Return-Path: <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id IAA23943; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:06:31 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:06:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199811171301.IAA00882@mail4.uts.ohio-state.edu>
Errors-To: azaheer@famlit.org
Reply-To: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: Judy Wagner <jwagner@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-FAMILY:1780] Re: Paper copies of new ERIC Digests
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2
Family Literacy: Respecting Family Ways
ERIC Digest No. 203
Bettina Lankard Brown
1998
Throughout history, the family has been the primary source for learning.
Before
the advent of schools, children were taught at home by their parents, older
siblings, grandparents, and/or other relatives. With the introduction of
formal
schooling, the teaching of values, cultural practices, and skills such as
cooking, sewing, farming, and trapping continued to originate in the home.
Today, in spite of the vast public and private educational systems, some
parents are choosing to teach their children at home, confident in their
belief
that teaching in the context of family is the best way to ensure the learning
the desire.
Public agencies, such as the National Center for Family Literacy, and private
foundations, such as the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy, have
shown their support of the family as a primary place of learning by funding
programs that provide training and assistance to families for the promotion of
literacy. This Digest discusses the family as a preferred place of literacy
development and highlights family literacy initiatives that reflect respect
for
the family as a site of learning.
A Contextual Connection
Because the family exists in a network of community, its members are
continually communicating, negotiating, and otherwise interacting with schools
and business institutions in the workplace, within the context of their
cultural and community orientations (Bhola 1996). The social aspect of these
relationships suggests that the development of programs and curriculum must
focus on the family unit as a whole, building upon the cultural and knowledge
capital of the entire family, and acknowledging gender and age power
relationships within the family.
Teaching literacy within the context of the family and in ways that are
meaningful to family members is an approach described by Auerbach (1989), who
contends that the cultural and social practices of a family are key
considerations in the development of family literacy programs. Auerbach s
"socio-contextual model" is congruent with the contextual teaching and
learning
approach to knowledge development. This approach is based on the proposition
that students learn best when the learning is meaningful to them and situated
in the context of their social environments. This model acknowledges that
there
are family-relevant, as well as school-relevant, ways of bringing literacy
into
the home. It acknowledges the positive contributions of family members and
takes into account the influence that cultural values and practices have on
literacy development.
The Value of Different Literacies
Because school-based family literacy efforts are typically directed to people
from poor, minority, and/or immigrant families who lack English proficiency,
some of these programs assume that these individuals have little to offer and
that the school must determine the forms of literacy that are acceptable for
the family. Referring to this model as deficit driven, Taylor ("Book Notes"
1998) challenges educators to redefine the relationship of literacy to poverty
and socioeconomic status and to acknowledge the wealth of knowledge members of
these families offer, e.g., their languages, multiple approaches to literacy,
and ability to deal with life events.
Although all literacies are not equally valued in our society, there are ways
in which all parents make literacy contributions and that awareness of these
contributions can occur when parents engage in literacy experiences that have
meaningful application in their lives (Crowther and Tett 1997). The FLITE
(Family Literacy Involvement Through Education) program is one example of an
effort designed to involve participants in literacy development through the
sharing of real-life experiences (Griswold and Ullman 1997). Evolving
through a
partnership between a Bronx public school and the City University of New York,
FLITE featured a series of workshops, one of which engaged participants in
recipe sharing as a means of enhancing reading, writing, and speaking skills.
Some participants prepared dishes that they brought for others to taste; some
shared written recipes of dishes popular in their cultures; some shared
memories of times when the dishes were served in their family homes; and some
told about the countries from which their dishes originated. Such workshops
are
a powerful tool for enhancing the knowledge and literacy of all participants
and are an example of contextual learning in the social environment of
community.
Communication about personal experiences was also a part of the "Connect"
project conducted in a poor working-class area of Edinburgh, Scotland
(Crowther
and Tett 1997). Participants in the program activities were encouraged to
discuss their school experiences and to describe some of the ways in which
they
were helping their children toward literacy. By highlighting similarities
between the participants and their teacher s pedagogic practices, the act of
teaching became less threatening.
Variations in Family Literacy Practices
Most educational approaches to family literacy recognize the parents,
especially the mother, as a child s most important teacher. "This restricted
notion of family literacy pays too much attention to the mother-child dyad and
fails to take advantage of or take into account multiple other channels of
literacy influences within the family" (Puchner 1997, p. 3). It fails to
recognize the value of literacy transmission from adult to adult, child o
adult, or sibling to sibling as occurs in various community cultures.
In a study of language skills of Southeast Asian immigrants in the United
States, researchers found that literacy transfer typically occurred from
sibling to sibling because lack of English proficiency limited parents
ability
to help their children (Puchner 1997). Parents who have limited English
proficiency, for example, often lack confidence in their ability to
participate
in family literacy programs. However, literacy workers can help these parents
to recognize ways in which they already contribute to their children s
literacy, e.g., by allotting a time and space for their children to do
homework
and/or by observing, or having older children observe, homework activities.
Once parents recognize that their efforts to facilitate literacy development
are worthwhile, they become less apt to succumb to other pressures on their
time and energy that could divert them from practices that further their own
and their children s education.
Drawing upon the personal interests and experiences of parents can often lead
them to adopt new literacy practices. For example, in the FLITE "home visit"
program, a father who was unable to read or write was coached to tell a story
about his personal experiences using a tape recorder. The family literacy
worker asked the man s wife to listen to the recording and write down on paper
the words he had recorded so she could read it back to him. Later the family
worker brought a picture book to the home for the father and child to look at
while he told a story he made up to go along with the pictures. This example
illustrates three aspects of the FLITE program s approach to literacy
(Griswold
and Ullman 1997, p. 16): (1) the range of purposes for literate behaviors is
broad, (2) learning experiences can be generative, and (3) learning does not
have to be an individual experience.
Power Considerations in Literacy Outcomes
Power issues, particularly those that are education related, can influence a
family s literacy practices (Puchner 1997; Tett and St. Clair 1997). Parents
who cannot speak English or who believe that they have no right to interfere
with a school s practices may avoid contact with the school and its teachers,
which tends to perpetuate the literacy status quo (Tett and St. Clair 1997).
"If parents are to be genuine partners in their children s education, then
they
must be able to share power, responsibility, and ownership in ways which
show a
high degree of mutuality" (p. 111).
Morrow and Young (1996) note the importance of power sharing within the family
through their description of the Family WRAP (Writing and Reading Appreciation
for Parents and Pupils) program, an inner-city school district program
involving African-American and Latino families with children in the first to
third grades. In this program, parents and children were partnered in reading,
writing, and storytelling activities, with interaction being the key
ingredient. Throughout the program, parents were asked for their input. As a
result, the parents began to realize that they shared power, not only with
their children in learning, but with the school in creating a literacy program
that was meaningful to them. The parents became "more willing to share their
ideas . . ., ask questions, and express their concerns" (Morrow and Young
1996,
p. 17). Through their involvement in WRAP, they "felt more comfortable about
coming to school and participating, and had more self-confidence about being
able to help their children" (ibid.).
The Community Connection to Family Literacy
Communities have become diverse in cultures, workplaces, interests, and
political orientations. "Family literacy practitioners, in the process of
program design, and while making choices of curriculum, will have to look at
the existing conditions of families in question, in the context of both
history
and subaltern history of race- and class-related experiences of those
families"
(Bhola 1996, p. 41). They need to look into how the workplace fits into the
lives of the families.
In some communities, literacy programs are conducted on the job. Winthrop
University in Rock Hill, South Carolina, for example, has a literacy program
for its custodial, gardening, and refuse collection department employees, some
of whom have less than a sixth-grade education. Participants attend 2-hour
sessions each week for a 12-week period during which they and their families
engage in literacy activities that involve the reading of children s,
work-related, and personal literature (Richards 1998). The "Using Children s
Literature" module of the program involves participants in reading activities
that include prediction, characterization, sequencing, inferencing, and
imagery. During class, the participants record their reactions to the readings
in a log book; at home, they read and discuss the books with family members.
The "Using Work-Related Literature" module involves participants in reading
about hazardous materials and safety on the job and in the home. The "Using
Personal Literature" module involves participants in writing and sharing
stories about their life experiences with others in class and, later, with
their children at home. The three modules of this program reflect an exemplary
effort to connect home, school, and workplace literacy applications.
Summary
The importance of centering family literacy in the context of its "real-world"
application in the home and of drawing upon the experiences and strengths of
the families being served is highlighted by the examples described in this
Digest. The successes of these literacy programs reinforce the notion that
generalizations about literacy program participants are unfair. They
underscore
the need to bring together in mutual respect and collaboration members of the
family unit, school, and community.
References
Auerbach, E. R.. "Toward a Social-Contextual Approach to Family Literacy."
Harvard Educational Review 59, no. 2 (Summer 1989): 165-181.
Bhola, H. S. "Family Literacy Development and Culture: Interconnections,
Reconstructions." Convergence 29, no. 1 (1996): 34-45.
"Book Notes. Review of Many Families, Many Literacies: An International
Declaration of Principles, edited by Denny Taylor." Harvard Educational
Review
68, no. 2 (Summer 1998): 268-269.
Crowther, J., and Tett, L. "Literacies Not Literacy." Adults Learning 8,
no. 8
(April 1997): 207-209.
Griswold, K., and Ullman, C. M. Not a One-Way Street. the Power of
Reciprocity
in Family Literacy Programs. Bronx: City University of New York, 1997. (ED
413
420)
Morrow, L. M., and Young, J. Parent, Teacher, and Child Participation in a
Collaborative Family Literacy Program: The Effects on Attitude, Motivation,
and
Literacy Achievement Reading Research Report no. 64. College Park, MD, and
Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center, 1996. (ED 398 551)
Puchner, L. D. Family Literacy in Cultural Context: Lessons from Two Case
Studies. Philadelphia: National Center on Adult Literacy, University of
Pennsylvania, 1997. (ED 412 376)
Richards, R. T. "When Family Literacy Begins on the Job." Educational
Leadership 55, no. 8 (May 1998): 78-80.
Tett, L., and St. Clair, R. "Family Literacy in the Educational
Marketplace: A
Cultural Perspective." International Journal of Lifelong Education, 16, no. 2
(March-April 1997): 109-120.
Developed with funding from the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement,
U.S. Department of Education, under Contract No. RR93002001. Opinions
expressed
do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of OERI or the Department.
Digests may be freely reproduced.
Judy Wagner / wagner.6@osu.edu / http://ericacve.org/
ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education
1900 Kenny Road / Columbus OH 43210-1090
614/292-8625; 800/848-4815 (ext 2-8625); FAX:614/292-1260
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 13:21:01 EST