CULTIVATING THE RESEARCH-PRACTICE

CONNECTION

Peter Hannon

School of Education University of Sheffield, England

What’s he going to talk about?

Ground clearing How the garden has grown

Six research-practice connections? Cultivating the garden

Research with colleagues at Sheffield

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

ADULT & COMMMUNITY

EDUCATION

Parent involvement in

nursery and infant classes

1970s Individual-focused adult literacy provision

Parent involvement in teaching of reading

1980s Community focused adult literacy provision

Central control Preschool literacy

initiatives 1990s Two-generation model

from USA

2000s FAMILY

LITERACY PRACTICE

Growth of FL programmes in England

Literacy-oriented educational programmes that acknowledge and use

learners’ family membership and roles.

One definition of FL programmes

•  Initial concept of FL as a set of processes, theory-driven (Taylor, 1983; Heath, 1983)

•  Term subsequently extended to programmes – a different concept (e.g., Nickse, 1993)

•  Some theory/research (e.g., Auerbach, 1989) •  Research eclipsed by rhetoric (critique by

Hannon, 2000) •  Re-growth of research and theory (Handbook

of Family Literacy, edited by Wasik, 2004)

How has the FL garden grown?

Seeking research-practice connections in six areas

1.  Learning theory 2.  Meaning of FL for participants 3.  Realism about extent of participation 4.  Outcomes for families 5.  Gender 6.  Changing nature of literacy

Other areas important but no time

The Sheffield REAL Project

•  Based in Sheffield, England •  Peter Hannon and Cathy Nutbrown •  Several phases, since 1990s •  Bilingual study, Kath Hirst •  Follow-up study, 2 yrs post-programme •  Research Fellow, Anne Morgan •  Other professionals (̃8) contributed

Research background

•  Inequalities in children’s literacy •  Literacy measures at school entry predict later attainment

•  Preschool home learning important •  Potential of family literacy programmes •  Not all parents want adult education now •  Socio-cultural view of literacy development

REAL Project questions

•  Is it feasible to develop an FL programme, based on socio-cultural view of early literacy development? (Can such a view be shared with parents?)

•  Will parents, children and teachers value such a programme?

•  Will the programme affect children’s literacy development?

•  Will it affect parents’ literacy? •  Will any effects on children’s literacy persist?

Nature of the intervention

Preschool family literacy programme. Low intensity long-duration. Offered to families in disadvantaged areas. No targeting of particular families, except in terms of area Some families bilingual (9%) Parents of 3-year-olds invited to join programme for 12-18 months before school entry Adult education opportunities offered, not required

Programme, based on ORIM framework, consisted of

  Home visits by programme teachers

  Provision of literacy resources

  Centre-based group activities

  Special events (e.g. group library visit)

  Postal communication

  Optional, literacy-related adult education for parents

Resourcing: Teachers given half a day per week to work with a group of 8 families

More details about the REAL Project

NUTBROWN, C.E., HANNON, P., & MORGAN, A. (2005) Early literacy work with families. London: SAGE Publications

Range of research methods

•  Practitioner reflections and peer interviews

•  Analysis of activity records •  Post-programme interviews of parents •  Post-programme interviews of children •  Randomised control trial to investigate

effects on children’s literacy (N=176)

Measures of children’s development (for RCT)

•  Sheffield Early Literacy Development Profile (SELDP) – Nutbrown (1997)

•  British Picture Vocabulary Scale – Revised (BPVS – II)

•  Letter recognition – Clay (1985) •  School Literacy Attainment at Seven –

total of KS1 literacy assessments

Back to the six areas

1.  Learning theory 2.  Meaning of FL for participants 3.  Realism about extent of participation 4.  Outcomes for families 5.  Gender 6.  Changing nature of literacy

1. Learning theory

Why theory?

“Nothing so practical as a good theory.”

Attributed to Kurt Lewin

Questions for theory to answer

What is is being learned in FL programmes? –  could be on a spectrum from skills to social

practices

What kind of teaching, if any, brings it about? –  could be on a spectrum from direct instruction

to (Vygotskyan) facilitiation

Practices

Skills

Instruction Facilitation

A big question How do others help us learn?

Learning is essentially social. Relatively little learning entirely individual (and even that often turns out to be social

on closer inspection). A socio-cultural theory of learning focuses

on how groups (e.g., families) help individuals acquire cultural knowledge (e.g., of written language - literacy).

Some characteristics of socio-cultural learning

LEARNERS BENEFIT FROM

Opportunities No opportunities, no learning ‒ may require materials, situations, permission, practice.

Recognition Other people provide feedback and encouragement

Interaction Wide range possible ‒ from facilitation (scaffolding) to instruction

Model Seeing how others do things; wanting to be like them.

Unpicking early literacy development

SOME EARLY LITERACY STRANDS

Print Books Writing Oral Language

Environmental print

Packaging

Adverts

Street signs

TV texts

Junk mail

Good quality children’s books

Picture books

Story books

Non-fiction

Early mark making

Invented spellilng

Writing to communicate

Storytelling

Vocabulary

Phonological awareness

Talk about written language

The ORIM framework

A way of understanding what we are trying to enhance or change in early

literacy programmes

The ORIM framework

EARLY LITERACY STRANDS

Print Books Writing Oral Language

FAMILIES PROVIDE

Opportunities

Recognition

Interaction

Model

Can we affect all cells?

EARLY LITERACY STRANDS

Print Books Writing Oral Language

FAMILIES PROVIDE

Opportunities

Recognition

Interaction

Model

ORIM not the only show in town

There are other ways of conceptualising learning (some may also provide basis for action).

See Handbook of Family Literacy for examples.

Leichter (1984)

1.  Environment – physical resources for learning opportunities

2.  Child’s interaction with others in home 3.  Emotional climate of home

Britto & Brooks-Gunn (2001)

1.  Language/verbal interaction 2.  Learning climate 3.  Social/emotional climate

Roskos & Twardosz (2004)

1.  Physical resources (inc. time) 2.  Social resources 3.  Symbolic resources

Wasik & Hendrickson

1.  Parent characteristics 2.  Child characteristics 3.  Parent-child relationships 4.  Resources in home environment

About theory . . . . . . .

All theories are limited.

Most capture some things that are important.

Choose on basis of how they satisfy our purposes (e.g., understanding, parsimony, fit with other theories, action).

2. Meaning of involvement

What it means to be involved in FL programmes can be different for – – Policy makers – Funders – Programme managers – Practitioners – Parents – Children

Meanings can be in conflict

Essential to study meanings

Outcome measures meaningless -  until participants give them meaning. Research methods need to make it easy for participants to express negative views (implies ethnography, independent interviewers)

Look at some findings from the REAL Project . . . . .

Parents views of programme

•  Overwhelmingly positive •  ‘Sad’ about programme ending •  Difficult to elicit any negative views •  Reported ‘global’ and specific benefits for children

•  Did not think it was ‘like school’ •  Would recommend it to other parents

Children’s experience

•  Children in programme group reported greater range of literacy experiences than those in control group

•  According to parent and teacher reports, children enjoyed programme

Teachers’ views

•  Strongly welcomed the opportunity to work with families

•  Cautiously positive about benefits to children and parents

3. Realism about extent of involvement

•  Take-up •  Drop-out •  Stop-out •  Participation

Take-up and drop-out in REAL Project

•  High take-up, low drop-out •  Low take-up of optional adult education

component •  10% of adults gained accreditation •  Participation rated by teachers

Levels of participation (teacher judgements)

5. Participated regularly - clear and continuing indications of activity between contacts.

4. Participated regularly - intermittently active between contacts/visits

3. Participated regularly - but virtually no indication of activity between contacts/visits.

2. Participated minimally or irregularly - very little work focused on literacy.

1. ‘Stopped out’ for one or more periods but did not withdraw from programme.

High participation

•  92% of families participated ‘regularly’ •  45% at the highest possible level of

participation.

4. Outcomes for families

•  Increasingly strong evidence of positive outcomes for children (Brooks, et al., 2008; Anderson, et al., 2010)

•  Evidence not so strong for parents (and population level impact reduced by low take-up)

Outcomes: 3 knowledge gaps

1.  Can outcomes be demonstrated through RCT designs?

2.  Do gains persist? 3.  How do outcomes vary for different

population sub-groups?

Look at findings from REAL Project.

RCT design in REAL Project

•  Full random allocation of families to programme and control groups

•  Parents’ informed consent before invitations to join programme

•  Initially, 88 3-yr-olds in each group •  Independent, double-blind assessment •  No pre-programme group differences •  Low and non-significant attrition

REAL Project findings

•  Gains for children in programme group compared to control group

•  Impact varied for different sub-groups •  Bilingual programme had high impact •  Fade-out of gains after 2 years (but not

for all sub-groups)

Effect size varied for groups

5. Gender roles

•  For ‘parents’, should we read ‘mothers’? •  Mothers appear more involved than

fathers (virtually universal finding) •  Dilemma: discourse of ‘parents’

obscures gender inbalance but discourse of ‘mothers’ increases fathers’ exclusion.

•  Need to be clear about our values and what can be achieved.

Fathers in the REAL Project

•  ‘Parent’ interviews mainly mothers on their own (a few with fathers present too, none with fathers on their own)

•  Fathers’ home involvement explored through interviews with mothers

•  86% of children had a father or step father in their lives (not necessarily resident)

Fathers: REAL Project findings

•  Visible programme participation low (9% centre-based attendance; 16% in home visits)

•  Higher involvement with child reported in ongoing FL home practices (93%)

•  29% of fathers reported to help child as much as mother

•  Fathers involved in all 4 ORIM roles (but less for Opportunities)

•  Involvement related to socio-economic status

6. Changing nature of literacy

•  The nature of literacy has been transformed in last two decades

•  So how have FL programmes changed to keep up?

•  Still oriented to paper and pencil technology and print literacy?

Sheffield pilot study of children’s home digital literacy •  Preschool children from relatively disadvantaged area •  Study led by Jackie Marsh (others in team: Margaret

Lewis, Louise Ritchie) •  Exploratory •  Re-visiting classic studies of early literacy

development in conditions of new technology •  Methodological challenge of accessing home learning •  Exploring practicality and acceptability of

collaboration with parents as co-researchers

Parent as co-researchers

•  Four parents identified through school (all mothers) •  Range of cultural and educational backgrounds •  All 4 attended meeting with University research team •  Aims and ethical procedures discussed •  Mothers’ advice sought and accepted •  Mothers used video camera, still camera and

notebook •  Support through home visits by research team •  Data collection limited to 4 weeks •  Data analyses shared and discussed

Emerging findings

•  Fathers involved in FDL but difficult to recruit them as co-researchers

•  Mothers interested and committed •  Four weeks data collection about right •  Variations in preferred means of recording •  More familiarisation with equipment needed •  65 video recordings and 325 still photos •  Wide range of activities recorded

Huge range of preschool digital literacy recorded

•  Very young children using mobile phones, laptops, digital camcorders

•  Using other equipment (dishwasher, CD player, headphones)

•  Extensive scaffolding by parents •  Singing, dancing, talking to TV •  Watching TV – alone, with sibling(s), with

parents •  Using electronic toys (‘Bob the Builder’

phone, spelling toy, ‘Buzz Lightyear’ model, ‘Barbie’ laptop)

Emerging lessons about family digital literacy?

•  Parents have been interested and committed •  Parents have added to understanding •  Potentially rich data •  Difficult to see how data could have been

collected by an outsider •  A lot of family digital literacy happening

Research-practice connections in the six areas

1.  Theory: helpful for programme development 2.  Meaning for participants: cannot be taken for

granted 3.  Extent of participation: easy to over-estimate but

can be high 4.  Outcomes: can be high for some sub-groups 5.  Gender: fathers’ involvement under-estimated but

major inbalances persist 6.  Digital literacy: FL programmes need to keep up

Cultivating the garden

Four suggestions: 1.  ‘Evaluation budget’ (10%?) 2.  Researchers to be engaged 3.  Practitioners enabled to research 4.  Critical and supportive exchange

This conference! Let a thousand flowers bloom