1 / 20

Family Literacy : Program effects and implementation quality

Family Literacy : Program effects and implementation quality. Roel van Steensel Kohnstamm Institute for Educational Research University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Goal. Short overview of recent review studies on effects of family literacy programs.

blair-barton
Download Presentation

Family Literacy : Program effects and implementation quality

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Family Literacy: Program effects and implementationquality Roel van Steensel KohnstammInstituteforEducational Research University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

  2. Goal • Short overview of recent review studies oneffects of familyliteracy programs. • Discussimplicationsfor research, practice, and policy.

  3. Some context • The role of the home environment: • Childrenlearnfromexploring, observing and taking part in literacyactivities at home (Teale & Sulzby, 1986).

  4. Some context • The role of the home environment: • Childrenlearnfromexploring, observing and taking part in literacyactivities at home (Teale & Sulzby, 1986).

  5. Some context • The role of the home environment: • Childrenlearnfromexploring, observing and taking part in literacyactivities at home (Teale & Sulzby, 1986).

  6. Some context • The role of the home environment: • Childrenlearnfromexploring, observing and taking part in literacyactivities at home (Teale & Sulzby, 1986).

  7. Some context • There is variability in frequency and qualityof literacyactivities at home. • Thisvariability is related to: • Socio-economic status. • Ethnic/cultural background. (E.g., Bus, Leseman, & Keultjens, 2001; Van Steensel, 2006) • However, there is no 1-to-1 correspondence (Van Steensel, 2006)

  8. Some context • To stimulate the quality of the home literacy environment • Family literacy (FL) programs Parent-childactivities Parent training

  9. Family literacy research • Past two decades: various studies intoeffects of FL programs. • Meta-analyses (quantitativereviews of effect studies). • Review of reviews (Van Steensel et al., 2012).

  10. Observation 1 • FL programs are effective (seealsoCarpentieri et al., 2011) …

  11. Observation 1 • FL programs are effective (seealsoCarpentieri et al., 2011) … • Butnotfor all families. Small(er) effectsfor: • African-American/Hispanicchildren (Manz et al., 2010). • At-riskchildren (Mol et al., 2008; Van Steensel et al., 2011).

  12. Observation 1 • Possibleexplanations: • Programs (mainlyshared reading) assumeinteractionskillsthatmaynotbe present. • Programs maynotreflect the value system of participating families. • Sénéchal & Young (2008): effectsforat-riskchildren of a skills-basedapproach.

  13. Observation 2 • We knowlittleaboutimplementationquality of FL programs and itsrelationwith program effects.

  14. Observation 2 • Implementationquality/program fidelity (Powell & Carey, 2012): • Delivery: is the intended content offered and how? Frequency and quality of parent training. • Receipt: is the intended content received and how? Parents’ attendance and understanding of training. • Enactment: is the intended content transferred to children? Frequency and quality of parent-childactivities.

  15. Observation 2 • Meta-analysis Van Steensel et al. (2011): • 12 of 30 studies providedinformationonimplementationquality. • Mostlysuperficialmeasures. • Only 1 study: systematicobservations of activities. • No analysis of moderating effects of implementationquality. • Paradox: implementationquality is likely to becrucial!

  16. Implications • For research: • We need to know more aboutimplementationquality, particularly in at-risk families, and howit is related to program effects. • We need to know more aboutwhat types of programs are (in)effectiveforwhat types of families and why. • We need to conduct more studies on a European level. SeealsoCarpentieri et al. (2011).

  17. Implications 2. For practice and policy: • Invest in FL programs and tune FL activities to activities in (early) education. • Maximizeculturalvalidity: (mainstream) educational goals of FL programs shouldbeconnectedwith families’ valuesystems and programs shouldbetuned to families’ languagesituation. • Involvecommunities in program development and implementation as well as in reachingparents. Seealso: Blok et al. (2006), Carpentieri et al. (2011), Manz et al. (2011), Van Steensel et al. (2012).

  18. Examplefrom the Netherlands • Large-scale research project around “Earlyeducation at home” (VVE Thuis) program: • Program: • For toddlers and kindergarteners. • Combinedfamily- and school-based program. • Materials in Dutch as well as in home language. • Support byteachers and (to someextent) byethniccommunity support staff. • Research (2012-2016): • Studyinto program effects. • Studyintoimplementationquality and moderating effects. • Intensifying program withICT-basedactivities.

  19. Thankyou! Contact: RvanSteensel@kohnstamm.uva.nl

  20. References Blok, H., Fukkink, R. G., Gebhardt, E. C., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2005). The relevance of delivery mode and other programme characteristics for the effectiveness of early childhood intervention. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 35–47. Bus, A., Leseman, P., & Keultjes, P. (2000). Joint book reading across cultures: A comparison of Surinamese-Dutch, Turkish-Dutch, and Dutch parent-childdyads. Journal of Literacy Research, 32, 53-76. Carpentieri, J., Fairfax-Cholmeley, K., Litster, J., & Vorhaus, J. (2011). Family literacy in research: Using parental support initiatives to enhance literacy development. London: NRDC, Institute of Education. Manz, P. H., Hughes, C., Barnabas, E., Bracaliello, C., & Ginsburg-Block, M. (2010). A descriptive review and meta-analysis of family-based emergent literacy interventions: To what extent is the research applicable to low-income, ethnic-minority or linguistically-diverse young children? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 409-431. Mol, S. E., Bus, A. G., De Jong, M. T., & Smeets, D. J. H. (2008). Added value of Dialogic parent-child book readings: A meta-analysis. Early Education and Development, 19, 7-26. Powell, D. R., & Carey, A. J. (2012). Approaches to program fidelity in family literacy research (pp. 387-400). In B. H. Wasik (Ed.), Handbook of Family Literacy. Second Edition. New York, NY: Routledge. Sénéchal, M., & Young, L. (2008). The effect of family literacy interventions on children’s acquisition of reading from kindergarten to Grade 3: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 78, 880-907. Teale, W., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergentliteracy: Reading and writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Van Steensel, R. (2006). Relations betweensocio-cultural factors, the home literacy environment, and children’sliteracydevelopment in the firstyears of primaryeducation. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 367-382. Van Steensel, R., Herppich, S., McElvany, N., & Kurvers, J. (2012). How effective are family literacy programs for children’s literacy skills? A review of the meta-analytic evidence (pp. 135-148). In B. H. Wasik (Ed.), Handbook of Family Literacy. Second Edition. New York, NY: Routledge. Van Steensel, R., McElvany, N., Kurvers, J., & Herppich, S. (2011). How effective are family literacy programs? Results of a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 81, 69-96.

More Related