Upload
rohana-abdul-hamid
View
231
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
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.
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
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
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
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.
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy 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
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
6/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 2
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)
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
7/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 3
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-
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
8/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 4
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-
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
9/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 5
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).
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
10/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 6
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)
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
11/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 7
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
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
12/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 8
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
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
13/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 9
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.
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
14/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 10
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
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
15/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 11
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:
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
16/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 12
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.
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
17/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 13
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).
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
18/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 14
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).
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
19/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 15
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.
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
20/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 16
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
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
21/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 17
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
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
22/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 18
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
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
23/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 19
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
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
24/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 20
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
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
25/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 21
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.
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
26/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 22
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
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
27/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 23
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
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
28/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 24
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
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
29/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 25
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.
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
30/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 26
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.
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
31/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 27
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.
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
32/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 28
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.
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
33/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 29
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.
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
34/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 30
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.
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
35/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 31
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.
7/27/2019 Review of the Literature Family Literacy Programs
36/37
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 32
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