This article was downloaded by: [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ]On: 21 December 2014, At: 11:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies:An International InterdisciplinaryJournal for Research, Policy and CarePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rvch20

Emergent literacy and childhoodliteracy-promoting activities forchildren in the Ontario Child WelfareSystemShaye Moffat a & Cynthia Vincent aa Centre for Research on Educational and Community Services ,University of Ottawa , 34 Stewart, Room 210, Ottawa, Ontario,K1N 6N5, CanadaPublished online: 13 Aug 2009.

To cite this article: Shaye Moffat & Cynthia Vincent (2009) Emergent literacy and childhoodliteracy-promoting activities for children in the Ontario Child Welfare System , Vulnerable Childrenand Youth Studies: An International Interdisciplinary Journal for Research, Policy and Care, 4:2,135-141, DOI: 10.1080/17450120902887350

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17450120902887350

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 warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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 [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

1:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Vulnerable Children and Youth StudiesVol. 4, No. 2, June 2009, 135–141

ISSN 1745-0128 print/ISSN 1745-0136 online© 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/17450120902887350http://www.informaworld.com

RVCH1745-01281745-0136Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 2009: pp. 1–14Vulnerable Children and Youth StudiesEmergent literacy and childhood literacy-promoting activities for children in the Ontario Child Welfare System†

Vulnerable Children and Youth StudiesS. Moffat and C. VincentShaye Moffat* and Cynthia Vincent

Centre for Research on Educational and Community Services, University of Ottawa, 34 Stewart, Room 210, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5 Canada

(Received 28 August 2008; final version received 11 March 2009)

Research has demonstrated that early exposure to literacy is one of the essential foun-dations for promoting positive outcomes and successful life transitions for children andyoung people. Academic and social successes within the domain of education arerecognized factors in fostering resilience in at-risk populations. Unfortunately, inCanada the potential for differing outcomes exists between children within the generalpopulation and those children within the child welfare system, due to the latter’s lackof educational and social supports. The purpose of this study was to investigate the fre-quency of engagements in literacy-promoting activities by children in the child welfaresystem. Participants were approximately 114 children living in out-of-home care in theprovince of Ontario, Canada, who were participating in the Ontario Looking AfterChildren project. They were aged between 1 and 4 years, and virtually all the partici-pants had experienced severe adversity while living with their birth families and, as aconsequence, were under the custody and care of their local Children’s Aid Society.The study incorporated the literacy-promoting activities scales from the National Lon-gitudinal Study of Children and Youth, and explored the relationship between nationalliteracy strategies and childhood development. Findings demonstrated that the in-carepopulation was provided with ample opportunities to engage in literacy-promotingactivities, and in fact generally did so more often than children in the general popula-tion. Implications for government policy and interventions to promote positive educa-tional outcomes will be discussed.

Keywords: emergent literacy; literacy activities; child welfare

IntroductionLiteracy is the basic foundation for all learning, and is one of the strongest predictors forchildren’s future academic achievements (Werner & Smith, 1992). An estimated one inthree children within the general population experience significant difficulties in learningto read (Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000). These children often continue to lag behindacademically as their peers continue to build upon existing literacy skills (Haney & Hill,2004), putting them at risk for future successful transitions. It is for this reason that thefollowing study was undertaken, in order to determine the extent that children in-care in

†Revised version of a workshop presented at the 8th International Looking After ChildrenConference, Oxford, UK, 7–9 July 2008.*Corresponding author. Email: shaye.moffat@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

1:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

136 S. Moffat and C. Vincent

the province of Ontario, Canada, are provided with opportunities to engage in literacy-promoting activities in their foster homes.

The term “emergent literacy” encompasses everything that comes before actual liter-acy is achieved. It is thought to be somewhat genetically influenced, although emergentliteracy is shaped largely by one’s environment. The home environment has an impact onliteracy interactions, explorations, expressions and behaviors (Saracho, 1997) and sets thetone for lifelong learning, which is why many schoolteachers attempt to mimic the homeenvironment in their classrooms (Saracho, 1997). The home setting is effective in promot-ing emergent literacy as it provides the child with a comfortable background for learning.When children are placed in out-of-home care it is often due to neglect or parental inca-pacity, and therefore they may not have had the opportunities for a normal home learningenvironment. For this reason, children placed in out-of-home care may be at an immediatedisadvantage for emergent literacy and language acquisition due to the various pre-carebarriers facing them, such as a lack of access to literacy-inducing materials, less modelingof literacy activities by adults, less interpersonal interactions with family members withbooks and literacy, etc. Once in care, some children may face further barriers, such asinstability in their foster placements, frequent care moves and less access to literary mate-rials, all of which can hinder their emergent literacy. Studies have shown that youngpeople who were in out-of-home care faced a higher risk of low educational attainment(Gilligan, 2007). Furthermore, studies have also demonstrated higher rates of learning dis-abilities, achievement problems, special education placement, language disorders, graderetention, adaptive behavior deficits and mild mental retardation in maltreated children infoster care (Evans, 2001). It is therefore imperative to ensure that this population of chil-dren has access to literacy-inducing care environments to ensure their future success.

Children become literate by using acquired knowledge of oral language, and then theyapply it later to the processes of reading and writing. From an emergent literacy prospec-tive, there is no difference between what is considered to be conventional literacy thatstudents learn at school and everything that comes before. Children in out-of-home caremay be at a disadvantage compared to their peers, as their biological home environmentsmay not have been effective in promoting high-quality language experiences. It is for thisreason that the placements of these children need to provide high-quality learning oppor-tunities to bridge this potential gap. Research has demonstrated that one of the mostpowerful predictors of writing skills and reading comprehension is the family’s emotionalclimate (Bennett, Weigel, & Martin, 2002). At-risk children may benefit even more fromparent–child activities, which include helping children to acquire phonological awareness,gain print knowledge, foster vocabulary growth, share joint reading experiences and todevelop narrative skills through frequent talk about past events in the children’s lives.These activities also help to increase the quality of the parent–child relationship, which isimportant for literacy development.

Emergent literacy research highlights the value and importance of different activitiesthat are conducive to pre-literacy, including: parent–child book reading, meaningful con-versations and interactions, high parental expectations and encouragement and emotionallyhealthy and secure family environments (Bennett et al., 2002). Based on this concept, thatproviding more opportunities will enhance emergent literacy, the current study investigateswhether young children placed in out-of-home care in Ontario, Canada, are being providedwith positive opportunities to enhance their emergent literacy in their foster placements.

Foster parents and other adult caregivers in Ontario were asked to provide informationpertaining to the frequency of literacy-promoting activities in which they engaged with theyoung children in their care. The in-care results were then compared to a national sample

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

1:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies 137

of same-age children living in their biological homes, with the comparison data beingtaken from the National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth (NLSCY).

MethodParticipantsThe current study participants were 114 children, 54% male and 46% female, who wereinvolved in the Ontario Looking After Children (OnLAC; Flynn, Angus, Aubry, & Drolet,1999) Project from year 6 (June 2006–May 2007) of the project. OnLAC is a longitudinalstudy of outcomes for children and young people in out-of-home care in the province ofOntario.

The data comprised children aged between 1 and 4 years, and were gleaned from twodifferent age groups: 54 children aged 3–4 years and 60 aged 1–2 years. The mean age ofthe participants was 2.4 years. Children were in out-of-home care because of severe adver-sity that they faced in their biological homes, including: physical, emotional or sexualharm; neglect; abandonment; problematic behaviors; and domestic violence. Ninety-oneper cent of the participants were in foster care, and 9% were placed in kinship care. Justover 48% of the sample were crown wards1 in their current placement, 23% were societywards, 25% were placed in interim care and 2% were in both temporary care agreementsas well as living in other arrangements.

Our comparison group data came from cycle 1 (1994–1995) of the (NLSCY StatisticsCanada and Human Resources Development Canada, 1995). The participants of theNLSCY were children living in their biological homes. A total of 4403 participants aged1–4 years had data provided for them by their caregivers regarding the literacy-promoting activities scale. Of this national NLSCY sample, 49% were female and 51%were male.

ProcedureOnLAC data were obtained through the use of the second Canadian adaptation of theAssessment and Action Record (AAR-C2; Flynn, Ghazal, & Legault, 2006). For the1–2- and 3–4-year age groups, the AAR-C2 is completed annually within the context of ajoint conversation between the child welfare worker and the child’s main caregiver. It isrecommended that the participants complete the AAR-C2 questions over a number of ses-sions, and the conversations often take place in any number of comfortable settings. In thiscurrent study, administering the AAR-C2 took from 1 to 8 hours, requiring an average of3 hours to complete [standard deviation (SD): 1.6 hours].

The AAR-C2 covers seven developmental domains and also contains a sectiondevoted to the child’s background, as well as a developmental assets profile. The sevendimensions covered within the AAR are: health, education, identity, family and socialrelationships, social presentation, behavior and emotional development and, finally, self-care skills. The AAR-C2s are divided into eight age-appropriate forms: birth–1 year, 1–2,3–4, 5–9, 10–11, 12–15, 16–17, and 18–21 years.

Although there were approximately 41 Children’s Aid Societies (CASs) participatingin the OnLAC project in the 2006–2007 research year, a total of 29 agencies provided datafor the 1–4-year age range. The data are obtained from each agency in the followingmanner. Upon completion of the joint conversation between the participating respondents,the AAR-C2 has all identifying information regarding the child removed, and it is then

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

1:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

138 S. Moffat and C. Vincent

photocopied at the CAS and mailed to the researchers at the University of Ottawa. When itis received at the university, the AAR-C2 is entered into a logbook and given a uniqueidentifying number before being scanned using TeleFORM into an SPSS databank.

MeasuresThe emergent literacy activities of children in out-of-home care and their caregiverswere measured in the AAR-C2 by analyzing five items (see Table 1) for the 3–4-yearage group and four items for the 1–2-year age group, all of which were derived from theNLSCY. All the items were addressed to the main caregiver, with the followingprompts. For the 1–2 AAR-C2 age group, the questions addressed were: “How often doyou (or your spouse or partner) do the following with . . . ?”. The 3–4 AAR-C2 agegroup’s prompt was: “At home, how often does . . . do these activities?”. The responseoptions were measured using a five-point scale in the AAR-C2, ranging from 1 = rarelyor never, 3 = once a week, to 5 = daily.

The NLSCY emergent literacy-promoting activities were measured using three indi-vidual items, with data being provided by the child’s primary caregiver. The responseoptions were all measured using a seven-point scale, ranging from 1 = rarely or never, 4 =a few times a month, to 7 = daily.

Table 1. Emergent literacy activities of children in out-of-home care and their caregivers.

Age group Items Response choices

OnLAC 1–2 years How often do you (or your spouse or partner) do the following with . . .:1. Read stories or show

pictures or wordless baby books to . . .?

1 = Rarely or never2 = A few times a month3 = Once a week4 = A few times a week5 = Daily

How often at home does . . .:1. Look at books, magazines, comics, etc.,

on his/her own?2. Play with pencils or markers doing

pretend writing?OnLAC 3–4 years How often do you (or your spouse or partner)

do the following with . . .:1. Read aloud to him/her or listen to him/

her read or try to read?

1 = Rarely or never2 = A few times a month3 = Once a week4 = A few times a week5 = DailyAt home, how often does . . . do these

activities:1. Look at books, magazines, comics, etc.?2. Play with pencils or markers doing real

or pretend writing?NLSCY 1–4 years How often do you or another adult ever read

to . . ., or show him/her pictures or wordless baby books?

1 = Rarely or never2 = Less than once a month3 = Once a month4 = A few times a month5 = Once a week6 = A few times a week7 = Daily

How often does . . . look at books, magazines, comics, etc. on his/her own?

How often does . . . play with pencils or markers doing real or pretend riting?

OnLac, Ontario Looking After Children study; NLSCY, National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

1:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies 139

ResultsResponses to the three items were analyzed individually according to the age group of theAAR-C2 that the respondents completed. The OnLAC results were then compared to like-aged NLSCY participants.

1–2-year age groupA total of 60 OnLAC participants provided responses for the 1–2-year AAR-C2 agegroup. With regard to the frequency of reading to their child or listening to their child readto them, almost 77% of foster caregivers reported doing so on a daily basis with the childin their care. In contrast, of the 1733 NLSCY respondents, only 27% of the parents citedengaging in reading with their child on a daily basis. Eighty per cent of the 60 OnLACrespondents reported that the child in their care looked at books, magazines and comics ontheir own on a daily basis. Comparatively, only 32% of the 1925 NLSCY respondentsreported that their child engaged in book/magazine/comic reading on their own on a dailybasis. Finally, with regard to the question about the frequency that the child engages inpretend writing with pens or markers, 35% of the OnLAC sample reported that their childin-care did so on a daily basis. The NLSCY sample demonstrated that 29% of the 1925respondents believed that their child engaged in pretend writing on a daily basis.

3–4-year age groupThere were a total of 54 responses for the three items in the 3–4-year emergent literacy-promoting activities section of the AAR-C2. Regarding the question of how often fostercaregivers read to their child or listen to them read, 76% report doing so on a daily basis.In contrast, of the 3595 NLSCY respondents, 63% reported engaging in reading togetherwith their child on a daily basis. Concerning the item about children looking at books,magazines or comics, the caregivers of the in-care population (n = 54) reported that 82%of the children in their care engaged in this activity on a daily basis. Comparatively, the2788 NLSCY respondents reported that 72% of their children engaged in this activity on adaily basis. Finally, regarding the frequency that the child engages in pretend writing withpencils or markers, the OnLAC sample of 54 participants reported that 61% of theirpopulation did so on a daily basis, whereas the 3809-person sample from the NLSCYreported that 71% of their children did this on a daily basis.

DiscussionThe results of the items analyzed demonstrated that children in care are being affordedwith many opportunities to engage in literacy-promoting activities within their fosterplacements. This is not overly surprising, as foster caregivers are provided with supple-mental training prior to having children placed in their care. These foster parents mayhave received training specifically pertaining to literacy and book reading that demon-strated the benefits of encouraging reading and literacy-promoting activities. Furtherstudies linking foster parent training to literacy would be of importance to guide curric-ulum development.

There are limitations, however, to the current study. First, foster parents were asked abouttheir home literacy activities in a conversational context in which the social worker partici-pated. This may have caused the foster parent to over-exaggerate the actual frequency that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

1:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

140 S. Moffat and C. Vincent

these literacy-promoting activities were taking place. Foster parents may have felt as thoughtheir parenting skills were being questioned, and therefore over-reported the frequency. Addi-tionally, the sample for this study is quite small, which makes interpreting the data difficult.Over time OnLAC sample sizes will increase, making it easier to formulate assumptionsregarding the data that are provided by foster carers. Furthermore, the data on which thisstudy is based are cross-sectional at this time, so again, as numbers increase longitudinal com-parisons will be possible, which will increase the confidence in the data and emerging trends.

Future directions and conclusionsEmergent literacy is an extremely important educational concept that should be consid-ered and highlighted within the child welfare system. The impact of early literacy promo-tion can be seen throughout the education of an individual child, and early interventionscan help to mitigate later learning difficulties. There are many avenues for introducing lit-eracy into a child’s life, and these should be focused on when training foster parents.

Increased training pertaining to literacy-promotion for foster parents would be a benefi-cial method for increasing exposure to books and literature for children. As well, ensuringthat foster parents understand the immense importance of high expectations, encouragementand the positive reinforcement of literary interactions for children are other avenues that mayaid in later literacy acquisition. Parents can also encourage participation in literacy-enrichingcommunity activities, such as visiting local libraries or bookmobiles. Within the homeenvironment, children may be encouraged to talk about books in their daily conversationswith their foster parents. An additional concept that could be promoted is inviting familyand friends to give books as gifts, as a steady stream of new books will create interest andenthusiasm. Another effective notion is to create a warm, welcoming atmosphere within thehome environment to encourage literary activities.

Within the larger Children’s Aid Society environment, relationships could be pro-moted with various book chains to sponsor book clubs, offer free incentives for readingachievements, as well as funding for literary events.

Children learn the importance of literacy from those around them. If the environmentin which they are raised demonstrates the significance of literacy, children are more likelyto take an interest in it, and therefore have better outcomes later in their lives. Children liv-ing in out-of-home care can benefit from the provision of a positive home environment inwhich they can feel safe and secure to learn, and hence enjoy literacy. Foster parents are awonderful asset, therefore, to help to bridge the gap in the child’s literary learning. Activi-ties that promote literacy, although they seem to be ordinary actions, are one of the bestways to guarantee future academic success for all children.

Note1. Crown ward: a child who has been made the legal responsibility of the government, generally a

permanent decision; society ward: a child whose child welfare agency has jurisdiction over his/hercare and placement; interim care: order made by the court to protect a child while waiting for afinal hearing; temporary care agreement: a contract between the custodial parent and child welfareagency not to exceed 6 months, with the goal being the child returning to his/her biological home.

ReferencesBennett, K.K., Weigel, D.J., & Martin, S.S. (2002). Children’s acquisition of early literacy skills: examin-

ing family contributions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 295–317.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

1:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies 141

Evans, L.D. (2001). Interactional models of learning disabilities: Evidence from students enteringfoster care. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 381–390.

Flynn, R.J., Angus, D., Aubry, T., & Drolet, M. (1999). Improving child protection practice throughthe introduction of looking after children into the 54 local children’s aid societies in Ontario:An implementation and outcome evaluation. SSHRC Strategic Grant no. 828-1999-1008.Ottawa, ON: Centre for Research on Community Services, University of Ottawa.

Flynn, R.J., Ghazal, H., & Legault, L. (2006). Looking after children: Good parenting, good out-comes. Assessment and action records (second Canadian adaptation, AAR-C2). Ottawa, ON/London: Centre for Research on Community Services, University of Ottawa/Her Majesty’s Sta-tionery Office (HMSO).

Gilligan, R. (2007). Adversity, resilience and the educational progress of young people in publiccare. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 12, 135–145.

Haney, M., & Hill, J. (2004). Relationships between parent–teaching activities and emergent literacyin preschool children. Early Child Development and Care, 174, 215–228.

Lonigan, C.J., Burgess, S.R., & Anthony, J.L. (2000). Development of emergent literacy and earlyreading skills in preschool children: Evidence from a latent-variable longitudinal study. Devel-opmental Psychology, 36, 596–613.

Saracho, O.N. (1997). Using the home environment to support emergent literacy. Early ChildhoodDevelopment and Care, 127–128, 201–216.

Statistics Canada & Human Resources Development Canada. (1995). National Longitudinal Surveyof Children and Youth: Overview of survey instruments for 1994–95, Data Collection Cycle 1.Ottawa, ON: Author.

Werner, E.E., & Smith, R.S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adult-hood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

1:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14