with reading diffi-culties to tutor their children at home. Unpublished MA Research Report, Universityof Canterbury, Christchurch.

Biddulph, J. (2004). Reading ogether: Suggestions for helping children with readingat home. Hamilton, NZ: Te Biddulph Group.

Biddulph, J. & uck, B. (1983). Assisting parents to help their children with readingat home. Paper presented to the Annual New Zealand Association for Research inEducation Conference, Wellington.

Biddulph, F., Biddulph, J. and Biddulph, C. (2003). Te Complexity of Communityand Family Influences on Childrens Achievement in New Zealand: Best EvidenceSynthesis Iteration (BES). New ZealandMinistry of Education

Bronsteins, P. (1984) Differences in mothers and fathers behaviour towards children:A cross-cultural comparison.Developmental Psychology, 20(6), 995-1003.

Brown, D. J. 1998. Schools with heart: Voluntarism and public education. Boulder,Colo.: Westview Press.

Bus, A.G., van Ijzendorn, M.H., & Pellegrini, A.D. (1995). Joint book reading makesfor success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission ofliteracy,Review of Educational Research, 65(1), 1-21.


32/37


Cadieux, A., & Boudreault, P. (2003). Effects of a reading intervention on parentalknowledge of names and letter sounds and phonological awareness of students atrisk.Revue des sciences de leducation, 29, 545-563.

Cadieux, A., & Boudreault, P. (2005). Te Effects of a Parent-Child Paired ReadingProgram on Reading Abilities, Phonological Awareness and elf-Concept of At-RiskPupils.Reading Improvement, 42(4), 224-237. Retrieved from http://search.ebsco-host.com/login.aspx?

Cassidy, J. & Cassidy, D. (2002-03). Whats hot, whats not for 2003. Reading oday,20(3), 1, 18.

Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). School and families: Creating essentialconnections for learning. New York: Guilford Press.

Clay, M. ( 1993). Always a learner: A fable. Reading oday, 3(5), 10.

Come, B., & Fredericks, A. (1995). Family literacy in urban schools: Meeting theneeds of at risk children, Te Reading eacher, 48 (5), 392-403

Come, B. & Fredericks, A. D. (1995). Family Literacy in Urban Schools: Meeting theneeds of at-risk students. Te Reading eacher. 48, p566-70.

Cunningham, P.M., & Allington, R.L. (2003). Classrooms that work: Tey can allread and write. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Darling, S., and Hayes, A.E. (1996). Te Power of Family Literacy. Louiseville, KY:National Center for Family Literacy.

Darling, S., & Westbury, I. (2004). Parent involvement in childrens acquisition ofreading. Te Reading eacher, 57, 774-776

Delpit, L. (1995) Other peoples children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. NY: Te

New Press

Eakle, A.J. & Garber, A.M. (2003). International Reports on Literacy Research.Read-ing Research QuarterlyVol. 38, No.1 pp. 142-144 For the National Centre

Fantuzzo, J. Mcwayne, C. Perry, M. A. Childs, S. (2000) Multiple Dimensions of Fam-ily Involvement and Teir Relations to Behavioural and Learning Competencies forUrban, Low-Income Children. School Psychology Review, Vol. 33, 2004.


33/37


Fantuzzo, J. McWayne, C. Perry, M. A. Childs, S. (2000) Multiple Dimensions ofFamily Involvement and Teir Relations to Behavioural and Learning Competenciesfor Urban, Low-Income Children. School Psychology Review, Vol. 33, 2004.

Fantuzzo et al. 2000 Fantuzzo, J.L. Davis, G., & Ginsburg, M.D. (1995). Effects ofparent involvement in isolation or in combination with peer tutoring on studentself-concept and mathematics achievement.Journal of Educational Psychology, 87,272-281.

Gadsden, V.L. (2003).Expanding the Concept of Family in Family Literacy: Inte-grating a Focus on Fathers. InA. DeBruin-Parecki, & B. Krol-Sinclair (Eds.),FamilyLiteracy (pp. 86-125). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Gadsden, V. L., & Wagner, D. A. (1995). Literacy among African-American youth: Is-

sues in learning, teaching, and schooling. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Gadsden, V. L. (2000). Current areas of interesting family literacy. National Centerfor the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy. Vol 3, 2002.

Gilliam, B., Gerla, J.P., & Wright, G. (2004). Providing Minority Parents with RelevantLiteracy Activities For Teir Children.Reading Improvement, 4194), 226-234.

Graves Smith, J. (2006) Parental Involvement in Education Among Low-IncomeFamilies: A Case Study. Te School Community Journal, Volume 16, Number 1.

Handel, R. (1999). Te multiple meanings of family literacy.Education & Urban Soci-ety, 32 (1), 127-144.

Hannon, P., Morgan, A. & Nutbrown, C. (2006). Parents Experiences of a FamilyLiteracy Program.Journal of Early Childhood research

Hannon, P. & Jackson, A. (1987) Te Belfield Reading Project Final Report. Lon-don, Rochdale: National Childrens Bureau/Belfield Community Council.

Hart, B. & Risley, .R. (2003) Te early catastrophe: Te 30 million word gap by age3. American Educator, 27 (1), -9.

Hart, B. & Risley, . R. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks, (1995).Meaningful Differences inthe Everyday Experience of Young American Children.

Hebbler, K. M., Gerlach-Downie, S. G. (2002). Inside the black box of home visiting:A qualitative analysis of why intended outcomes were not achieved.Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 17, 28-51.


34/37


Hill, N.E., & Craft, S.A. (2003). Parent-school involvement and school performance:Mediated pathways among socioeconomically comparable African-American andEuro-American families.Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 7483.

Hoffman, J., Roller, C., Maloch, B., Sailors, M., Duffy, G., Beretvas, S. N. (2005).eachers preparation to teach reading and their experiences and practices in the firstthree years of teaching. Te Elementary School Journal, 105(3), 267-287.

Jordan, G.E., Snow, C.E. and Porsche, M.V. (2000). Project EASE: Te effect of a fam-ily literacy project on kindergarten students early literacy skills.Reading ResearchQuarterly, 35, 524-546.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2004). Shared reading interactions: Identifying and developing be-haviours between parents and preschool children. Unpublished PhD Tesis, Univer-

sity of Sheffield.

Lenters, K. (2007) From Storybooks to Games, Comics, Bands and Chapter Books: AYoung Boys Appropriation of Literacy Practices. Canadian Journal of Education30,1: 113-136

Lilly, E. Green, C. (2004) Developing Partnerships With families Trough ChildrensLiterature. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Longwell-Grice, H. & McIntrye, E. (2006) Addressing Goals of School and Com-munity: Lessons from a Family Literacy Program. Te School Community Journal,Volume 16, Number 2.

Mace, J. (1998). Playing with time: Mothers and the meaning of literacy. London:UCI, Press.

Marks, L., & Palkovitz, M. R. (2004). American fatherhood types: Te good, the bad,and the uninterested.Fathering, 2(2), 113129.

Meyers, B., Dowdy, J., & Paterson, . (2000). Finding the missing voices: Perspectivesof the least visible families and their willingness and capacity for school involvement.Journal of Middle Level Education, 28, 59-67.

Moll, L. & Greenberg, J.B. (1991). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining socialcontexts for instruction. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky in education (pp. 319-348) NY:Cambridge.

Morrow, L.M. (1999).Family literacy connections at school and home. Newark, DE:International Reading Association.


35/37


Morrow, L., Kuhn, M.R., & Schwanenflugel, P.J. (2006, December). Te Family Flu-ency Program. Te Reading eacher, 60(4), 322333. doi: 10.1598/R.60.4.2

Mui, S. & Anderson, J. (2008) At home with the Johars: Another look at family lit-

eracy. Te Reading eacher, 62 (3). Pp 234-243

National Centre for Education Statistics (US) nces.ed.gov/naal/estimates/index.aspx

Neuman, S.B., Hagerdorn, ., Celano, D., & Daly, P. (1995). oward a collaborativeapproach to parent involvement in early education: A study of teenage mothers in anAfrican American community.American Educational Research Journal, 30, 95-122.

Neuman, S. Caperelli, B. J. & Kee, C. (1998). Literacy learning, a family matter. TeReading teacher, 52(3), 244 252

Nickse, R. S. (1991)Family and Intergenerational Literacy Programs. InformationSeries No. 342. Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and VocationalEducation. (ED 327 736).

Nistler, R. J. & Maiers, A. (2000). Stopping the silence: Hearing parents voices in anurban first-grade family literacy program.Reading eacher, 53(8), 670-680.

Nord, C. W., Brimhall, D., & West, J. (1997).Fathers involvement in their childrens

schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (nces.ed.gov/naal/esti-mates/index.aspx)

Ortiz, R. W. (2004). Hispanic/Latino fathers and children literacy development ex-amining involvement practices from a socio cultural context.Journal of Latinos andEducation, 3(3), 165180.

Ortiz, R. W. (1994). Fathers and children explore literacy.Te Kamehameha Journalof Education, 5, 131134.

Padak, N., & Rasiniski, . 92006). Home-school Partnerships in literacy education:From rhetoric to reality.Reading eacher, 60(3), 292-296. doi:10.1598/R.60.3.11

Paratore, J.R. (2001). Opening doors, opening opportunities: Family literacy in theurban community. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon

Paratore, J.R. (2005) Approaches to Family Literacy: Exploring the possibilities. IRA

Pfannenstiel, J., and Seltzer, D. Evaluation Report: New Parents as eachers ProjectOverland Park, KS: Research & raining Associates, 1985; Pfannenstiel, J., and Selt-

zer, D. New Parents as eachers: Evaluation of an Early Parent Education Program.


36/37


Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4, 1-18, 1989.

Phillerber, W. W., Spillman, R. E. and King, R. (1996) Consequences of family literacyfor adults and children: Some preliminary findings.Journal of Adolescent and Adult

Literacy39(7): 558-65

Purcell-Gates, V. (2000). Family literacy: A research review.Handbook of ReadingResearch, vol. 3.New York: NY: Erlbaum.

Rasinski, .V. & Padak, N. (2004). Effective reading strategies: eaching children whofind reading difficult (3rdEd.). Upper saddle river, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Saracho, O. N. (2002a). Family literacy: exploring family practices.Early Child Devel-opment and Care, 172(2), 113122.

Saracho, O. N. (2007). A Literacy Program for fathers: A Case Study.Early ChildhoodEducation35 p 351-356.

Sargent, S.E. ,Hill, N & Morrison, S. (2006) Te Impact of University Reading Clin-ics: Parental Perceptions.Reading Research and InstructionVol.6 No. 1 Supp. Pages184-197

Snchal, M., LeFevre, J., Smith-Chant, B. L., & Colton, K. (2000). On refining theo-

retical models of emergent literacy: Te role of empirical evidence.Journal of SchoolPsychology. 39, 439460.

Senechal, M., & National Institute for Literacy. (2006). Te effect of family literacyinterventions on childrens acquisition of reading: From kindergarten to Grade 3. Am

Documents

Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs