 |
||||||
 |
 |
|||||
For over 20 years educational policies have promoted family literacy programs in schools and community-based organizations. Family literacy appears in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Reading Excellence Act, Workforce Investment Act, Community Services Block Grant Act, and the Head Start Act (National Center for Family Literacy, 2002). In this research review, we (1) define family literacy, (2) describe critical perspectives on family literacy programs, (3) draw out the guiding program principles they suggest, and (4) illustrate how these principles are implemented in three different programs. What Is Family Literacy? Family Literacy This review explores family literacy in the second and third sense. It focuses on intergenerational family literacy programs that work with the family rather than on the child or the adult separately. Such programs assume that the greatest impact on literacy development is achieved by combining the effects of early childhood interventions, early parenting strategies, increased adult literacy, and enhanced parental support for children's school related functioning (St. Pierre, Layzar & Barnes, 1995). Family literacy draws on multiple academic traditions, among them adult literacy, English as a second language education, child literacy education—in particular the field of emergent literacy and special education, early childhood development, cognitive psychology, and parent education. To understand family literacy, however, two other concepts must be considered: literacy and emergent literacy. Literacy Literacy extends beyond the acquisition of reading and writing skills. It entails the ability to use these skills in a socially appropriate context. The very notion of literacy is also evolving to include the skills required to function in a technological society. For example, literacy has come to be used to refer to a wider domain of activities, from media literacy and computer literacy to citizenship literacy (Kinzer & Leander, 2003; Wilson, 2002). With this in mind, family literacy programs must address an expanded definition of literacy in all its complexity. Emergent Literacy Emergent literacy consists of the knowledge, attitudes, and skills that are developmental precursors to more established forms of literate behavior (Whitehurst & Longigan, 1998). It develops not only as a result of direct instruction, but also as a product of a stimulating and responsive environment (Arzubiaga, Rueda, & Lilia, 2002). Components of emergent literacy include phonemic awareness, concepts of print and story, reading styles, and literacy as social or cultural practice (Purcell-Gates, 2001). Research clearly shows that good emergent literacy skills are likely to enhance children's school experiences and help them get started on the path to reading success (Senechal & LeFreve, 2002). Critical Perspectives on Family Literacy Programs A growing body of research suggests that despite their good intentions, family literacy programs are inadvertently undermining the very families they attempt to help. These arguments fall into four main categories:
1. The Deficit Model 2. The Research Vacuum 3. The Silent Gendered Discourse 4. The Missing Social Constructivist Perspective Emerging Principles for Family Literacy Programs From these critical perspectives it is possible to outline several principles to guide the development and implementation of family literacy programs. These perspectives suggest that programs should:
Examples of the application of some of these principles can be found in the three programs described below. These programs specifically focus on immigrant families. The Pajaro Valley Experience Through discussions of children's literature parents explore new strategies to develop children's reading and writing skills and contribute to their own learning. Parents reflect on their own lives as a source of knowledge and are encouraged to understand that they are critical to their children's development regardless of their schooling (Ada, 1993). With their newly acquired skills, parents read to their children and question them about their understanding of the story using description, personal interpretation, analysis, and creativity. In 1986 Alma Flor Ada gathered groups of Spanish-speaking parents and their children to meet and discuss children's literature, and to read the stories and poems written by the children and their parents (Ada, 1988). Sponsored by the bilingual program of the Pajaro Valley School District, the program grew out of the knowledge of the importance of parents' involvement in their children's education. The program aimed to foster parents' awareness of the significance of their role and their opportunities and responsibilities for their children's future. The program encouraged parents and school-aged children to spend time together every evening with a book, and offered guidance to improve children's reasoning and clarity of expression. In monthly meetings, Mexican migrant parents and teachers met at the local library to read aloud a children's book. After the reading a teacher from the school (and family members as they became more confident) guided a four-part discussion.
In adapting this program to meet the needs of families in Carpintera, California, Delgado-Gaitan (2001) noted that learning was more effective when it involved classroom teachers as the key instructors. Delgado-Gaitan found that all too often parent facilitators were confused about the pre-designed questioning categories that parents had to ask their children. She recommended that questions should be generated naturally from the parents themselves and in the way they feel most comfortable. She also concluded that “the most important part of their learning was not the category of the question they taught their children to ask, but the close interaction they experienced through reading with their children” (p.188). Intergenerational Literacy Project In this family literacy program, parents extend their own literacy and language while learning about ways to support their children in US schools. Parents attend morning or evening classes to read and respond to literacy materials of personal interest, learn strategies and ideas to share books with their children, and share their family literacy experiences with their friends and teachers. Classes are divided into four parts: daily reflections, large group discussions, small group analysis, and small group summary. Working in a small urban community in Massachusetts, the Intergenerational Literacy Project (ILP) serves mainly immigrant families who seek to improve their English literacy and language, and to become familiar with ways to support children's education. The program has been in existence for over 10 years. Classes are offered in both the morning and evening and have been held in various locations throughout the years, including community centers and schools. The ILP is based on Bronfenbrenner's ecological approach to children's development. This approach proposes that children grow and learn in various contexts and are influenced by the interactions between each of the environments. Thus, the home environment and parents' literacy skills and practices influence children's cognitive development. The ILP is also influenced by the work of Luis Moll and his colleagues (1992) who coined the term “funds of knowledge.” Funds of knowledge are “the essential bodies of knowledge and information that households use to survive, to get ahead, or to thrive.” Through this approach students' and families' experiences and knowledge can be used as learning resources in school. The ILP seeks to understand how families' literacy experiences outside school can help them in their learning of academic literacy. Each ILP class is staffed by an instructional team of two literacy teachers and three literacy tutors. The teachers are students and researchers at nearby universities. The class readings consists of original English literature that has not been simplified or watered down. Parents also might bring readings to class from home. A typical class session consists of several instructional groupings:
While parents are in class, children participate in a free on-site early childhood education classroom that is designed to facilitate children's language and literacy development. The program places emphasis on situating literacy experiences within the “fabric of daily life rather than on the creation of school-like contexts in the home setting.” Further, parents are encouraged to join with their children in multiple uses of literacy including reading and writing oral histories, composing letters to friends and family members, journal keeping, story writing, and publishing. Parents are also taught how to help children with homework, the types of questions they might ask the classroom teacher to learn about their children's progress, and the types of questions they might ask their children to learn about the school day. Qualitative case study research with families participating in the ILP suggests that family literacy programs that serve immigrant parents are wise to make explicit the mainstream culture and values of US schooling as well as build on household funds of knowledge to support children's success (Paratore, Melzi & Krol-Sinclair, 1999). Jane Addams School for Democracy In learning circles, Hmong and Spanish adult immigrants learn English and study for the US citizenship test while their children participate in a variety of literacy activities. Unlike many literacy development programs, the Jane Addams School for Democracy avoids following an elaborate manual with scripted exercises. Instead, groups come together informally and co-create the learning process. Learning circles are divided into two clusters: large circle and learning pairs. Jane Addams School for Democracy (the School) is a community-based education and action initiative, located in Neighborhood House, a 105-year-old settlement house in a longtime immigrant neighborhood in St. Paul, Minnesota. The School was created in 1996 as a partnership among Hmong and Latino leaders at the Neighborhood House, the Center for Democracy and Citizenship at the Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota (UMN), the University of Minnesota's College of Liberal Arts, and the College of St. Catherine. The School does not use prescribed methods of instruction to teach the English language or prepare immigrants for the citizen exam. Rather learning occurs in context in a socially relevant and transformative space where everyone interacts as both learner and teacher. The primary method for achieving this goal is the learning circle¹ (Family Involvement Network of Educators, 2002). A learning circle is a group of 8–12 people from different backgrounds and viewpoints who meet several times to talk about different themes and topics. Issues develop from the community and range in subjects from education to democracy or mental health. In the learning circle, everyone has an equal voice, and people try to understand each other's views. They do not have to agree with each other. The idea is to share concerns and look for ways to make things better. A facilitator helps the group focus on different views and makes sure the discussion goes well. The School hosts three learning circles: the Hmong adult circle, the Spanish-speaking adult circle, and the children's circle, with children of various cultural backgrounds. In the Hmong adult circle most residents are studying for their citizenship exam. After a lively cultural exchange as a large group, participants break into learning pairs (Hmong speakers paired with English-speaking partners) or small groups for language practice. What is notable about this work is that “everyone is a teacher, everyone is a learner.” In other words, doctoral students, university professors, high school students, and immigrants are all equally useful sources of knowledge. For example, while one of the cofounders taught a Hmong woman to drive, the Hmong woman helped her create a garden for her home; while learning English from high school students, the Hmong women in return taught high school classes in cooking and dressmaking. Like the Hmong adult circle, participants in the Spanish adult circle work in pairs to exchange language skills. The group also holds experiential learning sessions, such as potluck dinners, where participants share dishes connected to their cultural backgrounds and have conversations in Spanish and English. The children's circle is a space co-created by the children, their older siblings, and college students. More than 60 children per night gather together, speaking a variety of languages—both verbal and nonverbal. While they make crafts, cook, read, and learn photography, the children also teach college students and all of the participants how to play, create, listen, and learn. They help students find meaning in and give direction to their academic studies. Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge Gigliana Melzi of New York University for her valuable feedback on earlier drafts. ¹ The culture circle (or learning circle) method of instruction is credited to Paulo Freire. The culture circle is a discussion group in which educators and learners use codifications (representations of the learner's day-to-day situations such as a photograph, drawing, or word) to engage in dialogue about their daily and life experience. The peer group provides the theoretical context for reflection and for transforming interpretations of reality from mere opinion to a more critical knowledge (Freire, 1973). References Ada, A. F. (1988). The Pajaro Valley Experience: Working with Spanish-speaking parents to develop children's reading and writing skills through the use of children's literature. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & J. Cummins (Eds.), Minority education: From shame to struggle (pp. 223–238). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Ada, A. F. (1993). A critical pedagogy approach to fostering the home-school connection. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED358716) Arzubiaga, A., Rueda, R., & Lilia, M. (2002). Family matters related to the reading engagement of latina/o children (Ciera Report #1-015). Retrieved June 5, 2003, from http://www.ciera.org/library/reports/inquiry-1/1-015/1-015h.html Auerbach, E. (1995). Deconstructing the discourse of strengths in family literacy. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 643–659. Bowman, B. (2002). Love to read: An introduction. In B. Bowman (Ed.), Love to read: Essays in developing and enhancing early literacy skills of African American children (pp. vii–ix). Washington, DC: National Black Child Development Institute. Britto, P. R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2001). The role of family literacy environments in promoting young children's emerging literacy skills. Concluding comments. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 92, 91–99. Delgado-Gaitan, C. (2001). The power of community: Mobilizing for family and schooling. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990). Literacy for empowerment: The role of parents in children's education. New York: Falmer. Family Involvement Network of Educators. (2002, Fall). Fine Forum, 5. Retrieved December 16, 2002, from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/fine/fineforum/forum5/director.html Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Handel, R. D. (1999). Building family literacy in an urban community. New York: Teachers College Press. Hannon, P. (1999). Rhetoric and research in family literacy. British Educational Research Journal, 26, 121–138. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hutchinson, K. (2000, December). Reframing mothers in family literacy. Paper presented at the annual conference of Australian Association for Research in Education, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved December 16, 2002, from http://www.aare.edu.au/00pap/hut00304.htm Kinzer, C. K., & Leander, K. (2003). Technology and the language arts: Implications of an expanded definition of literacy. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 534–545). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Luttrell, W. (1996). Taking care of literacy: One feminist's critique. Educational Policy, 10, 342–365. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect home and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31, 131–141. Nakagawa, K., McKinnon, A., & Hackett, M. R. (2001, April). Examining the discourse of strengths vs. deficits in a family literacy program. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, Seattle, Washington. Retrieved December 16, 2002, from http://courses.ed.asu.edu/nakagawa/AERANakagawa.htm National Center for Family Literacy. (2002). Family literacy: A strategy for educational improvement. Louisville, KY: National Governors Association. Retrieved December 16, 2002, from http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/110802LITERACY.pdf Neuman, S. B. (1995). The children's literature hour: A social constructivist approach to family literacy. Retrieved December 16, 2002, from http://www.radix.net/~reimann/enet/VC95/neupa.html Orellana, M. J. (1996). ¡Aquí Vivimos! Voices of Central American and Mexican participants in a family literacy project. Journal of Educational Issue of Language Minority Students, 16. Retrieved December 16, 2002, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/jeilms/vol16/jeilms1608.htm Osterling, J. P. (2001). Waking the sleeping giant: Engaging and capitalizing on the socio-cultural strengths of the Latino community. Bilingual Research Journal, 25, 59–88. Paratore, J. R., Melzi, G., & Krol-Sinclair, B. (1999). What should we expect of family literacy?: Experiences of Latino children whose parents participate in an intergenerational literacy project. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Purcell-Gates, V. (2001). Emergent literacy is emerging knowledge of written, not oral, language. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 92, 7–22. Senechal, M., & LeFreve, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children's reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 445–460. Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning from inner-city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. St. Pierre, R., Layzar, & Barnes, N. (1995). Two-generation programs: Design, cost, and short-term effectiveness. Future of Children, 5(3), 76–93. Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education. New York: Longman. Valdés, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Verhoeven, L., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Literacy and motivation: Bridging cognitive and sociocultural viewpoints. In L. Verhoeven & C. Snow (Eds.), Literacy and motivation: reading engagement in individuals and groups (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wasik, B. H., Hermann, S., Berry, R. S., Dobbins, D. R., Schimizzi, A. M., Smith, T. K. et al. (2000). Family literacy: An annotated bibliography. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Retrieved December 16, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/PDFDocs/Family_Literacy.pdf Weiler, K. (1991). Freire and a feminist pedagogy of difference. Harvard Educational Review, 61(4), 449–474. Whitehouse, M., & Colvin, C. (2001). “Reading” families: Deficit discourse and family literacy. Theory Into Practice, 40, 212–219. Whitehurst, G. J., & Longigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848–872. Wilson, K. K. (2002). Promoting civic literacy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED466924) Yaden, D. B., & Paratore, J. R. (2003). Family literacy at the turn of the millennium: The costly future of maintaining the status quo. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 546–565). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ^ Back to top |
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |