Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow]On: 11 October 2014, At: 09:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Early Child Development and CarePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20
A Collaborative Family LiteracyProgram: The Effects onChildren's Motivation and LiteracyAchievementLesley Mandel Morrow a & John Young ba Department of Learning and Teaching , The GraduateSchool of Education, Rutgers University , New Brunswick,New Jerseyb Department of Educational Psychology , The GraduateSchool of Education, Rutgers University , New Brunswick,New JerseyPublished online: 30 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Lesley Mandel Morrow & John Young (1997) A Collaborative FamilyLiteracy Program: The Effects on Children's Motivation and Literacy Achievement , EarlyChild Development and Care, 127:1, 13-25, DOI: 10.1080/0300443971270103
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443971270103
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 0
9:50
11
Oct
ober
201
4
Early Child Development and Care, 1997, Vols. 127-128, pp. 13-25Reprints available directly from the publisherPhotocopying permitted by license only
© 1997 OPA (Overseas Publishers Association)Amsterdam B.V. Published in The Netherlands under
license by Gordon and Breach Science PublishersPrinted in Malaysia
A Collaborative Family Literacy Program:The Effects on Children's Motivationand Literacy Achievement*
LESLEY MANDEL MORROW1.† and JOHN YOUNG2
1 Department of Learning and Teaching and2 Department of Educational Psychology,The Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University,New Brunswick, New Jersey
(Received 5 October 1996)
The purpose of the study was to bridge home and school literacy contexts by involvingfamilies in literacy activities with their children to enhance children's achievementand interest in reading and writing. The literature-based school program included,literacy centers in classrooms, teacher modelled literature activities, and writing andreading appreciation periods called WRAP Time when children worked on literacyactivities in a social context. The home program had similar features with parents andchildren engaging in storybook reading, recording very own words from the environment,writing journals, storytelling and the use of Highlights for Childrera magazine. Monthlymeetings with parents and children allowed for, sharing ideas, finding out what parentsand children wanted to learn, and the opportunity for families to work together. Theprogram was carried out in an urban school district which included African-Americanand Latino families of children in the first grade. Pre- and posttests were administeredto determine growth in achievement and interest in reading. The achievement andmotivation data demonstrated a significant difference in favor of the children in the familyprogram. Success was attributed to the collaboration and shaping of the program byparents, teachers, and children in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
A COLLABORATIVE FAMILY LITERACY PROGRAM: THE EFFECTS ONCHILDREN'S MOTIVATION AND LITERACY ACHIEVEMENT
Success in school literacy programs often depends upon the experiences a child hashad at home prior to coming to school. Many children are able to read and writebefore entering school (Morrow, 1995; Teale & Sulzby, 1996). The characteristics
aThe Highlights magazines in this project were donated by Highlights for Children.*This study was funded in part by the National Reading Research Genter.†Correspondence: 15 Heritage Lane, Scotch Plains, NJ 07076, Tel: (908) 322-7555; Fax: (908) 322-2623;
Email: [email protected]
13
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 0
9:50
11
Oct
ober
201
4
14 LM. MORROW and J. YOUNG
of these children and their homes have been investigated. The findings revealedthat parents engaged in literacy activities with their children and played a crucialrole in their literacy development (Cochran-Smith, 1986; McCaleb, 1994; Morrow,1997; Teale, 1984). Studies have found that literacy experiences practiced in somehomes are not congruent with literacy activities encountered in school. Despite thefact that literacy behaviors are present in one form or another in most families, thetype of events that some parents share with their children may have little influenceon school success. Conversely, the kinds of literacy practiced in classrooms may havelittle meaning for those children or their parents (Auerbach, 1989; Heath, 1983;Morrow & Paratore, with Gaber, Harrison & Tracey, 1993; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines,1988). With these inconsistencies or variations, it is difficult for some parents tointegrate school-based literacy events at home. We must learn about the literacy thatoccurs in homes in which family members are from diverse cultural backgrounds andhow these parents and children share literacy on a daily basis. We need to explorehow such events can serve school learning. Rather than approaching parents whospeak languages other than English and those who have not acquired mainstreamliteracy skills from a deficit point of view, we need to identify and build first uponthe strengths they possess. We must respect and understand homes in which booksare not readily available, but story-telling, for example, is a strong part of theculture and an important literacy behavior. According to Delgado-Gaiten (1990),parents with both high and low levels of education recognize the importance of apositive home literacy environment. Parents with less education, however, need tobe informed about community resources and shown how they can be role modelsfor their children. In her research, Delgado-Gaiten (1987) found that parents whoparticipated in school activities and family literacy programs realized that they werean important link in their children's education. She also found that the parents whodid not participate did not see the activities as important and felt the teacher was incharge when their children were at school. When parents from diverse backgroundsare helped to communicate with school personnel, they can collaborate with teachersto contribute to children's growth (Chavkin, 1994; Dickinson, 1994). If we do notattend to the home when we plan literacy programs, whatever strategies we designfor school will never be completely successful. Therefore, family literacy programsare necessary for helping parents understand how important they are in the literacydevelopment of their children. We need to help parents realize that they do have skillsto share with their children from their own cultures, and to empower them with newskills that will enhance their understanding of literacy development. It is possible toprovide programs that are sensitive to diverse cultures by using the resources withinthe family, and by providing additional strategies for parents to help their children.For programs to be successful, they must include respect, reciprocity and equalitybetween those involved (Hale, 1982; Dickinson, 1994).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to determine the effects of a school literacy programthat included a home component on children's achievement, and motivation to read
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 0
9:50
11
Oct
ober
201
4
FAMILY LITERACY 15
and write. We were interested in heightening awareness of parents and teachersconcerning the importance of the role they play in the literacy development ofchildren. We also hoped to enhance parent self-confidence about their ability tohelp. The program was designed so that it would be sensitive to diverse cultures onone hand, and in addition, not to be culturally specific in order to have meaningfor all. Therefore the program included: resources already within the family such asstorytelling, children's literature specific to different cultures, environmental printfound inside and out of the home, and parents sharing tfieir cultural backgrounds inschool. We introduced parents to new skills hoping to empower them with a greaterunderstanding of literacy development. We called the program a collaborative effortfor two reasons. First, since teachers provided activities in school similar to thoseto be carried out at home, this formed a connection between home and schoolinstruction. Second, although the program began with guidance, instruction, andmaterials for parents, we sought input from them and incorporated their ideas aswe worked together throughout the year.
METHODS
Participants
The subjects in die study were children from six first grades from two elementaryschools in the same school district wiui populations of students having thesame demographic characteristics. The classrooms were randomly assigned toone experimental and one control group. Twelve children from each room wererandomly selected as subjects for die investigation. At the end of the study data wereavailable for a total of 54 children, with 27 in the experimental group and 27 in diecontrol. Fifty-four percent of die children were African American, 44% Latino, and2% Caucasian. The study took place in a typical urban public school district withmost children from minority backgrounds and low income families.
Treatment
The study was carried out for an entire school year. Subjects in the experimentalgroup received a home and school-based program and subjects in die control groupreceived the school-based program only. The family literacy program entided, TheFamily WRAP Program (Writing and Reading Appreciation for Parents and Pupils)was designed to provide a parallel to the program we organized in the schooldie year before. The school program was called die WRAP Program (Writing andReading Appreciation Program)b and was designed to promote interest in readingand writing. We wanted to motivate children to read voluntarily for pleasure and
Gloria Lettenberger, a first-grade ESL teacher in Redshaw school where this program took place,thought of the term WRAP Time for the school program.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 0
9:50
11
Oct
ober
201
4
16 LM. MORROW and J. YOUNG
for information. We wanted children to be able to approach literacy as a socialactivity, by engaging in reading and writing with children and adults, and seekingthe help of others to achieve goals. The treatment carried out in this study forteachers, parents and children included the design of rich literacy environmentsat home and in school, pleasurable teacher and parent guided literature activitiesintended to promote enjoyment as well as skill development and periods of timefor independent reading and writing in social settings. This framework was guidedbyTeale's (1984) discussion of natural literacy development and Holdaway's (1979)developmental learning theory as it applies to literacy.
In Teale's view, literacy results as a learner engages in the whole act of reading andwriting, mediated by others. The social interactions accompanying these activitiesfoster development. The emphasis on the social aspects of learning reflect Vygotsky's(1979) theory of intellectual development in which he describes higher order mentalfunctions as social relationships that have been internalized. The movement frominterpsychological learning to intrapsychological learning is apparent as children oradults are able to engage alone in literacy tasks, that previously required interactionwith more literate others.
Holdaway's developmental learning theory is characterized by self-regulated,individualized activities, frequent peer and adult interaction and an environmentrich with materials. He defines four processes that enable learners to acquire literacyabilities: observation of literacy behaviors, that is being read to or seeing others readand write; collaboration, the social interaction of the learner with other individualswho provide encouragement, motivation, and help; practice, in which the learnertries out what has been learned by reading and writing alone or with others; andperformance, in which the learner shares what they have accomplished and seeksguidance and approval from supportive interested others. Perspectives from thesetheories are woven into the program components.
Description of the School WRAP Program
This literature-based reading and writing program included Literacy Centers with avariety of literacy activities available for children. Materials found in the classroomcenters were open-faced bookshelves for featured books, and regular bookshelvesthat hold five to eight books per child at three to four grade levels, representingvaried genres of children's literature. Literature was selected to feature differentcultural backgrounds and specifically those represented from the subjects in thestudy. The books could be checked out to take home from the classroom library.Pillows, rugs, stuffed animals, and rocking chairs added comfort to the area.Manipulatives such as feltboards with story characters and taped stories with headsetswere available for the children's use. There was an "Authors' Spot" equipped withpaper, blank booklets and writing utensils.
The Teacher Modeled Activities to create interest in books by reading aloud andtelling stories using techniques such as chalk talks, felt stories, puppet stories, etc.The modelling was also to demonstrate specific types of literacy activities to engagein. Specifically children were involved in: Reading with and to the teacher and each
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 0
9:50
11
Oct
ober
201
4
FAMILY LITERACY 17
other; writing in journals alone and with other children; collecting very own words;telling stories about their families; telling stories that they read; using props to tellstories such as roll stories and felt stories; writing stories; using Highlights for Childrenmagazine; reading and writing independently; and sharing reading and writing theyhave done.
WRAP (Writing and Reading Appreciation) Time occurred three to five timesa week and provided children with the opportunity to choose from a variety ofliteracy activities. Children could choose to read a book or the Highlights for Childrenmagazine, read to a friend, listen to a taped story, tell a story with the feltboard, writein their journal, etc. The 30 to 40 minute WRAP Time gave students choices withina structure. For instance, children could choose to work alone or with others. Theywere expected to complete tasks and present them.
Description of The Family WRAP Program
Prior to designing the program we had interviewed teachers, parents and children,about what they believed should be included in a family program and what goals theyhoped would be achieved. Parents were interested in many of the same goals thatteachers have for children. They were interested in their children's achievement andwanted to know how to help them succeed. They wanted to work with the teachersto help their children become independent learners. Their interests were similarto findings of research carried out by others (Chavkin, 1994; Neuman, et al., 1995).Children wanted the help of their parents, and teachers believed that parents shouldbe partners in die literacy development of their children.
The purpose of Family WRAP Program was to provide a collaborative effortbetween home and school. Therefore the family program had similar goals to theschool program and we sought input from parents for inclusion of new ideas. Oneway that we believed diis could be done was to create a home program similar tothe school program designed to motivate children to read and write voluntarilyfor pleasure and for information. We wanted children to approach literacy as asocial activity, by engaging in reading and writing with family members. Many of thesame materials provided for the school program were also provided for parents. Wewanted a home program that was pleasurable and familiar for children. As parentsintroduced activities, children could relate to them since they had been done inschool. If parents had limited literacy ability or did not speak English, childrencould help widi the activities for the home program because they were familiar widithem from their participation at school. Teachers initiated the program for home,and the home program supported what was happening in school. Parent input wasconsidered important in shaping the program as it progressed, but to begin we feltwe needed a framework. The specifics of the program are discussed in the followingsections.
Materials and Activities for the Parent WRAP Program
Each parent received a shopping bag of materials which contained items similar tothose used in the school WRAP Program as follows:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 0
9:50
11
Oct
ober
201
4
18 LM. MORROW and J. YOUNG
1. A storyboard for storytelling;2. Two spiral notebooks for journal writing;3. A file box with blank 3" x 5" cards for recording "Very Own Words";4. A Highlights for Children magazine;5. A Parent WRAP Program Handbook.
Activities in the Family WRAP Program
The activities in the Family WRAP Program were as follows:
1. Reading to and with your child often, listening to your child read, readingtogether side by side, talking about what was read.
2. Storytelling about family experiences, telling stories from books and originalstories. Using techniques such as puppets, and props for story telling as well.Parents received a storyboard made of corrugated cardboard. The triangularshaped material had a piece of felt on one side and the other was designed forroll stories. The storyboard also served as a puppet stage. Each parent receivedstory characters made of felt, stick puppets with accompanying storybooks touse with their storyboard. They were also given roll paper (white shelving paperfrom the supermarket) to create roll stories. Children could write and drawtheir own stories or recreate stories they had read by making felt figures, stickpuppets, or roll stories. The parent packet also included a book of chalktalks -simple stories that are read and drawn at the same time and a book of tips forstorytelling.
3. Writing in Journals together in the two spiral notebooks provided. Parents andchildren could write stories, write things they did each day, make shopping lists,draw pictures, copy writing from a book, or write about how it felt to work withyour child or parent.
4. Record "Very Own Words" in the file box provided containing blank 3 x 5cards. Children select the words from print within the home, community, orfrom school work that had meaning for them. Children and parents were toread the "Very Own Words", copy them and use them when writing stories orwriting in theirjournals. Parents were to make children aware of print all aroundthem by pointing it out in and outside of their home. They were encouragedto read mail, road signs, store signs and directions on medicine together.
5. The Highlights for Children magazine was given to each child in the programto take home to their family. Another copy of the same magazine remainedin school. Written activities for using the magazine were provided for parentsand teachers. Teachers carried out lessons using the Highlights in school first, sothat the children would recognize the activities when doing them at home withtheir families. Children could show parents with limited literacy ability how touse the Highlights. Features that make the magazine appealing for the homeschool program are: there is something for everyone, all interests and abilities;it is non-threatening since it is not like school material; and many of the storiesand activities include content about different cultural backgrounds.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 0
9:50
11
Oct
ober
201
4
FAMILY LITERACY 19
6. Participate in WRAP TIME at school when children read and write in socialsettings. When parents come to WRAP Time they can choose to read tochildren, share information about their cultural backgrounds, or participatein the activities as the children make roll stories, tape stories, do felt stories, etc.
In addition, we asked parents to do the following:
1. Find a place at home for the family program materials so children can use themeasily, similar to the idea of the literacy center in school.
2. Attend monthly group meetings with other parents and monthly meetings on aone-to-one basis with a mentor. The mentor was a University student pursuingcertification in education. At our first monthly meeting with parents, someof the materials were distributed with demonstrations of how to use them.At subsequent meetings we modelled new activities but always from the listwe just described. Modelling was carried out by the researcher demonstratingthe techniques discussed and through watching videos of parents engaged inactivities with children. Children and parents worked together at meetings.Parents and children shared projects they had done together. They discussedwhat they would like added to the program or deleted.
3. Keep records of activities done on the sheets provided and share what you dowith the group.
4. The Parent Handbook is a guide explaining the important role that parentsplay in the literacy development of their children. In addition to the Guidelinesfor the Family WRAP Program already described, the contents of the booklet havethe following sections. First, Things to look for and have in your home provides alist including items such as scissors, tape, pencils, paper, books, magazines andnewspapers, and space for children to work. The next sections is a list of Thingsto do with your child at home such as read or look at books together, tell stories,watch TV together and talk about what you watch, let your child see you readingbooks, magazines and newspapers, make your child aware of print in the home.Next is a list of Things to do with your child outside your home, such as: visit the libraryand take out books, go on outings together to the supermarket, post office, orzoo, and note the print all around. The last section in the book is called Thingsto do and say to make your child feel good about themselves, about you, and readingand writing. Here we suggest that parents answer children's questions aboutreading and writing; reward reading and writing activities with words such as,"What nice work you do", "I'm happy to see you are reading or writing", or "CanI help you?"; display your child's work at home; attend parent conferences atschool; attend school if your child is in a play; attend other parent events.
The following activities arc in both the home and school program:
Home and School Family Program
• Create physical settings for reading and writing;• Create a space for storing reading and writing materials;• Read with and to your children at home and in school;
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 0
9:50
11
Oct
ober
201
4
20 L.M. MORROW and J. YOUNG
• Write with your children in journals;• Collect very own words from the environment that have meaning for the child
and parent;• Tell stories together about your own family;• Retell stories read or passed down from the oral tradition;• Use props to tell stories such as felt stories, prop stories, etc.;• Parents and children participate in independent reading and writing at home
and in school;• Children, teachers and parents share the products of their reading and writing;• Parents come to school to participate in literacy activities such as Writing and
Reading Appreciation Periods.
Measurements
Several measurements were administered, some individually and some as a group.Measures were used to determine literacy achievement, motivation or interest inreading and writing, and increased reading at home and with adults.
Measures: To determine children's growth in achievement, the following measureswere used: (1) A Story Retelling Test, (2) A Story Rewriting Test, and (3) A ProbedComprehension Test. The measures used for achievement in this study have beenselected for their reliability and validity in other similar investigations (Morrow,1992,1997). To determine increased interest or motivation for reading and writing,teacher's rated children. Finally children were interviewed to determine increasedreading at home and with adults.
1. Story Retelling and Rewriting tests were used since they are holistic measuresof comprehension which demonstrate retention of facts, as well as the ability toconstruct meaning by retelling text. For the Story Retelling and Story Rewritingtests, two different storybooks were used, one for the pretest and one for theposttest. These were chosen for quality of plot structure, including stronglydelineated characters, definite setting, clear theme, obvious plot episodes, anddefinite resolution. The stories were similar in number of pages and words.Testing books were selected with attention to research on children's preferencesin books (Monson & Sebesta, 1991). Research assistants administered the storyretelling tests on an individual basis using the same script for each child. Storyrewriting tests were administered to whole groups by classroom teachers. Whentaking the story retelling and rewriting tests children listen to a story that isread to them. They are asked to retell it or rewrite it as if they are doing itfor a friend who had never heard the story before. No prompts are given witiithe rewriting test. In the oral retelling, which is tape recorded, prompts arelimited to "Then what happened?" or "What comes next?" Both written and oralretellings are evaluated for the inclusion of story structure elements: setting,theme, plot episodes, and resolution. A child received credit for partial recall orfor understanding the gist of a story event (Pellegrini & Gal da, 1982; Thorndyke,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 0
9:50
11
Oct
ober
201
4
FAMILY LITERACY 21
1977). The scorers observed sequence by comparing the order of events inthe child's retelling with that in the original by constructing a meaningfulpresentation. The interrater reliability of the scoring scheme (roughly 90%)and the overall validity of the measures have been established in previousinvestigations with children from diverse backgrounds (Morrow, 1992; Morrow,Pressley, Smith & Smith, 1997). For this study, seven coders scored six protocolswith 92% agreement for story retelling and 96% for story rewriting.
2. Probed Recall Comprehension tests (Morrow, 1992) were administered byresearch assistants individually after reading a story to the child. The testincluded eight traditional comprehension questions focusing on detail, causeand effect, inference, and making critical judgments, plus eight questionsfocusing on story structure: setting, theme, plot episodes, and resolution.Research assistants read the questions and recorded children's answers. Thisinstrument was reliable in the range of 92% and above in previous research withchildren from similar diverse backgrounds (Morrow, 1992; Morrow, Pressley,Smith & Smith, in press). In this study six coders scored the five pre- andposttests with 92% agreement.
3. Teacher Rating of Children's Interest in Reading and Writing. Teachers wereasked to rate interest in reading and writing of the children in the study ona scale from one to five. One was the lowest rating and five the highest. Thismeasure was a way of determining increased motivation or interest in readingand writing.
4. After School Activities and Family Involvement. Children were interviewedto collect information dealing with their after school activities with familymembers. This was to determine if the program had an effect on children'sincreased interest or motivation to read at home and to select to do it with agrown up.
RESULTS
The data from the measures were analyzed using analysis of covariance with pretestscores as the covariate, treatment condition (experimental or control) as the maineffect of interest, and posttest scores as the dependent variable.
Literacy Achievement and Motivation or Interest
Table 1 presents the pre- and posttest means and standard deviations for theliteracy and interest measures. The ANCOVA for the total score on the storyretelling measure i^l,53) =17.20 /x.OOl, showed that the experimental groupscored significantly better than the control. The ANCOVA for the total score onthe story rewriting test F(l,53) = 15.71, p<,001 indicated that the experimentalgroup scored significantly better than the control group. The ANCOVA for theProbed Recall Comprehension Test ̂ (1,53) = 12.42, /X.001 demonstrated that the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 0
9:50
11
Oct
ober
201
4
22 L.M. MORROW and J. YOUNG
Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Literacy Achievement and Interest Measures
Group
Family Group Control Group
Pretest (SD) Posttest (SD) Pretest (SD) Posttest (SD)
Story Retelling 7.37 (3.14) 10.13" (3.42) 7.54 (2.83) 8.24* (2.53)Story Rewriting 3.23 (3.21) 8.98" (2.43) 2.45 (2.22) 0.69* (2.15)Probed Comprehension 18.97 (3.16) 22.931" (3.14) 16.73 (4.41) 18.72* (5.19)Teaching Rating of Readingand Writing Interest 2.45 (1.01) 4.39" (0.98) 2.72 (1.02) 2.89* (0.96)
Posttest means are adjusted for pretest scores. The two groups consist of three classrooms each. Ninechildren were randomly selected from each room and tested on pre- and posttests. Means and standarddeviations reported here are based on n = 54."•*Posttest scores are significantly different (p < 0.05) if they do not share the same superscript.
Table 2 Mean and Standard Deviations Concerning what Children like to do
Read or look at a book or magazineHave someone read to you
Pretest
1.251.18
Family Group
(SD)
(0.49)(0.59)
Posttest
1.77"1.58"
Group
(SD)
(0.46)(0.64)
Pretest
1.241.52
Control Group
(SD)
(0.48)(0.66)
Posttest
1.45*0.88*
(SD)
(0.49)(0.52)
Posttest means were adjusted for pretest scores. The two groups consist of three classrooms each. Ninechildren were randomly selected from each room and given pre and posttests. Means and standarddeviations are based on n = 54."•*Posttest scores are significandy different (p < 0.05) if they do not share the same subscript.
experimental group scored significandy better than the control on this measure.Finally, the results of the teacher ratings found that teachers evaluated children inthe experimental group as increasing more in their reading and writing interestF(l,53) = 16.23, p< .001 at the end of the treatment period.
After School Activities and Family Involvement
Children were interviewed for information dealing with their after school activitiesand family activities. In the ANCOVA for a multiple choice measure to determineafter school activities it was found that those in the family group reported that theyread or looked at books and magazines more than children in the control group7^1,53) = 7.64, p<.02; and had someone read to them more often ^(1,53) =8.95,p<.002.
DISCUSSION
The study was quite successful in seeing differences in literacy achievement onthe part of the children in the family literacy program. Results also indicated that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 0
9:50
11
Oct
ober
201
4
FAMILY LITERACY 23
children reported reading more often in their free time and reading with adults.Reading magazines was something that children in the family group said they spentmore time doing than those in the control group. This is not surprising sincethey were provided with the Highlights for Children magazine. The Family WRAPprogram was a collaborative effort. It seems as if this collaboration between homeand school with the emphasis on doing similar activities could have been the reasonfor its success. The teachers were an integral part of the project. They did activitiesin school similar to those that we taught the parents to do at home. Childrenrepeated the activities at home and enlisted their parents to work with them. Insome cases the children helped their parents. Regardless of whether the child orparent was directing the activity, working together in an interactive environmentwas die important part.
From interview data with children, they expressed that they enjoyed working withtheir parents at school meetings and at home. Parents also talked about enjoyingthe work they were doing with their children. Some also said diat their own literacyskills were improving. Many parents have expressed they were learning new ideas.We have rich samples of parent child journal entries, large collections of "Very OwnWords", displays of chalktalks and roll stories shared at our meetings. Parents saidthey felt more comfortable about coming to school and participating, and had moreself-confidence about being able to help their children. They expressed appreciationto those carrying out the program for the materials and the attention they werereceiving. They demonstrated pride in accomplishment of tasks completed. At theend of the year we found many willing to share their ideas for additions to theprogram, ask questions, and express their concerns. Parents were enthused aboutthe program and eager to participate and help their children. They were fascinatedby die activities and viewed them as things they could do and feel good about. Manysaid they never felt diey knew how to help their children, nor did they diink theycould, now they realized how important they were in taking an active role in theliteracy development of their children. Some also made a point of saying that theydidn't like to do traditional homework with their children but they found the familyprogram activities enjoyable and fun, and therefore they participated.
Teachers admitted that they had not realized how important such a program wasin bringing parents, students and teachers closer together in working toward theliteracy development of children. They indicated that they found many studentsshowing greater interest in reading and writing and some were improving in theirliteracy skills.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FAMILY LITERACY PROGRAMS
In conclusion we will review the factors in the program we believe to have broughtabout the successful outcomes. These have implications for designing other schoolliteracy partnerships.
The success of the program we feel is due to the collaborative effort of parents,teachers, and children working together with mutual respect for each other. Parents
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 0
9:50
11
Oct
ober
201
4
24 L.M. MORROW and J. YOUNG
came to school for meetings and felt more and more comfortable in the setting. Welistened to parents as well as guiding them. We asked them to do important activitiesas partners in the literacy development of their children.
Parents became an integral part of the school literacy program by doing activitiesat home that were being done in school. They visited school to participate inthe WRAP Time and read with their children, used felt stories, roll stories, orread to children. They also shared their cultural backgrounds if they chose to doso. In addition the activities that connected home and school were fun but alsoeducational and they were sensitive to the interests of parents, and the diversity oftheir backgrounds, for example: (1) storytelling about family experiences, readingstories connected to their cultural backgrounds, and telling stories passed downthrough the oral tradition, (2) collecting "Very Own Words" generated from thehome and community, and (3) the use of the magazine Highlights for Children •whichwas non-threatening, not school-like and could be used by those with differentliteracy abilities, and cultural backgrounds. This strong connection of the school andhome program, we believe, was a major component for encouraging participationand success.
Acknowledgement
Gratitude is extended to the parents, teachers, children, administrators in the schooldistrict where the study took place and the help of the university students who actedas mentors to parents.
References
Auerbach, E.R. (1989). Toward a socio-contextual approach to family literacy. Harvard-Educational Review,
59, 165-181.
Chavkin, N. (1994). Families and schools in a pluralistic society. New York: SUNY Press.
Clark, M.M. (1984). Literacy at home and at school: Insights from a study of young fluent readers. In H.
Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy (pp. 122-130). Exeter, NH; Heinemann.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1984). The making of a reader. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1987). Mexican adult literacy: New directions for immigrants. In S.R. Goldman & K.
Trueba (Eds.), Becoming literate in English as a second language (pp. 9-32). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990). Literacy for empowerment: The role of parents in children's education. New York:
Falmer.
Dickinson, D. (1994). Directions in literacy theory and intervention programs. In D.K. Dickinson (Ed.),
Bridges to literacy: Children, families and schools (pp. 1-18). MA: Blackwell Publishers.
HaleJ.E. (1982). Black children: Theirroots, culture, and learning styles. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University
Press.
Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy. Sydney: Ashton Scholastic.
McCaleb, S.P. (1994). Building Communities of learners: A collaboration among teachers, students, families and
communities. NY: St. Martin's Press.
Monson, D. and Sebesta, S. (1991). Reading preferences. In J. Flood, J. Jensen, D. Lapp, and J. Squire(Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 664-673). NY: Macmillan.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 0
9:50
11
Oct
ober
201
4
FAMILY LITERACY 25
Morrow, L.M. (1997). Literacy development in the early years: Helping children read and write (3rd ed.). MA:Allyn and Bacon.
Morrow, L.M. (1995). Family literacy connections in schools and communities. Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.
Morrow, L.M. (1992). The impact of a literature-based program on literacy achievement, use of literatureand attitudes of children from minority backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 250-275.
Morrow, L.M., Pressley, M., Smith, J. and Smith, M. (In press). The effect of a literature-based programintegrated into literacy and science instruction with children from diverse backgrounds. Reading ResearchQuarterly.
Morrow, L.M., Paratore, J., Gaber, D., Harrison, C. and Tracey, D. (1993). Family literacy: perspectivesand practices. The Reading Teacher, 47, 194-201.
Pellegrini, A. and Galda, L. (1982). The effects of thematic fantasy play training on the development ofchildren's story comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 443-452.
Taylor, D., Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literature: Leaming from inner-city families. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
Teale, W. (1984). Reading to young children: Its significance for literacy development. In H. Goelman,A.A. Oberg and F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy (pp. 110-121). London: Heinemann.
Teale, W. and Sulzby, E. (1996). Emergent Literacy: New Perspectives. In R. Robinson, M. McKenna andJ. Wedman (Eds.), Issues and Trends in Literacy Education (pp.124-151). MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Thorndyke. P. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse.Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 0
9:50
11
Oct
ober
201
4
