This article was downloaded by: [The UC Irvine Libraries]On: 24 November 2014, At: 12:31Publisher: 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

Guiding Young Children'sParticipation in Early LiteracyDevelopment: A Family LiteracyProgram for Adolescent MothersSusan B. Neuman aa College of Education, Department of Curriculum ,Instruction and Technology in Education TempleUniversity , 437 Ritter Hall, Temple University,Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA E-mail:Published online: 30 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Susan B. Neuman (1997) Guiding Young Children's Participation in EarlyLiteracy Development: A Family Literacy Program for Adolescent Mothers, Early ChildDevelopment and Care, 127:1, 119-129, DOI: 10.1080/0300443971270110

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443971270110

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 [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:31

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

EarlyChildDevelopmental and Can, 1997, Vols. 127-128, pp. 119-129Reprints 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

Guiding Young Children's Participation inEarly Literacy Development: A FamilyLiteracy Program for Adolescent Mothers

SUSAN B. NEUMAN

College of Education, Department of Curriculum,Instruction and Technology in Education Temple University,437 Ritter Hall, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USAE-mail: sbn@amt.mit.edu

(Received 5 October 1996)

Much literature has focused on the tragic consequences of adolescent parenting. This .paper describes an intervention approach designed to enhance intersubjectivity betweenadolescent mothers and children. It proposes that a model based on the theory of guidedparticipation (Rogoff, 1990) may enhance mothers' sensitivity to their child's learningprocesses. Further, as mothers become more adept in their communicative interactionswith their children, their guidance varies according to the context of the activity. Videotapeanalyses of mothers' exchanges with their children over 12 one-hour sessions in threecontexts (reading stories, teaching a goal-directed task, and playing with children) in theday-care center indicated that maternal interactions tended to emphasize different facetsof the learning process. On the basis of these findings, it is argued that engaging parentsand children in mutual activities that include book reading, but are not limited to it, mayconstitute the richest potential for supporting children's early literacy development.

Sakema and her 4-year old son, Kalief, are playing with insect stamps, a small blankbook, and markers:

S: Honey, look (as she draws a flower)K; Why's the honey coming out of the flower?S: Cause the bees going to be sucking the flower. The bumble bee is going to be

sticky right here (she pokes his face playfully)K: I'm going to make some bumble bees on my paper too.S: Go ahead, here you go (gives him materials) — give it a try.

Such conversations lie at the heart of our family literacy program for adolescentparents. Here, in the context of routine, playful activity, Sakema is tacitly guidingher child's participation, structuring the situation so that Kalief can participateat a comfortable, but slightly challenging level. Sharing a mutual focus, Sakemacontingently responds to her son's question, drawing connections from the familiar

119

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:31

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

120 S.B. NEUMAN

to the novel through verbal and nonverbal interpretation. Although not print-specific, these types of verbal exchanges, as previous research suggests (Beals,DeTemple, & Dickinson, 1994; Snow, Baines, Chandler, Goodman, & Hemphill,1991), are integrally related to literacy development.

This paper will describe an intervention program designed to enhance intersub-jectivity— the sharing of focus and communicative interactions between adolescentmothers and children. It will argue that literacy learning for families occur across avariety of situations, each of which involves subtle adjustments in communicativestrategies by caregivers. From these findings, the report will posit that mutualactivities which include but are not limited to book reading may offer the richestpotential for supporting children's early literacy development.

BACKGROUND

Much literature has focused on the tragic consequences of adolescent parenting(Furstenberg, Brooks-Gunn, & Morgan, 1987; Landy & Walsh, 1988; Musick,1993). Government statistics for example (Berlin & Sum, 1988), suggest that earlypregnancy tends to be tied to the parents' reduced educational achievement,marginal income-earning capacity, and welfare dependency. Children of teenmothers do not typically fare well; studies indicate that they are at high risk forschool problems, including chronic absenteeism and special education (Anastasiow,1982). Language difficulties for these children often surface due to limitedverbal interactions (Williams, 1991), leading Musick (1993) to observe, "when anadolescent is a mother, someone is going to be short-changed; Quite often thatsomeone will be her child".

Based on the importance of "investing in two generations at a time," (Schorr,1988) our family literacy project was designed to involve both parents and children inliteracy-specific activities. As part of a school district-sponsored adult basic educationprogram serving over 200 adolescent mothers or pregnant teenagers a year, theproject was designed for 30 women to attend a literacy program, two or threemornings a week for a three-month period, with accompanying day-care providedfor their young children (ranging in ages from 3 to 4 years old). Most of the mothersin the program were African American averaging 19 years old age, and all were onpublic assistance.

Prior to our intervention, literacy classes were supplemented by regular parentingsessions on issues like nutrition, with occasional follow-up home visits. Theseefforts, however, had met with mixed success; parents rarely had a voice indetermining the content or process of dieir program. Consequently, in collaborationwith the Director of the program, and staff, efforts were designed to engageparents more directly in the educational activities of the day-care center, withthe understanding that regular ongoing interactions between staff and parentsmight better meet the interests of the child, and the overall goals of theprogram.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:31

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

GUIDING YOUNG CHILDREN 121

The Family Literacy Program

Involving parents in a series of peer group discussions (Neuman, Hagedorn, Celano,& Daly, 1995), we found that mothers were deeply concerned about the educationof their children. They wanted to serve as a role model to them, to providelearning opportunities in a safe, nurturant and respectful environment. Actingon these beliefs, we restructured the daycare center program to involve moredevelopmentally appropriate activities that might engage children in the educationalactivities that parents believed were most important. For example, we constructedtwo literacy-related play areas, a fully stocked kitchen and a grocery store basedon principles derived from previous studies (Neuman & Roskos, 1992; Neuman &Roskos, 1993), with labels of common objects and environmental print prominentlydisplayed. A small library was created with low-lying book shelves, along with dolls,pillows, a rocking chair, and a fish tank to provide a home-like atmosphere fortoddlers' and young children's explorations with language and literacy. Further, asimple learning activity was introduced weekly, such as block-building, puzzles, andmaking shapes with play dough.

Substituting for parenting classes, mothers were then invited on an individualbasis to spend one hour a day in the center for 12 sessions. Mentored by staff, theywere encouraged to learn more about the educational activities of the center. Afterthis initial introduction, we held informal discussion sessions designed to talk abouttheir interactions, and to focus on developing intersubjectivity through a model ofguided participation (Rogoff, 1990), using metaphorical terms to describe importantaspects of the process (see Table 1).

Briefly, the four-part model describes the following processes:

Get set

This process involves an effort by the caregiver to structure the physical settingand activity so that children may effectively participate. It may involve caregivers ingiving metacognitive support, controlling and taking on primary responsibility forhigher-level goals while the child engages at a level in which he or she is capable atthe time.

Give meaning

In this process, caregivers share the importance and value of an interaction, aswell as communicate through affect and explanation, how this information maypromote further understanding. Behaviors associated with giving meaning includethe labeling of objects, adding affect to make the objects more understandable tothe child, and elaborating on actions or objects.

Build bridges

Once the context and meaningfulness of an activity is conveyed, caregivers mayextend understanding by linking the activity to something which is either withinor beyond the child's own experiences. Behaviors that build bridges may include

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:31

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

122 S.B. NEUMAN

Table 1 Definitions of the four processes in guided participation.

Get set• Recruits the child's interest in an activity• Gives child a reason to become involved in an activity• Focuses a children attention on something observable, "Look at this."• Attempts to keep their attention throughout an activity

Give meaning• Helps the child understand what is important to notice and the values

associated with it.• Labels objects that are seen in the environment• Adds descriptive comments or elaborations about an object• Adds animation or affect to objects to make the activity come alive and

provoke interest.• Demonstrates or models a behavior

Build Bridges• Makes connections to child's past or future, "Do you ever..."• Elicits connections from child: "Tell me if..."• Encourages-imagination, "Can you imagine if..."• Induces hypothetical, cause/effect type thinking, ' "What if..."

Step back• Gives the child a strategy for completing a task, "This is a way you can

make it work..."• Encourages turn-taking on the part of the child• Provides elaborative feedback, "No... it works this way..." "How about

trying"• Responds to the child's initiatives, "So you are you building a train"

making connections between what is going on now and other experiences eitherpast or present, inducing cause and effect relations, and moving the experiencefrom what caregivers and children can actually see in front of them to what they canimagine.

Step back

A crucial feature of participation, this process involves the transfer of responsibilityfor the managing of joint problem solving from caregiver to child. Behaviorsassociated with stepping back include helping the child understand a principle sothat he or she can take control of the task, encouraging turn-taking, and providingelaborated feedback to induce strategic thinking.

Over the next 12 sessions, mothers were individually scheduled to participate inthe Center. The staff attempted to engage each mother more in the learning activitiesthan in 'servicing the group' (Smith, 1980) type activities such as cleaning duties, ormeal preparation. She was asked to read storybooks to children; to help in a learningactivity like building a bridge with blocks, and to facilitate play with children in theplay settings. In most cases, mothers interacted with their own children; however, onmany occasions, they engaged in these activities with one or two others in the center

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:31

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

GUIDING YOUNG CHILDREN 123

as well. All sessions were videotaped using ceiling cameras, yielding approximately12 hours of videotape transactions with children for each mother. These videos wereavailable to mothers for further reflection and analysis.

RESULTS OF OBSERVATIONS

Detailed analyses of mothers' interactions with children, described in other reports(Neuman 8c Daly, 1993; Neuman, 1995), showed a growing sensitivity to their child'slearning processes. There was evidence of greater participation, and increased verbalinteraction between parent and child over the course of the intervention. Theseresults indicated that as mothers became increasingly capable of guiding children'sparticipation, they began to adjust their level of support and involvement to meetthe level of perceived competence of the child.

How the mother might tailor her responses to the context of the activity, however,was the focus of this report. To examine the potential variation across contexts, tapedsessions from 6 mothers and children were randomly selected, and divided accordingto the context of interaction (storybook reading, instruction, and play). Within eachcontext, taped sequences were segmented into two-minute intervals, equaling 7 to10 intervals for each context per session. Two of these two-minute intervals werethen selected at random and transcribed verbatim including verbal and nonverbal,or gestural exchanges. These data represented a total of 24 2-minute intervals ofinteraction within each context, representing 72 transcribed intervals in all for eachmother.

Using an adapted measure from Lidz's mediated learning scale (Lidz, 1991)developed by Lidz and Neuman (1993), transcripts were examined for the quality ofinteractions in each of the three contexts. The measure was designed to examine thefour areas of participation focusing particularly on language and literacy processes(see Table 2 for scale).

To establish reliability, several transcripts were examined by myself and a graduatestudent in Early Childhood to clarify definitions and establish anchor examples.Transcripts were then coded by one of us and reviewed by the other. Disagreementswere resolved through discussion, review of informal notes and tapes, and thejudgment of the person most familiar with the context of the interaction. Thisprocedure resulted in a high level of consistency in the coding of the transcripts.Scores were tallied across each category for all mothers, and graphically representedto examine patterns.

Patterns of Interaction in Three Situational Contexts

Once mothers involved children in 'getting set' activities, such as moving a chair ormaterials for the purposes of the interaction, they engaged children in verbal andgestural interactions that varied across settings. As shown in Figure 1, the analysisindicated that patterns of maternal interactions were influenced by the context of theactivity. For example, qualitative codings showed that maternal exchanges of giving

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:31

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

124 S.B. NEUMAN

Table 2 The Mediated Literacy Scale (Lidz & Neuman, 1993).

1. Get Set. (Intentionality): (a) getting involved; (b) maintaning child's involvement and attention to task; (c)inducing self-regulation, giving a child a reason why attention is important.

a. "Lets look at this together."b. "Let's finish this, let's pay attention to this."c. "you won't find out what happens if you don't pay attention (now giving a reason)"

0 = No evidence (for example, reading without recruiting child)1 = Some invitation, but not very consistent.2 = Getting child involved in task3 = Getting child involved, but inconsistendy keeping them involved4 = Getting child involved, and keeping them consistently involved.5 = Evidence of all three-clear initiation, maintenance and self-regulation of activity.

2. Give Meaning. Helping the child make the material come alive, through (a) labeling, (simple labeling) for thechild; (b) eliciting a label from the child; (c) labeling, with adding value and/or descriptive information.

0 = No evidence1 = Parent provides a simple label.2 = Eliciting a simple label from a child.3 = Labeling with added value information.4 = Adding simple elaboration.5 = Providing and eliciting elaborate information from the child and making the text come alive.

3. Build Bridges (Transcendence): Making connections; inducing hypothetical thinking and cause and effectrelations, moving the experience from what we can see in front of us to what we can imagine.

0 = No evidence1 = Parent makes simple connection. Relate current experience to a simple reference in the personalexperience of the child's.2 = Connection is solicited from child. A simple connection is elicited from child.3 = Parent makes more elaborated reference to child's experience.4 = Parent elicits elaborated reference from the child.5 = Parent induces hypothetical thinking ("what if,")

4. Step Back (Task Regulation): Helping the child succeed and take over a task. Includes (a) manipulating thetask so the child can succeed; (b) helping the child understand a principle so the child can take control of thetask, and (c) Inducing strategic thinking (i.e. this is how we do it.)

0 = No Evidence1 = Parent selects materials for the child and tells the child what to do.2 = Sets up some decisions for the child. Gives child options.3 = Manipulates the situation, verbally or non verbally so that the child can succeed.4 = Introduces a strategy for reading (like we begin at a farst page and go....)5 = Giving a more elaborated reason for the strategy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:31

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

GUIDING YOUNG CHILDREN 125

10

• <

Give meaningBuild bridgesStep back

Storybook Instructional p | a v

Activity

Figure 1 Quality of adolescent mothers' interactions in three settings.

meaning were highest in the reading situation. This context provided continuousopportunity for mothers to label objects and pictures, and to extend their meaningwith additional elaboration of descriptive characteristics and related information. Atypical illustration, for example, involved Ruth and her son, Barington as they reada story:

Ruth: Who's in the tub? The hipp....

Barington: Hippo..

Ruth: The hippopotamus that's right, (continues and points) That's thedragon fly talking to the mouse. Do you see the mouse? Oh, no. What'sthe mouse running to? What's that (points to picture)

Barington: (points)

Ruth: That's right — its an alligator.

In contrast, mothers' exchanges in the play context focused more on buildingbridges. As the objects became known, exchanges with children appeared to reflectevents outside the perceptual field, encouraging children's imaginations in dealingwith objects event and actions or symbolic activity as with Kalima, and her daughterDelores:

Kalima: What kind of soup is that?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:31

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

126 S.B. NEUMAN

Delores: It's tomato soup

Kalima: It's cold outside. How do you like your soup?

Delores: I'm going to add some peppers to my tomato soup (uses a block).Want some?

Kalima: Mmm, that tastes good!

The instructional context, on the other hand, clearly provided the richestopportunity for exchanges that encouraged the transfer of responsibility frommother to child. In this context, mothers' interactions seemed to provide forfeedback and self-regulating strategies so that the child could increasingly take onaspects of the tasks.

Kimberly: Are you going to build me a house?

Edward: Yup that's the flowers and this is the house.

Kimberly: Are you going to build me a big house or a little house.

Edward: I'm gong to build you a big house, a big big house. Here go the stairs— the goin-up steps.

These data indicated that the quality and type of mothers' exchanges was likelyto be related to the situation created by reading, instructing, and play. Differencesin mothers' exchanges suggested that the reading context seemed to provide thegreatest opportunity for giving meaning, sharing with children the perceived valueof objects and relationships, whereas mothers in the play context were more likelyto engage children in building bridges, helping them to employ their imaginationsin dealing with objects, events, and people. Finally, the instructional context seemedto provide a situation for mothers to hand over responsibility to children, assistingthem in mastering particular skills and reducing their levels of support when thechildren seemed able to function independently.

IMPLICATIONS

Observations of language and literacy learning in the context of family and commu-nity relations suggest that children learn the values and the uses of these culturalpractices through their everyday experiences of family life (Anderson, & Stokes,1984; Heath, 1983; Teale, 1986). In the process of arranging and guiding children'sparticipation, caregivers support and facilitate children's growing understandingand problem-solving capabilities in learning (Rogoff, 1990). Consequently, I havesuggested that the process of guided participation, which involves the tacit formsof communication between caregivers and children in everyday joint activity, may

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:31

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

GUIDING YOUNG CHILDREN 127

best describe how parents guide their children's learning more than the prevailingschool-based model found in many family literacy programs.

This family literacy program was designed to provide experiences and coachingto teenage mothers to enhance their communicative interactions in ways that mightguide children's participation toward greater independence and responsibility. Todo so, I developed a four-part model reflecting die processes of initiating, givingmeaning, transcendence and transference. The results of previous analyses (Neuman& Daly, 1993) indicated that the young mothers were able through interpersonalcommunication to effectively encourage children from the perceptual toward theconceptual, as they engaged in tasks that required strategic thinking and planning.These results suggest that the model of getting set, giving meaning, building bridges,and stepping back may be a useful metaphorical devise for structuring children'sparticipation in challenging tasks. Taken together with previous research (Neuman,& Gallagher, 1994), it indicates that tihrough coaching, teen mothers are highlycapable of establishing intersubjectivity through language.

By participating along in the task rather than simply listening to explicitexplanation or watching demonstrations, information and skills were transmitted tochildren through pragmatic communication. In this respect, the process reflectedwhat Wertsch has called proleptic instruction (Wertsch, 1979). It suggests that adultsmust lead the learner through the process, with both involved, effectively integratingexplanation and demonstration with an emphasis on the learner's participation inthe instructional activity. This allows for a crucial feature of proleptic instruction —the transfer of responsibility for the management of joint-problem-solving from theexpert to the novice. Within this shared context, teenage mothers transmitted andencouraged their young children to take on the social conventions, routines andbehaviors associated with storybook reading, playing and skill instruction. Familyliteracy programs might benefit from this kind of approach which supports children'sdevelopment through guided participation. By engaging in the process, parentsthemselves became informed by children's activity and actions.

As indicated in this report, the processes of interpersonal communication areclearly influenced by the social context. Two of these activities in this project involvedrather well-defined, goal-directed tasks — storybook reading and a learning task— whereas the play situation represented a less constrained setting. In each ofthese settings, I found diat mothers' exchanges tended to be adjusted to meet thedemands of the situation. Storybook reading appeared to best support interactionsaround the development of meaningful relations among objects and experiences.In this setting, children seemed to have the greatest opportunity to perceive orexperience what culturally denned experiences were most important to note, tocompare and to categorize based on perceptions and explanations of how eventsand objects relate. On the other hand, the play context supported interpersonalcommunication of events beyond the children's own experiences. More than anyother setting, this context supported "distancing" strategies, described by Sigel andhis colleagues (McGillicuddy-De Lisi, 1982; Sigel, 1985) as those classes of behaviorthat demanded die child to employ his or her imagination in dealing widi objects,events, and people, and to plan and anticipate future events. In contrast to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:31

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

128 S.B. NEUMAN

other two settings, the instructional task, seemed to create a climate where theadult could organize opportunities for children to develop mastery. In this setting,children's expectancies of success appeared to enhance their willingness to exploreon their own, and to take increasing responsibility for the task demands. These resultsfurther extend the work of Rogoff and Lave (1984) and their colleagues (Lave &Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, Mosier, Mistry, & Goncu, 1993), examining the adjustmentsof adult-children interactions that occur within different task settings. It indicatesthat learning is a process that takes place in a participation framework mediatedby the context in which the interaction takes place. These results have importantimplications for language and literacy learning in family literacy programs as wellas early childhood settings. If certain interpersonal interactions are supported orconstrained in different situational contexts, it suggests that a range of activitiesand practices are critical for literacy learning (adult and child). Specifically, a broadarray of activity in varying contexts may constitute the richest resource for literacydevelopment, helping to enhance rather than impede real-life literacy learning.Therefore, as we have broadened the definition of what constitutes emerging literacy(Teale, & Sulzby, 1986), so too, must we reconceptualize how literacy learning occursamong families to include the practical activity which maybe adjusted to contextualvariations. As Rogoff has reported in her extensive research (Rogoff, 1982; 1990), aswell as others (Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989), rather than assume broad generalityin cognitive activity, we must attend to the contexts in which this knowledge and skillmay develop.

The project, as well as others (Neuman & Gallagher, 1995; Neuman, Hagedorn,Celano & Daly, 1995; Neuman, Celano & Fischer, in press), once again, suggests thatteenage childbearing need not inevitably consign families to an intergenerationalcycle of illiteracy (Baldwin, & Cain, 1980; Berlin, et al, 1988; Landy & Walsh, 1988).Rather, as Furstenburg and his colleagues (Furstenberg, et al, 1987) have reportedin their longitudinal study, with educational and social service support many ofthese young mothers are able to escape the social and economic disadvantages ofearly pregnancy. It is, therefore, essential that we continue to build programs thatreach out to these families, supporting their courageous efforts to become activeparticipants in literate society.

References

Anastasiow, N. (1982). The adolescent parent. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Anderson, A. and Stokes, S. (1984). Social and institutional influences on the development and practiceof literacy. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg and F. Smith (Ed.), Awakening to literacy (pp. 24-37). Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann.

Baldwin, W. and Cain, V.S. (1980). The children of teenage parents. Family Planning Perspective, 12, 34–43.

Beals, D.E., DeTemple, J. and Dickinson, D. (1994). Talking and listening that support early literacydevelopment of children from low-income families. In D. Dickinson (Ed.), Bridges to literacy (pp. 19–40),Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Berlin, G. and Sum, A. (1988). Toward a more perfect union: Basic skills, poor families, and our economic future.NY: Ford Foundation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:31

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

GUIDING YOUNG CHILDREN 129

Furstenberg, F., Brooks-Gunn, J. and Morgan, S.P. (1987). Adolescent mothers in later life. NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Landy, S. and Walsh, S. (1988). Early intervention with high-risk teenage mothers and their infants. Earlychild development and care, 37, 27-46.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Lidz, C. (1991). Practitioner's guide to dynamic assessment. NY: Guilford Press.Lidz, C. and Neuman, S.B. (1993). A mediated literacy scale. Unpublished manuscript.McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. (1982). Parental beliefs about developmental processes. Human Development, 25,

192-200.Musick, J. (1993). Young, poor and pregnant. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Neuman, S.B. (1995). Enhancing adolescent mothers' guided participation in literacy. In L.M. Morrow

(Ed.), Family Literacy (pp. 104-114). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Neuman, S.B., Celano, D. and Fischer, R. (In press). The children's literature hour: A social constructivist

view of family literacy. Journal of Literacy Research.Neuman, S.B. and Daly, P. (1993, December). Guiding young children: A family literacy approach. Paper

presented at the National Reading Conference, Charleston, SC.Neuman, S.B. and Gallagher, P. (1994). Joining together in literacy learning: Teenage mothers and

children. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 382-401.Neuman, S.B., Hagedorn, T, Celano, D. and Daly, P. (1995). Toward a collaborative approach to parent

involvement in early education: A study of teenage mothers in an African-American community.American Educational Research Journal, 32, 801–827.

Neuman, S.B. and Roskos, K. (1992). Literacy objects as cultural tools: Effects on children's literacybehaviors in play. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 202-225.

Neuman, S.B. and Roskos, K. (1993). Access to print for children of poverty: Differential effects of adultmediation and literacy-enriched play settings on environmental and functional print tasks. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 30, 95-122.

Newman, D., Griffin, P. and Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone. NY: Cambridge University Press.Rogoff, B. (1982). Integrating context and cognitive development. In M.E. Lamb and A.L. Brown (Eds.),

Advances in developmental psychology (pp. 125-161). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. NY: Oxford University

Press.Rogoff, B. and Lave, J. (1984). Everyday Cognition. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Rogoff, B., Mosier, C, Mistry, J. and Goncu, A. (1993). Toddlers' guided participation with their caregivers

in cultural activity. In E. Forman, N. Minick and A. Stone (Ed.), Contexts for learning:Sociocultural dynamicsin children's development (pp. 230-253). NY: Oxford University Press.

Schorr, L. (1988). Within our reach. New York: Doubleday.Sigel, I. (1985). A conceptual analysis of beliefs. In I. Sigel (Ed.), Parental belief systems (pp. 345-371).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Smith, T. (1980). Parents & Preschool. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.Snow, C , Baines, W., Chandler, J., Goodman, I. and Hemphill, L. (1991). Unfulfilled expectations: Home and

school influences on literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Teale, W.H. and Sulzby, E. (Eds.). (1986). Emergent literacy: writing and reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Teale, W.H. (1986). Home background and young children's literacy development. In W.H. Teale and

E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy (pp. 173–206). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Wertsch, J. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological processes. Human Development, 22,

1-22.Williams, C.W. (1991). Black teenage mothers. Lexington, MA:Lexington Books.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:31

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14