Implicit Theories Running head: implicit theories
Download 64.73 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Family Demographics and Belief Systems
|
Running head: IMPLICIT THEORIES Mothers' implicit theories of early literacy instruction: Implications for children's reading and writing Barbara D. DeBaryshe University of Hawaii Janeen C. Binder University of North Carolina-Greensboro Martha Jane Buell University of Delaware
Author Note Barbara D. DeBaryshe, Center on the Family, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Janeen C. Binder , Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Martha Jane Buell, Department of Individual and Family Studies, University of Delaware. We would like to thank Deborah Cassidy, Vivian Halverson and Lois Yamauchi for commenting on drafts of this manuscript. Address correspondence to: Barbara D. DeBaryshe, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Center on the Family, 2515 Campus Rd., Honolulu, HI 96822.
Subjects in this exploratory study were 19 five- to six-year-old children and their mothers. Mothers completed surveys of family literacy practices and beliefs about early reading instruction and children’s emergent literacy skills were assessed. Results showed that one group of mothers held implicit theories that resembled whole language models of literacy instruction. A second group of mothers held views that resembled a phonics orientation, while a smaller group of mothers had more varied and idiosyncratic beliefs. Mothers’ implicit theories were associated with their modeling of literacy behaviors, helping their children write, and with their children’s independent exploration of writing and current levels of literacy skill. Results point to the importance of parents’ implicit developmental theories and the need to understand how parental belief systems affect the roles that families play in literacy acquisition. Key words: Emergent literacy, writing, reading, parental beliefs, parent-child interaction, school readiness, home influences A central tenet of the emergent literacy perspective is that children acquire crucial foundation skills and an understanding of literacy well before the onset of formal instruction (NAEYC, 1998; Teale & Sulzby, 1986). The home environment is a particularly important setting for the acquisition of such knowledge because children may have opportunities at home to (a) become familiar with literacy artifacts, (b) observe the literacy activities of others, (c) independently explore literate behaviors, (d) engage in joint reading and writing activities with other people and (e) benefit from the teaching strategies that family members use when engaging in joint literacy tasks. Considerable variation in both the quantity and quality of these home literacy practices has been documented (Anderson & Stokes, 1984; DeBaryshe, 1995; Heath, 1983; Payne, Whitehurst, & Angell, 1994; Phillips & McNaughton, 1990; Teale & Sulzby, 1986) and there is ample evidence that this variation is associated with individual differences in children’s language and reading outcomes (DeBaryshe, 1993; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994; Payne, Whitehurst, & Angell, 1994). Since home literacy practices have a substantial impact on children’s literacy development, it is important to understand the origins of family differences in these practices. In the past decade, increased attention has been given to the general topic of parental belief systems (Goodnow & Collins, 1990; Holden & Edwards, 1989; Sigel, 1985). Overall, this literature shows a moderate association between parental beliefs and the use of child-rearing practices that affect cognitive and emotional development. Although the literature on parents’ beliefs about language and literacy development is small, it does suggest that these beliefs influence the kinds of home experiences that parents provide. For example, parents with lower literacy levels tend to believe that basic reading and math skills should be mastered before school entry. These parents feel that academic materials such as flashcards and workbooks are important toys for children to own and prefer preschool and kindergarten programs with an academic focus. As parental literacy skills rise, parents are more likely to feel their children should develop basic skills on their own initiative, without pressure to use conventional forms (Fitzgerald, Spiegel, & Cunningham, 1991; Stipek, Milburn, Clements & Daniels, 1992). On the average, parents of two- to five-year-olds believe that the goals of reading aloud are to establish a love of literature, that children should be active participants in read-aloud sessions, and that instruction in code skills is not yet appropriate (DeBaryshe, 1995; DeBaryshe & Binder, 1994). However, variation in beliefs about the goals and outcomes of reading aloud are associated with the frequency of home book-reading, the number of books available at home, the age at which the parents began to read aloud to the child, and the linguistic and cognitive richness of parent-child interaction during book-reading sessions (DeBaryshe, 1995). These associations hold even when parental education and income are controlled (DeBaryshe & Binder, 1994). A limitation of the existing research is that it does not address parents' beliefs about how children acquire literacy skills. We know something about what parents want their children to be able to do, but very little about how parents believe these goals are attained (Stipek at al., 1992). Even within professional circles there is considerable controversy concerning “best practices” in literacy instruction. The professional debate between proponents of phonics vs. whole language instructional techniques has been heated and highly visible (Adams, 1990; Goodman, 1992; Greenberg, 1998a; Stahl, McKenna, & Pagnucco, 1994; Stahl & Miller, 1989). Briefly put, proponents of the phonics orientation considers reading to be largely a bottom-up process. In this process, children must master prerequisite skills of phonemic awareness, letter recognition and letter-sound correspondence. Instructional methods emphasize practicing these skills in isolation until sufficient mastery and automaticity is obtained before children attempt to derive meaning from reading written texts. In contrast, proponents of the whole language orientation consider reading to be a holistic, top-down process. Listening, speaking, reading and writing are seen as inter-related aspects of the same underlying linguistic competence. The goal of instruction is to “bring children into literacy in a ‘natural’ way by bridging the gap between children’s own language competencies and written language” (Stahl & Miller, 1989, p. 88). Children are thought to acquire literacy skills by immersion in a functional literate environment, just as they acquire spoken language though immersion in a functional conversational environment. Whole language instruction uses children’s literature in lieu of basal readers. Children’s nonconventional reading and writing attempts are encouraged and treated as meaningful and functional. Code skills are addressed as the need arises in the context of “authentic” literacy activities, but are not included as isolated targets of instruction (Adams, 1990; Goodman, 1992; Stahl, et al., 1994; Stahl & Miller, 1989). The purpose of this small-scale exploratory study was to test a methodology for examining parents’ implicit theories of early literacy instruction. Information on these theories was elicited by open-ended questioning and structured survey items about informal instructional techniques that parents might use at home. Specifically, we wished to determine whether parents’ ideas were consistent with whole language approaches, phonics approaches, or provided a blend of the two. We also explored whether parents’ instructional views are related to the kinds of literacy experiences they provide for their children and the level of skill that their children display. We expected that parents with more holistic views would engage in behaviors that mimic whole-language instructional techniques while parents with componential views would use more traditional instructional strategies. Specifically, whole language-oriented parents would (a) show greater concern with their children’s motivation and enjoyment of reading and writing, (b) be more likely to model literacy behaviors as a way of ensuring their children would see the functional role these activities play, (c) engage in more frequent mediated reading and writing activities, and (d) focus on meaning rather than code in teaching interactions. Parents whose belief systems were more similar to the phonics orientation would engage in fewer holistic activities such as writing letters together or reading aloud, and include more frequent informal instruction in phonic skills. It was also expected that parents’ beliefs would be associated with individual differences in children’s literacy achievement. Consistent with the literature on differential outcomes of classroom teaching methods, children of phonics-oriented parents were expected to show more conventional reading and writing skills (Adams, 1990; Evans & Carr, 1985). Children of whole language-oriented parents were predicted to show stronger vocabulary and story grammar skills, and greater interest and confidence in experimenting with print activities (Feng, 1992; Graham & Harris, 1994; Shaw, 1991). Methods
Subjects Subjects were 19 children between the ages of 64 and 77 months (M = 69.9 months, SD = 3.67) and their mothers1. The present study was a follow-up to a study of parent-child reading interaction at age two (DeBaryshe, Caulfield, Witty, Sidden, Holt, & Reich, 1991). Families were originally recruited via newspaper announcements that advertised the opportunity to participate in research on the effects of reading aloud. Subjects were from a medium-sized southeastern U.S. city and the surrounding county area. Ten children were boys and nine were girls. Eighty-five percent were European-American and 15% were African-American. Maternal education ranged from a high school diploma (21%) to a college (32%) or graduate degree (47%). Most of the families were middle to upper-middle class. Seventeen children attended kindergarten (none were in the same classroom or school), two were still in preschool (one due to a late birth date, the other by parental choice), and one was home schooled. Procedures Each child was visited twice at his or her home, with visits spaced approximately two weeks apart. On the first visit, mothers completed three questionnaires and a short open-ended interview while their children participated in a literacy skill assessment battery. A tape recorder and the book Rotten Ralph's Show and Tell (Gantos, 1989) were left with the family. Mothers were asked to read the book with their child four times in order to familiarize the child with the story. On the second home visit, children were asked to read or pretend to read Rotten Ralph's Show and Tell to the experimenter. Children also wrote a letter with their mothers to a person of their own choice. The writing and reading tasks were recorded on videotape. Measures Family Survey (FS). The FS was designed to obtain information on family characteristics such as income, maternal education, ethnicity and child's school placement. The FS is based on a version used with preschool populations that showed acceptable item test-retest reliability (r's = .79 - .92) (DeBaryshe, 1992). Home Activities Survey (HAS). Parents' and children's literacy interest and engagement were assessed with the HAS, a questionnaire designed for this study that was based upon a successful survey used with preschool children (DeBaryshe, 1992). The HAS contains 68 items that are answered on a seven-point scale. Examples of items include: “How often does an adult in your family use a typewriter, word processor or computer?", “How much does your child enjoy reading with you?", and “How often does your child ask what a letter is called or how it sounds?" Ten composite variables were derived from the HAS by summing conceptually related items. These variables represented parents' and children's enjoyment of reading and writing, the frequency of parent-child joint reading and writing, and the frequency of parents' and children's solo engagement in reading and writing. The number of items contributing to each composite ranged from two to six. Reading Instruction Belief Questionnaire (RIBQ). The RIBQ was adapted from a questionnaire used by Evans and Baraball (1991). Questions address goals and methods for helping children learn about reading. Fourteen items are written to reflect either whole language- or phonics-oriented views about literacy instruction (see Table 1). Parents rate the degree to which they endorse each item on a 7-point scale with high scores indicating strong endorsement. Internal consistency for the RIBQ is high; coefficients alpha for phonics and whole language items are .89 and .83, respectively. Insert Table 1 about here Open-ended belief questions. Parents were asked two open-ended questions about reading: “How do you think children learn to read?” and “Are there things you do, or did, to help your child learn about reading?”. They were asked the same two questions in regards to writing. Parents’ answers were recorded in written form. Answers were later transcribed, separated into unique comments, and sorted by content to yield dominant themes. Inter-rater agreement for these sorts was .86 (computed as # agreements divided by total agreements plus disagreements). Parent-child joint writing interaction. Videotapes of the mother-child letter-writing session were coded using time-sampling procedures. The presence or absence of two categories of behavior was recorded in 15-second intervals; each video session lasted for a total of ten minutes duration. Conventional talk involved any discussion of letter formation, phonics, spelling or mechanical conventions such as writing from left to right or including a salutation or closing to the letter. Meaning talk included any conversation about the semantic content of the intended written message or the effect the message would have on the reader. Inter-rater agreement (computed as # agreements divided by total agreements plus disagreements) was .96 for conventional talk and .92 for meaning talk. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT). Children's language quotients on the PPVT served as our measure of receptive vocabulary. Reported split-half reliabilities range from .79-.84 for five-and-a-half to six-and-a-half-year-olds. Median test-retest reliabilities are .79 (Dunn & Dunn, 1981). PPVT scores from the age two assessment were used as a covariate in some analyses. Different forms of the PPVT (L vs. M) were used at ages two and six. Test of Early Reading Ability-2 (TERA). Reading quotients on the TERA served as our norm-referenced measure of reading. The TERA is based on emergent literacy models, and covers both preconventional and conventional skills. Coefficients alpha for five- and six-year olds range from .89 to .93, and the alternate forms reliability is .79 (Reid, Hresko, & Hammill, 1989). Story grammar. The story-telling task was based upon story-grammar research conducted by Morrison, Frazier, McMahon, Fornwald, and Trabasso (1992). Children were shown five laminated pictures portraying a coherent story. Children were asked to tell a story using the pictures. The oral stories were audiotaped, and later transcribed and scored for the use of nine aspects of story structure: (1) introduction, (2) setting, (3) characters mentioned, (4) problem identified, (5) goal, (6) plan of action, (7) understanding of accidental occurrences, (8) action, and (9) results/conclusion. The highest possible score on this task was 26. Because of the small sample size, this task (as well as the print task and emergent reading level described below) were independently scored by two trained coders. Disagreements (which were infrequent, occurring in less than 5 percent of the samples) were resolved by discussion and consensus. Clay Print Task. The print task was modified from Clay (1979), and consisted of the following four sub-tasks: (a) letter identification, (b) copying a printed sentence, (c) sentence dictation, and (d) asking the child to write all the words he or she knew within a five-minute period. A total writing score was computed by summing the z-scores for each of the sub-tasks. Emergent reading level. The videotapes of the children reading Rotten Ralph's Show and Tell (Gantos, 1989) were analyzed using Sulzby's (1985) classification scheme for emergent reading. Children are rated on a seven-level ordinal scale that orders the conventionality of picture- versus print-governed reading attempts. Barnhart (1991) reports good criterion-related validity for this method. Results
Structure of Parents’ Implicit Theories The RIBQ items were subjected to a cluster analysis. This procedure sorts parents into groups based upon similar patterns of responses across questionnaire items. A three cluster solution provided the most readily interpreted results. Clusters 1, 2, and 3 were labeled Code (n=6), Meaning (n=8) and Unique (n=5), respectively. On the average, Code group parents gave highest endorsement to phonic techniques (M = 5.44, SD = .57 on a 7-point scale where 4 represents “medium emphasis”) and medium endorsement of whole language techniques (M = 4.10, SD = .65). Meaning group parents gave the highest endorsement of whole language techniques (M = 5.48, SD = .58) and a more moderate endorsement of phonics (M = 3.69, SD = .59). Parents in the Unique group gave low endorsement to both sets of items (M = 3.37 and 2.43, SD = .54 and .69 for whole language and phonics, respectively). Family Demographics and Belief SystemsThe groups were not significantly different in terms of income, ethnicity, child age or school placement. The groups did differ on child sex, 2 (2, n = 19) = 5.81, p = .05, and maternal education, 2 (6, n = 19) = 5.92, p = .05. All parents in the Unique group were parents of boys. Meaning group parents were more highly educated than Unique group parents. Home Literacy Practices and Belief Systems To test hypotheses concerning implicit theories and home literacy practices, a series of one-way MANOVAs were conducted with belief group as the between-subjects factor. Tests of univariate effects were conducted if a significant mutivariate effect was found; this procedure guards against inflated Type I errors. Enjoyment. The four dependent measures were: parents’ interest in reading, parents’ interest in writing, children’s interest in reading, and children’s interest in writing. The multivariate test was nonsignificant, indicating that maternal belief grouping had no association with family members’ interest and enjoyment in literacy activities. Frequency of literacy activities. The MANOVA on frequency measures had six DV's representing the frequency of parent, child, and joint reading and writing, respectively. A significant multivariate affect was found, F(12, 24) = 2.28, p = .04, effect size = .53. Univariate F tests and Newman-Keuls post-hoc comparisons indicated that Meaning group mothers read for work or pleasure more often than Code mothers. Meaning group mothers helped their children write more often, and had children who did more independent writing than Unique group mothers (see Table 2). Insert Table 2 about here Mother-child Interaction Because the two measures of observed interactive behavior were not significantly correlated, univariate rather than multivariate tests were conducted. The ANOVA for conventional talk during the letter writing tasks was nonsignificant. The ANOVA for meaning talk only showed a marginal trend toward significance, F(2, 15) = 2.85, p = .09. Means were in the direction of the most meaning-related talk for the Unique group. Child Literacy Skills A MANCOVA on belief grouping was conducted using PPVT, TERA, Clay, emergent reading level and story grammar scores as the five dependent measures of child literacy skill. To control for the expected strong association between current literacy skills and prior oral language, age two PPVT score was used as a covariate. Groups did not differ on the covariate. A significant multivariate effect for belief grouping was found, F(10,20) = 4.90, p =.001, effect size = .71. Univariate effects were found for TERA, story grammar and Clay scores and a marginal univariate effect was found for the PPVT. Post hoc tests revealed that children in the Code group had higher story grammar scores than children in the meaning group and higher Clay scores than children in the Unique group. Unique group children had the lowest TERA reading scores (see Table 2).
Each unique comment made in response to the open-ended questions was transcribed and sorted by semantic content. Results of the content analysis are shown in Table 3. Themes that were mentioned by at least three mothers are displayed. There were also 8 rare themes, i.e., those mentioned by only one or two parents. When talking about children learning to read, all mothers discussed the importance of reading aloud and the need to develop an understanding of code functions. Ways to instill code knowledge included drill on letter identification, use of environmental print, and telling the child what a printed word says. Modeling and motivation were also mentioned by a sizable minority. Meaning group mothers were the most likely to mention environmental print and nonbook media such as computer games. Only Code group mothers talked about the need for children to read independently; this group was also the most likely to talk about going to the library and the least likely to mention modeling. No mothers in the Unique group mentioned use of the library or introducing reading aloud at an early age. Responses about learning to write predominantly were about fine motor control and mastering the mechanics of letter formation via repeated practice; this emphasis was shared by all three belief groups. As with reading, modeling and motivation were also mentioned. Meaning group mothers stood out in the extent to which they discussed intrinsic motivation, emergent developmental sequences, and positive carry-over from reading aloud. Code group mothers were the most likely to mention phonics. Seventy-one percent of the rare themes were provided by mothers in the Unique group. Examples of rare themes included telling oral stories, tracing the outlines of letters on the child’s back, and not knowing how children learn literacy skills. These open-ended responses corroborate the results of the RIBQ, suggesting that the Unique group mothers are less likely to make use of core whole language or phonics instructional techniques and that they tend to employ an individualized set of instructional methods.
Insert Table 3 about here Discussion The overall goal of this study was to pilot the feasibility of a method for examining the content and correlates of parents’ implicit theories of early literacy instruction. Despite the small sample size, the large number of statistically significant findings suggests that these methods could be fruitfully used in larger investigations of parental belief systems. The first major finding was that most parents in this sample held eclectic views on early literacy instruction. Parents valued both code knowledge and the derivation of meaning and reported using strategies to promote both sets of skills. Thus, parents endorse what many reading educators see as optimal practice--the simultaneous focus on top-down and bottom-up strategies (Adams, 1990; Feng, 1992; Greenberg, 1998a, 1998b; NAEYC, 1998; Stahl et. al., 1994; Stahl & Miller, 1989). Parents’ implicit theories are of pragmatic importance if they have consequences for children’s development. For example, if children’s learning is enhanced when both the home and school settings support similar goals, then the above-mentioned finding that parents, like teachers, hold eclectic views is good news. Early childhood educators stress the value of informal literacy experiences provided by both teachers and parents (NAEYC, 1998). Presumably, parents are more effective partners in their children’s education and are more likely to provide frequent, enriching home literacy experiences when their views on literacy acquisition correspond with those of early childhood professionals. Our data also suggest that individual differences in parental literacy beliefs have consequences for what children do and what children learn. Although most parents in our sample could be described as eclectic, we found different patterns, or degrees of emphasis within this overall eclecticism. Children of more meaning-oriented mothers in our sample experienced more frequent maternal modeling of reading and more frequent mother-child writing episodes; these children were also the most likely to write on their own. Perhaps because these mothers were least concerned with conventional correctness, they were more encouraging of their children's emergent attempts which, in turn, motivated their children to experiment with writing on their own. Beliefs were also associated with child literacy skills. Children of more code-oriented mothers had the highest tested performance in the areas of vocabulary, story grammar, and conventionalized reading and writing skills. The overall disadvantage fell on children of mothers who endorsed neither code- nor meaning-based strategies; their children showed the least developed literacy skills. Parents who have difficulty articulating how a skill is acquired may be less optimal tutors than parents who follow a clear conceptual model. While it is premature to make causal statements, our results justify further study of causal mechanisms. A large literature on parent-child verbal interaction has demonstrated how parental input can affect oral language competence. A similar initiative is needed to study how the social environment affects competence in written language. For example, do parental beliefs contribute to children’s literacy outcomes via their impact on parents’ practices, or do parents’ ideas more simply reflect their children’s developmental history and progress that was itself caused by other influences? The limitations of this study must be acknowledged. First, the sample size was small and homogenous in terms of social class. Second, observations of parent-child literacy interactions were limited to one 10-minute sample. Third, replication will be needed to determine whether the three belief patterns identified in our cluster analysis would indeed generalize across samples and whether these belief patterns are consistently associated with individual differences in home practices and child outcomes. However, our results suggest that this general topic of study, as well as our particular method of investigation would yield informative results. Footnotes
References Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Anderson, A. B. & Stokes, S. (1984). Social and institutional influences on the development and practice of literacy. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.). Awakening to Literacy (pp. 24-37). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Barnhart, J. E. (1991). Criterion-related validity of interpretations of children's performance on emergent literacy tasks. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(4), 425-44. Clay, M. M. (1979). The early detection of reading difficulties. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman. DeBaryshe, B. D. (1995). Maternal belief systems: Linchpin in the home reading process. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 1-20. DeBaryshe, B. D. (1992). Early language and literacy activities in the home. US Department of Education Field Initiated Studies Program. Final report for the project. Greensboro, NC: University of North Carolina at Greensboro. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 351 406). DeBaryshe, B. D. & Binder, J. C. (1994). Evaluation of an instrument for measuring parents' beliefs about reading aloud to young children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 1303-1311. Dunn, L. M. & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. DeBaryshe, B. D., Caulfield, M. C., Witty, J. P., Sidden, J., Holt, H. E., & Reich, C. R. (1991, April). The ecology of young children's home reading environments. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, April 18-20, Seattle, WA. Evans, M. A., & Carr, T. H. (1985). Cognitive abilities, conditions of learning, and the early development of reading skill. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(3), 327-350. Evans, M. A., & Baraball, L. (1991, April). Child parent bookreading and parent helping strategies. In M. A. Evans (Chair). Adult and child influences on early literacy interactions. Symposium presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA. Feng, J. (1992). Whole language approach: Is it really better? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 349 548). Fitzgerald, J., Spiegel, D. L., & Cunningham, J. W. (1991). The relationship between parental literacy level and perceptions of emergent literacy. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 191-213. Gantos, J. (1989). Rotten Ralph's show and tell. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Goodman, K. S. (1992). Why whole language is today’s agenda in education. Language Arts, 69, 354-363. Goodnow, J. J. & Collins, W. A. (1990). Development according to parents: The nature, sources, and consequences of parents' ideas. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1994). The effects of whole language on children’s writing: A review of the literature. Educational Psychologist, 29, 187-192. Greenberg, P. (1998a). Some thoughts about phonics, feelings, Don Quixote, diversity and democracy: Teaching young children to read, write, and spell. Part 1. Young Children, 53(4), 72-83. Greenberg, P. (1998b). Warmly and calmly teaching young children to read, write and spell” Thoughts about the first four of twelve well-known principles. Part 2. Young Children, 53(5), 68-82. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Holden, G. W., & Edwards, L. A. (1989). Parental attitudes toward child rearing: Instruments, issues, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 29-58. Morrison, F. J., Frazier, J. A., McMahon, E. H., Fornwald, S., and Trabasso, T. R. (1992, April). The influences of age and schooling on growth of coherence in storytelling. Poster presented at the Biennial Conference on Human Development, Atlanta, GA. National Association for the Education of Young Children (1998). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. Young Children, 53(4), 30-45. Payne, A. C., Whitehurst, G. J., Angell, A. L. (1994). The role of the home literacy environment in the development of language ability in preschool children from low-income families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 427-440. Phillips, G., & McNaughton, S. (1990). The practice of storybook reading to preschool children in mainstream New Zealand families. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 196-212. Reid, D. K., Hresko, W. P., & Hammill, D. D. (1989). Test of Early reading Ability-2. Austin: Pro-Ed. Scarborough, H. S. & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14, 245-302. Shaw, P. A. (1991). A selected review of research on whole language. Wisconsin State Reading Association Journal, 35, 3-17. Sigel, I. E. (Ed.) (1985). Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Stahl, S. A., McKenna, M. C., & Pagnucco, J. R. (1994). The effects of whole-language instruction: An update and a reappraisal. Educational Psychologist, 29, 175-185. Stipek, D., Milburn, S., Clements, D., & Daniels, D. H. (1992). Parents' beliefs about appropriate education for young children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13, 293-310. Sulzby, E. (1985). Children's emergent reading of favorite storybooks: A developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 458-481. Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent literacy: Reading and writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Table 1
RIBQ items Whole Language Items Having broad reading interests. Having confidence to guess at printed words, using a variety of cues. Understanding that reading and writing are much like talking, the purpose is communicating meaning.
Knowing that reading and writing can be useful for many activities besides reading books. Accepting attempts at writing as meaningful, even if they are incorrect (“reading” scribbles as if they were real writing). Recognizing unknown words by “what makes sense” from the other words and pictures on the page. Telling the child what the word is. Using background knowledge that the child already has, rather than information from the text to figure out an unknown word. Phonics Items Being able to sound out words on his or her own. Being able to read aloud accurately. Being able to match the sounds in spoken words with the letter combinations used to represent them. Learning to write letters and words correctly. Sounding out letters and groups of letters. Rules about how letter combinations sound (“e” at the end of the word makes the vowel sound long) Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Univariate Test Results by Belief Group _______________________________________________________________________________ Group
Meaning Code Unique Variable M M M p Contrast _______________________________________________________________________________ Literacy Enjoymenta Mom Likes Read 13.63 12.50 13.20 .27 Mom Likes Write 11.63 10.50 8.80 .14 Child Likes Read 13.62 12.50 12.40 .16 Child Likes Write 12.00 11.17 9.40 .38 Frequency of Literacy Activityb Mom Read 26.12 23.17 25.60 .02 meaning > code Mom Write 29.50 25.33 24.00 .12 Child Read 36.75 33.67 35.00 .21 Child Write 27.37 24.33 21.60 .006 meaning> unique Joint Read 12.88 12.17 11.40 .46 Joint Write 13.12 12.33 11.00 .03 meaning > unique _______________________________________________________________________________
Mother-Child Interaction Conventional Talkc 28.25 44.33 20.00 .25 Meaning Talkd 4.87 6.50 10.75 .09 Child Literacy Skillse, f PPVT 113.10 125.71 112.95 .06 TERA 117.00 118.62 101.85 .004 code, meaning > unique Sulzby Level 7.19 8.15 6.66 .74 Story Grammar 8.75 16.48 10.41 .008 code > meaning Clay (z score) .65 1.41 -2.76 .02 code > unique
Table 3
Themes emerging from content analysis of open-ended questions about reading and writing Learn about reading Learn about writing Themes about code knowledge Themes about mechanics of writing Environmental Print (n = 10) Copying (n = 10) Reading signs and boxes. You write a letter and they copy it. Phonics (n = 8) Provide materials (n = 10) They should learn phonetically. Provide markers, crayons and paper. Sight words (n = 7) Fine motor development (n = 9) Sight reading for small words. Encourage drawing and fine motor skills. Letter identification (n = 4) Practice (n = 9) Recognizing letters and ABC’s. Practice and repetition. Answering child’s queries (n = 4) ABC’s and writing own name (n = 3) Tell him what things say when he asks. Teach him how to write his name Letter-sound drill (n = 3) Connect-the dots (n = 3) Use flash cards, they tell the letter’s sound Make a dotted outline for the child to trace. Themes about modeling and motivation Themes about modeling and motivation Modeling (n = 7) Imitation (n = 5) Adults set an example by reading She just picked up a pencil, imitating me. Motivation (n = 7) Encouragement (n = 4) Make reading fun. We encouraged her Inner motivation (n = 5) . Children will have a desire (to write). (continued) Table 3 cont’d. Themes about reading aloud Other themes Read aloud (nonspecific) (n = 16) Phonics (n = 6) Read to her. Sounding it out. Read aloud from an early age (n = 7) Read aloud (n = 4) Read aloud from infancy. By reading to him. Books available (n = 6) Authentic experiences (n = 4) Provide books. Let him write down words on the grocery list. Use library (n = 4) Developmental sequence (n = 3) Go to the library. Don’t learn to write until they can read. Independent reading (n = 4) Spell for them (n = 3) Let him try (reading) by himself Spelling to her while she writes. School work (n = 3) She’s learning at school. Other themes Media (n = 4) Tapes of books, computer games. Developmental sequence (n = 4) There’s a progression: sight, sounds, put sounds together into words. Picture focus (n = 4) Point to pictures in books. Note. n represents the number of parents who discussed a theme. Examples of responses are in italics. Directory: family family -> Concept Check family -> Annual Report 2002–03 Volume I family -> Sorted Individuals List Born Died rin name /Chr /Bur mrin spouse, Parent or Child family -> Annual Report 2003-04 I volume 1 family -> Locke's Goal Setting Theory family -> American Camping Association Standards at a glance family -> Guidance for workers family -> Family Support Coordinator Responsible to family -> Referral Form On behalf of : This form must be completed with the family, who should be given a copy of the completed form. The Referrer must agree to attend the Family Group Conference to assist the process Download 64.73 Kb. Share with your friends:
|