CS 012 569 AUTHOR Morrow, Lesley Mandel; Young, John TITLE · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 398 551 CS 012 569...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 398 551 CS 012 569

AUTHOR Morrow, Lesley Mandel; Young, JohnTITLE Parent, Teacher, and Child Participation in a

Collaborative Family Literacy Program: The Effects onAttitude, Motivation, and Literacy Achievement.Reading Research Report No. 64.

INSTITUTION National Reading Research Center, Athens, GA.;National Reading Research Center, College Park,MD..

SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 96

CONTRACT 117A20007NOTE 29p.

PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Family School Relationship; Journal Writing; *Parent

Participation; Primary Education; ProgramEffectiveness; *Reading Attitudes; ReadingImprovement; *Reading Motivation; Reading Research;Story Telling

IDENTIFIERS *Family Literacy

ABSTRACTA family literacy program was designed to bridge home

and school literacy contexts by involving parents and children indevelopmentally appropriate and culturally sensitive literacyactivities. The program's purpose was to enhance children'sachievement and interest in reading and writing. The family programwas a mirror image of a literature-based school program whichincluded literacy centers in classrooms, teacher-modeled literatureactivities, and writing and reading appreciation periods called "WRAP(Writing and Reading Appreciation) Time" when children choose withwhom to work and in which literacy activities to engage. The homeprogram had similar features to the school program: engaging parentsand children in storybook reading, recording words from theenvironment, writing journals, engaging in storytelling, and using"Highlights for Children" magazine as a home-school connectionliteracy material. Parent meetings were held monthly with children toshare ideas, find out what parents and children wanted to learn, andto give them the opportunity to work and learn together. The programwas carried out in an inner-city school district, with mostlyAfrican-American and Latino families. Children were in grades 1-3.Pre- and posttests were administered to determine growth inachievement and interest in reading. Achievement and motivation datademonstrated a significant difference in favor of the children in thefamily program. Success was attributed to the collaboration andshaping of the program by parents and teachers in an atmosphere ofmutual respect. (Contains 20 references, and 3 tables and 1 figure ofdata. An appendix lists storybooks used for testing.) (Author/RS)

Parent, Teacher, and ChildParticipation in a CollaborativeFamily Literacy Program:The Effects on Attitude, Motivation,and Literacy AchievementLesley Mandel MorrowJohn YoungRutgers University

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

111,Kis document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

El Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

NationalReading ResearchCenter

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 64

Summer 1996

BEST COPY AV

NRRCNational Reading Research Center

Parent, Teacher, and Child Participation in aCollaborative Family Literacy Program:

The Effects on Attitude, Motivation,and Literacy Achievement

Lesley Mandel MorrowJohn Young

Rutgers University

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 64Summer 1996

The work reported herein is a National Reading Research Project of the University of Georgiaand University of Maryland. It was supported under the Educational Research andDevelopment Centers Program (PR/AWARD NO. 117A20007) as administered by the Officeof Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The findings andopinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of the NationalReading Research Center, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or the U.S.Department of Education.

NRRC NationalReading ResearchCenter

Executive CommitteeDonna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorUniversity of Georgia

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

James F. Baumann, Associate DirectorUniversity of Georgia

Patricia S. Koskinen, Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Jamie Lynn Metsala, Interim Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Nancy B. Mizelle, Assistant DirectorUniversity of Georgia

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

John F. O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

James V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

Cynthia R. HyndUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore County

Betty ShockleyClarke County School District, Athens, Georgia

Linda DeGroffUniversity of Georgia

Publications Editors

Research Reports and PerspectivesLinda DeGroff, EditorUniversity of Georgia

James V. Hoffman, Associate EditorUniversity of Texas at Austin

Mariam Jean Dreher, Associate EditorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Instructional ResourcesLee Galda, University of GeorgiaResearch HighlightsWilliam G. HollidayUniversity of Maryland College Park

Policy BriefsJames V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

VideosShawn M. Glynn, University of Georgia

NRRC StaffBarbara F. Howard, Office ManagerKathy B. Davis, Senior SecretaryUniversity of Georgia

Barbara A. Neitzey, Administrative AssistantValerie Tyra, AccountantUniversity of Maryland College Park

National Advisory BoardPhyllis W. AldrichSaratoga Warren Board of Cooperative EducationalServices, Saratoga Springs, New York

Arthur N. ApplebeeState University of New York, Albany

Ronald S. BrandtAssociation for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment

Marsha T. DeLainDelaware Department of Public Instruction

Carl A. GrantUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Walter KintschUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Robert L. LinnUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Luis C. MollUniversity of Arizona

Carol M. SantaSchool District No. 5Kalispell, Montana

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research and Improvement,U.S. Department of Education

Louise Cherry WilkinsonRutgers University

Production EditorKatherine P. HutchisonUniversity of Georgia

Dissemination CoordinatorJordana E. RichUniversity of Georgia

Text FormatterAngela R. WilsonUniversity of Georgia

NRRC - University of Georgia318 AderholdUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia 30602-7125(706) 542-3674 Fax: (706) 542-3678INTERNET: [email protected]

NRRC - University of Maryland College Park3216 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland 20742(301) 405-8035 Fax: (301) 314-9625INTERNET: [email protected]

About the National Reading Research Center

The National Reading Research Center (NRRC) isfunded by the Office of Educational Research andImprovement of the U.S. Department of Education toconduct research on reading and reading instruction.The NRRC is operated by a consortium of the Univer-sity of Georgia and the University of Maryland CollegePark in collaboration with researchers at several institu-tions nationwide.

The NRRC's mission is to discover and documentthose conditions in homes, schools, and communitiesthat encourage children to become skilled, enthusiastic,lifelong readers. NRRC researchers are committed toadvancing the development of instructional programssensitive to the cognitive, sociocultural, and motiva-tional factors that affect children's success in reading.NRRC researchers from a variety of disciplines conductstudies with teachers and students from widely diversecultural and socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kinder-garten through grade 12 classrooms. Research projectsdeal with the influence of family and family-schoolinteractions on the development of literacy; the interac-tion of sociocultural factors and motivation to read; theimpact of literature-based reading programs on readingachievement; the effects of reading strategies instructionon comprehension and critical thinking in literature,science, and history; the influence of innovative groupparticipation structures on motivation and learning; thepotential of computer technology to enhance literacy;and the development of methods and standards foralternative literacy assessments.

The NRRC is further committed to the participationof teachers as full partners in its research. A betterunderstanding of how teachers view the development ofliteracy, how they use knowledge from research, andhow they approach change in the classroom is crucial toimproving instruction. To further this understanding,the NRRC conducts school-based research in whichteachers explore their own philosophical and pedagogi-cal orientations and trace their professional growth.

Dissemination is an important feature of NRRCactivities. Information on NRRC research appears inseveral formats. Research Reports communicate theresults of original research or synthesize the findings ofseveral lines of inquiry. They are written primarily forresearchers studying various areas of reading andreading instruction. The Perspective Series presents awide range of publications, from calls for research andcommentary on research and practice to first-personaccounts of experiences in schools. InstructionalResources include curriculum materials, instructionalguides, and materials for professional growth, designedprimarily for teachers.

For more information about the NRRC's researchprojects and other activities, or to have your nameadded to the mailing list, please contact:

Donna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center318 Aderhold HallUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30602-7125(706) 542-3674

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center3216 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742(301) 405-8035

NRRC Editorial Review Board

Peter AfflerbachUniversity of Maryland College Park

Jane AgeeUniversity of Georgia

JoBeth AllenUniversity of Georgia

Janice F. AhnasiUniversity of Buffalo-SUNY

Patty AndersUniversity of Arizona

Harriette ArringtonUniversity of Kentucky

Manila BanningUniversity of Utah

Jill BartoliElizabethtown College

Eurydice BauerUniversity of Georgia

Janet BentonBowling Green, Kentucky

Irene BlumPine Springs Elementary School

Falls Church, Virginia

David BloomeAmherst College

John BorkowskiNotre Dame University

Fenice BoydUniversity of Georgia

Karen BromleyBinghamton University

Martha CarrUniversity of Georgia

Suzanne ClewellMontgomery County Public Schools

Rockville, Maryland

Joan ColeyWestern Maryland College

Michelle CommeyrasUniversity of Georgia

Linda CooperShaker Heights City Schools

Shaker Heights, Ohio

Karen CostelloConnecticut Department of Education

Hartford, Connecticut

Jim CunninghamGibsonville, North Carolina

Karin DahlOhio State University

Marcia DelanyWilkes County Public Schools

Washington, Georgia

Lynne Diaz-RicoCalifornia State University-San

Bernardino

Mark DressmanNew Mexico State University

Ann DuffyUniversity of Georgia

Ann Egan-RobertsonAmherst College

Jim FloodSan Diego State University

Dana FoxUniversity of Arizona

Linda GambrellUniversity of Maryland College Park

Mary GrahamMcLean, Virginia

Rachel GrantUniversity of Maryland College Park

Barbara GuzzettiArizona State University

Frances HancockConcordia College of Saint Paul,

Minnesota

Kathleen HeubachUniversity of Georgia

Sally Hudson-RossUniversity of Georgia

Cynthia HyndUniversity of Georgia

Gay IveyUniversity of Georgia

David JardineUniversity of Calgary

Robert JimenezUniversity of Oregon

Michelle KellyUniversity of Utah

James KingUniversity of South Florida

Kate KirbyGwinnett County Public Schools

Lawrenceville, Georgia

Linda LabboUniversity of Georgia

Michael LawUniversity of Georgia

Donald T. LeuSyracuse University

Susan LytleUniversity of Pennsylvania

Bert ManginoLas Vegas, Nevada

Susan MazzoniBaltimore, Maryland

Ann Dacey McCannUniversity of Maryland College Park

Sarah McCartheyUniversity of Texas at Austin

Veda McClainUniversity of Georgia

Lisa McFallsUniversity of Georgia

Randy McGinnisUniversity of Maryland

Mike McKennaGeorgia Southern University

Barbara MichaloveFowler Drive Elementary School

Athens, Georgia

Elizabeth B. MojeUniversity of Utah

Lesley MorrowRutgers University

Bruce MurrayUniversity of Georgia

Susan NeumanTemple University

John O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

Marilyn Ohlhausen-McKinneyUniversity of Nevada

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

Barbara M. PalmerMount Saint Mary's College

Stephen PhelpsBuffalo State College

Mike PickleGeorgia Southern University

Amber T. PrinceBerry College

Gaoyin QianLehman College-CUNY

Tom ReevesUniversity of Georgia

Lenore Rix' TierNew York University

Mary RoeUniversity of Delaware

Nadeen T. RuizCalifornia State University-

Sacramento

Olivia SarachoUniversity of Maryland College Park

Paula SchwanenflugelUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Betty ShockleyFowler Drive Elementary School

Athens, Georgia

Wayne H. SlaterUniversity of Maryland College Park

Margaret SmithLas Vegas, Nevada

Susan SonnenscheinUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

7

Bernard SpodekUniversity of Illinois

Bettie St. PierreUniversity of Georgia

Steve StahlUniversity of Georgia

Roger StewartUniversity of Wyoming

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research

and Improvement

Louise TomlinsonUniversity of Georgia

Bruce VanSledrightUniversity of Maryland College Park

Barbara WalkerEastern Montana University-Billings

Louise WaynantPrince George's County Schools

Upper Marlboro, Maryland

Dera WeaverAthens Academy

Athens, Georgia

Jane WestAgnes Scott College

Renee WeisburgElkins Park, Pennsylvania

Allan WigfieldUniversity of Maryland College Park

Shelley WongUniversity of Maryland College Park

Josephine Peyton YoungUniversity of Georgia

Hallic YoppCalifornia State University

About the Authors

Lesley Mandel Morrow is Professor in theDepartment of Learning and Teaching, and Coordi-nator of the Graduate Programs in Early Child-hood/Elementary Education in the Graduate Schoolof Education, Rutgers University. She received herPh.D. from Fordham University. Her researchfocuses on early literacy, literacy environments,collaborative learning experiences, and diversity inthe classroom. She has numerous publications injournals, book chapters, and books. One of hermost recent books is the 3rd edition of LiteracyDevelopment in the Early Years: Helping ChildrenRead and Write (Allyn and Bacon, 1997). Dr.Morrow received the International Reading Asso-ciation's Elva Knight Research Grant Award twice,and the National Council of Teachers of EnglishResearch Foundation Award twice. She is presentlyon the Board of Directors for the InternationalReading Association and a principal investigatorwith the National Reading Research Center.

John W. Young is an Associate Professor in theDepartment of Educational Psychology at RutgersUniversity. He received his Ph.D. in educationalresearch from Stanford University in 1989. Apsychometrician by training, his principal line ofresearch focuses on the validity of standardizedadmissions tests for different populations of exami-nees. He has published in several leading journalsincluding Applied Measurement in Education,Educational and Psychological Measurement,Journal of Educational Measurement, and Reviewof Educational Research. He has served as acommittee member and chair for the AmericanEducational Research Association and the NationalCouncil on Measurement in Education.

National Reading Research CenterUniversities of Georgia and MarylandReading Research Report No. 64Summer 1996

Parent, Teacher, and Child Participation in aCollaborative Family Literacy Program:

The Effects on Attitude, Motivation,and Literacy Achievement

Lesley Mandel MorrowJohn W. YoungRutgers University

Abstract. The Family Literacy Program describedin this study was designed to bridge home andschool literacy contexts by involving parents indevelopmentally appropriate andculturally sensitiveliteracy activities with their children. The purpose ofthe program was to enhance children's achievementand interest in reading and writing. The familyprogram was a mirror image of a literature-basedschool program which included, literacy centers inclassrooms, teacher-modeled literature activities,and writing and reading appreciation periods calledWRAP Time when children choose whom to workwith and in which literacy activities to engage. Thehome program had similar features to the schoolprogram: engaging parents and children in story-book reading, recording very own words from theenvironment, writingjournals, engaging instorytell-ing, and the use of Highlights for Children maga-zine as a home-school connection literacy material.Parent meetings were held monthly with children toshare ideas, find out what parents and childrenwanted to learn, and to give them the opportunity towork and learn together. The program was carriedout in an inner-city school district, which includedmostly African-American and Latino families. The

1

9

children were in the first through third grades. Pre-and posttests were administered to determine growthin achievement and interest in reading. The achieve-ment and motivation data demonstrated a significantdifference in favor of the children in the familyprogram. Success was attributed to the collabora-tion and shaping of the program by parents andteachers in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

A child's success in school literacy pro-grams often depends upon the experiences theyhave had at home prior to coming to school.Many children come to school reading andwriting without formal instruction. The charac-teristics of these children and their homes havebeen investigated. This line of study has re-vealed home practices that could be successfulin school settings; and information concerningthe crucial role a family plays in the develop-ment of their children's literacy (Clark, 1984;Cochran-Smith, 1984; Morrow, 1993; Teale,1984). Other similar research also points outthat literacy experiences practiced in somehomes are not congruent with literacy activitiesencountered in school. Despite the fact that

2 Morrow and Young

literacy behaviors are present in one form oranother in most families, the type of events thatsome parents share with their children- mayhave little influence on school success. Con-versely, the kinds of literacy practiced inclassrooms may have little meaning for thosechildren or their parents (Auerbach, 1989;Heath, 1983; Morrow & Paratore, with Gaber,Harrison, & Tracey, 1993; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988).

With this conflict, it is difficult for someparents to integrate school-based literacy eventsinto their homes. Therefore, we must learnabout the literacy that occurs in homes fromdiverse cultural backgrounds and how theseparents and children share literacy on a dailybasis. We need to explore how such events canserve school learning. Rather than approachingparents who speak languages other than Englishand those who have not acquired mainstreamliteracy skills from a deficit point of view, weneed to identify and build first upon thestrengths they possess from their culturalbackgrounds. We must respect and understandcultures in which no books exist, but in whichstory-telling, for example, is a strong part ofthe culture and an important literacy behavior,as well as cultures in which print is a dominantfeature. According to Delgado-Gaiten (1990),parents with both high and low levels of educa-tion recognize the importance of a positivehome literacy environment. Parents with lesseducation, however, need to be informed aboutcommunity resources and shown how they canbe role models for their children. In her re-search, Delgado-Gaiten (1987) found thatparents who participated in school activitiesand family literacy programs realized that they

were an important link in their children'seducation. She also found that the parents whodid not participate did not see the activities asimportant and felt the teacher was in chargewhen their children were at school. Whenparents from diverse backgrounds are helped tocommunicate with school personnel, they cancollaborate with teachers to contribute tochildren's growth (Casanova, 1987; Chavkin,& Williams, 1993). If we do not attend to thehome when we plan literacy programs, what-ever strategies we design for the school willnever be completely successful. Therefore,family literacy programs are necessary forhelping parents understand how important theyare in the literacy development of their chil-dren. We need to help parents realize that theydo have skills to share with their children fromtheir own cultures, and to empower them withnew skills that will enhance their understandingof literacy development. It is possible to pro-vide programs that are sensitive to diversecultures by using the resources already withinthe family, and by providing additional strate-gies for parents to help their children. Mostimportantly, for programs to be successful theymust include a certain amount of reciprocity,equality, and respect between those involved(Hale, 1982).

The purpose for this study was to heightenthe awareness of parents, children, and teach-ers concerning the importance of the role theyall play together in the literacy development ofchildren. We were interested in the effects ofthis family literacy program on the enhance-ment of achievement, and motivating the desireto read and write on the part of children. Wehoped to enhance parent self-confidence about

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 64

10

Family Literacy 3

their ability to help. The program was designedto be sensitive to diverse cultures by usingresources already within the family such asstorytelling and print in the environment, andby empowering parents with new skills toprovide them with a greater understanding ofliteracy development. Teachers provided col-laborative activities that formed a link betweenhome and school. Parent input into the pro-gram was an important concern. The studyspecifically sought to determine what theimpact of the family literacy program had on:(a) children's literacy achievement at school;(b) children's interest in reading and writingbased on teachers' ratings and their participa-tion in literacy activities at home; (c) children'sand adults' interest in working together athome; and (d) the attitudes of teachers, chil-dren, and parents toward the family literacyprogram.

Method

Subjects

The subjects in the study. were childrenfrom two first (N = 18), two second (N = 18),and two third grades (N = 18), which wererandomly assigned to one experimental and onecontrol group. Nine children were randomlyselected from each classroom for a total of 54children, with 27 in the experimental group and27 in the control. The study took place in anurban public school district where many areconsidered "at risk," with 98 % of the childrenfrom minority backgrounds (African Americanand Latino) and 2 % Caucasian.

Treatment

The study was carried out for an entireschool year. Subjects in the experimental groupreceived a home and school-based program andsubjects in the control group received theschool-based program only.

The family literacy program, entitled TheFamily WRAP Program (Writing and ReadingAppreciation for Parents and Pupils), was de-signed to provide a mirror image of a programwe organized in the school the year before.The school program was called the WRAPProgram (Writing and Reading AppreciationProgram)' and was designed to promote inter-est in reading and writing. We wanted tomotivate children to read voluntarily for plea-sure and for information. We wanted childrento be able to approach literacy as a socialactivity, by engaging in reading and writingwith children and adults, and seeking the helpof others to achieve goals.

Description of the School WRAP Program.This literature-based reading and writing pro-gram included classroom literacy centers witha variety of literacy activities available for chil-dren. Materials found in the classroom centerswere open-faced bookshelves for featuredbooks, and regular bookshelves that hold fiveto eight books per child at three to four gradelevels, representing varied genres of children'sliterature. The books could be checked out totake home from the classroom library. Pillows,rugs, stuffed animals, and rocking chairs added

'Gloria Lettenberger, a first-grade ESL teacher inRedshaw school where this program took place, thoughtof the term WRAP Time for the school program.


4 Morrow and Young

comfort to the area. Manipulatives such asfeltboards with story characters and tapedstories with headsets were available for thechildren's use. There was an "Authors' Spot"equipped with paper, blank booklets, andwriting utensils.

The teacher modeled activities to createinterest in books by reading aloud and tellingstories using techniques such as chalk talks, feltstories, puppet stories, and so forth. Childrenengaged in story retelling and rewriting, creat-ing original stories, and sharing books read.Activities emphasized in the program included:journal writing, collecting Very Own Words,and learning elements of story structure, stylesof authors and illustrators, and literal andinterpretive discussions related to stories.Highlights for Children magazines were usedregularly in all classrooms as the one of thehome-school connection literacy materials.'

WRAP (Writing and Reading Apprecia-tion) Time occurred three to five times a weekand provided children with the opportunity tochoose from a variety of literacy activities.Children could choose to read a book or theHighlights for Children magazine, read to afriend, listen to a taped story, tell a story withthe feltboard, write in their journal, and soforth. The 30 to 40 min WRAP Time gavestudents choices within a structure. For in-stance, children could choose to work alone orwith others. They were expected to completetasks and present them.

The elements of the School WRAP Pro-gram that provided the same activities in school

'The Highlights magazines in this project weredonated by Highlights for Children.

that would happen at home included: (1) Teach-ers reading stories to the class; (2) teachersengaging students in storytelling using tech-niques such as puppets, and props; (3) journalwriting about daily activities; (4) recording andpracticing "Very Own Words" from print inthe environment; (5) featuring sections of themagazine Highlights for Children; and (6)WRAP Time, a period set aside for children toengage in reading and writing activities insocial settings with their peers, the teacher, andparents.

Description of the Family WRAP Program.Prior to designing the program, we had inter-viewed the teachers, parents, and childrenabout what they believed should be included ina family program and what goals they hopedwould be achieved. In general, they wereinterested in many of the same goals thatteachers had for children. Parents valuedachievement for their children, and wanted toknow how to help them succeed. They wantedto work with the teachers to help their childrenbecome independent learners. The results weresimilar to research carried out by others (Chav-kin & Williams, 1993; Neuman, Hagedorn,Celano, & Daly, 1995). Children wanted thehelp of their parents so they could do better inschool, and teachers believed that parentsshould be partners in the literacy developmentof their children. The purpose of FamilyWRAP Program was to provide a collaborativeeffort between home and school. Therefore,the family program had similar goals as theschool program. One way that we believed thiscould be done was to create a mirror image ofthe school program designed to motivate chil-dren to read and write voluntarily for pleasure


12

Family Literacy 5

and for information. We wanted children toapproach literacy as a social activity, by engag-ing in reading and writing with family mem-bers. Many of the same materials provided forthe school program were also provided forparents. We wanted a home program that waspleasurable and familiar for children. As par-ents introduced activities, children could relateto them since they had been done in school. Ifparents had limited literacy ability or did notspeak English, children could help with theactivities for the home program because theywere familiar with them from their participa-tion at school. Teachers initiated the programfor home, and the home program supportedwhat was happening in school. Parent inputwas considered important in shaping the pro-gram as it progressed; but to begin, we felt weneeded a framework.

Materials and activities for the ParentWRAP Program. Each parent received a shop-ping bag of materials that contained itemssimilar to those used in the school WRAPProgram as follows: (1) A storyboard forstorytelling; (2) two spiral notebooks for jour-nal writing; (3) a file box with blank 3 x 5cards for recording "Very Own Words"; (4) aHighlights for Children magazine; and (5) aParent WRAP Program Handbook.

The Family WRAP Program consisted ofthe following activities:1. Reading to and with your child often,listening to your child read, reading togetherside by side, talking about what was read.2. Storytelling about family experiences,telling stories from books and original stories.Using techniques such as puppets, and props

for story telling as well. Parents receivedstoryboards made of corrugated cardboard.The triangular-shaped material had a piece offelt on one side and the other was designed forroll stories. The storyboard also served as apuppet stage. Each parent received story char-acters made of felt, stick puppets with accom-panying storybooks to use with their story-board. They were also given roll paper (whiteshelving paper from the supermarket) to createroll stories. Children could write and drawtheir own stories or recreate stories they hadread by making felt figures, stick puppets, orroll stories. The parent packet also included abook of chalktalkssimple stories that are readand drawn at the same timeand a book of tipsfor storytelling.3. Writing in Journals together in the twospiral notebooks provided. Parents and chil-dren could write stories, write things they dideach day, make shopping lists, draw pictures,copy writing from a book, or write about howit felt to work with your child or parent.4. Record "Very Own Words" in the filebox provided containing blank 3 x 5 cards.Children select the words from print within thehome, community, or from school work. Makechildren aware of print all around them bypointing it out inside and outside of yourhome. Read mail, road signs, store signs, anddirections on medicine. Children and parentsare to read the "Very Own Words," copythem, and use them when writing stories orwriting in their journals.5. The Highlights for Children magazinewas given to each child by his or her classroomteacher to take home to their family. Anothercopy of the same magazine remained in school


13

6 Morrow and Young

to work with there. A looseleaf notebook thatincluded lessons for using the magazine wasprovided for parents and teachers. This wasone of the literacy materials in common in thehome and school. Lessons for using the High-lights were given to the teachers to use inschool first, so that the children would recog-nize the activities when doing them at homewith their parents. Children could show parentswith limited literacy ability what to do withHighlights since they had worked with them atschool. An excellent feature of the magazine isthat there is something for everyone, all inter-ests and abilities. It was nonthreatening since itwas not like school materials, and many of itsstories and activities included content aboutdifferent cultural backgrounds. The magazinewas sent home with the child instead of usinga subscription through the mail, since many ofthe families we worked with moved frequently,and oftentimes many different people live inone household. If the magazine was mailed tothe home, we could not be sure that the child inthe program would receive it.6. Participate in WRAP Time periods atschool set aside for children to read and writeindependently of the teacher in social settingswith others.

In addition we asked parents to do thefollowing:1. Find a place for the family program mate-rials in your home so children can use themeasily.2. Attend monthly group meetings with otherparents and occasional meetings on a one-to-one basis with a mentor. The mentor was aUniversity student pursuing certification ineducation. At our first monthly meeting with

parents, some of the materials were distributedwith demonstrations of how to use them. Wemodeled new activities at subsequent meetings,but always from the list we just described.Parents were given the opportunity to sharethings they had done with their children. Theyalso discussed what they might like to haveadded to the program or deleted. Their inputwas valued. At the end of the meeting, thechildren and parents did activities together.Children also told what they had done withtheir parents.3. Keep records of activities done on thesheets provided and share what you do with thegroup.

The Parent Handbook, entitled The FamilyWRAP TIME PROGRAM, was part of theprogram material mentioned earlier. Thishandbook was a guide explaining the importantrole that parents play in the literacy develop-ment of their child. The book included somesuggestions about parents working with chil-dren and guidelines for the WRAP Program.

The contents of the booklet included asection entitled, "Materials For Parents,"which we described earlier, and "Guidelinesfor the Family WRAP Program." The nextsection in the book was called "Things To LookFor And Have In Your Home." The list includ-ed such items as scissors, tape, pencils, paper,space for children to work, magazines, news-papers, and children's books. The last twosections were lists of Things To Do With YourChild At Home such as read or look at bookstogether, tell stories, watch TV together andtalk about what you watched, let your child seeyou reading books, magazines and newspapers,and make your child aware of print in the


14

Family Literacy 7

home. Next was a list of Things To Do WithYour Child Outside Your Home, such as: visitthe library and take out books; go on outingstogether to the supermarket, post office, orzoo, and note the print all around. The nextsection in the book was called "Things To Doand Say To Make Your Child Feel Good AboutThemselves, About You, and Reading andWriting." Here we suggest that parents answerchildren's questions about reading and writing;reward reading and writing activities withwords such as, "What nice work you do,""I'm happy to see you are reading or writing,"or "Can I help you?"; display your child'swork at home; attend parent conferences atschool; attend school if your child is in a play;and attend other parent events.

Measurements

Several measurements were administered,some individually and some as a group. Mea-sures were used to determine literacy achieve-ment, motivation or interest in reading andwriting, and increased reading at home andwith adults. Interview and anecdotal data deter-mined parents', teachers', and children'sattitudes toward the family literacy program.This data also provided us with stories aboutthe families we worked with to illustrate howparticipation affected them.

To determine children's growth in achieve-ment, the following measures were used: aStory Retelling Test, a Story Rewriting Test, aProbed Comprehension Test, and the Cali-fornia Test of Basic Skills. Teachers ratedchildren to determine increased interest andmotivation for reading and writing. Finally,

children were interviewed to determine in-creased reading at home and with adults.

Story Retelling and Rewriting tests wereused since they are holistic measures of com-prehension which demonstrate retention offacts, as well as the ability to construct mean-ing by retelling text. These tests tap literalknowledge of stories, specific elements of storystructure, and story sequencing. For the StoryRetelling and Story Rewriting tests, two differ-ent storybooks were used: one for the pretestand one for the posttest (see Appendix A fortitles). These were chosen for quality of plotstructure, including strongly delineated charac-ters, definite setting, clear theme, obvious plotepisodes, and definite resolution. The storieswere similar in number of pages and words.Testing books were selected with attention toresearch on children's preferences in books(Monson & Sebesta, 1991). Research assistantsadministered the Story Retelling tests on anindividual basis. Story Rewriting tests wereadministered to whole groups by classroomteachers. When taking the story retelling andrewriting tests, children listen to a story that isread to them. They are asked to retell it orrewrite it as if they are doing it for a friendwho had never before heard the story. Noprompts are given with the rewriting test. Inthe oral retelling, which is tape recorded,prompts are limited to "Then what happened?"or "What comes next?" Both written and oralretellings are evaluated for the inclusion ofstory structure elements: setting, theme, plotepisodes, and resolution. A child receivedcredit for partial recall or for understanding thegist of a story event (Pellegrini & Galda, 1982;Thorndyke, 1977). The scorers observed se-


15

8 Morrow and Young

quence by comparing the order of events in thechild's retelling with that in the original byconstructing a meaningful presentation. Theinterrater reliability of the scoring scheme(roughly 90%) and the overall validity of themeasures have been established in previousinvestigations with children from diverse back-grounds (Morrow, 1992; Morrow & Smith,1990). For this study, seven coders scored sixprotocols with 92% agreement for story retell-ing and 96% for story rewriting.

Probed Recall Comprehension tests wereadministered individually by research assistantsafter reading a story to the child (testing booktitles are in Appendix A). The test includedeight traditional comprehension questionsfocusing on detail, cause and effect, inference,and making critical judgments, plus eightquestions focusing on story structure: setting,theme, plot episodes, and resolution. Researchassistants read the questions and recordedchildren's answers. This instrument was reli-able in the range of 92 % in previous researchwith children from similar diverse backgrounds(Morrow, O'Connor, & Smith, 1990). In thisstudy, six coders scored the five pre- andposttests with 92% agreement.

The Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills(California Testing Bureau, 1981), a standard-ized instrument, had been administered by thedistrict in April of the year before the studyand was again administered in April of the yearin which the study was completed. The readingsubtest was included in the results reportedhere.

Teacher rating of children's ability andinterest in reading and writing was accom-plished by asking teachers to rate the reading

and writing ability and interest of the childrenin the study on a scale from 1 to 5. One wasthe lowest rating and 5 the highest. This mea-sure was a way of determining increasedachievement and motivation or interest inreading and writing.

After-school activities and family involve-ment information was collected through inter-views with the children about their after-schoolactivities with and without family members.This was to determine if the program had aneffect on children's increased interest or moti-vation to read at home and to select to do itwith a grown up. It was also administered tosee if adult family members involved in theprogram were choosing to work with thechildren.

Attitudes toward the family literacy pro-gram were determined through interviews withteachers, parents, and children. Anecdotal dataalong with interviews allowed us to collectstories about some of the families with whomwe worked, and to find the effect that partici-pation had on them.

Results

The quantitative measures were analyzedusing analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) withpretest scores as the covariate, treatment condi-tion (experimental or control) as the maineffect of interest, and posttest scores as thedependent variable.

Literacy Achievement and Motivationor Interest

Table 1 presents the pre- and posttestmeans and standard deviations for the literacy


16

Family Literacy 9

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Literacy Achievement Measures

Group

Family Group Contro Group

Pretest (SD) Posttest' (SD) Pretest (SD) Posttest' (SD)

Story Retelling 8.48 (3.08) 11.04 (3.02) 7.67 (2.92) 8.95 (2.63)

Story Rewriting 3.74 (3.31) 9.06 (2.57) 2.66 (2.65) .76 (2.85)

Probed Comprehension 19.67 (3.75) 23.31 (3.38) 17.83 (6.51) 19.77 (6.29)

Comprehensive Testof Basic SkillsReading Section 50.61 (17.37) 60.11 (18.21) 39.85 (15.79) 45.42 (14.47)

Teaching Rating ofReading andWriting Ability 2.41 (0.95) 3.92 (0.82) 2.48 (1.10) 2.50 (0.88)

Teacher Rating ofReading andWriting Interest 2.62 (0.90) 4.12 (0.88) 2.81 (1.13) 2.91 (0.93)

Note. Posttest means are adjusted for pretest scores. The two groups consist of three classrooms each. Ninechildren were randomly selected from each room and tested or evaluated on pre- and posttests. Means andstandard deviations reported here are based on n = 54.a' bFamily Group Posttest scores are significantly different (p < .05) from posttest scores in the ControlGroup.

and interest measures. The ANCOVA for thetotal score on the Story Retelling measure,F(1,53) = 20.17, p < .001, showed that theexperimental group scored significantly betterthan the control. The ANCOVA for the totalscore on the Story Rewriting test, F(1,53) =41.71, p < .001, indicated that the experi-mental group scored significantly better thanthe control group. The ANCOVA for theProbed Recall Comprehension Test, F(1,53) =14.99, p < .001 demonstrated that the experi-mental group scored significantly better thanthe control on this measure. On the CaliforniaTest of Basic skills, the experimental group did

better than the control with an ANCOVA ofF(1,53) = 27.15, p < .001. Finally, theresults of the teacher ratings of children'sability and interest in reading and writingfound that the teachers rated children in theexperimental group as increasing more in theirreading and writing ability, F(1,53) = 50.58,p <.001, and their reading and writing inter-est, F(1,53) = 33.23, p < .001, at the end ofthe treatment period.

After School Activities and Family Involvement

Children were interviewed to collect infor-mation dealing with their after school activities


17

10 Morrow and Young

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations Concerning Activities Children Choose to Do After School

Group

Family Group Control Group


Read or look at abook 1.30 (0.53) 1.87 (0.43) 1.36 (0.58) 1.50 (0.51)

Have someone readto you 1.23 (0.63) 1.63 (0.67) 1.58 (0.64) 0.95 (0.58)

Do something witha grown up 1.33 (0.61) 1.80 (0.55) 1.58 (0.62) 1.44 (0.72)

Read or look ata magazine 1.17 (0.65) 1.83 (0.53) 1.35 (0.63) 1.32 (0.69)

Note. Posttest means were adjusted for pretest scores. The two groups consist of three classrooms each. Ninechildren were randomly selected from each room and given pre and post interviews. Means and standarddeviations are based on n = 54.a. bFamily Group Posttest scores are significantly different (p < .05) from posttest scores in the ControlGroup.

and family activities. Table 2 presents themeans and standard deviations for a multiplechoice measure to determine after schoolactivities of students in the family and controlgroups. In the ANCOVA for this measure, itwas found that those in the family group re-ported that they read or looked at books morethan children in the control group, F(1,53) =6.71, p < .02; had someone read to themmore often, F(1,53) = 11.22, p < .002; didsomething with a grown up more often, F(1,53) = 5.89, p < .02; and read or looked at amagazine more frequently, F(1,53) = 10.53,p < .005.

In another multiple choice measure, wewere interested in finding out if adults werechoosing to read and write with their childrenat home and if they were participating in otheractivities with their children more often than

parents in the control group. Table 3 presentsthis data. The parents in the family group didread and write more often with their children,F(1,53) = 13.35, p < .005, and chose to domore things with them in general, F(1,53) =30.70, p < .001, than parents in the controlgroup.

Interview Data

Child interview. Children were asked whatthey liked about the family program and howthey will help their children with school whenthey are grown up. The following is pooleddata from the questions asked.

What do you like about the Family WRAP Program?When I need help someone is there for me, Idon't feel lonely


18

Family Literacy 11

Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations Concerning Parents Working with Children

Group

Family Group Control Group


Read with my child 0.27 (0.45) 0.81 (0.40) 0.35 (0.49) 0.40 (0.50)

Did an activity withmy child 0.27 (0.42) 0.83 (0.38) 0.27 (0.45) 0.23 (0.43)

Note. Posttest means were adjusted for pretest scores. The two groups consist of three classrooms. Ninechildren were randomly selected from each room and their parents were interviewed for this data with preand post interviews. Means and standard deviations are based on n = 54.a' 'Family Group Posttest scores are significantly different (p < .05) from posttest scores in the ControlGroup.

When you grow up, you'll know how to help

your kids

It's nice to work with parents. Sometimes you

don't think they love you, but when they work

with you, then you know they do

I might not know how to read if they didn'thelp me

It's fun

Lots of people help you, grandmas, grandpas,

aunts, uncles, big brothers, moms, dads,mom's boyfriend, dad's girlfriend.

When you are a parent, how will you help yourchild?

I'll read stories to themI'll buy them books to read

I'll help them write and spell

I'll hold their hand

I'll do the same things my parents do

I'll go to school to find out how I can help

I'll help them make up stories

I'll help them pronounce words

Teacher interviews. Teachers were askedwhat they thought the benefits of the FamilyProgram were with respect to the parents andchildren participating. The following repre-sents pooled data from their responses.

What have parents been involved in since the Family

Program?Reading to their childrenEncouraging their children to readHaving children retell storiesTaking trips to the libraryWorking with Highlights magazineWriting in journals with childrenParticipating in WRAP Time

How have you helped to get them involved?I meet with parents to explain the elements inthe programI've encouraged them to read and write withtheir childrenI keep parents informed as to what we arelearning


19BEST COPY AV t L .A' LE

12 Morrow and Young

I invite parents to read to children in school,participate in WRAP Time, and help withwriting conferences

Parent interview. Parents were asked whatthey thought was the value of the Family Pro-gram. The following is pooled data.

What did you learn from participating in the FamilyProgram?

It is fun to work with your child. It is qualitytime togetherIt is exciting, and you get a wonderful feelingMy child looks forward to working with meI learned how to help my child and that I couldWe learn from each other and share ideasI learned about ways of helping, like tellingstories with felt and drawing stories, that Ididn't know aboutI learned to be more patient with my childMy child taught me many thingsI learned that doing fun things is important andthat my child will learn that way tooWhen parents help, children will know thatschool is importantSometimes when we work together, my childteaches me, since I don't speak English verywell

Anecdotal Data

Stories from mentors, who met with theparents on a one-to-one basis, concerning theinteractions that were occurring between par-ents and children and the kinds of activitiesparents were participating in with their childrenwere recorded. These stories illustrate what wehave learned about these families. We learned

about some of their problems and concerns,how they are helping their children as a resultof the program, and their attitudes about theprogram. These stories illustrate the beginningsof success.

Tameka and Kim. Tameka is from Trini-dad and came to the United States when shewas 16. She is married and has three children.Tameka never finished high school, but com-pleted a GED. Her husband presses clothing ina cleaning store. Tameka is ambitious; sheworks the night shift as an aide at a medicalcenter and has a part-time job in a supermar-ket. She hopes to become a nurse and has beenattending a community college. She drops inand out of school depending on finances. Sheis intelligent with potential for success. Butwith responsibilities for childcare and thenecessity to work, it is difficult for her to reachher goal. Tameka confided to a teacher that sheis abused by her husband. He will do so infront of the children who have called "911" forhelp. The father has been arrested for abuse.Tameka has stated that she will not allow herchildren to have boyfriends until they finishtheir education. She wants them all to go tocollege.

Tameka has been very enthusiastic aboutthe program. She never misses a meeting, andalways completes several activities on thechecklist. Tameka lacks self-confidence and isalways concerned about doing a good enoughjob. One week, she was only able to do one ortwo of the activities on the checklist. Shementioned that maybe she should drop out ofthe program because she was not holding upher end of the bargain. We assured her that shewas doing more than enough and that whatever


20

Family Literacy 13

she could accomplish was better than not doingany of the activities at all. Tameka has alwayshelped her children with their homework. Shesays she has learned new ideas from the pro-gram, such as collecting "Very Own Words"from print in the home environment and com-munity. Journal writing is another activity thatshe had not participated in with her youngsterprior to the family literacy program. One of theentries in Tameka's journal was a biography ofher daughter Kim, and Kim had written one forher mother. There had been a biography of RayCharles in an issue of Highlights that was fea-tured by the teachers at school and was a planfor the parents as well. After reading the story,parents and children were asked to write biog-raphies of each other. Figure 1 presents Kim'sbiography of her mother Tameka. Tameka wasproud of her daughter's writing and shared it atthe parent meeting.

Brenda is the college student who workswith Tameka. They have become close confi-dantes. Tameka told her, "This program helpsme to remember to work with my kids whenthings get so busy or not so good at home and Iwould forget. I'm learning new ideas I wouldn'thave thought of before. You make me havemore confidence that I am a good mom whodoes good things with my children. I wantthem to grow up like you and go to college."

"The meetings with Tameka were grati-fying," said Brenda, Tameka's mentor. "Shewas always cooperative. But the meetings werea challenge." Tameka's 2-year-old attended allof them, which caused problems. Tara is ahandful; she cannot sit still for a minute, andgets into everything. It was difficult to shareaccomplishments and carry on conversations

about potential activities. However, Tamekacould not come to the meetings if she did notbring Tara, since she had no available child-care.

Harriet and Keisha. The following is astory about one of our grandparents whoparticipated in the program.

Harriet walked into the school library.Although this was our second meeting, I couldtell from the expression on her face that shewas hesitant about joining us, so I went togreet her. We found a place for her to sit, nextto a parent she knew. I fixed her a plate ofcookies and a cup of juice, and I handed her anew Highlights for Children magazine to pre-view.

Keisha, Harriet's grandchild, was withher. We had activities and refreshments for thechildren in the school cafeteria, supervised bymy college students. Keisha went to join therest of the children during the parent meeting.

Harriet has three grandchildren in hercustody. She is in her 40s and raising thechildren alone. She is on welfare and hastrouble supporting the family. Keisha is notdoing well in school and Harriet is very con-cerned.

We began the meeting with a discussion ofwhat each parent or grandparent had done withtheir child since last we met. The parents hada list of suggested activities to choose from,such as working in the Highlights magazine,noticing printed words at home or in the com-munity, writing in their journals together, andso forth.

Each parent mentioned one activityworked on with his or her child. When it wasHarriet's turn, she said, "Well, I tried these


21

14 Morrow and Young

b I o tay 11 of vny MuhlTh s cthocl roorom. jlove. vy-,?(

to ecckq e. -rn ehice. io-/-: rnepiaCeSc! Ve5-- rye S t U --f vtaf/ y had0, b d 1 cAsi- yes fi- cl a 6 ecti-

[Asc. She 907c- irl e sAA 4 r ihca1-e-11 \kick A--rotv- rnki dayshe cl oe s rtc_AcLin of vn e

fke, w hesc- e_ cio ins h oW.51-) 7_ is c 1phcp tArw ok rA d e. vvotrks

h'g h rs. 5 he g j 040 ry, ro h ve.5 clodOcn d do to, he I eit-ok wondl do +0 ')/A coo k10 c4e-ther4 /\(\ y o cro es no+Sf I vne pc pie kvio

T h VC ID -f S kir)iCk Cno

Figure 1. Kim's biography of her mother Tameka.


BEST COPY AVAILABLE22

Family Literacy 15

Highlights, but them stories are too long toread." I realized that Harriet was probablyhaving trouble reading them. We talked aboutfeatures in the magazine which she could usewith her grandchild, such as finding the HiddenPictures or doing the Matching Pictures. Theserequired limited literacy skills.

A week later, I happened to meet Harrietin the hallway of the school. I asked how hermeetings were going with Linda. Linda is acollege student who worked with Harriet on aone-to-one basis. Harriet was very animated,much different than at the parent meeting. Shesaid, "Oh our meetins' are goin' fine. Lindashowed me these little stories I can read toKeisha in the Highlights, and we love them.That Linda is such a nice girl."

When talking to Linda, Harriet's mentor,I told her how enthused her parent was aboutthe section of Highlights Linda had introducedto her. Linda said, "I showed her the DearHighlights letters, sent in by children who areresponding to articles in the magazine." In theDear Highlights section, the pages of the mag-azine are divided into three columns and eachDear Highlights entry is about one-third of acolumn long. Harriet referred to Dear High-lights as "stories" and felt comfortable readingthem to her grandchild. She was delighted withher success, and we were pleased that we foundsomething for her to share with Keisha.

In a very short time, Harriet and Lindaformed a close relationship. They respectedand cared about each other. When it was par-ent-teacher conference time in the school,Harriet asked Linda to come to the meetingwith her. Harriet was nervous about what shewould hear concerning Keisha's school work

and was not sure she would understandeverything. Linda sought permission fromKeisha's teacher, who was more than happy tohave her accompany Harriet. After the confer-ence, Linda helped Harriet understand theways in which she could help Keisha. As aresult of the family literacy program, Harrietwas not as fearful about coming to school asshe had been; she was willing to share herconcerns, ask questions, and seek help. Harrietcommented, "I always wanted to help mygrandchildren, but I didn't know how. I

thought the teacher knows more than me and Ireally don't know what to do. Now I havesomeone to ask about how to help. I can do thethings she shows me, and I feel I'm reallyhelping Keisha now." This seems like a smallsuccess story, but to us it represents an im-portant achievement. Harriet was feeling moreconfident about her ability to help her grand-child and also about her own literacy ability.She was not only helping Keisha, but she waspracticing her own literacy skills as well.

Rinaldo and Gloria. Our next story isabout the only father in the program, RinaldoAlvarez. Mr. Alvarez is a single parent, whohas raised Gloria alone since she was a baby.He has never discussed Gloria's mother. Heworks as a mechanic, and completed 2 years ofhigh school. He seems to be very concernedabout his daughter and suggests that he wantsto help her as much as he can. He is a quietman who does not show much expression in hisface. Mr. Alvarez comes to every meeting. Heforgets to bring his materials, and looks a littledistraught when we discuss the activities parti-cipated in between parent and child. Ariadas isthe college student who is acting as Rinaldo's


23

16 Morrow and Young

mentor. She said, "Although he has goodintentions, by the time he gets home from workand prepares dinner for Gloria and himself, hesays he is too tired to do much with her."Gloria is quiet like her dad. She does not dowell in school. Her father gets exasperatedwhen she does not cooperate when he tries tohelp her. She often gets angry with him andthen ignores him.

Rinaldo said he had not been doing any ofthe activities with Gloria because "she won'tcooperate and I don't have the patience." Wewent over the list, and when we got to the oneabout looking for environmental print, his eyeslit up and he exclaimed, "Oh yeah, we did thatwhen we went to church Sunday. I showedGloria all the print. When we got home sheasked for the word Bible to put on a 'VeryOwn Word' card." We also found out that Glo-ria had been doing chalk talk stories in herjournal, but Rinaldo thought they were "justdrawing," as he said, not reading or writing.We explained that when Gloria did the chalktalks, she had to read them to draw the pic-tures. We found Mr. Alvarez to be veryinterested in his child, but lacking in self-confidence. He did things with Gloria, but gavehimself little credit for his accomplishments.

Concluding Remarks ConcerningThese Anecdotes

Our grandmother Harriet knew she hadlimited literacy ability and felt she could not beof help because of that. Tameka also lackedconfidence, possibly because of an abusivehome situation. She tried to do as much aspossible for her children to assure them a better

future than her own situation. No matter howmuch she did, however, she never felt it wasenough. Rinaldo had a sense of hopelessness.He tried to help Gloria, but did not feel suc-cessful. He was surprised to find that we felthe was doing good things with her and she wasresponding. This gave him the initiative tocontinue.

Each parent described is different, and yeteach one is similar. They all lacked confidenceand they did not realize how important theywere to their children, that they could help,and that what they were doing was extremelyproductive. In a very short time, we have beenable to let them know how successful they havebeen, and have given them incentive tocontinue.

Discussion

The study was quite successful in reveal-ing differences in literacy achievement on thepart of the children in the Family LiteracyProgram. Results also indicated that childrenreported reading more often in their free timeand reading with adults. Reading magazineswas something that children in the familygroup spent more time doing than those in thecontrol group. This is not surprising since theywere provided with the Highlights for Childrenmagazine. The Family WRAP Program was acollaborative effort. It seems as if this collabo-ration between home and school doing similarprograms could have been the reason for itssuccess. The teachers were an integral part ofthe project. They did activities in school simi-lar to those that we taught the parents to do athome. Children repeated the activities at home


24

Family Literacy 17

and enlisted their parents to work with them. Insome cases the children helped their parents.Regardless whether the child or parent wasdirecting the activity, the interaction was theimportant part.

From interview data with children, theyexpressed that they enjoyed working with theirparents at school meetings and at home, andthat they were learning. Parents also talkedabout enjoying the work they were doing withtheir children and learning how to help. Somealso said that their own literacy skills wereimproving. Many parents have expressed thatthey were learning new ideas. We have richsamples of parent-child journal entries, largecollections of "Very Own Words," displays ofchalk talks, and roll stories shared at our meet-ings. Parents said that they felt more comfort-able about coming to school and participating,and had more self-confidence about being ableto help their children. They expressed appreci-ation to those carrying out the program for thematerials and the attention they were receiving.They demonstrated pride in accomplishment oftasks completed. We found parents more will-ing to share their ideas for adding to theprogram, ask questions, and express theirconcerns. Parents were enthused about the pro-gram and eager to participate and help theirchildren. They were fascinated by the activitiesand viewed them as things they could do andfeel good about. Many said that they never feltthey knew how to help their children, nor didthey think they could; now they realized howimportant they were in taking an active role inthe literacy development of their children.Some also made a point of saying that they didnot like to do traditional homework with their

children, but they found the Family Programactivities enjoyable and fun, and therefore theyparticipated.

Teachers admitted that they had not real-ized how important such a program was inbringing parents, students, and teachers closertogether in working toward the literacy devel-opment of children. They indicated that theyfound that many of their students were begin-ning to show greater interest in reading andwriting and that some were also improving intheir literacy skills.

Implications for Family Literacy Programs

In conclusion, we will review the factorsin the program we believe to have broughtabout the successful outcomes. These haveimplications for designing other family literacyefforts.

The success of the program, we feel, isdue to the COLLABORATIVE effort of parents,teachers, and children working together withmutual respect for each other. In addition, theactivities for the home were FUN but also EDU-CATIONAL, and they were SENSITIVE TO THEINTERESTS OF THE PARENTS, AND THE DIVER-

SITY OF THEIR BACKGROUNDS, for example:(1) storytelling about family experiences, frombooks, and telling stories passed down throughthe oral tradition; (2) collecting "Very OwnWords" generated from the home and commu-nity; and (3) the use of the magazine High-lights for Children which was NONTHREATEN-ING, NOT SCHOOL-LIKE, AND COULD BE USED

BY THOSE WITH DIFFERENT LITERACY ABILI-

TIES AND CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS. Finally,

the STRONG CONNECTION OF THE SCHOOLAND HOME PROGRAM, we believe, was a


25

18 Morrow and Young

major component for encouraging participationand the success.

Author Note. Gratitude is extended to the parents,teachers, children, administrators in the New Bruns-wick Public School district where the study tookplace. I also thank the Rutgers University studentswho acted as mentors to parents.

References

Auerbach, E. R. (1989). Toward a social-contextualapproach to family literacy. Harvard Education-al Review, 59, 165-181.

California Test Bureau. (1981). Comprehensive Testof Basic Skills. Monterey, CA: Macmillan/Mc-Graw Hill.

Casanova, U. (1987). Ethnic and cultural differ-ences. In V. Richardson-Koehler, Educator'shandbook (pp. 370-393). New York: Longman.

Chavkin, N., & Williams, D. (1993). Minorityparents and the elementary school: Attitudes andpractices. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families andschools in a pluralistic society (pp. 73-84).Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Clark, M. M. (1984). Literacy at home and atschool: Insights from a study of young fluentreaders. In H. Goelman, A. A. Oberg, & F.Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy (pp.122-130).Exeter, NH: Heinemann.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1984). The making of a reader.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1987). Mexican adult literacy:New directions for immigrants. In S.R. Gold-man & H. T. Treuba (Eds.), Becoming literatein English as a second language (pp. 9-32).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990). Literacy for empower-ment: The role of parents in children's educa-tion. New York: Falmer.

Hale, J. E. (1982). Black children, their roots, cul-ture, and learning styles. Provo, UT: BrighamYoung University Press.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

Monson, D., & Sebesta, S. (1991). Reading prefer-ences. In J. Flood, J. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J.Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teachingthe English language arts (pp. 664-673). NewYork: Macmillan.

Morrow, L. M. (1992). The impact of a literature-based program on literacy achievement, use ofliterature, and attitudes of children from minor-ity backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly,27, 250-275.

Morrow, L. M. (1993). Literacy development in theearly years: Helping children read and write(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Morrow, L. M., O'Connor, E., & Smith, J. K.(1990). Effects of a story reading program onthe literacy development of at-risk kindergartenchildren. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22,255-275.

Morrow, L. M., Paratore, J. (1993). Familyliteracy: Perspective and practices. The ReadingTeacher, 47, 194-201.

Morrow, L. M., & Smith, J. K. (1990). The effectsof group size on interactive storybook reading.Reading Research Quarterly, 25,213-231.

Neuman, S. B., Hagedorn, T., Celano, D., &Daly, P. (1995). Toward a collaborative ap-proach to parent involvement in early education:A study of teenage mothers in an African-Amer-ican Community. American Educational Re-search Journal, 32, 801-827.

Pellegrini, A., & Galda, L. (1982). The effects ofthematic-fantasy play training on the develop-ment of children's story comprehension.American Educational Research Journal, 19,443-452.


26

Family Literacy 19

Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growingup literate: Learning from inner-city families.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Tea le, W. (1984). Reading to young children: Itssignificance for literacy development. In H.Goelman, A. A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.),Awakening to literacy (pp. 110-121). Exeter,NH: Heinemann.

Thorndyke, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures incomprehension and memory of narrative dis-course. Cognitive Psychology, 9,77-110.


27

Family Literacy 21

Appendix A

Storybooks Used for Testing

Oral Retelling Test

Pretest: Flory, J. (1980). The bear on the doorstep. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Posttest: Keller, H. (1980). Cromwell's glasses. New York: Greenwillow Books.

Written Retelling Test

Pretest: Bourgeois, P. (1986). Franklin in the dark. New York: Scholastic.

Posttest: Zolotow, C. (1962). Mr. Rabbit and the lovely present. New York:Harper & Row.

Probed Comprehension Test

Pretest: Fujikawa, G. (1980). Jenny learns a lesson. New York: Grossett & Dunlap.

Posttest: Hurd, R. (1980). Under the lemon tree. Boston: Little Brown.


28

I1V P5qcNationalReading ResearchCenter318 Aderhold University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-71253216J. M. Patterson Building, University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742

29

ERIC

(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERO

Educational Resources information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

CS 012 569 AUTHOR Morrow, Lesley Mandel; Young, John TITLE · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 398 551 CS 012 569...

Documents

Transcript of CS 012 569 AUTHOR Morrow, Lesley Mandel; Young, John TITLE · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 398 551 CS 012 569...