it rti

ENHANCING READING ACHIEVEMENTOFGRADETWO STUDENTS:APROGRAM FORPARE NTS

by

M. Belle Sparke s Butt, B.A.(Ed.), M.i'd .

A the sis submitte d in pa r t ial fu l f ilmen t of the req uiremen ts fortbedegreeof

Haster of Ed uc a tio n

Fa cultyofEduc ation Me mor!aluniversityof Newfoundla nd

Apr il 1995

St.,John' s Newfoundland

1+1

BibliolheQuenanooale duCanada Direchondes8Cl:luisitoo set des servicesb'bhographiQues 395,f\lGWel""llkwl

~rJAOnlano)

THEAUTHOR HAS GRANTED AN IRREVOCABLENON·EXCLUSIVE LICENCE ALLOWINGTHE NATIONAL LIBRARYOF CANADATO REPRODUCE,LOAN,DISTRIBUTEOR SELLCOPIES OF HISfHER THESIS DY ANYMEANS AND IN ANY FORM OR FORMAT,MAKINGTHJS THESIS AVAILARLETOrNTERESTED PERSONS.

THE AUTHOR RETAINS OWNERSmp OF THE COPYRIGHT

m

ISBN 0-612-06147-7

Canad~

L'AUTEURA ACCORDEUNELICENCE IRREVOCABLEET NON EXCLUSIVE PERM.ETTANT A LA IlIDLIOTHEQUE NATIONALEDU CANADADE REPRODUIRE,PREI ER. D1STRUlUER OU VENORE DES COPIES DE SA THESEDE QUELQUEMANIEREET SOUSQUELQUEFORMEQUE CE SOIT POUR METTRc DESEXEMPLA1RESDE CETTETHESE A LA DISPOSITIONDES PERSONNElNTERESSEES

L'AUTEUR CONSERVE LA I'ROPRIETE DUDROITD'AUTEURQUII'I(OTEGE SATHESE. NILA TIIESE NI DES EXTRAITSSUBSTANTIELSDE CEU .li- CINE DOIVENTETREIMPRIMESau AUTREMENTREPRODUITS SANSSON AUTORISATION,

ABSTRACT

The purposeof thisstudy was to describe and evaluate the effectiveness of an interactive reading program on children'sreading achievement. This program involved parents of grade two children. Itsint e nt was to train parents how to help more effectively thei r children with reading. The program was based on the findingsof past research on parenta l involvement in literacy development of children, inc l ud i ng revealed parent-childinteractions and techniques of parental involvement. Its effectiveness was determined by comparing gains made in reading comprehension, receptive vccabu Lar y and sight vocabulary by an experimentaland a control group.

A pretest-midtest-posttest -follow-uptest control group design with matching was us e d for this research. From d population of 80 grade two students, seven pairs were matched on the be eLc of reading ability,socia-economicstatus, gender and age. One member of each pair was then randomly assigned to the experimental group; the other was placed in the control group. A series of one way ANOVAS conducted on group scores and each of the three dependent variables at pretest time confirmed the so und ne s s of this design.

Both groups of students continued to receive re gu l a r classroom instruct ion. Only children in the experimental group we reexposed to the assistance program,or treatment.

i i

By midt e s t ti me, the impa c t of the program on readi ng comprehens ion,receptive vocabularyand sightvocabularywas

!oundto beinthehypot ht'.s iz e d direction; by posttesttime it was statistica llysignific~~tatt~he0.1level. Thr e e months after the pro qram te r min at e d, the fo llow-up test results indi cat e d tha t..its impact was st i ll siqnificant at the 0.1 lev e l on sight vocabu l ary; howeve r, its imp act on re a d i ng comprehens i o nandreceptivevocabu laryhadbecomesi gn if i c an t at the 0.01lev el.

Pro v i s ionswerealsomadet.cdisco vereffects thepro gram hadonchildren'satd t ude towardsre a ding, and tode t ermine pare.res' re a c t i o n s to the pr o gra m. It was found that the p..ogram app a r e nt l y was si g ni f i c a nt in increasing ch ildre n's desLre to read. Parents al s o repor ted a ver-y positive reep-mse to it,

The program, in summar y, proved to be suc ce s s f ul in hel ~i ngpar en t sdeve l op the"knowhow"to enh an c ethe re ad i ng le ve lsof thei r children and to deve l o pin the m an increa si ng desireto rea d . Asa resul t,thefindingsof thestudysho ul d ha veimpo r t a nt implic at ion s for educ ato rsandparentsW',10are concernedaboutchildr e n ' s readingachievementandsolving our serious illiteracy problem.

ii i

ACK NOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to gratefully acknowledge and express my sincere appreciation to several individuals and groups for the parts they played in helpingme complete this thesis.

From the outset, I wish to thank Dr. Marc Glassman, my thesis supervisor, for his assistance and advice throughout this project. A sincere thank-you is also extended to Professor Jeffrey Bulcock for his assistance in helping me design this studyand analyzethe resulting statistical data.

Special thanks are extended to the Avalon North Integrated School Board for grantingme permissionto conduct this research. To the childre nand parents whoso willingly participated in the study, I offer my deepest appreciation.

I would like also to express my appreciation to the Principal and staff ofco l e y' s Point Primary School for their assistance in selecting students for the study, their cooperationduringthe data collection phase and for the use of the school library and classroom book collections.

Finally,my heartfelt gratitudeis extended to my mom, Be u l a h lnkpenSparke s, my husband,Calvin, my son, Barry, and my daughters, Ro b i ne t t e and wendy, for their patience and support, and for understanding why my involvementwith this pr oj ec t of tenkept meunavailable to them. They now share my joyof its completion.

iv

Dedicated to

my father John c.Sparkes

whose memory liveson

and

who always believed in me

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract • . • •

Acknowledgements Dedicati on • . . Tabl e of Contents List of Tables Listof Figures . CHAPTER

I. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY Introd u c tio n • • . . .

i i iv

vi ix

The Problem • • • • •

Rationa lefor the Study 10

II. REVIEWOF RELATEDLITERATURE 14

Parental Involveme nt in Educa tion 14 ParentalInvolvemen t inReadi ng • 28 Parents, Or al La ng ua g e and Reading 29

Effective Pract ices • • • • ]1

Readingto Children • . . ]2

Listeningto Childr enRead 41

Material Availability and Mod e lling 46

Participation Programs 54

eene c a t Needs 55

Specif i cNeeds 56

Structure 62

Content • 66

Conclusion . 69

vi

III. SOURCESOFDATA, METHODS ANDPROCEDURE S Int rod u c tio n

Hypotheses Sample • • procedures De s i g n

Te s t ill g and Evaluation Treatment • • • . • • • Test ingand EvaluationIns t r uments

~ initieReadingTest .

~bodyPic tur~~

Slosson Oral Readin gTest • • I.nY.en:t.Oryof Readjo; Attitude Parent'sQuestionnaire IV. FINDINGSANDINTERPRETATI ONS

Introduct ion • • • . . • De s c ri p t i v e Statist ics

Group and Gender • • Reading Comprehension Receptive Vocabulary Sight vocabulary. • Analysisof Va r i a n c e • • Gender and Group Tests Hypotheses Tests. • •

vii

73 73 73 74 75 75 77 79 89 89 90 92 9J 9J 94 94 96 96

"

102 105 108 108 llO

IV. FINDINGS ANDINTERPRETATIONS(Continue d) Correlation Ana l y s i s

Di s cus s ion. . . Reading Abi l i ty Gender . . . . . ReadingAtt it ude

Parents 'ResponsetoPr o g ram. Summary of Fi nd ings

V. SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, LI MIT ATI ONS ANDFURTHE R RESEARCH . . .

Summary . . Implications Lim ita tions

Sug g e s t ions forFurtherResearch REFERENCES

APPENDICES App e ndi x A App endix 8 Append i x C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appe ndix I

vi ii

ll5 119 121 123 125 12 8 130

132 132 13' 145 146 149

174 177 180 iaz

la'

LIST OFTABLES Tabla

Pretest Scores by Gender . .. . Pretest Scores by Group . . . . Comparisons of means for Pretest through eo Follow~upTest Scores on Ga~_es-MacGioit ie

Page 97 .98

• • • 100

Te..s..t.by Group . . . • • Comparisonsof means forPretest through to Follow-upTest Scoreson~..s..t.

by Group. . . • . • . . . 103 Comparisons of means on Pretest through

to Follow-up Test Scores onSl.QSllO.n...'l'e.S..

by Group . . . 106 Analysis of Variance :Gender and Pretest Scores 109 Analysis of Variance: Group and Pretest Scores . 110 Analysis of Variance: Group and Gates-MacGio;tie 'reJltscores . . . • . . . • .. . . 112 Analysis ofVa r i a nc e : Group and Pe a bod yTestScores ..113 10 Analysis of Variance:Group and S]ossoo Test Scores114 11 Correlation Matrix: pr e t e s t through toFollow~up

Test Items. • •• •. . . . •. . . • . . 116 12 Comparisons of Program Effects on ReadingAbility 122 13 comparisons of Program Effects on Gender. . . 124 14 I.ruleotoryofReadingAttitudeResllJts:Contro l Group •.126 15 InYe:ntory ofReadingAttitude Resylts:Experimental

Gr oup . •. • . . . .

ix

. . . • 127

104 10 1 Page LIS'!' OF FI GURES

Figure

comparisonsof Mean oedne on G.a..t;es=Ma.c<:i.init.ie reas, ScoresbyGroup • • • • • • • • • comparisons ofME!i'n Gains onf.e..ab2.d:l

r.e..s..t. ScoresbyGroup . . . • . .

Comp a r i s o n s of Mean Gains on S.loSSJ:lLT.es.t.

Scores byGroup • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • . • 107

CHAP TER I BACKGROUNDTO THE:STUDY

Int rod uct i on

Becau sereadi ngpermeate s the<inti r e school curriculum, the abilitytoread is basic to academicsuccess in school.

As a result, "learni ng to read is considered by parents, teachers and the general public to be the most important edu cat iona l ob j e c t i ve for children " (Si lvern , 198 3 , p.44).

ne c e us ethe obvious and general lyaccepted role of the primary school is to promote and de v elop the foundation for la t er le a r n i ng , the roleof primar yschool teachers in developing able readers cannot be ove r -emphasi z e d.

Despite thehi g hl y accepted significan ceof literacyand the cons iderable emphasis given to reading instruction by primary teachers, however, illiterac y re mai ns one of the greatestproblemsin oursociety(Sut herl a nd, 1993). Asu r vey published by Statistics canada (1991) ceveate d a gloomy picture with respe c t to literacy sk.ills of can a d i a ns, especially Newf o und l a nder s . I t estimated that 16 \ of canadians and 24\ of Newfoundlander s inthe 16to 69 age rang e are funct ioningat ene lowes t leve l ofre a di ng proficiency, having re ad ing skills too l imi ted to de a I wi th everyd ay readingdemands ; l!2\ of Can adi an sand36\of Newfound l an ders hav e abil it ie s enablingthemtodeal onlywith si mpl e texts;

62 \ of Canadi an s and only 39%of Newfou nd landers ha vereading skillssufficientto meet most everydayrea ding re q u i re me nt s .

Thissurveyconcluded thatlit e r a c y skills vary by province and are weaker in ruralareas ; ho we ve r, Newfoun dlandreg i s ters the lowest skilllevels for Ca nadians.

In our kncwj.edqe-cbaaedsociety,literacy is basi ctobo th individualand socialprogress. It isnow as impor tan t to our economy as roads, ports and airports were in the fiftiesand sixties (Sutherland , 1993). Because it formsthe basis fo r the well-educat edandwell-trainedworkforce so necessary in our hig h l y te c hn ologi c a l wo rld, literac y developmen t is becomingcentral to our survivalas a nation (Durkin, 199 4 ) . Referring to these qloomy statistics on literacy in our nati on and prov ince and its cr ucia l import a nc e to our ec onomy, Sutherlandstated, "Theseare the hard fac tsandtheyre ve a k a horrificproblem. Illiteracy and low levels of literacy are the main barriersto stab leeconomicgrowth,pr oduct ivity,and ful lemployment inthi s pr o v i nc e , andelsewhere" (p. 24).

Thedisemp owerme nt that permeates the livesoftho s e who are illiterate is usuallyde v a s t a t i ng to them and veryco s t l y to society. Many jointheranks of theunemp Loyedand be c o me welfare re cipi ents. With their self-esteem bruised and battere d, many become engaged in acts of crime . Sixty percent of prisoners in Canada and the United States, fo r example, ha v e been found tobe func tiona lly illit era t e (Doa ke , 198 7). As society become s more knowledge based, suc h prob lems compound.

Sutherland said that solving our serious il:'iteracy problem will require wisdom. Thi s researcher maintainsthat the soluti on lies more wi th common sense. It simp l y means puttingintopractice what researchha s been telling us for decades and that is for schools to seek greater partnerships with parents in literacy development. As Rasinski (199 4) cla imed, ~G e t t i n g parents involved in their children's literacy deve lopment .,. holds the greatest potential for positivelyaf f e c ti ng childr en ' s reading" (p.3l). This, he said, is more impo r t a nt than adopting new approaches to re ad i ng within schools, such as "who l e la ngu age". It is enc ouragingto see that manyschoolsthroughout thiscountry arebeginningto adopt this research-basedpractice.

Expecting the primary school to develop basic literacy skills in all itspupilsin a relativelyshort time frame may be unreasonable. This is especially true today when th e primary schoolcurriculum is rapidly becoming overcrowded as each discipline requires more of this "p ri me time" for learning and as schools are rapidly becoming over-burdened withtheirinc r e a s i ng l y difficult task of tryinq to meet the demands of an exceedingly diverse and highly technological society. Most pri mary childre n are exposed to formal schoolingonl ythree tofive hour s per day foronly 187 days per year. They are usuallywith their parentsformuc hofthe remaining time. Hurd (1994 )claimed, "Fr ombi r t h to age 18 ,

childrenspendle sstha n 10\ of their time in school- IP-.12 ) . Tappingparental timeand energyto as s is t tea c hersin the promotio nanddevelopmentof literacymakes practic alsen s e. It alsomakeslogica l sense.

Paren ts are the fir st and most important teachers of thei r child ren (Bech er, 1882; Lars e n, 198 21 . In ter ms of time,theyare thetea c hers chi ld renusually ha ve thelongest.

Research hasshownconc l u sively that pare ntalinf luenc e over their chil drenisgreater than thatexe r t ed by teacher s(Tea l , 1978; Topp i ng,1984; Silve r n, 198 51. More spe c if ica lly, the cru ci al role par ent s play in the de velopmen t of their ch ildren'sintelligen ce ,compe t en ceand over allachievementis wellestab li s hed byrece a rcb (Becher , 1986).

Re se a rc h also confirmsthat one of the most important in fl ue nc es parents hav eon the generaleducabilityof their child ren is in the area of literacy development (Williams , 1982) . It has shownthatear ly rea de rs come fr om homes whe r e childr en were read to, reading was valued andmodelled and ple nt y of re a ding mate rial s were available (DUr ki n , 1966;

Cla r k, 1979; Tizard et al., 198 2; Ooake,1987). Studies hav e also found that pare nts' listening to children rea d ha s powe r fuleffects onea r ly re a d i ngac h i e veme nt (Hansen , 1979 ; Teale , 1978 ;Wells, 1978; Hewison, Th Ud, 1980).

Being the most ·s ig nific a nt othe rs· inthe livesofthe ir young crildr en,us u a lly placespa r en t s inamore ad vant ag eo us

position as teachers of the irchildren than regular school teachers, especiallywhenconsideration is given to the fact tha t love andunderstand ingareba s i c to effective teachingof young ch i l d r e n (BUchanan, 1986) . Be a Ldea , the clo se and pr olongedassociation and thest r o n g senseof identification resulting from family ties areusu a lly mutual. It enables parents to facilitate more effec tive lythechild ' slinki ngthe unknown withthe known , a proce ssess e nt ialfor learning, and literacy and co gni t i ve development (Neuman and Gallagher, 1994). BeIngableto work one-to -onein such familiar, warm, intimate and natural se t t ing s should give parents quite an edge over re g u l ar teachers, who usually have to work with twentyor more children (Laney and Nattlv, 199 2 ).

Researchalso shows a high correlation betweenlow socio- ec onomicbackground and failure in reading and education in general (Bruinsma, 1978; Wells, 1986). Language in such an environment is usually "restricted" and not con d uc i v,e to faeili tating reading readiness (Bruinsma, 1978). Suitable models to entice children to like reading are restricted (Ooake, 19B7). With limited needs fo r literacy in their everyday lives, parents from such environments may not int e r a c t with their children in ways that nurture early literacy. Such environments are also usually deprived of children'Sliterature. The result is the establishment of an

apparent serious int e rg enera tiona l illi te ra cy cyc le (Neuman andGallagher, 19 941.

Newto undl and has the hiqhest unemp loyrent and pove r ty rates in Can a da; co nsequently,Ne wf o und l a n de r s generally hav e a relatively low ec e ac-eeonce tc status (Sut h e r l and , 199]) . Theneedto developpa r e nt assistantprogramstoempha si2e the nurturing of literacy developrr.en t in cultu rally de pri ve d environments and break the cyc le of int e rge ne r a tional illi te racyis grea t in thi s country. It would seemto be gr e a te r in this provincethan any other inCanada .

Some teachers,howeve r, are reluctantto invol ve parent s in teachinq thei r childr en to read. They fe el that most pa r e nt s, especiallytho s eof low socia-economicstatus,will notpartic ipatebecausethey place littlevalue oneducation . Contrary to such traditional vie ws , ho wever, studies ha v e shown thatpa re nt s of low socia-eco nomic statu ssus t a i n ahiq h levelof involvement insc hoo l- i nitiat edac t i v it i e s and are pLease d tocooperate in helpingtheir childrenlea r n toread IBever idqe ' Jerrams, 198 1; Teale, 198 4 ; Wein berge r , et al. 1986; Neuman andGall agher, 1994). The same rese arc h found tha t such parents la CKthe '"know how" of help i ng the ir childrenwithread ing. Whatsuc hparen t sneed,the r e f ore, is education.

This se e ms tobea ver y seriouspr oblem not only with pa r en ts of low socia- economic ba c kq r o unds but ""i th most

parents . Ma ny want to help but re po,ct uncertaintyrf:!gardi ng the amount of time and the types of practices re q ui r e d to opt.I rruae the benefits of I't!llding totheir child r en. (Silve r n, 1985 ). Many are unawareof theimpo rta n t rolethey can and do play (Larsen, 1982 ). aececse they dono t know how to help, some re s or t tous i ngprograms advertis ed inthe mediawhich are ofadubi ous va l ue (Rilsinski , 1994). In their eagerness to help their children read, many parents resort to using trad i t iona l scho o l mat e r i als, such as workbooks, flashcards and di tto sheets to promote a "skills - d r i l l appz-cach " to literac y . Such an approac h conflicts with the currene literatureand research findi ngs on learninghowto read and can lead to neqati ve attit:'Jdes towards reading (SChwart2, 1991). Ratherthanuse pr eLue for ef:ortsmade and feed their children's minds , some parents push the m be yo nd their capabilit ies . This le a d s to dismal failure (To ppin g, 1986) • Schoolsadd fur t herto parentlll confusio nby changingre'.lding pr og r a ms everytwo or eneee years jB:i.alostok,1992).

It isthe r e f o r e not:; ur p.r:isingth at whenparents become invo lve d inhome-schoolas efsceeceprogramsdesignedto inform andins t r uc t them abouttheteaching of reading,th.eresults have been significant Inc reesee in the readingattitudesand achievement of the i rchildren (Silvern,1985). Such programs have been fo u nd to be especially effective with low income parents (Becher, 1982). aeeee.ccn han also shown tha t they

havere sulted in impro ve dpare nt a l att itude s towa r ds school and better te a ch e r perfor mance (Ra sinski and Frede r i cks, 1989), The end product of such par e ntal invo lve me nt , therefore,ismore effec t i veschool swithst ude nt s , pa r en ts, and society in general bene fi t i ng (Durkin , 1994).

In an inc r e a s i ng l y knowl e d ge-b a s e d and te c hnologic a l wo r l d community, ourcountry's economyand indeedwholesoc i a l fa br i c is being threatened byan enduri ngil l i t erac ypr o b l em.

This problem is mostacu t ein thisprovince. The most obvious andlog i c a l solutionliesin trainingpa renca tobec omemore effectively inv olve din thei rchildren' s literacydevelopment . The home and school are integralparts of the same learning envi ro nme nt an d learning to readis simply anout c ome of the child'snatural experience wi t h writtenla ng ua ge inth ehome wh ich the school extends (Doake, 1986). Besides, parents have the right, the respon sibi lityand are genera lly more strategicallypositionedtha n arere gu l a r sc hool teachersto inf luencethe irchildre n'seducation. Some havetheexpe rt ise andare quite effective; however, mostwantto get involved butdo not knowhow. Resea rch shows that regular schoo l teache rs can effec tively showthem how. Becausethe early years of a child's life is the pri me time for learn i ng, especially literacyle a r ni ng ,thene edfor primary teachersto do this is crucial.

This reseercnerconte nds that considerab lemo ne y, time and energy ha ve been expendedon special educational services and remed ia l and indi vidua li ze d p':ograms inattemptsto cure illitera c y in sc hoo l s and resulti ng failur e and drop-out problems. This resear ch er also main t a i ns th at instead of getting at the root of the pr oblem; however. sllch me a s u r e s have been mo s tl y supe r ficia l , pa t ch wo r k attemp ts at resol ution. It is time emphasiswas placedonpreventionof thes e problems. In this respect, the individual and social dividends that could result from developing wel l planned pa r en t -te a c he r programmes to promote literacy development during children's primetime fo r learning could indeed be great.

TheProblem

Illiteracy is an extremely se rio u s problem in this province . primary teachers do no t haves'Jffi cien t time to developadequatel y the bas i c ski llof readingin all their students. Be ing the fir s t andmost influential te ac he r s of the i r chi l d r e n , parents are in the position to pr o vide va lua b l e assistance to primar y teachers in developing able re a de r s. Besides,bo thhome andschool are integralparts of the sa me learning env ironment . Many pare nt s are asked to provide assistance; most wantto helpand many tryto help . The problemismos t either do not know ho w to help or are

10 uns u r ei f they arehelping or hinderingtheir childrenwith the reading proce ss. This study will atte mpt to design a reading program to assist parents in de v elopi ng and implem ent ingthe expertis e, proceduresandactiv i t ie sto help their chi ld r en becomebe t t e r readers.

Rat i o nale forthe Stu dl

Research shows that the two most effective pr a c t i c e s par ent scanengag einto pro mote li t e r a cydevelopment in their chi ldr en are readi ng to them and lis t e ning to them rea d (Si lv e rn , 1985). Studies have alsode mo nstrated tha t the effe ctivene s s of ea c hofthese pr ac ticesdepen dssignificantl y onthequality ofthepa r e nt - ch ild inter a ction s (Fl o od, 1977;

Teale, 1978). This study intends to fo c us on hi g h quality interac ti ve practices parents ca n engage in while helping childr e n with reading. Ho pe f u lly , the findings of pas t rese arc hin thi s area will be re i n f orc edorext e nded .

Research has refuted the tr a di t i o na l viewmost paren t s hav eabou t readingto childr en . That is, chi l d ren should be qui e t and listen to the story as it is bein g rea d . Tothe con t r ary , studie s have found tha t the child ren who ta lke d about the boo ks and the stories the y hear d re ad and as ked que s tions bef ore , during and af te r the re adi ng proce ss perfor medsignificantly high eronre adi ngtasksand acqu i red mor e highly dev eloped and expa nd ed conce p ts tha n thos e

11 childrenwho did not (Flood, 1977; Smith , 1971; Snow, 1983; Teale, 1978).

Educators also maintain that extende d par ent -child interactions involving questioning,responding,discussingand exchanging ideas are just as impor t a nt in listening to child renread (Picker ing, 19 77 ;At he y , 1983 ; Rasinsk i,1991). Such high quality interactions, they sug gest , aid development in skills of critical thi nki n g , comprehension an d inferenc i n q.

Research also ind ica testhat parents of child re nwhoachieve well in reading veryactivelyguidethe deve lo pmentof this proces sand eng agein suc h high quality inter a c tions (Hanse n , 19 6 9 ; Teale, 1978 ;We lls, 1978).

Readingspe cial i s t s also maintainthatgetti n gchildren to sample,predict, con firmand self-correctwher e nec e as ary, facilitates children 's at tempts at reading, incl udi ng the development of independent rea ders (Smi t h, 1982 ; Goodman , 1986). using praise and encouragem en t in the process~ives fu r t he r support (Silvern, 1985 ; Topping, 1978).

Such ext e nd ed inte ractions pr ov ide scaf f oldi ngto help children re s po nd successfully towhat theyare try i n gtodo in the reading proce ss and th a t is to extract me an i ng from the te x t (Flood , 1977) . Res po nd ing to the chi ld' s needs co n t i n ge ntlybyans weringthechild's question s wou l d seemto bethe most effe c ti ve typeof parent- childint eract ion. It is in d ividua li z ing in s t r uc t i o n in reading in its t rues t for m

12 (r eai,e,1978) . Studiesof earlyreaders(Du rkin. 1966 ; Clark. 1976 ) showed that one of themostimportan t thin g s parentsdid forthem wasans we r the i r que s t ions about reading_

This study ha s two mai n pur poses. The first is to develop and imp l e ment a program of ex t en ded int eract ive pr a ctice s whichareresearchbased thatwouldshowparentsho w to effecti ve ly part i cipate in parent.child book readi n g s and supporttheir attemptsto do this. Inadditionto"Ld etenln.q activ ities",thi s pr ogramwil lincl u dea serie sof"cog nitive act ivi t i e s". Besides be ing actively involve d in reading thems elves and being read to byparent s, stud ents will be encou ragedto discuss an daskquestionsan dmake predictions, confirmatio nsandself-correct ionsabouttheirfavourite book s and also answer a vari e t y of que s tio ns asked by parents. Prais ewill be give nthroughou tfor ~ttortsma de .

The second purpose is to at tempt to determine the effectiveness of this interactive program reading achievez::ent. To wa r ds this end, standardized te s t s ..,ill be givenand comparisons of resultswi ll be made to determine whether childre n of par en t s expo s e d to the progra mmade gr eate r gainsin re adi ng comprehe n sion, recept ive voc abular y and sightvoca bu l ar yth a nch i ldren of parent s notexpo sed.

sec ond ary to the s e aims , thit> stu d y eLe o inte nds to eaee a etile effe c tsof thi s inte ractiveprogramoncllil d ren of differi ng abilit yand gender. Also,attempts will be made to

1l ascertainwhateffectsth e programhadon cb.ildren·sattitudes and intereststowardsreading. Finally, parents' perceptions of the effec tivenessof the proqram willbe analyzed.

14 CHAPTER.II

REVIEWOFRELA TEDLI TERATURE

Pare nt al Involve men t inEduca ti on

The role of pa ren ts in bot h the inf ormal and fo r ma l education ofth ei r childrenhas become anissue ofinc reas i nq con cer n and intense interest to educators, researc hers, pol i t iciansand parents. These ~r(lu p s have been giving incr eased recognition tothe fact thatparents no t onlyhave a treme ndousimpac t on the educati onof the i r chil d re n but also the 'right and re s po nsib i lit y to becomein v olve d. This ac t i o n hasbeen spur r e don by the recognit i on that parents pl a y a cruc i al role"in establishi n gthe educ a b i lityof their child r e n, faci l itatingtheirdevelo pment andach i ev e ment,and re me d yin g educ a tional and develo pmenta l pro b l ems (Bec her, 1986 ,p, 851.

As creators of th e home env i ronment parentsare usua lly the first and the most import ant teachersof their child re n (Be c her , 1982, Larsen, 1982). The i rro l e^liS teachersbeg ins whenthe child 1sbor n. Before thechildcomes to schoo l, incident a l in s t ru ctio n tak es place in such pr oc e s s e s as ea t i ng, toilet-train ing, walking, listeni n g, singing, spe a ki ng, reading books, modelling, pr oblem solving and broad ening experiences (La ite, 1990). Such instruction inv olvin g IllOre pr o g r e s si v e ly complex processes us ua lly

15 continues after the child begins schooland sometimes beyond school-leaviog age.

Lars e n (198 2 ) clai:r.ed thatbecauseself -conceptemerges thr oughinter a c t i o ns with significant others and the early yearsarecruc i a l for developingconceptsabout sel f , pare nt s have a primeresponsibility in the de ve l o pme nt of positive self-conceptsof their children. Jones (1990 ) emphasized thatbe cau sea positiveself-conceptis acrucia lprerequ i s i t e for succe s s as a st ude nt and a human being, an ext r emely import a nt ro le pare nt s can play in the ed ucat i o n of their children is the developm entof thisfundamen t a l basis.

Af ter reviewing resear c h on parental invo lvement in educationingenera landre adingin particula r , Sil vern (198 5 1 concluded, -Extensiveevidenc e is available estab li s h i n gthe crucial role pa r en t s play in the general develo pment and ecucetLcu of their children-(p.491. Jencks(1912)foundthat familybackgroundacco untsfor aboutha l f oftheva ria tio nin educa tionalattainmentamong sc hoo l children(cit edin Berger , 1987 ) . More spe c i fic a lly, Becher (19821 co nc luded that the cruc ial ro l e parents pla y in the development of their ch ild r e n ' s intelli ge nc e, compete nce and achiev ement iswel l established.

usingthe re v iewof researchonpare ntal involvement in informa l educ a t i on in the ho meand fo rmal education in the schoo l conduc ted by Anne Hende rson (1988I, Rasins k i and

16 Fredericks(1989)reachedthe following three very signif icant conclusion s:

First, studies have demonstratedthat providing a home environmentthat is conduciveto learning has a strong effect on student achievement. This includes paren tshaving high expectations for their children and helping to foster positive att itudes toward learning. Second , gettingparentsinv o l v ed in th e educational programs of the school also resulted in positive outcomes. Parents developed bet ter attitudes toward their school s, teachers worked to improve their instruction, and student performancein the academic areasincreased.Third, schools that maintained high levels of student achievement had high levels of parental and community supp ort and involvement. He nc e, comprehensive parental involvement is seen as criticaltothe academicsuccess of the school as a whole {po 84}.

The notionof parentsas educators is certainlynota new AsKeithJ.Topping (1986) stated, "t h e r eis a sense in which parents acting as educators must be a phenomenonas old as human culture it s e lf ". As a resul t ,Topping added, "the development of formal iseded uc a t i o nin schoolsserved lar.gely to rob pare nt s of a function they had ca r rie d out for millennia" (p.l) .

Reports of parents acting as eeecne rsof theirchildren go back to seventeenthcentury Europe; however ,documentation of initiativesof parental inv o l v e me n t in schoolingdoes not occur until the firstdecadeof the twentieth centuryinboth England and the United St ate s (He r wi g. 19 8 2 ). The first attemptstoward organization of parent s as educators inthe Un i ted St ates occurredin1897 when The Congressof Parents

17 and Teachers formed a PTA (Berger, 19 B3 ). The first attempts toward organization in Canada apparentlytookplace in 1927 whenna t i o na l organizations topr o mo t e parentalinvolvement in education were formed in British columbia ,Albertaand Ontario (Durkin, 1994 ). One of theearliestattem pt sof rese arching this topicoccurred in the United Kingdomin 1947wh e n W. D.

Wall analyzedthe views of 262 neaceeecbere on parent-teacher co-operation (Topping, 1986).

Modern theoriesabout pare ntsas educ ator s beganar o u nd the latter partof the seventeenth and the earlypartof the eighteenthcenturieswithconceptsdevelo pe dbyJo hn Lockeand Jean Ja c q ue s Rousseau. During the latter part of the eighteenth century , the i r thoughtson the ro leof parentsin earlychilddevelopmen twere expanded and nurturedby Heinrich Psstalozzi, the "Fatherof ParentEducation" and Friedrich froebel , the "Father of Ki nd erg a r t e n " . By the mid- 1800 'S , their ideas were disseminatedthroughouttheUnited Sta t e s by people such as El i za be t h peabod y , Hora ce Mann and Henry Barnard ,the fatherof the kinder ga rtenmovementin theUnited States (Derger,19B3).

Modern practice s of pa r e n t a1 involvemen t in formal educationin theunitedStatesweregivengr e a t impe tu sby the prosperity of th e 1920' s wi t h pare nt education pro gra ms , pr e schoo lsand nursery schools sp r i ngin g up in man yparts of the country. The emphasis at this time was on health

18 educ a tion andsuggest ed chi l dre aringpr actice s. Des pit ethe depre ssion of the 193 0' s, the war of the 1940's and the aftermat h of the 1950' s , paren tal practice s in for mal educationco nt i nuedto gr ow. The preva i l i ng view , howeve r , was still one in which the teacher was se e n as the pr o f e s s i o na l and the paren t asasuppo r t er and fun dr a is er. By the 1960's, wi th the advent of Pi a get 'the ories of cog ni tive deve l o pme n t.manyparents, educators andpoli t i c iansbega nto press for greater parental inv olvement in educat ion(Berger, 1983).

Accordi ng to the flo od of li terature si n ce the mid- 1970'son th e to p i c of parents as educa tors, theinte ns ityin interest and co n c e rn on this topic, espe ci a lly among educ a t o rs, too k a majorleap around thi s time (Becher, 1982;

Topping, 1986). Since then,inc reasedemphasishas beengiven to the realizati on that many parents do not havetheskill s , knowledge or confidence to te a c h their childrenas ef fec t.Lve Ly asthey shouldand wo uldli ke. The fact that somepar e ntsar e unaware thatth e y are orshou l d be teachers of theirchi ldren has alsobe en gi venmor e concern (Larsen, 1982). Besides, researchbegan toshowth at parent s are generallyeager fo r te a c h er-i n i tiated invo lve ment in educat ion (Epstein , 198 6 ; Ziegler, 1987). This has resul ted in increasedemphasis on trai ni ngparents to become better teachersofthe i r children.

19 Research on suc h trainingprog rams showedthat chil d ren whos eparentsare trai ned to work withthemperf o rmed higher on intel li ge n c e tests and language performanc e than did childrenwhose parentswe re not trained . Mor e ove r , par e nt s whowere trai nedshowedsignificantpositivechangesinthe i r teaching sty les, int e r act i o ns with th e ir chil dre n and pr OVidi ng a more stimul ating home le ar ni ng envi ronment (Becher , 1982). In con c luding herrevi ew of research on this topic, Becher stated, "itcan be saidwithconfidence th a t parent educationprogr ams ar e effectiv e intea c hi n g parents , parti cu larly low- i nc o mepe ren e s, howto help theirchildre n avoid or remedy ba sic co gn itive and school achievement defIc de ncIe e" (p.DS 1 ).

Suchresearchfinding sse emedto stimulatemore acti vity among educatorson how to workwithdifficult pa rents ,or how tore a c h the -u nre e c n ebte'". The ph ilosophyemerged that:

Becaus ewecare aboutall childrenand wantwha t is best fo r them, we must be willing' to gi ve of cu r seIven andmakespe cia leffor ts tore a c hpa r e nts thatinth e pa s t, we would havegi v en uponbecause the y were ·unreac h a ble" (Runda l l and Smit h, 1982, p. 841.

Within th epast thi r d of ace nwur y,parentalinvo l vement in formal educati onhas increasing lybeen give nstate support in cou ntries suc h as Britain , the UnitedStates and Canada.

InBritain this move wa s givengrea t imp e t u s by Th e Pl owd e n Rep ortof 1967 , The Bul loc k Report of 1975 and The Wa r nock

20 Report of 1978 (Wolfendale, 1985 ). These reports emphasized that, "Optimi z a t io nof childre n 'sdevelo pmenta l and lea rn i ng potentialis a realisticgoal onlyi fparents ar einv o l ve d in the formal processes of education and the delivery of child services "(Wolfendale, 198 3, p.?). In1977 th e Taylor Report.

recommended that half of school governingbodiesinBrita in be composed of parents (TOpping ,1986).

In the United States, government support for invo lv i ng parents in sc h oo ling too k a major leap in 1965 with the ope n i n g of the first Head Start center. This marked the beginning of a federally funded program that "mandated parental involveme nt and thus became the fi rs t large-scale effortto involve parents in the educati onal experiences of theirch ildre n"(Herwig, 1962, p. 7). It focusedon the fact that deprived home environments , in c l Ud i n g poor parenting, resultin children be c omi n g disadvan tagedintellect uallyand socially whi c h in turn leadsto underachievementinschooling. One of its aims was to educatepa r e nt s oflow income fami lie s toward better parenting . Asa resul t,parents were encouraged to,,_sit classroomsand observeprograms being taught. It was based on the philosophy that thedirect involveme ntofpa r e n t s inschooling can foster their children's education (Laite, 1990).

The significance of parental involvement in their child ren's education became inc r e a s i n g l y implicit in

21 legislationin the UnitedState s duringthe 1970'<;. In 1974 , Public Law93-380required that advisorycouncils c.:'Jilsisting ofama j o r i t y of parentsbe establishedfor sc hoo l di s t r i c t s. In1975 , le g i s l a t i o nwa s passedre q uiringparenta linvolvement in policy making for handicapped children (Top p i ng. 1986 ) . Later, the untted States Elementaryand Secondary Ed u c ati o n Act included there qu i r e me nt thatthe plann i ngof federally funded educat ion pro grams involveparents;otherwise, funding willnot be granted(Lait e, 1990).

Like many other phenomena, events involvingparents in the educationof their childre nthat occur red sou t h of the borderquicklydiffu sed in t o Ca nadawiththeest a bli shmentof Day Care and Early Intervention Programs th rou g h o u t the country(Sha rp, 1976). Theseprograms havebeen est ab li shed on the belief that they provide a continuity of edu cational support for childrensincehomeand school areseen asbeing integralpar t sof the samelearningenvironmen t.

Byearly 1990's, however , some writers in the United St.at.es and Britainbeganto have seriousconcernsover thela g bet ween theor y and prac tic e in involvi n g paren t s in their childr en 'sed u c at ion. Summar i z i ngth isco nc e rn over the rat e of acc e l e r ation ofchange , Topping (1986 )wrot e:

Despite the great up su rge of intere s t in pare n t s as ed uc a to r s . and the develop ment. of many new initiative s of proven wor th , it seems th at there arestil l many par tsof the school system the news has yet to re ach . Even whe re change in te ache rs '

22 attitu de s is achi eved ,beha v iour cha ngemay be slow tofo llow(p. 3).

He furt herst ated , "no t alllegislation has worked well in pra c tic e , and some of the in tended ef fect s hav e not mate r i a lis e d- (p.17) .

Seve ral wri te r s havere s e a r ch e dcause sfo r thisdisparity be t we en inte nt and ac tua l commitmen t . Becher (1986) st ated lack of inte rest on thepartof bothparentsandteachers and fear andunc e r t a i n t y by teachers in parental involvementas real causes. Topping (19S6) claimedthat teachers see paren t s as amateurs ined uc a t ion and resent emet.e u r encroachment on the ir professi o nal te r ri t ory. Becher (19 8 6 ) stated tha t evidence fromliterature and ex perien c epoint s to the fac t that many pare nts do no t knowor are uncertai n about the positiveinfluenc es the yhav eon the ir chi l dre n's de velop ment and educat i o n . Ras ins k i and Frede ricks 11989 1 enumerated thr e ecaus es forthe pro blem. First, tea c he r s aretoobus yto ini ti ate paren ta l involvement programs. Se con d, a mutual mistrustofte n exists betwe en te a chersand parents and thi s acts as a deterre nttoes t a bli s hin g effectiveprograms .Third, past failures intr yi ng toinvo l ve parents beget failure s in future attempts. Jones (1990) claimed that most parents perceivetheir role as teachers to end once their children begin school.

2J Despite the numerous difficulties in transfo rming commitments into practice, however, the accumulatingresearch on the positive impact of parents' involvement in the educationofthe i r child r e n caused interestand support for this issue to continue growing (Becher,19 8 6 ). The expansion of government support since the late 1980.'5 has been a main cause for increased parental involvement in rec e n t years (Durkin, 1994).

Recently, the United States governm en t adopted a Lonq- range plan for parental involvement in early int e r ve nt i o n educational programs. The Goals 2000: Educate America Ac t ( 19 94 ) aims by theye a r 2000 tohave all pre- schoolchildren expo s e d to highqu a li t y anddevelopment a lly ap p r o p ri a t e pre- school progr ams that help them prepare i;;r school (Ha n d e l , 1995). This prompted U.S.Secretaryof Ed u ca t i o n, R.W.Riley to announce a majorinitiative to involve pa ren ts in education and to proclaimthat "Thirtyye ars of re se arc h tell us that the starting point of American education is pa r e n t expectations and paren tal involvement with their children 's education, reg ardlessof their at.at.r on in life , th e i r incom e level orth e ir educational backg round" (p . 9). Pa r t of this major initiativehas beenthe creation of a21s t Centu ryHea d Start Program tl".H: "serves more childre n wh o need it . and serves thembe tter" (Rowe, 199 4 , p.4).

Recent educational re f o r ms in Canada hav e emphasized giving par e nt s greatercontrol in the actual governance of schools. In 196 9 British Columbia passed legislation requiring all schools in the province to have a par-ent;"s adviso ry council. Simila r legislation was also recently passedin Quebec and Pr i nc e Edward Island (Du r k i n , 19 94 ) _ 1990, the Yukon pa s sed legislation giving such councils authorit y , subject to ministeria l approval, ave c the operatio ns of local schools in the selection of the school principal , approval of school ru l e s, developme nt of local curricul um, and the eva l ua t i o n anddismis salofeeec nere. In otherprovinces ,implement ationof schoolcouncils with strong parenta lrepresentationis alr eady underway. NovaScotia has provide d for the full tra nsferof currentschoo lboard powers tosuc h counc i ls,depe ndingon approvalfrom theGo ve r nor in Council (NQrki09 Together For Edl1c at.i.onaLExc _e.lle nc e , 1994).

The RQyal CQrnmi s s jQO of Tow.U.r.Y-i~eliy.e t y_of

~(1 99 4) inNewf o und l an d hasoutlined wha t it calls "e newrol e for paren ts" thr o ug hsc hoo l coun ci ls. It states

If the school system is to reach it s maximum potenti al wi th the resources available, the Co mmis s ion be l ieves it is essential to establish the means foref f e c t i ve pare nta linvolveme ntin the gove rnance of the province's scho o ls. In many cases, parents al r e a d y activelysupportthe school, take on avari etyof responsibilities,communicate with te ach e rs and other staff, and take on a vigorous interes t in the admin i s tr at i on and

25 performance of the school. Within the model proposed in thisreport the parents would see their former role expanded . formalized and given a genuine authori tywithinthe structuresof school government (Wil li ams , p.231).

Recently. wi thin th e Un i t e d Kingdom, Canada and the United States, a be lie f has beengr owi ng among increasing numbers of parents that they can do a better job than the regUlar school system in teaching their children. As a result, some parents ar e ta ki ng their children ou t of the requ Lar'school systemandte a c hin gthe m at home. In Canada, for example, theseso-called "pa r e nt s turned teachers" have formed the CanadianAlliance of Home Schoolers and comprise some3,000partic ipantsacross thecountry (Bell, 1994).They believe the bigadvantagethey have over the regUlar school system in teaching theirchildren is a greater opportunity to prcvrce the individualized instruction so necessary for student success. The y also maintain that the more relaxed pace of home-basededucation facilitates close relationships and flexible, round-the-clocklearningreSUlting from a wide variety of activities (Bell, 1994).

Kelly Green, who has a background in organizing various forms of co-operati ve education, offered an int e r e st i ng compromise between schooling at home and schooling in the regular school system. She said, "I n anideal worldI would prefer to see a collaborative, co - o pe r a t ive , effort whereby

26 childrenandfamilies couldtake partin the publiceducation system ins t e ad of bei ngsubs ume d byi t"(c i ted in Bell, 1994, p,32).Anincreasingly impo r ta n t role parentsperfo rm inthis imp lie d partnershipis thatof teachersof theirown children.

Durkin (1994) claimed that schools are finding it increasing lydifficult to satisfy the demands made upon th em by an exceedinglydi v e r s e andhighlytechnological communit y . Extensive research, she added, points to greater pa re nt a l participation in education to best meet thi s challenge. Studies done by numerousgovernment , education and private agenciesshow that"when parentsbecomeinv o lve d in the formal educational process,•.•thestudent,family and thecommu nit y be ne fi t in termsof long~termachievement , positi ve attitudes and behaviour, and more effectiveschools"(p . 33).

In sununary, the issue of parental invo lvement in the education of the i r child renis far frombeing new. However, despite the fact tha t there is exte ns i ve and convi nci ng evidence supporting the crucial ro l e pa r e nts play in the education of their childre nand that they ca n be trained to more effectively performthisrole,the practicehasno t grown ra p i dl y. Since the 1970 ' s,le gis l a t ion has been increasing l y suppo rting thiscause.

The 1970's sawan increase in parental involvement in formal education throughout Britain, the Un ited States and Canada. Thisconsisted largely of fund-raising , assisting

27 regularschool teachers inclassroom activitiesand with 10w- le vel menial tasks, suchas outings,as wellas participatio n in pare nt - teache r associations. During the 1980' s, these functions continued and the co nc e pt of partnershipbetween home and school emerged as parents becamemore involved in policy decisions; curriculum planning, implementation and evaluationand training programs to help them become effec tive te a c he rs of their child ren (He rw i g , 198 2 ; Be r ger, 198 3).

As we approach the mid-1990's, we see an increas ed focus in these past trends, especially a greateremphasis on the partnershipbetween home and school as a formaleduc a tional teamin a continu inglearni ngeov.trcemerre. Resu l tingfromthi s partners hip aremore structu r ed prog ram s of parent train ing which are skill-oriented and home-bas ed with th e aim of inc r e a s ing attainment sof childre n. Withinthis pa rt ne rs hi p, an increasing number of educators are seeing parents as expertson theirown childre nwho canprov i de ve rysignificant information for effec tive de c i s i on- ma ki ng on educational matters concerning these children. They also see that parental skillscan complementtheirownprof essiona l skills (Laite, 1990).

To be mos teffective, te a c he r s shouldtake the leade r s hi p ro lein this pa rtners hipwith parent s andinitiate the pro ces s of parental involvemen t. As Potte r (19 8 9) said , "We teache rs needtogo beyond invo l ve men t andgive due recognit ionto the

28 incredib lyimportantrole parents playas co-educa torsof our children~ (p. 22). Once the processis inpla c e, teachers should become resource developer, facilitator, counsellor, commun icator , director , int e r pr e t e r and frie nd to parents (Berger, 198 3 ). This par tnershi p should beg in dur ing the child '5 prescho o l year s si nce pa r e nt a l help is mo st influentialat this time (Wil l iams, 1982).It shou ldcontin ue until th e ch ild fin ishesschooL

ParentalInvolvement in Re ad ing

Bothliteratureand researchprovideconclusiveevidence that one of themost significantfunctionsparents pe r f o r m in the educationofthei r childrenis thede v e lo pmentof la n gu ag e andlit e rac y skills (williams, 1982) . Literacylearning has itsroots in thehome , beg inningin infancywith the child's exposure to oral and written language (GoodmanandHauss le r, 1986; Teal e , 1918). Being the mos e impo rtant "s ign i fi cant others"in the youngchi l d'slife and possess i ngthe advantage of being able to wor k wi t h the child on one-to-one relat i o n s hi p s, parents are str at e gic a ll y positi oned to effectively facilitate thi s process. As the litera t ure su gg e s t s , some aregood at this; ot he r s are not sogood ; some are completefailures. Hans en (1969) found that it is not who the parents are in te r msofsoc i a - e c o no mic stat us as much

29 as what.they doin the horneenv ironmentthatis important to the lit e r acy de ve l op mentofthe i r children.

~.nn.tJl~.-2nl...l.a.Dguageand Re ad i ng

Readi ngprimar ilyinvolvesderi ving me a ning fromprint. Whetherthe child can deriv ethismeaningdepends ,to a large extent,upontheknowl e d geand ex periencesthechi l dbringsto theta s k.. The youngchild us es la nguage to der i v e me a n i n gf u l le a r ni n g experiences about theenviro nment. As Emery (197 5) said, "Awor d cannot be read (understood) unle s sthe child knows the meaning of tha t word when presen ted oral ly. speaking vocabulary. ther efore , is an essential pre requisite for learning to read" (p.32) . Because basic lang ua ge dev e l o p me nt is jus t aboutcomplete ~y the age of five, the first five ye a r s is a crucial ti me in developinga child's ab i lityto read (Br uins ma, 1978). The role of parents in de ve l o p i ng this basis for le arning to read is therefore cru ci a l. Durkin (1966) and Clark (1979) found that young fl uent readers ha d availab l e to theman inte r ested adultwho read to and talkedwiththemand answeredthei r qu est i o ns.

Be r n s t e in (19 61, 196 9) showed that par en t sva ry gr ea tl y in thet..aysthe yuseoral lang ua gewith theirchildren. Some use "rest r ic t e d" lan guag e; others use "elabo r a t e d" la ng u age (cited in Bruinsma, 1979 ). The "restricted"code is usedfor shor t and simple instructions, demands and responses,

30 includingwhat one shouldand shouldnotdo. Itexc l ud e s many pos s i bl e avenues of lea rn ing. The "e l a bo r a t e d" codeis us e d more analytically tose e k. andgi ve reasons . The childuses it for hypothesis test ing and the parent uses i t for get ting feedback. Parents us i ng the "elaborated- style encourage questions and tend to gi veexplanations whilethose usingth e

"restricted"code tendtodi s c ou r a g eque s tion s and pr e f e r to gi ve instructions.

Because the la ngua ge of books generally consists of highly "elaborated" language,it wo uld seem logical to assume that theuse of"e labo r a t e d" languageby parentswould be more conducive to pr omoti ng reading readiness in their children than would their us e of "restricted" language. Research supportsthishypothe sis. St udi e sby Hess and Shipman(1965) discoveredthat children co mi ng from "elaborated" language backgroundshad significa nt lyhigherinte lle c tu a l levelsth a n thosecoming from "res tricted " la ngua ge backgrounds. Clay (199 1)and Jones (1990 )found th a t childrenwithhigh verbal and reading abilitycome from homesthatha ve ric h and vari e d ba c kg r ou nd s of languageexperiences. Neumanand Gallagher (1994 )concluded,"ch ildren aredrawnto the uses of written language thr o ug h part i c ipation in so c ia l acti viti e s th a t require its cognitiveand communicativefunc tio ns " tp . 39 8 ).

31 Besides supportingtheor al language basis for literacy throu gh the con t e xt of day-t o-d a y engagements with their childr en , research identifies several other wa y s in which parent s promote readi ng readiness. receptivity to reading ins t ru c t ion and increased reading achievement of their chi l d r en. These practicesrevolve around ~gesof the printed word.

Effer;ti y e Prae<tices

The keys to success in an yhumanendeavourare ski lla~ d mot ivat i on. Resear ch sh ows th atdu r i ng theearly, formative years of the i r live s , children experience in t ens e mental growth, are at the height of their imitative powe r s and po sse s s a strong appet i te for words. To a large extent, motivat i on, or des ire, is instilledin us by environmental.

in f lue nc e s. If we want betterreaders, it isimportant that childrendevelop anin t e r es t in reading . Reading: interest grows whenand wherepe o p l e taketi me toplant and nurtureth e seed (Trelease , 1985). Parents arethe key players in this cr u c ial process. •A parentIe job isno t 80 much to teach a child how to re a d , but to make him (illI want to read"

(Ras i nskiandFredericks, 1991).

An increasingnumber of educators maintainthat regUlar school teachers could lea rn from the methods used by some pa r e nt s in teaching readingto their children. nceke (1986)

J1 said, "Te a che r s wou lddo wellto examine insome detail the characteristics of homeI'! which produce chi l d r en whoeither le ar n to read before the y go tosc h o ol or ...hose learni ng proceedswi thease when they enter school"(p.2). He wentso far as to sta tethat schools shouldabandon teacher-or iented and te a c her-do mi na t e d methods of teaching reading for the naturalistic methodsused so successfully by some parents.

Morrow (1988) alsostated thatteachers canlearn fromthe way children learn to readin natura l settinqsoutside the school.

Dillon (1989) poi n t e d out that mos t ofthe lit e r a cy advice educatorsgive parents, suchas have pri nt inthe home , re ad to children , bego o d models of readingand answer children's questions was learnedfrom parentsin thefirst place through studies done by people l ikeDolores Dur kin andGordon Wells.

In some cases, i t is the parents who are th e "Lft eracy experts". Researchhas identified se v e r al parentalroles that have been shownto promote children's readingdevelopment .

Reading t.O Ch ildren

As early as 1908, Edmund B. Huey sa id re gardin g children's learning in school: "Itall begins wi thparents reading tochi ldren "(cited inMor r ow , 1994 p,12 ) . "Re a di ng to the child is the best- knownI most researched and most frequently re c omme n ded paren talpracticethatis significantly related to positive att i t udes toward reading and reading

33 achievement" (Si l ver n, 19B5, p , 44) . Ooake(1986)pointedout that accordinq to case histo riesof earl y readers, many young ch ildrenlearnto rea d before they come to school. Themain determinantof such children's ear lyreadingdevelopment was theycame from home s whi c h werepr i n t orientedand ha d been read to extensivelyfrom an earl yage.

severa l educators have expr essed their views on wh y re a di ng to young childrenbythei r paren tsis so motivating for children and soimpo r t a n t for literacy. Pi c keri n g (1977) sai d that children respond so positive lyto this activity because they perceive itto be a tangiblesign thatthe parent truly cares.Schwartz j1991)elaborated furthe ron 't.hisview when shesaid:

I think the fi rs t and most basic re a s on has nothingto dowith the liter ature itsel f.Rather, ithas everythingto do withthe feeling s of love, se cur ity, and comfort that th e childhas learned to associatewith beingcloseto theloved one•.. The pos i t i v e fe e li ngs associated with the pe rson doing the readi nq become part of the acti vity it sel f.Reading, books, pictures , storie s , print:· they too cometo mean love, security and comfort (p . 59 ).

In the sa mecon text , Schwartzsugge sted that su chexperiences early inthe ch ild 's life generall y havelong-last in g eff ect s andmakethechild fe el goodabout books andreadi ngfo ryears to come. Read i ngaloudto child r enthe r efore causes childr en to see boo ks as a source of delight and readin g as an enjoya ble exper i e nce and asanatu r alpar tof theirex iste n ce.

34 Itact s as themagne t that attracts childrento books andgets th embooked on reading(Bo u t c he r, 1980).

As childrenbecome involved in the highly motivati ng expe rie n ce ofhearing storiesbeing readtothem, they derive several other litera c ybenefitsbe side s deve loping aninte r est in books and read ing. St udie s have shown that besides introd u cingchildren to a va rie tyof language pa tterns and provi d ingabasisfrom whichthe ycan begintounderst a nd and construct the ru les of the reading pr ocess and the functi ons of pr i n t , readi ng to childr en significantly inc r eases childr en's li ste ning and spe akingvocabularie s; letter and symbol rec ogn i t i on abilitie s ; le ng t h of spoke n sentences:

litera l and inf e ren tial co mpr e hensio n ski llsandthe number and natureof conc ept s developed (Durkin,1966; Hansen.1969;

Teale, 1978). Huck (1977) saidthat through hea r i ng stories readal o udch i l d re n beqfn to develop a sense of story or story sc hema. Holdaway (1979) po i nte d outtha t read ing to children develop s in the mthe concepts that print makes sense, and directio na lity, the idea that print proce e d s fr om left to right and fr om top to bottom. Hill (198 9 ) conc luded tha t re adin g to ch i l d r e n he l ps ope n up their mind s to the worl d, preview boo ks and ove r c ome possib l e fearsof the printedwo rd . Parsons (199 3)cl ai med that readi ngtochild r e n, ~spar ksthe imagin a tio nand prov ides idea s for creative writing^M (p.lO).

35 Perhapsthe most cru c i a l function readinS"jto childre n performsis itgives childre ninsightintothemo r eela bor ate la n gu a ge of books (Smith, 19 8 2; Ho ldaway , 1987; Lait e,1990 ) and bridges the gap between or al andwrittenlanqu a g e (Hill, 1989). Holdaway said that children's "own attempts to reconstruct prin t into real language must be patternedon the reading they hear. If they hear little, ori fwhat theyhe a r is of a poor quality. thei r own re a di ng issureto suf fe r"

(p.17).

Limite d re s e a r ch hasbeendone onth e topicof howmuch timeshoul d pare n tssp endreadingto their chi ldren. Studi es done by Henr y(1974)andHosk ins (1 9 7 6 1in dicate thatchildr en whose parents read to them ona re gUl a r basis(pr e f er a bl y daily)for 8-10 minut e s at atime achievehigherin readi ng thanchildr e n whose pa r e nt s do notre ad to them (cited in Silvern, 1985 ). As Parsons (1993) implies,the natureof the child invol ved in the readingactivity shouldbe the mai n determina ntof the lengthof a rea d ingse ssion. usually, the younger thechi l d,the shorte rthe readingsession . Childre n sho u l d not becomeboredwith lengthysessions.

Research ha s also beencondu c tedon thequa lity of the practices some par e n t s engage in while reading to their chi ldren. It hasshownthathigh.l y inte rac t iveparent-c hi ld practices ca nsi g nif i c a ntl y enhance the value of theprocess

<!IS a promoter of the child's readi ng abilit ies. Dur ki n ' S

36 longitud inal study (1966 ) fou nd tha t children ne ed to be involv ed inth e storyfrombegi nning toend ; the y ne ed to int er a c twit h the reade r toexte nd id eas,to que s t ion thei r ownunde rs t an dinq, andto rela tethe i r ide as to ex perience. Similar resea rch (S mith, 1911; Flood, 1977 ; Te a le, 19791 displayedtha t par e nts' initiatingdi scussionswith child r e n about theboo k s and stori esthe y had readandaskingrelev a nt que st i o nswere signifi c ant l y rela ted toreadingachievement.

I tistheref o r e not enoug hmerel yto findouthow mucha child has been read to and relate this type of experience to literacydev elopment. ..Wealsonee d to att e nd care fu l lyto thenat ur e of theact i vityits e lf- (Te ale, 19 84, p. 113 ).

Theeffectiven ess of suchextende dinte r ac tive prac t i ces coul d be explai ned byth e fa c t tha t. they encourage act i ve par ti c ipatio n bythe childin the book-sharing experience.

Also, childrenvncee que s ti ons are answered may feel more confid e ntin their dealing!withpri n t and the r e forebecome more acti ve in th eir attempt s to underst a nd it [gee eeed , 19881. Bes i des , most children love todiscus s interes ting books with inte r e sted parents. Such discu ssions could there foremo t i vat e childrento read more. At the sametime they encourageor al lang u age de ve l op men t (Pickering,19 771.

Lyons (1972) found that readin gto childr en and givi ng them oppor t u nit ie s to us elangu age andint era ctwithadults, build

37 language competencewhichis so necessa ryfor reading success (cited in Reccord, 1988).

Neuman and Gallagher (1994)offeredsome very interesting observationson why such extended parent~childinteractions around print play an imp o r t a nt ro le in chi l d r en' s lit e r a c y de velo pme n t. Their explanationis centredaroundVygotsky' 5 (1918) notion of th e zone of proximal development and his pe r s pecti ve that literacy learning is a social process.

Vy got s ky clai ms that ch i l d r en internalize the processes pract isedwhile interactingsoc ia l lywithadults,to increase the ir ind i v i d ua l skills andthere by enter thezone of proximal development. These shared thinking processes with adults enable children to func t i o n and observe comfortably at slightly challenging le ve l s beyond theirown abilities not only dur ingthe social transaction butaf te r the interac tion terminates . participationinsuch social activities usingthe cognitive and communicative functions of written la ngua ge thereforedrawschildren to its us e s.

Neumanand Gallagher basedthesecla ims onth e findings of pastresearch. Theyci t e d Snow (1983)who showedthat "the more childrenexperienceadult speechth a t iscontingent upon their ownpreviousutterances ,the greate r the faci l itationof languag eacquisition"(p. 384). The y alsous e d research done by Wells (1979 ) and Wood et a1. (198 0 ) whichshowed that parents-wnc respond contingentlyto theirchild's utterances

38 by elabora t i n g, de v e l op i n g,an dnego t i a ti ng about wh atthey mean ar emore likelyto enhancethe developmentoflinguis tic cceeee ence inthe child " (p.38S) .

Ins pire dbythese viewsand researchfindings,Neuman and Galla ghe r di d the i r own study in toihich they investiqated atte mp t s to enhance th e uses of labelling. scaffolding dialo gu e and continge n t respo ns ivit y to ass i s t li t e ra c y int era ctions be twee nteenagemo t hers and the irchildre n . The resul ts sho wed that all mo thers madegre a t eruseof thes ecue s after the tre atm e n t was performed. Tal king "c o"thechild gaveway to talkingres pon siv e ly ·with- thechil d as paren t s seemed to build more on chil d re n 's utte ranc e s and co nn e c t print to what they already knew. Ho r e signif i c a ntl y, -Incc e ese c responsivity from mothe rs was as s oc iat e d with increasedinitiativein literacyand cognitive growt h on th e part of the cttildren - (p. 398).

Thes e re su lt s support those of earlierstudies doneby wood and his colleagues (19 75, 19 7 6 , 19 7 8 ) and Schachter (19 79). In " comprehensiv e study of ma t e rnal speech , Sc h a c hte r foundtha t th emaj ordifference be t wee n adv a nt a ge d and disadv an taged moth e r s wa s not th e form, dia l e ct, or frequencyofthe mothers' speech, but rathe r th eirabilityto respondto the i r children 's communicat ion th a t appeared to increase the le ve lofco g ni t ive ac t i vity. woodand his fellow educa to r s fo und that pare nt s who geared their as sistanc e

39 around the needs ofth e i r children were mar e like l y toenhan c e their children's ccqn L tiveabilities than pa ren ts whofailed to do this (cited in Ne uma n an d Gallagh e r, 1994) .

Ideally, storybook reading there fo r e shou ld involve, -socfet interac tionbetween par e nt and child inwhich the two participan tsactively construct meani ng base d on th e text"

(Morrow, 1988 , p,91). Par ents sho ul dprovi de "sca ffolding"

tohe l pth e childget the int en de dmeaning(Ni oiaand Br uner , (1978 ). Thechildshould be activ ein theproc esse s ofasking and being aske d quest io ns (Flood , 1977).

It would appear that si nce it is the child who is attemptin g to ex t ract mean i ng fr o m the text. the highest qualityor most eff ec tivety peofparen t-c hild inter action is answeringthe child'sques tio nsandres ponding to th e child's needson a contingen t ba si s. "Byinteracting wi t hth e child and sati sfyinghis[ti.c.]nee dsand requirements in rel atio nto writ t e n langu ag e , is, es s ent i all y , conduct ing individualized ins t r uc t io n in read ing " (Teale, 1978, p , 929 ).

Studies ha ve shown (DUr ki n. 1966; Clar k , 19 7 6 )tha t a ver y imp o rtant serv i cepar e ntsprovided toear ly re ad e rs was th ey ans wer edtheir que s t i o n s aboutre a ding . Neuma n andGallagher (1994) cla imed that parents are str a t egic a l l y po s itione d sociallytopl a ya veryeff ectiveteac h i ng role inthis wh o le pro c ess."Sharing thechl Idtaworld, the parent canfac il itate li n k i ng new sit ua t io ns to mor e fami liar ones and dr aw

40 co nne c t i ons from thefamiliarto the nove l - task s viewedas es sent ialforcognitive de velopment " (p.384).

Par ent s shou ldnot give upread i ng to th eirchildren afterthey en terthe primary gr a des just because child r e nar e re ad to by teachers and hav e begun to read themselves. Child renneedthi s exp e r i ence well into elementary sc hoo l.

Ra s i ns k i an d fr ede ri c k s (1990) stated, "O n e of the bigges t mistakesmad ebyparantswhoha v e rea daloud to theirchildren is to put anend to this activitywhe n a child enters middle grad e s" [p,344 , .Childre n nee d thei rever-expandingcurios it y satisf i edandthatwarm "t ogethe r ne s s · rel ations hip (we ise r, 1974) . Bes i d es , "a t home he{.5.ic.l can choosethe bOOK, hecan stop the re a d i ng withaquest ion,he can lookat a pictureas long as he choos e s. He is the focus of attention and eac h child need s a l i ttleof that each day· {p,229) .

Ski lfulreadi ng tothe i r child renis there fo reamo nqthe gravest and most si gni f i c ant responsib ilities that par en ts have. Holdaway (1987) summed up the ge neral importanceof this pr ocess to li terac y developme n t when hewrote=

Reading tochildren inasskilledawayas po s s ib le should be a dominan t featu r e of the envi r onme nt in which child r en le a r n to read - i t shou l d be a fundame ntal partof any re ading prog r a mme. This is as tr ueof the late r sta ges ofdev elopmen t as of theear li er . To stop re ading to child ren is to deny themone of the mos t ba s ic and continu ing motiv ation s to lit e ra cy {p, 17).

41

"Reading isan activitythatinvol vesextractingmeaning fr ompri nt andas s i milat i ng thatmeaninginto one'5 existing storeof inf or ma t i o n"(Athey , 1983, p, 197). Stauffer (1969) sai dthat readingis a thinkingprocessinv o l vi ng an interplay of responses to outer and inner forces which occur s in relation to one 'smental context. Th i s iswhy,he added ,tha t gettingans wers to one'5questionsisess e nt i a l to readingfor meaning. Goodman (1986 ) concluded that inthe proc essof readinq , readers sample, prec Lc e, test,and {'cnfirm as they attempt to derivemeaning. All a resul t they shota Id be encouragedto make guessesand take risks. Theyself -correc t when what they re a d doe s not fitintothe meani ngs they are attempting to construct (Clay , 1991 ).

Becau s e reading i s a developmental skill and not an academic subj ect , it is acquired th r ough the predo min anceof practiceov erinstruct io n. Children ther efnre learnto rea d by read i ng . The more theyreadthe bette r they be come at it (Goodman, 198 6; Mc Mac ki n 199 3; Rasinski , 19941. There is no pointin telling childr enabout reading . They simp l y ne ed help in getting started, gentlefeed back and a kindtol e r ance of theirmiscues. "Pr a i seis given foreffor t . Noone sneers at thefirstfumbl ingattempts "(Joh nson and Lou i s 1987 ,p.2) . Bot h literatu r eandres earch stronglysup p o rt par ental attemptsat guidi ng and fa c il i t a t i ng their childre n'sattemp t s