Literature Review

Family Literacy

Family literacy is a term that was coined by Denny Taylor in the 1980's as she and others conducted ethnographic research into the literacy development of young children (Hannon, 2000; Purcell-Gates, 2000).  Originally, the term was used to refer to the ways in which literacy is interwoven into the daily routines of family life.  This use of the term reflects a research point of view.  Over the last two decades, a variety of interpretations and uses of the term family literacy have emerged.  

The Literacy Dictionary (Harris & Hodges, 1995) provides a brief and open-ended definition of family literacy as “literacy efforts or activities involving more than one generation.”  The International Reading Association's Family Literacy Commission offers the following conceptualization of the term family literacy:

            Family literacy encompasses the ways parents, children, and extended family members
    use literacy at home and in their community.  Sometimes, family literacy occurs naturally during
    the routines of daily living and helps adults and children “get things done.”  These events might
    include using drawings or writings to share ideas; composing notes or letters to communicate
    messages; making lists; reading and following directions; or sharing stories and ideas through
    conversation, reading, and writing.  Family literacy may be initiated purposefully by a parent or
    may occur spontaneously as parents and children go about the business of their daily lives. 
    Family literacy activities may also reflect the ethnic, racial, or cultural heritage of the families
    involved (Morrow, 1995, pp. 7-8). 

Another use of the term family literacy is related to educational programs or services.  In some cases, family literacy refers to any program that involves parents in the literacy development and/or school experiences of their children (Handel, 1999; Hannon, 2000).  The federal definition, however, takes a comprehensive approach to family literacy and mandates the inclusion of four separate components.  This federal definition refers to family literacy services as:

services that are of sufficient intensity in terms of hours, and of sufficient duration, to make
            sustainable changes in a family and that integrate all of the following activities:

(A)   Interactive literacy activities between parents and their children.

(B)   Training for parents regarding how to be the primary teacher for their children and full partners in the education of their children.

(C)   Parent literacy training that leads to economic self-sufficiency.

(D)   An age-appropriate education program to prepare children for success in school and life experiences (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001).

For the purposes of this paper, family literacy will refer to the literacy events that take place between parents and their children at home or in the community.  Family literacy program will refer to any center- or school-based program that meets the federal criteria.  Family literacy project will refer to any other effort designed to enhance parents' and children's mutual engagement in literacy activities.

Home Literacy Events and Learning

It is well documented that literacy learning begins long before children enter school or receive formalized literacy instruction (Handel, 1999; Leseman & deJong, 1998; Ruddell & Ruddell, 1994; Heath, 1983; Teale & Sulzby, 1986; Weaver, 1994; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998).  This literacy learning occurs within the context of family and home, as children engage in ongoing, naturalistic literacy activities and events.  Family literacy activities often occur during children's participation in daily living routines like shopping, meal preparation, looking up television listings, or reading the mail.  Literacy activities include joint storybook reading; reading recipes, food labels, and package directions; visiting the library; writing; pretend play (playing school, for example); oral storytelling; mealtime conversation; singing songs; and chanting or reciting rhymes (Baker, Serpell, & Sonnenschein, 1995; Heath, 1983; Leseman & deJong, 1998; Purcell-Gates, 1996; Weaver, 1994).  Weaver (1994) maintains that children begin literacy learning when they have daily opportunities to watch others reading and writing and when they are actively involved in guided or independent reading and writing. Types of literacy learning that occur as a result of family literacy activities include knowledge about print, knowledge about narrative structure, phonological awareness, enjoyment of reading, and language and vocabulary development (Baker, Serpell, & Sonnenschein, 1995; Snow et al., 1998; Snow & Ninio, 1986; Teale, 1986).

Families' attitudes about and experiences around literacy make a powerful contribution to children's literacy development and eventual reading achievement.  A look at the factors that predict reading success highlights the importance of young children's engagement in family literacy activities. Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998) found that “positive expectations about and experiences with literacy from an early age” and “support for reading-related activities and attitudes” (p. 100) are among the most important factors that predict success in reading. World knowledge and preschool language are powerful predictors of reading achievement (Commission on Reading, 1985; Leseman & deJong, 1998; Snow et al., 1998).  Receptive and expressive vocabulary, overall language development, phonological awareness, letter identification, word decoding, and concepts of print all predict reading achievement (Jordan, Snow, & Porche, 2000; Leseman & deJong, 1998; Snow et al., 1998).  It is the language environment in which children are raised that influences the extent to which they acquire language, literacy, and world knowledge (Commission on Reading, 1985; Ruddell & Ruddell, 1994; Teale, 1986).  The development of literacy skills is influenced by the frequency and quality of children's exposure to home literacy events (Jordan et al., 2000; Leseman & deJong, 1998; Snow et al., 1998).  Ruddell & Ruddell (1994) assert that “children from language-enriched backgrounds achieve control over a wider range of language functions than do children from backgrounds that provide more limited language use.”  The Commission on Reading (1985) reported that “the more knowledge children are able to acquire at home, the greater their chance for success in reading” (p. 22). The same report noted that children who have more opportunities to experience trips, walks in the park, and visits to zoos and museums have more background knowledge to draw upon during reading than children who do not have those opportunities.  The Commission also stated that “the way in which parents talk to their children about an experience influences what knowledge children will gain from the experience and their later ability to draw on that knowledge when reading” (p. 22). The variety of contexts for using literacy, and the “socially significant” way in which they are integrated into daily family life contribute to the range and extent of young children's literacy achievement (Auerbach, 1989).  As Teale (1986) stated, “The roots of the reading process are established very early in life.” 

The more literacy knowledge children bring to school and the richer their language background, the more likely they are to succeed in school (Braunger & Lewis, 1998; Commission on Reading, 1985; Yaden, Rowe, & MacGillivray, 1986).  Children use their background knowledge and language skills to construct meaning from text (Anderson, 1994; Johnson, 2000; Rosenblatt, 1994; Ruddell, 1994).  Those children who have developed more language and world knowledge are better able to construct meaning during and after reading than those whose oral language and funds of knowledge are more limited (Commission on Reading, 1985; Ruddell & Ruddell, 1994).  Snow et al. (1998) believe that “reducing the number of children who enter school with inadequate literacy-related knowledge and skill is an important primary step toward preventing reading difficulties” (p. 5).  

It has been demonstrated that the more school-like family literacy activities are, the more likely they are to promote children's success in school (Ruddell & Ruddell, 1994; Teale, 1986).  However, families differ in the ways in which they support children's literacy development, and such differences may impact children's school achievement (Heath, 1983; Heath and Mangiola, 1991; Moll, 1994; Morrow, 1995; Purcell-Gates, 2000; Ruddell & Ruddell, 1994; Snow et al, 1998; Yaden, Rowe, & MacGillivray, 1986).  Heath and Mangiola (1991) report that different sociocultural groups teach their children about the world in their own unique ways.  They also have different expectations regarding how children are to display their knowledge.  Such practices may be incongruent with the expectations of teachers and schools (Auerbach, 1989; Braunger & Lewis, 1998; Moll, 1994) leading to a gap between home literacy and school literacy that may result in lower levels of success in learning to read at school.  The literacy routines embedded in classroom practice may have little meaning for non-mainstream children and their families (Morrow, 1995).  In fact, typical school literacy practices may not be meaningful to non-mainstream learners, and may lead teachers to underestimate the abilities of those children (Moll, 1994).  The differences between home and school literacy may be such that it becomes difficult for parents to integrate school-like activities into their home routines (Morrow, 1995).  This discontinuity between home and school literacy practices marginalizes some students, leaving them unable to access the benefits of classroom instruction.      

In order to bridge the gap between home literacy and school literacy, a number of agencies and schools have developed programs aimed at increasing children's opportunities for developing language and literacy.  The goal of many of these programs is to reduce the number of children who come to school at a disadvantage – without the requisite language, world knowledge, or literacy skills that will enable them to access the benefits of classroom literacy instruction.  However, critics contend that such programs operate from a “deficit view” in which children's lack of mainstream literacy experiences is seen as a deficit in their literacy development.  Critics also claim that programs and schools fail to realize and capitalize on the importance of alternative literacy experiences that occur within non-mainstream families (Auerbach, 1989; Hannon, 1998; Moll, 1994).  These writers suggest that schools need to adopt a broader definition of family literacy and develop an awareness and understanding of the social and cultural contexts in which their students reside (Auerbach, 1989, Moll, 1994).  Both Auerbach (1989) and Moll (1994) advocate the creation of social networks that may be used to create greater connections between home and school.  Both authors suggest that curriculum development (either for school literacy or family literacy curricula) involve the parents or family members who will participate in the program or project.  Moll (1994) believes that greater success can be achieved if schools implement meaning-based literacy instruction and mobilize the “funds of knowledge” that exist in families and in the community.  Auerbach (1989, 1995) contends that program or project developers must collaborate with participants to investigate “critical issues in family and community life.” Those issues, according to Auerbach, should then become the focus for meaningful literacy learning.                    

Family Literacy Programs and Projects

A thorough description of all family literacy programs is beyond the scope of this paper. However, a brief review of some of the major types of programs is warranted.  Family literacy programs began to emerge in the U.S. in the 1980's (Handel, 1999).  Most family literacy programs in this country are funded by the federal government (Handel, 1999; Morrow, Tracey, & Maxwell, 1995).  Federal legislation regarding family literacy programs includes the Adult Education Act, the Library and Construction Act, The Head Start Act, and The Family Support Act of 1988.  In addition, family literacy programs are addressed in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), including Title I and Even Start (Handel, 1999; Morrow, Tracey, & Maxwell, 2000).  Family literacy initiatives are also supported by state, local, and private funding agencies.  Most family literacy programs are aimed at low-income, undereducated families.  Many programs focus on a combination of adult and child literacy.  Other programs have as their main goal the promotion of parent/child engagement in literacy activities.  Originally, the inclusion of children's literacy in adult literacy programs was a response to the needs of the adults, not a response to any extant research.  At about the same time that this was happening, early intervention programs began to address the needs of the families of the young children they served (Handel, 1999).  As mentioned earlier, the federal government mandates that both adult and children's literacy services be included in federally funded programs.

Family literacy programs vary widely both in the nature and the scope of their services.  Programs range from federally funded center-based programs to university-supported programs (often affiliated with teacher education programs) to grassroots efforts conceived by volunteers to classroom- or school-based initiatives implemented by teachers and/or parents.  A brief description of several major programs and foundations offers a glimpse at family literacy resources available in this country.

Even Start

Even Start is part of the ESEA legislation.  The program focuses on children (birth through age seven) and their parents.  Even Start is based on the premise that a combination of adult literacy, parenting education, early childhood education, and interactive parent and child literacy activities will help break the cycle of poverty and low literacy in the U.S.  Even Start has three goals: to help parents improve their literacy, to help parents become partners in their children's education, and to help children reach their full learning potential.  Even Start programs require schools, social service agencies, and community partners to collaborate in order to provide comprehensive family education services (www.ed.gov/offices/OESEP/CEP).

Reading is Fudamental (RIF)

Reading Is Fundamental (RIF) is a project that focuses on providing children with access to books. RIF is the result of a grassroots effort that began in 1966 as a motivational program to make reading appealing to children.  The premise here is twofold: parents play a role in motivating children to read, and book ownership has a positive effect on motivation to read and enjoyment of reading.  The RIF project relies on parent volunteers to choose, order, and distribute books to children in what is called the National Book Program.  RIF has developed several offshoot projects, all aimed at building enjoyment of literacy within families.  RIF has published a book about encouraging children to read, and has created a series of workshops and brochures for parents (www.rif.org). 

The Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy

The Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy provides information and grants for family literacy initiatives.  Mrs. Bush established this foundation in order to promote literacy as a family value.  She believes that the home is a child's first school, the parent is the child's first teacher, and reading should be the first subject a child is taught.  Mrs. Bush's goal is to break the intergenerational cycle of illiteracy (www.barbarabushfoundation.com).

The National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL)    

The National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL), based in Louisville, Kentucky, is a non-profit organization that supports “family literacy services for families across the United States through training, programming, research, advocacy and dissemination” (www.famlit.org). According to the website, the NCFL was established in 1989 with funding from the William R. Kenan, Jr. Charitable Trust.  The organization facilitates the implementation of family literacy programs by training educators and policy makers to design, implement and evaluate family literacy programs using the Kenan Model.  This model advocates that family literacy programs incorporate the four components mentioned in the federal definition.

School and Classroom Based Projects

Many schools and individual classrooms have implemented family literacy activities.  Created to meet a documented or perceived need, these programs vary widely in philosophy, design, and implementation.  A quick perusal of several issues of the Reading Teacher provides a sampling of the range of models adopted by teachers and others in schools.  Although it would be impossible to describe even a fraction of the projects here, it should be noted that most focus on children's literacy learning.  Many projects involve take-home books or book-related activities, some include parent workshops and/or participation in school activities, and a few include efforts to address non-mainstream home literacy.  A review of the literature reveals that many of these school-based family literacy efforts are aimed at increasing the amount and frequency of parent/child storybook reading (Barbour, 1998/99; Faires, Nichols, & Rickelman, 2000; Morrow & Young, 1997; Nistler & Maiers, 1999; Nistler & Maiers, 2000).

Parent/Child Storybook Reading

Parent/child storybook reading, has been the focus of numerous studies and family literacy programs.  In many families and cultures, parent/child storybook reading is a time-honored tradition that exists as just one of many family literacy activities.  In other families and cultures, the occurrence of parent/child storybook reading is rare or nonexistent.  A number of theorists, researchers, and policy makers maintain that parent/child storybook reading makes an important contribution to children's literacy development (Baker et al, 1986; Goodman, 1986; Snow, 1998; Snow & Ninio, 1986; Teale, 1986).  Not only that, but parent/child storybook reading promotes enjoyment of and positive feelings about books and literacy (Snow, et al., 1998; Snow & Ninio, 1986).   The Commission on Reading (1985) states “the single most important activity for building the knowledge required for eventual success in reading is reading aloud to children” (p. 23).  Former U.S. Secretary of Education William J. Bennett (1986), in a report on elementary education in America, suggests that parents should read to their children if they can, or find others to read to them if they can't.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that reading aloud to children contributes to children's development of language and early literacy skills.  Senechal and LeFevre (1998)  found that storybook reading predicted both oral and written language skills.  Whitehurst et al (1988) demonstrated that children who were exposed to storybook reading developed greater expressive language.  Purcell-Gates (1996) demonstrated that children with more exposure to print understood the signifying nature of print.  Morrow, O'Connor, and Smith (1990) demonstrated that storybook reading had significant effects on measures of story retelling, comprehension, and other measures.  Morrow and Young (1997) found that students in a family literacy program showed greater gains in literacy, attitudes toward reading, and amount of reading.  Jordan, Snow, and Porche (2000) discovered that participants in a storybook reading project made statistically significant gains in vocabulary, story comprehension, story sequence, sound awareness, and concepts of print and language skills.

There is abundant evidence that parent/child storybook reading contributes to children's vocabulary development. Senechal et al (1995) demonstrated that children learned target words through storybook read-alouds, and that asking questions during reading was beneficial for children who differed in word knowledge.  Senechal et al (1996) demonstrated that preschoolers' knowledge of storybooks was significantly related to vocabulary scores. Studies have also shown that using an interactive or dialogic approach to story reading contributes to children's vocabulary.  Whitehurst et al (1988) conducted a study in which parents were trained to pose a variety of questions during parent/child storybook reading.  Children benefited from the intervention in that they scored higher than control group children on standardized measures of expressive language. Working with kindergarten students, Frijters et al (2000) found that “parent initiated home literacy activities have a direct influence on prereaders' oral vocabulary development.”  In separate studies, Ewers and Brownson (1999) and Robbins and Ehri (1994) found that kindergartners learned new words as a result of storybook reading.  Children with larger vocabularies learned significantly more words than children with smaller vocabularies. The findings suggest that children may learn more new words when they are actively engaged and responding to questions during the reading of a storybook.

The manner and style in which parents read to or with children varies across class and culture (Teale, 1986).  It is suggested that children benefit most from joint storybook reading when they actively participate by asking and answering questions, engaging in discussion about the stories, and talking about the meanings of words in the stories (Commission on Reading, 1985; Huebner, 2000).  It is the interactions between parents and children as they read stories together that influence children's literacy development (Halliday, 1994; Panofsky, 1989; Schickedanz, 2000).  This interactive or “dialogic” approach to reading with young children has a positive effect on children's expressive language and concepts of print (Ewers & Brownson, 1999; Snow et al., 1998; Whitehurst et al. 1994; Whitehurst et al., 1988).  Interactive parent/child storybook reading serves to introduce children to and provide practice for future school activities (Brown, Palincsar, & Armbruster, 1994; Huebner, 2000).

Researchers, teachers, and others have developed programs to teach parents how to read to children, to encourage parent/child storybook reading, and to increase student achievement through the engagement of parents and their children in literacy activities centered around storybook reading (Barbour, 1998/99; Douville, 2000; Ewers, 1999; Faires, Nichols, & Rickelman, 2000; Huebner, 2000; Jordan, Snow, & Porche, 2000; Morrow & Young, 1997; Nistler & Maiers, 1999; Nistler & Maiers, 2000; Patton, Silva, & Myers, 1999; Whitehurst et al., 1994; Whitehurst et al., 1988).  In two separate studies, Whitehurst and colleagues (Whitehurst et al. 1988; Whitehurst et al., 1994) trained parents to use a dialogic approach to reading with their young children at home.  Parents' conscientious participation in the home reading program led to increases in children's language abilities in both studies.  Jordan, Snow, and Porche (2000) demonstrated that parent training in interactive reading promoted growth in vocabulary, story comprehension, story sequence, sound awareness (ending sounds), and concepts of print.  Huebner (2000) also conducted parent training in dialogic reading as part of her study.  She found that after the intervention, children enjoyed reading and were read to more often.  Often, projects like the ones described above are implemented through a home-school collaboration,  with or without support from a university or other agency. 

Home/School Collaboration

            Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 was signed into law in March of 1994 by then President William Clinton.  This act mandated that by the year 2000 every school would promote partnerships that would increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the academic growth of children (www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/sec102.html ).  There are several reasons for this mandate.  There is a long-standing belief that parents' involvement in their children's education has a positive effect, or is at least correlated with, greater academic achievement.  Another reason for the mandate is the belief that home, school, and community have a shared responsibility for educating children.  Are these beliefs supported by empirical research?  Although much work and many authors have investigated the relationship between parent involvement and student achievement, there are several issues that cloud the research.  First, there is the difficulty of defining parent involvement.  This term could be used to describe a wide range and variety of efforts and activities.  Then, there is the problem of determining how to assess the effect of parent involvement.  Often, assessment efforts must rely on the reports of individuals who may or may not provide accurate information.  Much of the research that has been conducted has been done by those who stood to gain, either financially or politically, by showing positive results.  Finally, findings have been mixed, with some studies showing a positive correlation, and some showing little or no evidence of correlation.  Although research in this arena may not always be as clear and conclusive as we'd like it to be, researchers continue to attempt to uncover the link between parent involvement and student achievement.    

            There is research that shows that parent involvement is positively associated with student achievement (Griffith, 1996; Hannon, 1998; Marcon, 1999; Zellman & Waterman, 1998).  Correlation is particularly strong in early childhood education (Hannon, 1998; Marcon, 1999).  Both Hannon (1998) and Marcon (1999) suggest that parents may be more effective when they act as “facilitators” rather than as instructors or “interveners.”

            Zellman and Waterman question whether efforts to promote parent involvement in school can achieve the same effects as involvement that occurs naturally as a result of parent interest or motivation.  The positive results of several efforts (Faires, et al., 2000; Huebner, 2000; Jordan, Snow, & Porche, 2000; Morrow & Young, 1997; Whitehurst et al. 1994; Whitehurst et al. 1988) leads to the conclusion that the positive effects can be achieved.  One conclusion that many researchers and practitioners agree upon is that there is a continued need to find ways to work with families that value family literacy and achieve a balance between home and school literacies (Auerbach, 1989; Hannon, 1998; Moll, 1994).

Conclusion

            Family literacy is a term that carries with it many meanings and interpretations.  The use of the term family literacy can be fraught with philosophical or political connotations.  Family literacy programs or projects may be seen as positive outreach efforts designed to increase families' abilities to access cultural capital or as efforts to force mainstream values and practices onto non-mainstream families.  Regardless of the philosophy, curriculum, or methods of the developers, the purpose of family literacy programs and projects is to increase the literacy skills of participants.  There is evidence that this can be achieved in humanistic, naturalistic ways that recognize and build upon existing family literacy practices.         

Click here to go to  my References.