ppt
Flower123
Engagementwithprint-Low-incomefamiliesandHeadStartchildren.pdf
Engagement with print: Low-income families and Head Start children
JAC QU E L I N E LY N C H York University, Canada
Abstract This research examined the types of print literacy activities low-income parents reported engaging in with their four-year-old children. There were 38 parents of children involved in Head Start, a pre-school program for children from low-income families living in the USA, who participated in this study. Children were assessed on their knowledge about print. Geographical backgrounds of families accounted for some differences in the types and frequency of print literacy activities parents reported to engage in with their children. However, there were no significant differences in children’s print knowledge based on geographical factors. This research may suggest the important role of pre-school and particular parent–child activities in developing children’s early print concepts.
Keywords early literacy; family literacy; geographical context; low-income families; parent–child interactions; print literacy activities and knowledge
Children’s entry into school is an important transition in their lives and much research has focused on creating a successful entry for children (Pianta and Cox, 1999). Children who enter school more prepared in terms of having knowledge about school-based literacy, have an advantage over those without such experiences (Entwisle and Alexander, 1999; Purcell- Gates, 2001). One program designed to help prepare children from low- income families for formal schooling is Head Start. Head Start is a federally funded, comprehensive child development program that originated under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 in the USA to benefit low-income children (Zigler and Styfco, 2004).The program provides opportunities for children’s physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development at the pre-school level. There is no formal parental education component; however, parental involvement in the pre-school is encouraged. It has been claimed that children who attend quality early childhood programs arrive
a rt i c l e
151
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy
Copyright © 2008 sage publications London, Los Angeles, New
Delhi and Singapore vol 8(2) 151–175
DOI: 10.1177/1468798408091853
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 151
at formal schooling ‘ready to learn, show advanced language and math skills, [and] are able to better concentrate on school work . . .’ (Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, 2001: 3).
Early intervention can have a strong impact on children’s learning. Children that come from low socioeconomic status (SES) homes can make significant gains in their vocabulary knowledge if they have the appropri- ate opportunities (Wasik et al., 2006). It has been claimed that children from low-SES homes enter schools with less academic knowledge that is valued by schools than those children from higher SES homes (Stipek and Ryan, 1997). Differences in children’s abilities that they bring to school are often shaped by their home and pre-school experiences. McNaughton (2001) highlights the ways in which early education can capitalize on or inhibit the different experiences children bring to formal schooling.
Over the past few decades, there has been an increased focus on the pre- school years as a critical period for developing skills that are important for achievement in formal schooling (Wasik et al., 2006). Snow et al. (1998) highlight the importance of early childhood literacy experiences for children’s later school development. However, in some cases, pre-schools serving low-income families and family intervention programs do not provide an easy transition for children to formal schooling. For example, Auerbach (1995) claimed that trends in family literacy programs mask underlying differences in the goals and pedagogical approaches between program administrators and the families they serve. Pianta et al. (1999) also claimed that practices that are designed to make it easier for families are not well suited to the families’ needs. One program that has been sensitive to the needs of the families has been Migrant Head Start. Migrant Head Start operates on similar beliefs and values as Head Start but it also accommo- dates the population it serves. Migrant Head Start programs are ‘bilingual and bicultural, to fit the needs of the Spanish-speaking and non-White migrant population’ (Duarte and Rafanello, 2003: 90). Migrant workers travel from place to place, following the harvest (Rothenberg, 1998). In the Midwestern United States, most farm workers travel from southern states, such as Texas and Florida, to tend to the seasonal crops. Although sensitive to the needs of the families, migration can take its toll on the children. ‘When children’s homes keep moving and are determined by changing employment, their development can suffer’ (Duarte and Rafanello, 2003: 89). It has been claimed that migrant farm workers remain among the most neglected groups of the USA’s poor, and their children face a constant cycle of poverty (Duarte and Rafanello, 2003).
Researchers, such as Duarte and Rafanello (2003), and Ortiz and Ordonez-Jasis (2005), make crucial suggestions for helping educators
j o u r na l o f e a r ly c h i l d h o o d l i t e r ac y 8 ( 2 )
152
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 152
adapt to the needs of diverse cultural families. Some of the suggestions include building on children’s home language and creating units on topics children would be familiar with at home. The goal is to make a smoother transition for children from non-mainstream homes into a school-based culture. Indeed, by learning the familiarities children bring with them from home and bridging what is known to them with new material and ideas, ‘teachers can build a cumulative literacy culture in the classroom that draws on each child’s home experiences with print while simultaneously expand- ing the two worlds’ (Duke and Purcell-Gates, 2003: 35).
While the results of home–school connections appear encouraging, achievement gaps persist, especially with low-income and minority children continuing to be most disadvantaged and at risk (Barton, 2004). Most early intervention programs and state-funded pre-schools are targeted toward children from low-income families. Many of the children under- achieving in language and literacy at school are from low-income families. There are various reasons why some children from low socioeconomic families have limited language and literacy skills (Tabors, 1997). Tudge et al. (2003) claimed that one important factor differentiating children from lower versus middle-class families was parents’ values and beliefs about child rearing. Wells (1986) found that the low value some parents from poverty-stricken homes placed on literacy related to difficulties children experienced in language development. This was demonstrated by the absence of books and by parents’ limited use of literacy skills (Wasik et al., 2006). The use of decontextualized language (Snow, 1983) and the use of distancing strategies (Sigel, 1993) in the home, which involve conversing about things not present in the immediate setting, have also been proposed to account for differences between lower- and middle-class children in school success. Furthermore, Hart and Risley (1995) found that children of middle-class, well-educated parents have two or three times as many opportunities to talk with their parents as low-income children. Parent–child engagement in school-based activities, such as storybook reading, has also been proposed to account for differences in children’s early literacy development (Tudge et al., 2003). Mismatches between home literacy activities and conventional school activities have been claimed to account for differences in children’s literacy achievement (McNaughton, 1995).
Early educators place a strong value on children’s early print knowledge (Purcell-Gates, 2001). As print is not simply oral language written down (Chafe and Danielewicz, 1987), the more children know about concepts of written language, the more successful they are at learning to read and write at school (Purcell-Gates, 2001; Snow et al., 1998). Because home literacy
ly n c h : p r i n t e n gag e m e n t a n d h e a d s ta rt c h i l d r e n
153
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 153
relates to children’s literacy knowledge when they start school (Purcell- Gates, 2001), it is crucial that educators are aware of the experiences children have with print in low-income families. Educators can make children aware of concepts at school that are valued but not engaged in at home. Furthermore, attempts can be made to incorporate rich, diverse, home literacy activities into class teaching.
This study is situated within a sociocognitive theoretical frame that views reading and writing as not solely a set of cognitive/linguistic skills but also as complex social practice (Barton et al., 2000; Purcell-Gates et al., 2004). Within this sociocognitive frame, researchers have documented that what young children learn about written language before schooling relates to how others in their families and social communities use print (Heath, 1983; Purcell-Gates, 1996).The types of print materials in one’s geographi- cal environment may play a role in such knowledge. Street (2001) high- lighted the many ways that context can affect literacy practices and events. Before connections between home and school literacy can be made, we must document the types of literacy practices families engage in. This research contributes toward filling this gap in the research. By knowing about the types of print low-income parents engage in with their children, educators can begin to help build a bridge between home and school literacy.
Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the types of literacy activities that low-income families report to engage in with their children and to examine children’s knowledge of print concepts. The purpose was also to examine the role of geographical factors in relation to parent–child literacy activi- ties and children’s knowledge of print.
Method Participants The sample for this study included 38 randomly selected families with children in Head Start programs in seven counties of a Midwestern state. Families were from urban, rural, or migrant backgrounds. The random selection was from the pool of parents involved in urban and rural Head Start programs who had not completed high school, using enrollment information obtained by the Head Start Coordinator. The random selection of migrant families came from a pool of parents with eighth grade or less. The education level for the random selection was lower for migrant parents
j o u r na l o f e a r ly c h i l d h o o d l i t e r ac y 8 ( 2 )
154
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 154
because of the smaller sample of parents who completed high school education. An estimated 70 percent of migrant parents have less than high school education (Velasquez, 1994).This sample was chosen to explore the literacy practices of those most stereotyped as not engaging in print literacy. The second selection criterion for families was that they had a child who was four-years-old or who would be turning four-years-old that year. The reason for this criterion was to determine children’s knowledge of print shortly prior to formal school entry, that is, before the beginning of the kindergarten year. The Head Start Coordinator for rural and urban pre- schools provided a list of parents from rural and urban schools, while the Head Start Coordinator for Migrant Head Start provided a list of parents from migrant pre-schools who met these criteria.Teachers were introduced to the study at a meeting and assisted in contacting the families. Some teachers informed parents about the study over the phone, while others conversed with parents if they were present at the pre-school. In some cases, information about the study was presented to parents by a family service worker from the pre-school on a home visit. Head Start teachers played an important role by informing parents about this study. Many families did not have telephones and lived rather transient lives, and thus were often a difficult group to contact. In addition, parents’ level of education may have restricted their involvement in their children’s pre- school. The researcher had no contact with parents until consent was given for their participation in this study. It was stated to parents by teachers that whether or not they chose to be involved in this study would not jeopar- dize their involvement in Head Start in any way.
Parents were interviewed in their home, at school, or at other convenient locations, as chosen by the parent. A small honorarium was given to partici- pants. Approximately 120 parents were randomly selected to participate in the study. Results are based on the 38 parents who agreed to participate from this sample. There were 12 urban, 11 rural, and 15 migrant families. Most of the participants were mothers (34) who were between the ages of 20 and 29. Most claimed to be in their early 20s and had more than one child (35 parents). In fact, 25 of the 38 families had more than two children. There were 14 parents who identified themselves as being Mexican, 11 parents identified themselves as being American/Caucasian, 6 as Hispanic, 2 as African-American, 2 as Mexican-American, 2 as Native American, and 1 as Hispanic-Native. These data were revealed from demo- graphic questions asked at the beginning of the interview. Data were collected over an eight-month period.
ly n c h : p r i n t e n gag e m e n t a n d h e a d s ta rt c h i l d r e n
155
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 155
Data sources and procedure Data were collected from parents’ responses to questions regarding the types of print activities they engaged in and the types of print literacy activi- ties they engaged in with their children. The results presented here are the activities parents reported to engage in with their children only (see Appendix 1). The interview was based on a modified print literacy ques- tionnaire developed by Purcell-Gates et al. (2002). The items included in this study were those that were found to be most reliably documented in a previous study. Moreover, the formulation of the questions in the original questionnaire developed by Purcell-Gates et al. (2002) was based on in- home observations of print literacy activities engaged in by low-income families (see Purcell-Gates, 1996). Overall, 38 parents agreed to participate. Most parents agreed to be audio-taped and chose to have the interview completed in their home (26). Parents claimed that it was less costly to have the interview completed in their homes. Furthermore, some parents shared that Head Start personnel sometimes visited their home and therefore, it would be ‘OK’ for the researcher to visit. Having the interview completed in parents’ homes provided them with a context for thinking about home literacy practices, increasing the validity and reliability of the interview data. Before beginning the interview, the researcher made attempts to make the participants feel as comfortable as possible (e.g. playing with small children present in the home) and emphasized with the parents that there were no right or wrong answers to the questions asked.
Parents were asked 13 questions about reading and 7 questions about their writing activities with their children (see Appendix 1). Parents were also asked about the frequency of their engagement and were asked to provide or show examples. These follow-up questions encouraged parents to reflect on the response they had given to the question about engagement and may help to increase the reliability of parents’ responses. It was noted whether the parent engaged in activities with children in a language other than the language in which they were being interviewed. It took approxi- mately one hour for parents to complete the entire interview. It is import- ant to note that parents were interviewed only once and although the questionnaire is based on in-home observations, there may be some variation in study findings if parents were observed over a long period.
Children were assessed using Clay’s (2002) Concepts about Print task. Accord- ing to Clay (2002), the task taps into what learners have been noticing about written language in their lives, that is, their personal experiences with print. Some of the questions addressed by this task are: ‘Where does one start to attend to print? In what direction does one move?’ (Clay, 2002: 37). The assessment measure consists of 24 items. However, 23 items are
j o u r na l o f e a r ly c h i l d h o o d l i t e r ac y 8 ( 2 )
156
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 156
included in the study due to the misreading of one of the questions by the Spanish translator on some of the assessments with children. This measure was chosen because of its specific focus on young children’s print literacy knowledge. It was also chosen because it has shown to correlate with other literacy measures (Purcell-Gates, 1996). Children were assessed at their pre- school shortly after parents completed the interview. It took approximately 15 minutes for children to complete the task. Pinnell et al. (1990) in Clay (2002) reported a .78 alpha reliability for this measure. For the group of children in this study, a coefficient alpha of .63 was obtained. Every attempt was made to help the children feel as comfortable as possible during the assessment process. Print literacy knowledge is only focused on in this measure.
Most interviews and children’s assessments were conducted in English. However, parents had the choice of having the interview conducted in their first language, and of requesting that their child be assessed in the home language. For 15 parents, the request was made that the parent interviews and children’s assessments were to be conducted in Spanish.The researcher also consulted with the pre-school teacher about the most appropriate language in which to assess children. Teachers had agreed with parents in all cases. A bilingual assistant was employed to conduct the interviews in Spanish with those parents who were more comfortable having the inter- view conducted in their first language. The bilingual assistant had been a migrant child and had extensive experience working in Head Start in the Midwestern United States.The researcher was present for all interviews and assessments.
Many parents respected and appreciated the services that were provided for their children enrolled in Head Start. Although these parents were often difficult to reach and the researcher had limited observations of this relationship between Head Start educators and parents, observations that were made of conversations between Head Start personnel and the partici- pants seemed very relaxed. The early childhood educators seemed to be viewed as extended family members with a common interest in support- ing the child’s development. The researcher felt that she was being viewed as an extension of this relationship. Once the researcher engaged in play activities with the children present, parents seemed further at ease in the interviews. The researcher also made attempts to build casual conversation with the parents.
ly n c h : p r i n t e n gag e m e n t a n d h e a d s ta rt c h i l d r e n
157
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 157
Results Home observations/school setting The setting of the interviews in homes varied tremendously. Some parents with children involved in rural and urban Head Start lived in tidy houses that had displays of print. Some of these families were living in the home of the child’s grandparents or extended family members temporarily. Other rural and urban Head Start families lived in very small quarters, such as trailers or apartments, with many children that were sometimes the result of mixed marriages. In some cases, the researcher did not observe any displays of print.
For some migrant families, the farm owners provided accommodation at the end of their farmland or more frequently, families lived in communal camp areas a short distance from where they worked. Most of these living spaces were very small, as they were considered temporary accommodation for families during the harvesting season, which typically began in May and ended in September or early October. Some families personalized their accommodation with special treasures of their family history, while other accommodations contained only what was required for daily functioning, such as cooking and sleeping materials. Some families worked with the same farmer each year. There were a number of different types of print visible in some of the homes of families interviewed. These print materials included such items as a calendar, children’s pre-school work, school and children’s books, print on video material, adult novel, food labels, bills, and clothing print. However, the extent and availability of this print material varied and in many homes, none of these print materials were visible to the researcher.
The researcher and assistant conducted most of the interviews in the living/dining room area and in many cases, viewed two rooms in the home, most notably the kitchen and the living room area. Therefore, displays of print may have been present in other rooms of these family homes. For migrant families, often there was one large bedroom for families to sleep beyond the living room and kitchen area, which may limit the material contained in the settings unobserved by the researcher. In addition, transporting material for these families would be restricted for logistic reasons.
When interviewing parents at their child’s pre-school, a quiet room was most often provided for the interview. For most situations, this involved a simple room with a table and some chairs. Only the researcher and parents, and in some situations, the child, was present. Some rooms had print posted on the walls, such as an information poster or children’s work, and in other situations, there was no printed material present.
j o u r na l o f e a r ly c h i l d h o o d l i t e r ac y 8 ( 2 )
158
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 158
Parent–child interactions Tables 1 and 2 provide the types of reading and writing activities parents claimed to engage in with children, as well as the frequency of the engage- ment. Geographical differences are presented in the tables.
Reading activities Parents most commonly reported reading stories or storybooks to children and reading individual alphabetic letters to children. There were 97 percent of parents who reported engaging in reading stories to children. Of these parents, 86 percent engaged in this activity daily or weekly. The examples parents gave ranged from bible stories to popular children’s literature, such as The Cat in the Hat and Green Eggs and Ham by Dr Seuss, or Winnie the Pooh. Many of the parents from migrant backgrounds were less specific when giving story titles and more often reported reading Bible stories to children. There were 90 percent of parents who reported reading individual alphabetic letters to children. Most of the parents (94%) reported engaging in this activity daily or weekly. A few parents said they point out the letters when outside, such as on street signs or billboards, while a few others commented that they write the letters down for children and help their children learn them. The majority of parents reported to engage in reading messages to their children (90%) but none of the parents engaged in this activity on a daily or weekly basis. Most of the parents said they read birthday cards to children or messages on birthday cakes. Many parents read labels to children, such as street signs, store signs, labels on game boards, and food labels (74%). There were 78 percent of these parents who said they did this daily or weekly. Parents also frequently reported reading words children wrote, specifically children’s names (73%) (93% – daily/weekly). Several parents commented that the child’s name was the only thing he/she could write. The next most common response by parents was menu reading (64%), and this type of reading was engaged in mostly on a monthly basis (83%).There were a variety of examples given, such as the menu screen for McDonalds or Burger King, and ‘when we buy pizza’. Migrant parents reported to engage in less menu reading than the other groups of parents. Reading print on cereal-boxes and trading cards (55%), directions (54%), and information sent home from the pre-school (50%), particularly newsletter events, were also common activities (approximately half the families) and were mostly engaged in on a weekly basis. It was often the child who initiated parents’ reading of cereal boxes to children. ‘My child asks me to read cereal boxes with cartoon characters on them’, reported one parent, and another parent reported, ‘My son wants to know what the power of the guys are [Yugio
ly n c h : p r i n t e n gag e m e n t a n d h e a d s ta rt c h i l d r e n
159
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 159
cards]’. More parents listed reading labels of street signs than labels on game boards. Many of these parents read ‘stop signs’ and ‘street sign labels’. Migrant parents were less likely to give a street sign example or read the labels on board games. One migrant parent reported reading ‘signs such as Walmart’ and other parents spoke about ‘food labels’. ‘Cherry game’ and ‘Snakes and Ladders’ were examples of board games given by parents. Overall, parents often reported that it was the child who was interested in knowing what a street sign, a menu, or cereal-box print said, thus initiat- ing the literacy event. Reading board game directions to children was much less common among migrant parents than urban and rural parents. Newsletters were often sent home from the pre-school weekly.
Other types of print activities included reading store advertisements (44%), comics (found mostly in newspapers) (38%), school, chore, or bus schedules (29%), and print lyrics (23%). For advertisements, two of the fathers from urban backgrounds reported reading play station or video game advertisements to children while one mother commented that she ‘. . . read[s] sales advertisements to her’. Print lyrics examples included ‘read[ing] Sesame Street lyrics from the t.v. screen’ and ‘a song his sister had to learn from church’.
Writing activities Overall, parents reported to engage in fewer writing activities with their children. Helping children to write their name and the alphabet seemed to be the main focus of engagement with writing (92%) and 95 percent of these parents did this either daily or weekly. The next most common response was writing simple messages, mainly on greeting cards (49%). None of the parents engaged in this on a daily basis. There were 47 percent of parents who engaged in label writing with children but most examples given to this response were repeated from the first question asking parents about engagement in writing alphabetic letters or the spelling of words. Most parents reported writing the child’s name. When parents reported writing lists with or for children (23%), they engaged in this more frequently than in simple message writing (74% of parents reported writing lists daily or weekly as opposed to 35% for message writing). A couple of parents would write chore lists with their children and have someone else read it to their children when they were working. Less frequently reported writing activities with children included writing stories, writing letters to family or to the teacher, and writing instructions. One mother, whose husband was in prison, would ask her child for infor- mation to put in the letter to be addressed to the child’s father. Another example of letter writing was to an out-of-state grandparent.
j o u r na l o f e a r ly c h i l d h o o d l i t e r ac y 8 ( 2 )
160
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 160
ly n c h : p r i n t e n gag e m e n t a n d h e a d s ta rt c h i l d r e n
161
Ta bl
e 1
M ea
n pe
rc en
ta ge
o f
pa re
nt – ch
il d
en ga
ge m
en t
in r
ea di
ng a
ct iv
it ie
s
Ch ild
’s w
ri ti ng
St or
ie s
M es
sa ge
s Sc
ho ol
p ap
er s/
w or
k Tr
ad e
ca rd
s/ ce
re al
b ox
es
D W
M F
O D
W M
F O
D W
M F
O D
W M
F O
D W
M F
O
U rb
an 33
67 0
0 0
58 33
8 0
0 0
0 8
25 67
8 42
8 0
0 33
25 17
0 0
Ru ra
l 36
36 9
0 0
55 36
9 0
0 0
0 18
27 45
0 55
9 0
0 9
36 18
0 0
M ig
ra nt
13 20
0 6
0 13
53 20
7 0
0 0
0 0
80 0
20 7
0 0
7 20
0 0
0 A ll
pa re
nt s
27 41
3 2
0 42
41 12
2 0
0 0
9 17
64 3
39 8
0 0
16 27
12 0
0
La be
ls D ir ec
ti on
s In
di vi
du al
a lp
ha be
ti c
le tt
er s
Ad ve
rt is
em en
ts Pr
in t
ly ri cs
D W
M F
O D
W M
F O
D W
M F
O D
W M
F O
D W
M F
O
U rb
an 33
33 25
0 0
17 17
17 0
8 42
42 0
0 0
0 42
8 0
0 8
17 0
25 0
Ru ra
l 27
55 0
0 0
18 27
9 18
9 27
64 9
0 0
0 27
9 0
0 9
0 9
0 0
M ig
ra nt
7 20
7 20
0 0
7 0
7 7
20 60
7 0
0 0
0 13
20 13
0 0
0 0
0 A ll
pa re
nt s
22 36
11 7
0 12
17 9
8 8
30 55
5 0
0 0
23 10
7 4
6 6
3 8
0
Co m
ic s/
ca rt
oo ns
M en
us Sc
he du
le s
D W
M F
O D
W M
F O
D W
M F
O
U rb
an 0
33 17
0 0
0 8
50 0
8 25
8 0
8 0
Ru ra
l 9
27 9
0 0
0 0
82 9
0 9
9 0
9 0
M ig
ra nt
0 13
7 0
0 0
7 27
0 0
0 20
0 0
0 A ll
pa re
nt s
3 24
11 0
0 0
5 53
3 3
11 12
0 6
0
N ot
e: D
= d
ai ly
; W
= w
ee kl
y; M
= m
on th
ly ; F
= fe
w t
im es
a y
ea r;
O =
o nc
e a
ye ar
.
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 161
j o u r na l o f e a r ly c h i l d h o o d l i t e r ac y 8 ( 2 )
162
Ta bl
e 2
M ea
n pe
rc en
ta ge
o f
pa re
nt – ch
il d
en ga
ge m
en t
in w
ri ti
ng a
ct iv
it ie
s
A lp
ha be
ti c
le tt
er s/
w or
d sp
el lin
gs St
or ie
s M
es sa
ge s/
no te
s Li
st s/
di re
ct io
ns
D W
M F
O D
W M
F O
D W
M F
O D
W M
F O
U rb
an 50
42 8
0 0
0 17
0 0
0 0
17 8
8 17
8 25
0 8
0 Ru
ra l
18 64
0 0
0 0
9 0
0 0
0 18
18 18
9 0
18 9
0 0
M ig
ra nt
20 67
0 7
0 0
0 7
13 0
0 13
0 0
20 0
0 0
0 0
A ll
pa re
nt s
29 58
3 2
0 0
9 2
4 0
0 16
9 9
15 3
14 3
3 0
Le tt
er s
La be
ls In
st ru
ct io
ns
D W
M F
O D
W M
F O
D W
M F
O
U rb
an 0
0 0
8 0
8 8
17 8
17 0
0 0
0 0
Ru ra
l 0
0 9
9 0
0 27
0 9
9 0
9 0
0 0
M ig
ra nt
0 0
0 0
13 0
27 7
0 0
0 0
7 0
0 A ll
pa re
nt s
0 0
3 6
4 3
21 8
6 9
0 3
2 0
0
N ot
e: D
= d
ai ly
; W
= w
ee kl
y; M
= m
on th
ly ; F
= fe
w t
im es
a y
ea r;
O =
o nc
e a
ye ar
.
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 162
Geographical factors and reading and writing activities There were some differences in parents’ reported literacy engagement based on geographical factors. It seemed that most of the differences in responses were between the migrant parents and parents from rural and urban backgrounds. There were 39 percent of the migrant parents who reported reading children’s writing, while 100 percent of urban parents and 81 percent of rural parents claimed to engage in this type of reading. Migrant parents were also less likely to read directions to their child. Of the urban and rural parents that participated, 59 percent and 81 percent respec- tively claimed to engage in reading directions to or with children, as opposed to 21 percent of migrant parents. Also, fewer migrant parents (34%) said that they engaged in menu reading to their children.There were 66 percent of urban parents and 91 percent of rural parents who claimed to engage in this type of reading. None of the migrant parents said they engage in writing lists to or for their child, whereas 43 percent of the urban parents and 27 percent of the rural parents said they engage in this writing activity. Other areas where migrant parents engaged in fewer interactions with children compared to urban and rural parents included reading work sent home from the pre-school and reading print on trading cards or cereal boxes to or for children. Urban parents (50%) tended to report reading more print lyrics to or for their child than parents from rural (18%) and migrant (0%) backgrounds. Urban parents also tended to report engaging in scheduled reading more frequently than other groups of parents (25% daily as opposed to 9% rural and 0% migrant). Except for menu reading, where rural parents tended to engage in this activity slightly more than urban parents, there were no major differences in activities reported by rural parents and parents from other geographical backgrounds. A signifi- cant difference was found between migrant parents’ reports of engagement in reading activities with children and those of parents from rural and urban backgrounds:
F(2,35) = 13.74, p < .001 (β =.44).Tukey’s Post Hoc test revealed that migrant parents (M = 14.80, SD = 5.07) reported to engage in fewer reading activities with their children than did urban parents (M = 28.25, SD = 7.70), and they also reported to engage in fewer reading activities with their children than did rural parents (M = 27.45, SD = 9.83).
When parents were asked, at the beginning of the interview, whether other people in the home engaged in reading and writing activities with children, most frequently they listed their spouse, or the child’s father. More often than not, the frequency of reading and writing activities engaged in was greater for the parent being interviewed. In this study, this was most
ly n c h : p r i n t e n gag e m e n t a n d h e a d s ta rt c h i l d r e n
163
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 163
often the child’s mother. For the parents with children involved in urban and rural Head Start, some parents included an older sibling, the child’s aunt or uncle, or the child’s grandparent as engaging in some reading and writing activities with children. None of the migrant parents listed the child’s aunt or uncle, or the child’s grandparent, as being involved with the child in literacy activities. However, siblings were listed as being involved, and in two instances the mothers listed children’s older siblings as being more involved in children’s literacy activities than themselves. The frequency of writing activities was reported to be lower than reading activi- ties for all families when parents were asked about the engagement in reading and writing activities of all household members with children.This finding was consistent with parents’ own involvement in reading and writing activities with their children. In most cases, the language of the interview (i.e. English or Spanish) strongly related to the language in which the parents reported engaging in print literacy activities with children.
Children’s print knowledge Table 3 provides the type of knowledge Head Start children had about print. Children’s most common print knowledge was book orientation, picture inversion, and letter concepts. At least 70 percent of children overall knew these concepts. Just less than 50 percent of children knew that print rather than the picture carries the message. Approximately 25 percent of the children knew that one reads from left to right and top to bottom on a page and concepts of first and last. These concepts are often the earliest knowl- edge children gain about print (Clay, 2002). In terms of geographical factors, there were some slight differences in the concepts children knew based on whether they came from urban, rural, or migrant backgrounds. Children from migrant backgrounds were less likely to be able to identify a word than children from urban and rural backgrounds. Children from rural locations tended to know less about first and last letter concepts. Urban children were less aware that print carries the message than children from the other geographical areas (see Table 3). However, these differences were very small and there were no significant differences based on the geographical grouping of children’s print scores F(2,35) = .09, p = .91 (β = .01).
Discussion A common theme that came through in the interviews with parents was their interest in their children’s education. A commonality in their responses to my questions was the diversity of print activities they reported
j o u r na l o f e a r ly c h i l d h o o d l i t e r ac y 8 ( 2 )
164
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 164
to engage in with their children. For a number of questions, the types of examples given by parents varied greatly. For other questions, there was consistency in the types of examples given by parents. Sharing storybooks and focusing on the alphabet with young children has been highly advo- cated by educators, and parents from low-income backgrounds in this study seemed to engage in these literacy events. Parents claimed to read to their children frequently. This report of parent–child story sharing may be influ- enced by Head Start teachers. Parents in this study could rapidly name some of their children’s favorite storybooks. In a few instances, parents stated that the books they read to children had come from the pre-school. The level of complexity of text for children’s books is considered more advanced than the complexity level of comic books or memos (Purcell-Gates et al., 2002), which parents read less to children. The more written complexity used in
ly n c h : p r i n t e n gag e m e n t a n d h e a d s ta rt c h i l d r e n
165
Table 3 Mean percentage of correct responses on Clay’s Concepts about Print task and geographical factors
Question All Urban Rural Migrant children
1 Book orientation 90 92 82 93 2 Print carries message 42 25 45 53 3 Knowing where to start 16 17 20 13 4 Left-right across line 24 33 18 20 5 Return sweep 24 25 27 20 6 Word by word pointing 0 0 0 0 7 Concept of first and last 21 25 27 13 8 Inversion of picture 71 67 73 73 9 Response to inverted print 8 8 9 7
10 Line sequence 0 0 0 0 12 Word sequence 0 0 0 0 13 Letter order 0 0 0 0 14 Reordering of letters 0 0 0 0 15 Meaning of question mark 0 0 0 0 16 Meaning of period 3 8 0 0 17 Meaning of comma 3 0 0 7 18 Meaning of quotation marks 0 0 0 0 19 Capital and lower case letters 0 0 0 0 20 Words- same letters, different order 0 0 0 0 21 Letter concepts 71 67 73 73 22 Word concepts 16 33 18 0 23 First/last letter concepts 16 25 0 20 24 Capital letter 0 0 0 0
Total Score 18 18 17 17
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 165
family literacy practices as well as the frequency of all types of reading and writing, the more advantage for children in these homes in terms of being prepared to read and to write at school (Purcell-Gates et al., 2002). The frequency of story-sharing may provide a benefit to children’s transition to formal schooling. Storch and Whitehurst (2001) found that 55 percent of the differences in reading ability at the end of first grade for a large group of Head Start children could be directly predicted from their knowledge of print and phonological awareness at the end of kindergarten. Whitehurst and Massetti (2004: 252) claimed that ‘Head Start children who had begun to learn about print, sounds, and writing during the pre-school period were more likely to be ready to read at the end of kindergarten and more likely to be reading successfully in elementary school’. Storybook sharing, in many cases for families involved in sharing children’s literature, would help children learn about book orientation (i.e. the front and back of the book). For many migrant families, stories from the Bible would help children learn about the concepts children were strongly aware of in this study. It is important that early educators are aware that children may be learning important concepts from being read the Bible or other types of stories than the traditional storybook. If parents are more comfortable with reading these to children rather than reading children’s storybooks, then they should be encouraged to continue engaging in this practice.
It has been claimed that parents do not focus on the print when story- sharing with young children (e.g. Senechal et al., 1998), and when parents claimed to read the alphabet to children in this study, it often involved pointing out letters in environmental print, such as street signs, or directly teaching the alphabet by writing and reading the alphabet with children. Alphabetic knowledge is considered important for children’s reading success because of the association between knowing the letters names and the connection with learning their sounds (Whitehurst and Lonigan, 1998).
About half of the children were aware that print, not the picture, carries the message when asked where to begin reading. Therefore, these children had made a link between what is spoken when reading and the written symbols that represent the spoken words. With children’s strong interest in knowing what is pictured on cereal boxes and trading cards, parents could help make children aware that messages come from reading print. Other activities engaged in by parents include reading what children wrote, which would be of strong significance for children, and environmental print, such as street signs, which were also child-initiated activities. Parents from low- income backgrounds also engaged in menu reading with children, although this was less common among migrant families. Some of the migrant families were unaware of the meaning of a menu and when it was
j o u r na l o f e a r ly c h i l d h o o d l i t e r ac y 8 ( 2 )
166
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 166
explained to them they commented that they did not need a menu because they knew what they planned to order when entering a store. Therefore, many children from migrant backgrounds would not have learned print concepts from this type of written language. For those children with an awareness of the concept of directionality and return sweep when reading, in addition to storybook reading, engagement in reading and writing lists, reading school papers, and reading advertisements could help children learn about these concepts if parents draw children’s attention to the print when engaging with these materials.
Most parents claimed to engage in writing the alphabet or the spelling of words with children. Some parents commented that they engage in ‘writing the child’s name only’ or ‘in writing it [the alphabet] down for her and then she copies it’. Some parents wrote brief notes to children on birthday or seasonal cards, such as ‘[Child’s name], I love you very much’. Parents may want to engage with children in more writing activities as these are focused on in the early literacy school curriculum. Although the number of questions parents were asked about reading and writing differed, it was apparent that parents engaged in more reading activities with their children than writing activities. This finding reflects other research that reports that people, in general, engage in fewer writing practices than reading (e.g. Purcell-Gates et al., 2002). Writing semi- phonetically and writing words, word-like clusters, and/or sentences for a narrative is a part of the kindergarten curriculum (Michigan Department of Education, 2006). Parents who engage in writing words to tell a story about pictures with children may provide an easier transition for children when they enter kindergarten. The results of this study suggest that, gener- ally, parents felt that children did not need to know how to write words, except their name, before beginning formal schooling. Many middle-class children engage in writing for composing with parents or older siblings before formal schooling (Taylor, 1998). Writing stories or other prose forms with children was for the most part, nonexistent in this study. When children engage in writing activities, these help to reinforce their knowl- edge about reading, since the reading and writing process are strongly connected (Clay, 2001). Parents’ engagement with children in word label and alphabetic letter writing would help children develop alphabetic knowledge and with developing left–right line directionality. Story writing with children, although not engaged in with most children by parents, would help foster print concepts, such as an understanding of return sweep when reading and writing (Clay, 2002).
The parents in this sample seemed to believe that reading stories to children and writing the alphabet with their children were an important
ly n c h : p r i n t e n gag e m e n t a n d h e a d s ta rt c h i l d r e n
167
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 167
part of helping their children’s literacy development. Parents were surprised that the questions in the interview that asked about other types of print were, in any way, related to children’s knowledge of print. It is important to make parents aware that all of these interactions around print may help children’s literacy development. Children who enter school with more print knowledge are generally more successful with school-based literacy (Purcell-Gates, 1996). Schools may want to consider developing literacy lessons for children around the print that many children from low-income backgrounds are exposed to in the out-of-school context. In addition to storybooks, street signs, trading cards, store advertisements, directions on game boards/recipes, and lists (menu/chore lists) were an integral part of the lives of these children.
Many of the children in this study seemed to be aware of several types of print concepts. These areas are often the first to develop in experience with print (Clay, 2002). Although many of these concepts about print are developmental and children will acquire many of these concepts as they proceed through school (Clay, 2002), it is important that educators are aware of the types of knowledge young children have about print.
. . . if teachers are not expecting and watching for a gradual change towards control over all of these concepts, then some children will be practicing many misconceptions or a variety of confusions. When these go unnoticed they can be habituated and hard to change. (Clay, 2002: 48)
The print concepts children have acquired will provide a basis for print learning at school. In terms of geographical factors, there were very small differences in the concepts children knew based on whether they came from urban, rural, or migrant backgrounds. Although there were some differences in the way parents interact with their children around print based on geographical factors, particularly in the frequency of reading activities, these differences did not seem to strongly relate to children’s literacy knowledge, as children in this study seemed to be achieving at a similar level in their concepts about print, regardless of their geographical background. This may suggest that children’s involvement with Head Start was important for children’s knowledge of print literacy or that the commonalities among parents’ interactions with children, such as engage- ment in storybook or story reading and alphabetic reading/writing, were an important part of children’s development of specific early literacy concepts.
Head Start educators are encouraged to support children in learning about print concepts (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2002). In particular, there is a focus on developing phonological and letter
j o u r na l o f e a r ly c h i l d h o o d l i t e r ac y 8 ( 2 )
168
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 168
knowledge, as well as book knowledge and developing children’s writing skills. Parents are encouraged to engage in print literacy activities at home with children, which can be demonstrated by the ‘baggie book’ whereby parents support children in finding pictures that begin with each letter of the child’s name. Parent involvement in Head Start is encouraged (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2002). However, there is more of an emphasis on assisting parents in their knowledge about education and child development than building on literacy activities parents may be engaging in with children at home. In this study, the focus was on children’s print knowledge and all children would be receiving support in this area due to their involvement in Head Start. Parents in this study were exposed to some of the activities children engaged in during pre-school through parent visits or work sent home from the pre-school for children to complete. Consistency in children’s print literacy knowledge may be related to their involvement in Head Start.
Conclusion The findings of this study lead to several important implications: first, many parents from low-income backgrounds in this study reported to engage in a variety of different types of print activities with their children and the examples parents reported demonstrate this variety. This finding has become more prevalent in recent research focusing on out-of-school literacies (e.g. Barton and Hamilton, 2000; Street, 2001), where families from low-income backgrounds are not viewed as being ‘deficient’ in literacy knowledge. Many parents’ surprised reaction to questions about reading store advertisements or menus to children shows limited views of helping children learn about print. Some parents reported to engage in these types of activities because children had initiated the interaction by asking questions about print. Head Start introduces parents to many school- based literacy activities but educators can help families widen their views about emergent and early literacy by encouraging these parents to continue their engagement in a wide array of purposeful print literacy activities with their children. Furthermore, parents may be engaging in print literacy activities in which they can easily involve their children but never thought it might be helpful to do so.
Pre-schools, such as Head Start, can capitalize on children’s print literacy knowledge by incorporating a variety of print-sharing material, as many parents reported to engage in reading non-fiction text with their children. Furthermore, parents’ engagement with their children in reading non- fiction text, menus, directions, and comics, could be integrated more with
ly n c h : p r i n t e n gag e m e n t a n d h e a d s ta rt c h i l d r e n
169
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 169
what pre-school teachers are already engaging in with children. Pre-school teachers could encourage parents to engage in writing activities connected to parents’ current engagement in reading activities with their children.
Second, parents from low-income backgrounds in this study seemed to incorporate what is happening in pre-schools into their print literacy activi- ties with children. This conclusion has important implications for how we teach young children in pre-school. What many teachers consider import- ant for early literacy, so do many parents. It is important that early educators are knowledgeable of early literacy research and theory as children’s literacy experiences, and thus learning, is shaped by early educators’ knowledge of early literacy. Some parents expressed the desire to know more about ways of helping their children develop literacy knowledge.
Third, Head Start may provide an ‘evening ground’ for children with fewer print experiences than other children. Parents reported to engage in varied print literacy activities with children based on geographical backgrounds, yet children’s concepts about print were rather consistent across groups. Early concepts about print are a basis for formal school literacy learning. A comment by one father about his daughter’s involvement in Head Start:
I can see how much she’s learning in Head Start. There is no way we could afford to send her to preschool if it (Head Start) ended. She’s been learning things we wouldn’t have time to teach her or even know what to teach her . . . (personal communication, September, 2004)
Head Start may not be able to create effects that last throughout of all children’s schooling (Raver and Zigler, 2004), but it provides children with the opportunity to begin early formal schooling with greater knowledge about written language than may otherwise be the case for many children from low-income families. Many parents with children involved in Head Start in this study were aware of the opportunities it provided for children. It has been claimed that ‘the disease of poverty cannot be cured fully within one or two years of treatment’ (Pigott and Susman Israel, 2005: 101). Such children require continued support in elementary school years (Raver and Zigler, 2004).
This study is of importance to early childhood educators. This study demonstrated that many parents from low-income backgrounds reported to engage with their children in a variety of interactions around print. In addition to encouraging families to adapt to school-based literacy, we must explore the types of literacy activities occurring in the homes of low- income families. Early childhood educators can begin to build on out-of- school activities once they are aware of the types of literacy activities that occur in these homes. Schools can also make recommendations to parents
j o u r na l o f e a r ly c h i l d h o o d l i t e r ac y 8 ( 2 )
170
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 170
once they are aware of the types of activities parents engage in with their children as a means of building on what parents already do with their children around literacy. This research informs theory by providing infor- mation on the types of print literacy activities low-income families engage in with children before they begin formal schooling. This research also suggests the importance of home and pre-school in developing children’s early literacy concepts.
The relationship between homes and schools is a complex one. ‘Using and valuing what families already know in order to teach them what they do not know is a subtle process that can easily go wrong’ (Nutbrown et al., 2005: 27). This necessitates the need to specify for parents how the activi- ties they engage in with children are beneficial for children’s literacy knowledge, while encouraging parents to engage in activities that will provide a smoother transition to formal schooling for their children. Collaboration and negotiation are important for achieving a relationship between homes and schools that can support children’s early literacy development.
There were some limitations in this research. Parents were interviewed once about the literacy activities they engaged in with their children. However, the researcher made attempts to make parents feel comfortable during the interview and after several questions, when parents responded positively to a number of questions about literacy activities they engaged in, parents became more relaxed about answering questions. Moreover, there are limitations of using interviews rather than direct observations (LeCompte and Preissle, 1993). However, by asking participants to show or give examples and to report frequency, parents were aware of the need to reflect closely on their responses. The sample size for this study is small but yet it is a random sample of a group of difficult-to-reach parents. The dedi- cation of pre-school teachers, who often approached such parents, made this research possible. Another study limitation was that only one family member was interviewed about engagement in literacy activities with pre- school children. It is presumed that parents who agreed to participate in this study played a dominant role in children’ literacy development. Indeed, for some cultural groups, such as Mexican migrant families, other family members, such as older siblings, play a significant role in younger children’s educational development (Duarte and Rafanello, 2003). However, in this study, most parents interviewed claimed they engaged in print activities with children more frequently than other family members.
This is the first study to compare urban, rural, and migrant interactions around print with Head Start children. There were some differences in the types of print activities parents and children engaged in based on
ly n c h : p r i n t e n gag e m e n t a n d h e a d s ta rt c h i l d r e n
171
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 171
geographical factors that, although not clearly suggesting differences in children’s knowledge during the pre-school years, may be important for understanding later differences in children’s literacy development. Further research entailing a longitudinal study examining whether later differences in children’s literacy knowledge are attributable to parent–child inter- actions in early literacy development may be beneficial for understanding children’s later literacy development.
Acknowledgements My thanks to the families, preschool teachers, administrators, and assistants for their involvement and interest in this study, and to V. Purcell-Gates for her support of this research. This research was funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada, Award No. 756-2003-0063.
References Auerbach, E. (1995) ‘Deconstructing the Discourse of Strengths in Family Literacy’,
Journal of Reading Behavior 27(4): 643–61. Barton, D. and Hamilton, M. (2000) ‘Literacy Practices’, in D. Barton, M. Hamilton
and R. Ivanic (eds) Situated Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context, pp. 7–15. London: Routledge.
Barton, D., Hamilton, M. and Ivanic, R., eds (2000) Situated Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context. London: Routledge.
Barton, P. (2004) ‘Why Does the Gap Persist?’, Educational Leadership 62(3): 9–13. Chafe, W. and Danielewicz, J. (1987) ‘Properties of Spoken and Written Language’, in
R. Horowitz and S. Samuels (eds) Comprehending Oral and Written Language, pp. 83–113. New York: Academic Press.
Clay, M. (2001) Change Over Time in Children’s Literacy Development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. (2002) An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement, 2nd edn. New Zealand: Heinemann.
Duarte, G. and Rafanello, D. (2003) ‘The Migrant Child’, in C. Copple (ed.) A World of Difference: Readings on Teaching Young Children in a Diverse Society, pp. 88–93. Atlanta, GA: US National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
Duke, N. and Purcell-Gates, V. (2003) ‘Genres at Home and at School: Bridging the Known to the New’, The Reading Teacher 57(1): 30–7.
Entwisle, D. and Alexander, K. (1999) ‘Early Schooling and Social Stratification’, in C. Pianta and M. Cox (eds) The Transition to Kindergarten: Research, Policy,Training, and Practice, pp. 13–38. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
Hart, B. and Risley, T. (1995) Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
Heath, S. (1983) Ways With Words. New York: Cambridge University Press. LeCompte, M. and Preissle, J. (1993) Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research,
2nd edn. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Michigan Department of Education (2006) English Language Arts Grade Level Content Expec-
tations. Detroit, MI: Author. McNaughton, S. (1995) Patterns of Emergent Literacy: Process of Development and Transition.
Auckland: Oxford University Press.
j o u r na l o f e a r ly c h i l d h o o d l i t e r ac y 8 ( 2 )
172
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 172
McNaughton, S. (2001) ‘Co-constructing Expertise: The Development of Parents’ and Teachers’ Ideas about Literacy Practices and the Transition to School’, Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 1(1): 40–58.
Nutbrown, C., Hannon, P. and Morgan, A. (2005) Early Literacy Work with Families. London: Sage.
Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care (2001) Why Child Care? Child Care in Ontario:A Sound Investment, URL (consulted June 2006): http://www.childcareontario.org/library/ sound.inverstment.html
Ortiz, R. and Ordonez-Jasis, R. (2005) ‘Leyendo Juntos (Reading Together): New Directions for Latino Parents’ Early Literacy Involvement’, The Reading Teacher 59(2): 110–21.
Pianta, R. and Cox, M., eds (1999) The Transition to Kindergarten. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes. Pianta, R., Rimm-Kaufman, S. and Cox, M. (1999) ‘Introduction: An Ecological
Approach to Kindergarten Transition’, in R. Pianta and M. Cox (eds) The Transition to Kindergarten, pp. 3–12. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
Pigott, T. and Susman Israel, M. (2005) ‘Head Start Children’s Transition into Kinder- garten’, Journal of Early Childhood Research 3(1): 77–104.
Pinnell, G., McCarrier, A. and Button, K. (1990) Constructing Literacy in Urban Kindergartens: Progress Report on the Kindergarten Early Literacy Project (Report No. 10). Ohio: Ohio State University.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1996) ‘Stories, Coupons, and the TV Guide: Relationships Between Home Literacy Experiences and Emergent Literacy Knowledge’, Reading Research Quarterly 31(4): 406–28.
Purcell-Gates, V. (2001) ‘Emergent Literacy is Emerging Knowledge of Written, Not Oral, Language’, in P. Britto and J. Brooks-Gunn (eds) The Role of Family Literacy Environ- ments in Promoting Young Children’s Emerging Literacy Skills, pp. 7–22. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Purcell-Gates, V., Degener, S., Jacobson, E. and Soler, M. (2002) ‘Impact of Authentic Literacy Instruction on Adult Literacy Practices’, Reading Research Quarterly 37(1): 70–92.
Purcell-Gates, V., Jacobson, E. and Degener, S. (2004) Print Literacy Development: Uniting Cognitive and Social Practice Theories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Raver, C. and Zigler, E. (2004) ‘Another Step Back?: Assessing Readiness in Head Start’, Young Children 59(1): 58–63.
Rothenberg, D. (1998) With These Hands: The Hidden World of Migrant Farm Workers Today. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Senechal, M., LeFevre, J., Thomas, E. and Daley, K. (1998) ‘Differential Effects of Home Literacy Experiences on the Development of Oral and Written Language’, Reading Research Quarterly 33(1): 96–116.
Sigel, I. (1993) ‘The Centrality of a Distancing Model of the Development of Repre- sentational Competence’, in R. Cocking and K. Renningers (eds) The Development and Meaning of Psychological Distance, pp. 141–57. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Snow, C. (1983) ‘Literacy and Language: Relationships During the Preschool Years’, Harvard Educational Review 53(2): 165–89.
Snow, C., Burns, S. and Griffin, P., eds (1998) Preventing Reading Difficulties in Children. Wash- ington, DC: National Academy Press.
Stipek, D. and Ryan, R. (1997) ‘Economically Disadvantaged Preschoolers: Ready To Learn But Further To Go’, Developmental Psychology 33(4): 711–23.
ly n c h : p r i n t e n gag e m e n t a n d h e a d s ta rt c h i l d r e n
173
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 173
Storch, S. and Whitehurst, G. (2001) ‘The Role of Family and Home in the Develop- mental Course of Literacy in Children from Low-Income Backgrounds’, in P. Rebello Britto and J. Brooks-Gunn (eds) The Role of Family Literacy Environments in Promoting Young Children’s Emerging Literacy Skills: New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development, pp. 53–71. San Franscisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Street, B. (2001) Literacy and Development: Ethnographic Perspectives. London: Routledge. Tabors, P. (1997) One Child,Two Languages. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes. Taylor, D. (1998) Family Literacy:Young Children Learning to Read and Write. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann. Tudge, J., Odero, D., Hogan, D. and Etz, K. (2003) ‘Relations Between the Everyday
Activities of Preschoolers and Their Teachers’ Perceptions of their Competence in the First Years of School’, Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18(1): 42–64.
US Department of Health and Human Services (2002) National Head Start S.T.E.P.Teacher’s Manual. Houston, TX: University of Texas.
Velasquez, L. (1994) Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers:An Invisible Population. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED386355.)
Wasik, B., Bond, M. and Hindman, A. (2006) ‘The Effects of a Language and Literacy Intervention on Head Start Children and Teachers’, Journal of Educational Psychology 98(1): 63–74.
Wells, G. (1986) The Meaning Makers: Children Learning Language and Using Language to Learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Whitehurst, G. and Lonigan, C. (1998) ‘Child Development and Emergent Literacy’, Child Development 69(3): 848–72.
Whitehurst, G. and Massetti, G. (2004) ‘How Well Does Head Start Prepare Children to Learn to Read?’, in E. Zigler and S. Styfco (eds) The Head Start Debates, pp. 251–62. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
Zigler, E. and Styfco, S. (2004) The Head Start Debates. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
Correspondence to: jacqueline lynch, Faculty of Education,York University, 4700 Keele Street,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3. [email: [email protected]]
Appendix 1 Questionnaire for parents
Parent–Child Literacy Interaction
The following questions relate to reading and writing activities with your child. First I will ask you some background information:
What language do you speak with your child at home? ______________________________
Does anyone in your home read to or write with your child? __________________________
If yes, who, how often and in which language? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
Parent–Child: Reading
Within the last year, did you read stories or words your child wrote?
Y ___ N ___
j o u r na l o f e a r ly c h i l d h o o d l i t e r ac y 8 ( 2 )
174
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 174
Can you show me or tell me about an example? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
About how often did you do this sort of reading?
Daily Weekly Monthly A few times/yr Once a year
Quote/comment _____________________________________________________________
Within the last year, did you read a storybook or story to or with your child (such as from a religious text)?
Y ___ N ___
Can you show or tell me about an example? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
About how often did you do this sort of reading?
Daily Weekly Monthly A few times/yr Once a year
Quote/comment _____________________________________________________________
Parent–Child: Writing
Within the last year, did you write or model the letters of the alphabet, or write the spelling of words for or with your child (like the child’s name)?
Y ___ N ___
Can you show or tell me about an example? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
About how often did you do this sort of writing?
Daily Weekly Monthly A few times/yr Once a year
Quote/comment _____________________________________________________________
Within the last year, did you write down stories or other pieces of writing for or with your child?
Y ___ N ___
Can you show or tell me about an example? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
About how often did you do this sort of writing?
Daily Weekly Monthly A few times/yr Once a year
Quote/comment _____________________________________________________________
ly n c h : p r i n t e n gag e m e n t a n d h e a d s ta rt c h i l d r e n
175
151-175 091853 Lynch (D) 18/6/08 11:15 Page 175
