Family literacy in a low-income urban community in the Philippines

Abstract

The growth of literacy in the Philippines is attributed to the formalization of the education system. Learning experiences from formal schooling and the home environmental influence, complement and reinforce the role of the teacher and the parent in promoting literacy. Home literacy practices which are centred on parent-child interaction can promote literacy through the sharing of information. This study examines home practices that are directly or indirectly associated with or promote family literacy. Narratives and stories of participant families about their literacy practices were gathered through naturalistic life-story interviews, observation and participation in selected outside activities. Themes were drawn from the data collected, wherein interpretative phenomenological analysis was applied in the analysis. Four themes were identified which focus on language; home strength and activities; faith, values and aspirations; and home and school connection. Languages used at home by the family serve as a springboard for family literacy, which also supports classroom instructions. Household chores and other home activities are used as a support to learn literacy concepts taught in school, such as science concepts, survival skills, hygiene and childcare. Family literacy practices are anchored in family values and aspirations that enable each family to pursue and sustain their literacy practices. Storytelling and reading are practised at home, which provides opportunities for teaching and learning among family members. Each family in this study found ways to maximize their limited resources to support the literacy of their children for better education. The findings suggest that the economic condition of the family is not a deterrent to family literacy practices. Family literacy practices depend upon the unique dynamics of each family, which are influenced by the languages used at home, household activities, family values and aspirations. Literacy practices are also related to teaching and learning activities at school.

Keywords

Family literacy home literacy practices home literacy environment low-income family

Introduction

Literacy studies have become diverse over the years. Originating from mother to children learning practices, literacy is now a societal concern. Social and academic perspectives have also contributed to the ongoing conversation on literacy studies. One of the constant discussions in literacy studies is the role of families in literacy development among children. Van Kleeck and Schuele (2010) wrote historical perspectives on literacy in early childhood which show how families played a role in children's literacy development, which begins with their literacy experiences at home initiated by their parents or other adult members of the family. Regardless of the changing views on the role of families for centuries, what remains constant is the continuing contributions of families to childhood literacy (Van Kleeck and Schuele, 2010).

Despite the fact that the focus on literacy changes through time over, the role of the family remains steadfast and consistent; families have always been involved in children's literacy development. It is families who have been igniting the torch of substantial education for children (Van Kleeck and Schuele, 2010). From the 1600s to the 1800s, making the child read and be exposed to learning was the primary responsibility of families. This idea was likewise shared by John Locke, a British philosopher, who argued that reading instruction should begin at home at a very young age for a child. He continued by arguing for exploring ways to effectively teach a child to read and to learn sports which could make them happy (Axtell, 1968; Beatty, 1995). Historical accounts of literacy in colonial America and other parts of the world show the same pattern (Van Kleeck and Schuele, 2010). In the Philippines, arguably, the most popular and early manifestation of family involvement in a child's literacy was the story of Jose Rizal, the country's national hero. Rizal, in his account of his learning, honoured his mother as his first teacher who read stories to him and taught to him to read and write. Clearly, the significant contribution of families to promoting literacy among children has been around for ages across cultures, social dynamics and economic conditions. It resonates in the stories of so many people - both well-known and ordinary.

For several decades since the First World War, the Philippines has been aggressively promoting literacy among its citizens across geographic locations, religious orientations and socio-economic profiles. Literacy is at work in the Philippines from the highly urbanized Metro Manila to the most remote town in far-flung provinces in Mindanao. As a result, the Philippines has seen a 5% increase in literacy for the past 10 years from 92.3% in 2000 to 97.1% in 2010, of which Metro Manila has the highest registered literacy rate of 99.7%, according to the National Statistics Office (Lazo, 2013).

The current literacy situation in the Philippines is undeniably a much improved scenario compared with the 20% literacy rate recorded in the country prior to the First World War (Cristobal, 2015). The continuous and sustained efforts of stakeholders from national to local levels have resulted in a genuine improvement in literacy levels among the citizens.

Alba (2007) attributed the growth of literacy in the Philippines to the formalization of the education system, which gives priority to literacy development. Proof of this lies in the establishment of the Literacy Coordinating Council (LCC) of the Philippines under the supervision of the Department of Education (DepED). The Council provides yearly incentives and recognition to institutions, families and individuals who make significant contributions to the development and promotion of literacy, especially in marginalized communities and economically challenged families and individuals. Best practices in literacy, which help to alleviate poverty, provide livelihoods, address welfare needs, promote freedom and make education facilities accessible are given the National Literacy Award (NLA).

In past decades, the Department of Education has systematically initiated and implemented literacy programmes through its schools, divisions and regional offices. One of their programmes is the promotion of children's reading skills through the ‘Every Child A Reader’ programme, which requires all basic education institutions in the country to address the reading problems of beginning literacy learners, specifically from grades K to 3. Another programme is the creation of a library hub, which also promotes reading by making age-appropriate reading materials available to students through their respective school libraries. In the past five years, the Department of Education has taken the initiative and been at the forefront of employing mother tongue-based multilingual education in schools all over the country. This programme recognizes the contribution of the child's first language to his/her academic skills development. Because of this programme, many literacy development projects are highlighted, like the development of small and big books in two or three languages, the making of dictionaries and glossaries of literacy concepts in various languages, and storytelling in multiple languages. Annual literacy projects like Book Week and National Reading Month are constantly observed in schools.

The Philippine government's efforts to promote literacy are further enhanced through the Republic Act 10122, an act strengthening the literacy coordination council by amending the Republic Act 7165 or an act creating LCC, passed in 2009. Under this law, LCC is represented by national agencies and institutions that are directly involved in literacy development in the country; it synchronizes literacy efforts by promoting multi-agency cooperation and partnerships. Several local efforts to promote literacy have been undertaken too by local government and non-government organizations. Despite all the efforts that the government and non-government institutions have been putting into literacy, it is still noticeable that these efforts are less, if non-existent, in family literacy. This observation is included in the Education for All 2000 Assessment report by the Philippines. In this report, the EFA Philippine strategy is focused on promoting literacy among adults, women and girls, as well as providing community literacy programmes and putting in place alternative learning systems (ALS) for out of school youth community members with low literacy. Steady and intensified effort from the government to promote family literacy is still much to be desired.

Even though the Philippine government has generally taken over the primary role of developing literacy amongst its citizens through various laws (Hall, 2000), literacy programmes, innovative teaching methods and strategies (Venezky, 1987), approaches to literacy education (Bredekamp, 1987; Harden, 1984) learning practices (Anderson et al., 1985), research (Dickinson and Newman, 2006), curricular development and compulsory education (Van Kleeck and Schuele, 2010), families' involvement in promoting literacy at home remains significant and steadfast. Filipino families, acting in unison and supportive of the government's undertakings, have created their own mechanisms that make literacy work regardless of whether or not they receive any support from the government. These family literacy practices of Filipino families are recognized in the academic literature. As a matter of fact, research on emergent literacy has found its way into practice with recommendations for the involvement of parents in teaching their children more than reading, mirroring at home what the children experience in their schools (Neuman et al., 2000). In this way, the role of the home environment and appropriate practices for preschool classrooms are now are often viewed as quite similar.

As family members go about their daily lives, a wide variety of literacy practices are exhibited. A majority of these literacy practices are centred on parent-child interaction which involves the sharing of information. Home literacy practices, such as parent help with reading, are better predictors of academic success (Hewison and Tizard, 1980). Parents can provide interesting reading materials in the home which can arouse curiosity and encourage children to read. The habit of reading exposes children to wider vocabulary. The meta-analysis conducted by Fan and Chen (2001) revealed that parental involvement has a positive influence on students' academic achievement. Children with good parental modelling in reading performed better in literacy behaviours.

Literacy was once defined as the ability to read and write (Blake and Hanley, 1995). Home literacy practices include parent involvement (Hannon, 1995) in homework which promotes reading and writing. Other literacy practices observed at home include: oral and visual practices; numeracy practices; reading and writing practices; new technology practices; and leisure activities (National Adult Literacy Agency, 2010). Oral and visual practices involve the use of verbal and non-verbal messages. The new technology gadgets' used for communication such as mobile phones and computers can provide opportunities for daily oral and visual practice. Moreover, sending messages through the use of Internet via computer and mobile phones can promote reading and writing activities. In addition to the latest technology, low-cost activities like playing board games can promote the numerical knowledge of young children (Ramani and Siegler, 2014). Numerical knowledge can also be developed by allowing children to be involved in preparation of the household budget. Budgeting also promotes family values through financial decisions that relate to a family's goals (Day, 2010).

Family literacy sees learning as a lifelong process; it is anchored in people's own ecology, that defines their ethnicity, race and cultural heritage, among others. This study examines home practices that are directly or indirectly associated with or promote family literacy. This study makes the case for each member's participation in the family literacy paradigm. It also specifies the literacy evident in each family. Moreover, this study presupposes that even without the overt government and non-government efforts to promote family literacy, it is still much evident in each family regardless of its socio-economic standing. Each family, propelled by Filipino culture and the value ascribed to education, creates its own literacy ecology.

This study is primarily anchored in the concept of family literacy by Taylor (1983), Bronfrenbrenner's family ecology (1989) and funds of knowledge by Moll et al.(1992). Family literacy, according to Taylor (1983), points to the joint efforts of parents, children, caregivers and community for learning. The overall goal is to contribute to children's academic and non-academic learning before and during school age by providing literacy-related and specific activities at home and during interactions. It gains further support in the theories on ‘funds of knowledge’ (Moll et al., 1992) and the family strength model (Carter, 2009). Family literacy is the central anchor of this study via a family is a unit of dynamics and structures that benefit literacy aspirations, especially for young members of the family. Family literacy, as a theoretical foundation, supports understanding the actions and decisions of the family as a unit.

Bronfrenbrenner (1989) developed ecological systems theory which explains the child's development in a system of relationships within the environment. In this theory, the interaction of the family, community and society with the child affects the development of the child. As the child grows and matures, the interaction becomes more complex. The family members within the immediate sphere of the child's influence provide the primary relationship. Schools and teachers perform a secondary role, is to in supporting the primary relationship established by family members and create a nurturing school environment.

Banking on Bronfrenbrenner's idea of family dynamics through family ecology, this study interpreted the systematic and well-thought out undertaking of the family as a unit. This gives credence to the decisions taken made by each family members in pushing forward literacy practices in the household. Older family members have a direct influence on the literacy development of younger members.

With Funds of knowledge, there are resources available to the child at home and these are used as springboard for literacy experiences at school. These funds of knowledge ‘pertain to the social, economic, and productive activities of people in a local region’ that have implications for classroom use (Moll et al., 1992).

Research methodology

This study utilized a qualitative methodology, specifically a case study method. Each family is considered to be a case. Qualitative research involves a multifaceted approach that investigates culture, society and behaviour through an analysis of people's words and actions (Hogan et al., 2009). The family's life history is narrated by the members themselves (Atkinson, 1998). This method was utilized to gather evidence from narration and stories of participant families about their literacy practices. As a research tool, naturalistic life story interview are grounded in a person-centred view. Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was conducted while examining the data gathered from the narration of family members focusing on literacy practices.

An interview with a key informant was conducted to identify families in the community that could be considered in this study. Kumar (1989) mentions that an interview with a key informant is important in understanding the attitudes of a target population. The Barangay Captain of the community recommended families that might represent a portion of the target population. There was a careful examination to determine whether the selected sample frame fits the objectives of this study.

Purposive sampling was utilized to select families who are available and willing to participate and have the ability to communicate their experiences and opinions in an articulate, expressive and reflective manner (Palinkas et al., 2015). Specifically, the typical case sampling type of the purposive sampling technique was used, which focused on what is typical, normal and/or average. The key informant helped the researchers to identify ‘typical families’ in the community. Then, a purposeful random sample was selected from the identified ‘typical families’. Patton (1990) emphasizes that random selection is not designed with generalization in mind but to aid the researchers in making choices about the selection.

The content of the informed consent document was discussed with the families recommended by the Barangay Captain. Tagalog, which is the lingua franca of the families, was the language used in the informed consent. The document has two parts: an information sheet, and a certificate of consent. The first part has an introduction, purpose of the research, type of research intervention, participant selection, voluntary participation, procedure, duration of the study, risks, benefits of the study, confidentiality, plan for sharing the findings and the right to refuse or withdraw. A refusal to participate or sign the informed consent is considered as an “exclusion criterion” (Martínez-Mesa et al., 2016).

Family participants with the following characteristics were selected: the family is an extended family with grandparents, parents and children living together in one household; the combined monthly family income is below Php 20,000 (approx. USD 400), the grandparents or parents are migrants from the provinces; and there are more than three children, aged two to eight years who are either in a formal school, home-schooled or unschooled. Overall, there are three families who met the criteria and signed the informed consent document. They all reside in the same barangay in one of the densely populated cities of Metro Manila in the Philippines. The city has 21 barangays and has a population of 365,525 based on the 2015 National Census.

The data gathering has three components: in-depth interviews, observation and participation. In gathering data, life history narratives and in-depth interviews were applied (Atkinson, 1998). The intent was to gather evidence from narration and stories of participant families and which aspects of their life histories directly or indirectly relate to family literacy.

Each family was interviewed using the storytelling approach. Three in-depth family interviews were conducted to elicit the literacy realities, truths and perceptions of the families. In the first interview, the focus was on family stories of literacy; the point of enquiry was the family's educational attainment and school experiences. The second interview is about the life stories of individual members as they related to their respective personal truths regarding their literacy experiences and aspirations. The third interview dealt with the family members' interests and practices that support and promote literacy in the family.

Data collection was done from April to June 2016. Within this period, two weeks were spent with each family for observation and interviews. Activities related to literacy which were taking place inside the house were considered in the observation. Researchers' participation in outside activities, such as playing, going to the market, and attending mass, were also noted in this study.

For the observation, the researchers spent one day observing the activities of the family members, like when they are eating, cooking and washing clothes, among others. The researchers also noted the literacy materials present in the house. Document analysis was used to analyse the documents in the household used for literacy purposes, such as print materials (e.g. books, magazines, posters, flashcards, maps, posters), audio-visual materials (e.g. music, movies, educational TV) and artefacts (e.g. carpentry and kitchen tools, clothes, pots, furniture). The analysis focused on the literacy content embedded in the sample documents.

Another component of data gathering is the participation wherein the researchers spent one day with the families for their activities outside the house (e.g. running errands, going to the market, going to church and playing in the street, among others).

All observation, interviews and document analyses data have assigned codes. A coding system, anchored in the research questions and objectives, was designed specifically for this study. The codes assigned to data pertain to ideas, concepts and themes that are reflective of family literacies and other types of literacies, the contributions of family members to promote family literacy, family members' participation in literacy-related activities, and integration of family literacy and education.

In analysing the data, IPA was applied wherein the transcribed data gathered from in-depth interviews were framed and given exploratory comments. From these comments, themes were identified and clustered. IPA provided the tool to determine how family activities relate to literacy practices.

Results and discussion

The results and discussion bring us to the unified strength of families as a unit that is united in its beliefs and approach to highlighting family literacy. Families in urban poor communities have mitigated their vulnerability in literacy by creating a home scenario that is beneficial to all family members. This section shows that families' intangible resources are used to achieve a level of literacy that is significant enough to make the children rich in experience, despite the limited economic resources that they have at birth.

The themes drawn from the data reflect how families from a low-income urban community in the Philippines, with limited resources at their disposal and socially deprived, can utilize their family ecology composed mainly of intangible resources – languages, values, family bonds and spirituality in promoting family literacy in their respective homes.

Family literacy themes

There are four primary themes in this study: language is a springboard for family literacy; home strengths and activities are the bedrock of family literacy; faith, values, family life and aspirations are driving forces in promoting family literacy; and the literacy experienced at home mirrors the literacy taught and learned in school. Each primary theme has supporting themes that provide details on how each primary theme is shown in each family.

• Language is a springboard for family literacy

The use of local languages at home provides the children with conceptual ground knowledge in different languages.

The knowledge of the local language of the family has become a springboard for family literacy. They learn a grounding and conceptual knowledge in the mother tongue of their parents. The children are able to maximize their grandparents' limited literacy through their constant exposure to the grandparents' mother tongue. For example, the grandchildren learn about directions and responding to directions and the different kinds of fish by using the grandparents' mother tongue, as in the case of Family 1. The grandparents' regular use of their mother tongue becomes an enabler for the grandchildren to learn more ground and conceptual knowledge. Notably, it is only the grandparents who frequently use these languages.

Pagnas-uutos si tatay, sa Waray (Family 1).

(Every time Tatay [the grandfather] gave an instruction, he says it in Waray [the first language of the grandparents and a local language]).¹

Nagtatagalog ako sa kanila. Tagalog kami dito sa bahay. Nagienles sila sa iskol (Family 2).

(I speak to them in Tagalog.² We speak Tagalog at home. They speak English in school.)

Nagsasalita din [grandparents] sila ng Kinaray-a sa³ to the children. Tumira din kami sa Antique (Family 3).

(They [grandparents] also speak Kinaray-a [to the children]. We also lived in Antique⁴).

As argued by Purcell-Gates (2000) and Weigel et al. (2006), the exposure of children to naturally occurring language and literacy activities in the home environment provides the impetus for skills and concepts development as well as attitudes and behaviours that could positively lead to knowledge and interest in literacy, while Neuman and Dickinson (2001) claimed that the children's exposure to multiple languages provides a rich oral language experience which is a key factor in early literacy acquisition.

The Hartas' (2011) study on the impact of social backgrounds as regards children's literacy has provided quantitative information on the need to strengthen the socio-economic factors of care providers – parents and grandparents – to augment children's literacy development; however, in situations where the children come from a family that is socially disadvantaged, having multiple languages used and spoken at home become a linguistic support that can lead to literacy support. This practice of using the mother tongue can potentially outweigh the success of language learning that children might get at school (Al Otaiba and Fuchs 2006; Wigfield and Asher, 1984).

Languages for wider communication such as Filipino and English being used for literacy support instructions.

The family prefers to provide the children with literacy instruction using Filipino and English because these are the languages used in school. This is evident while doing the children's homework.

Madalas kami [grandparents give instruction to their children] papasulatin ng kung ano ano, magsulat ka diyan ng ano sa English tapos ikokorek ang error (Family 2).

(Most of the time we are asked to write anything in English, after that someone will correct it for errors.)

Yung lola nila nagtuturo ng Inglis. Sisasabihin nya sa mga apo ko na inglisin ninyo. Heto madalas dito ‘maginglis nga tayo’ (Family 2).

(Their grandmother teaches English to the grandchildren. She often reminds her grandchildren to speak in English.)

This family literacy practice can be taken as an opportunity leading to the language and literacy development of children (Brandt, 2001; DeBaryshe et al., 2000). In this situation, the eldest and the one considered to be the most educated member of the family [grandmother] becomes the initiator of family literacy practices. The eldest member [grandmother] uses her experiences to support her grandchildren's literacy skills and development. The credibility and authority that she has, being the eldest and most educated [a retired elementary school teacher], has created an atmosphere on the whole in which learning is given primary importance. The efforts provided by other members of the family are geared towards the third generation's literacy development. This shows the strength of a family and school connection in which the quality of literacy role models provided by caregivers and the types of literacy and language activities in which members of the family engage will lead to positive literacy and language abilities development (Burgess et al., 2002).

• Home strengths and activities are the bedrock of family literacy.

Household chores have become the family's multi-layered venue for family literacy.

Each family believes that every member of the unit has a responsibility to fulfill for the family which is evident on the duty that they handle. Similarities in delegating duties and responsibilities were observed among families. The first generation [grandparents] are left at home to look after the grandchildren or take them to school; the second generation is usually out of the house because they are gainfully employed. They provide the income for the entire family; hence, they are no longer required to participate in any household chores. If they do, they do so voluntarily. For the third generation, the main responsibility in the household is to study and do household chores that link to their learning.

The engagement of the third generation in doing household chores become an opportunity for providing ground knowledge and skills and supporting literacy and skills learned in school. The children learn about survival skills in their context by doing assigned household chores. The type of household chores allotted to each member is based on the child's ability to follow, understand directions or age. It is noticeable in all families that the children's participation in household chores starts at an early age [about four to five years old]. The induction of the children into doing household chores at a very young age is evidently a value that each family holds.

For Family 1, the household chores done by the third generation are sweeping the floor, washing the dishes and clothes, setting the table, making the bed, babysitting for a newborn member, feeding the baby and doing errands, if asked.

For Family 2, washing the dishes, running errands, cleaning the house, stalking books and washing clothes were part of their household chores.

For Family 3, washing clothes and dishes, and cleaning the house were considered as their household chores.

Noticeably, the third generation takes pride in their ability to do household chores without being told. It is an understanding in each household that one is considered to be a good member of the family if one handles one's responsibilities earnestly.

Engaging in household chores become an opportunity for literacy development, such as oral language, oral fluency, word study, word identification and vocabulary. Doing the household chores can be considered as a manifestation of a home learning environment. Research on home literacy environment (HLE) shows that there is a consensus that HLE is a key factor that affects oral language skills such as vocabulary in both monolingual (Burgess et al., 2002; Sénéchal and LeFevre, 2002) and Spanish–English bilingual (Farver et al., 2006; Gonzalez and Uhing, 2008) populations during the preschool- and early school-age years.

The many concepts that the third generation learn from materials and artifacts at home, coupled with their interaction with the first and second generations as they do household chores, becomes a direct opportunity for literacy development exposure and learning.

The third generation's engagement in household activities can likewise be considered as a way of strengthening their ground knowledge. Interestingly, the practice of strengthening children's ground knowledge at home contributes to literacy development, especially if the school practices cultural modelling in which instruction makes an explicit connection between the children's knowledge and experiences with the family with content and literacy goals at school (Risko and Walker-Dalhouse, 2007). Knowledge of household chores becomes an empowering tool for children in a cultural modelling context practised in school (Gay, 2000).

Aside from the positive influence of doing household chores in literacy development, it can also influence the third generation's narrative abilities. Home experiences such as doing household chores with caregivers may contribute positively to the overall growth of narrative abilities of bilingual children.

Home activities are used as a support to learn the literacy concepts taught in school such as science concepts, survival skills, hygiene and childcare.

The daily activities of the children like chores and play, introduced to them by their grandparents, parents and aunts and uncles, mirror the concepts taught and learned in school. In some cases, the first and second generations used the children's involvement in daily activities as a learning opportunity, wherein they directly taught the children academic concepts that could be drawn from engaging in home activities. Since the first and second generations are involved in the third generation's literacy in various means and capacities, they are able to channel to what is learned in school into what is experienced at home.

A case in point is Family 1 in which the aunt (second generation member of the family) will involve the third generation in caring for an infant cousin. According to the aunt, she taught her niece how to bottle-feed her infant cousin:

Aunt: Dapat alam ang oras, para alam kung napapanis na the ang gatas.

(The child should know when the milk was prepared to determine its expiration.)

In this example, the concepts of time and word collocation, among others, are subtly introduced to the third generation. It can provide ground knowledge to the children learning these concepts and other that can be honed from the experience of feeding a child.

In the case of Family 2, playtime is an opportunity for learning. They have role-playing games wherein the players assume roles of characters in various setting like grocery store, bank and school. When the children simulate events in a grocery story, they take turns to play the parts of a buyer and a seller. Another play simulates the events in a bank in which one acts as a depositor and the other as the teller. They also do a simulation of events in a classroom. Some act as students, while someone is assigned to be the teacher. They use blackboard, chalk, eraser and stick as play materials. In these games, the literacy concepts learned [which are also taught in school] include money counting, numbers and politeness, among others.

• Faith, values, family life and aspirations are driving forces in promoting family literacy.

Faith education, a common practice of families, has a tangible and intangible impact om family literacy.

The religiosity and spirituality of each family, or at least some of the family members, contribute to the religious and spiritual practices of the children. Evidently, these practices are encouraged at home regardless of the older generations. Notably, this practice is used by the first and second generations as an anchor in promoting education to the third generation. They want religiosity and spirituality to play an important part in the academic lives of the children. This probably explains why praying is part of the children's preparation for taking an exam; when there is difficulty in academic activities, the children resort to praying, and when something is achieved in class, they also pray.

Usually, it is the female members of the first and second generations that encourage, practice, and lead the children in prayer. They read and discuss Bible stories and verses together. The Catholic participants say the rosary together, go to church and attend religious activities at school and in the community. In the homes of these families, religious images were present, such as an image of Jesus Christ posted on the wall, a small altar with a Bible, rosary and figurines of Jesus, the Saints and Mary.

Better education is the family's primary aspiration.

It is apparent that education has an instrumental value. The three families believed that their economic condition will improve through better education. The older generations, who are usually elementary and secondary school graduates, think that the third generation should pursue tertiary education for better employability in the Philippines and overseas. They also believed that the younger members of the family will have better job opportunities and chances of employment. Moreover the family thought that children should not be distracted from their pursuit of a better life and learning. They see their current economic situation as an offshoot of not having a better education; henceforth, they encourage the younger members of the family to resist any activities or temptations that could compromise their education.

In these families, the first and second generations have limited educational attainment because of personal [marriage or cohabitation, childbirth] and economic [limited or no funds for college education, had to provide financial support to the family] reasons. Their intent for a better education becomes a motivation to encourage the third generation to prioritize their schooling.

Narratives from the second generation in Family 2:

Father: Hangga't kaya ko pa [sending children to school], kung papasa ako sa medical [sa seaman]. Sabi ko nga eh pag di ka nag-aral magtesTESDA⁵ ka [vocational course].

(As long as I can send them [children] to school, and if I pass the medical exam)

(I can afford to send my child to school for as long as I can work as a seafarer. If the child does not study well, he can take a vocational course.)

Mother: Niremind ko sya na mag-focus sa pag-aaral dahil nasa huli ang pagsisisi. Magtapos kayo, mag-aral kayo ng mabuti

(I remind the children to focus on their studies, regret always comes at the end. They should study well and finish their studies.)

Narratives from the second generation in Family 1:

Aunt: Mas masarap kapag nag-aral, may kaalaman sa mga komplikado na pang akademiko o mga aralin na hindi makukuha lamang sa pang-araw araw na buhay.

(It feels good if you are able to finish school, you know about important and complicated academic stuff or you know something which your experience in life cannot teach you.)

The strong desire to finish their studies, evident in all families, shows how education is valued even in a low-income urban poor community in the Philippines. When asked about personal aspirations, family members across the generations point to education, specifically completing tertiary education, improved economic conditions and providing support to the family.

Family resources are generally spent on two things: children's education and daily sustenance. As observed, the second generation, as the working members of the family, becomes the voice of reason and motivation for the family. They use their experiences – family, work and personal, as examples of what should and should not be done in life. The second generation has managed to use their life histories and narratives to show why education is important; moreover, they also use this to promote literacy at home. It appears that these narratives are the overarching reason why literacy is promoted and practiced in their homes.

Family involvement is evident in doing homework and other school related tasks.

Members of the family contribute to the children's homework completion. The elder members of the family give tutorials, help in searching for information and completing projects, among others. They see these activities as an opportunity to make the home an extension of the classroom environment. The second generation members, usually females, play an active role in ensuring that the third generation are focused on their studies and help in the children's academic success. They discuss school problems and concerns like checking grades and assignments, among others. They also monitor their activities, like the frequency of Internet and social media use. Any activity of the third generation that could compromise academic success is shunned and prevented. Because of this, the children have supervised access to Facebook and online gaming. They also contribute to completing the learning resources available for the third generation's education.

In the case of Family 2, the grandparent would ask for used books from relatives for her grandchildren to read. This is to augment the learning materials available at home.

Mother: Si mommy [grandmother] yung sa Taguig⁶ yung sa kapatid niya, hakot niya yung mga libro. Hetong bakasyon na to babasahin mo ito [referring to the child from the third generation]. Kaya kapag hindi nagbasa ang sama ng loob.

(My grandmother in Taguig, she brings books. During the school vacation, they will read the books. They feel bad whenever they are not able to read.)

Another way the family contribute to literacy is by using recycled materials for school projects. This explains why they prefer not to throw away any materials that could potentially be used for school work and requirements.

Mother: Di ba ng dami naming basura, kasi no yan sa mga project. Kasi pag nanghihingi ng project, mommy kailangan naming eto yung maghahanap ka, ay hindi meron ako niyan. Kaya puno kami ng basura.

(We have a good deal of garbage because of their school projects. When they need something for a school project, at least we have a stock. That is why we have so much garbage.)

• The literacy experienced at home mirrors the literacy taught and learned in school.

The storytelling about the family's narratives and experiences mirrors the storytelling of fiction and nonfiction in school.

Each generation narrates the family history to the next generation – the hardships, struggles, dreams, mistakes and perspectives. They make sure that these stories can be used as lessons or motivation to become and do better in life. Even though some of them tell their life narratives with regret and sadness, the overall tone remains hopeful and positive.

The older generation use this opportunity to give life lessons to the younger generation. They also discuss about their relationships and education to the younger members of the family. Both are used as opportunities for teaching and learning. Sparingly, they share about their political views and connections with other members of the family. Yet, they do not express strong political convictions.

This life narratives activity complements the storytelling experienced by children in school, which focuses on storybooks about families, children's lives and daily experiences. Both have a common goal, which is to present unique experiences to the children. The complementing nature of storytelling at home and in school appears to establish a connection of literacy experiences with the children, regardless of the environment or context they are in. This shows that literacy development can be a regular and a continuous process that can be learned regardless of a child's context and status in life.

The oral reading experience at home is similar to what they experience in school.

Essentially, the limited educational achievement of the first generation has not prevented them from being involved in family literacy. Their contribution to promoting family literacy is primarily in giving importance to education and showing this through oral reading. As in the case of the three families, oral reading is the families' initial ticket to family literacy. The HLE and joint parent–child book reading are considered to be the key factors in the children's language and literacy acquisition (Mascarenhas et al., 2016).

In Family 1, the grandmother often tells stories which are passed on to the second generation, who in turn pass it on to the third generation. Interestingly, oral reading is not just about telling and knowing stories; it is about learning life's lessons from these stories, as shown in the example conversation below:

Aunt: [referring to the grandmother] Kay nanay ko talaga mahilig magkwento. Kahit sa amin.

(Grandmother likes telling stories to all of us.)

Child 1: Wala na akong maalala.

(I cannot remember.)

Aunt: Kasi galing pa kami sa Antique noon, hindi na niya naaalala.

(We came from Antique at that time, she cannot remember anymore).

Child: Yung si auntie mga kinikwente niya sa akin na yung tatlong princesa, tapos yung isang tao sinumpa siya maging ahas naging prinsipe na sinumpa maging ahas ng isang mangkukulam.

(My aunt tells a story about three princesses and a prince. The witch cursed the prince and transformed him into a snake.

Aunt: Yung sa gamu-gamo.⁷ Anong natutunan mo dun?

(In the story about moths, what do you learn?)

Child: Makinig po sa magulang para hindi mapahamak.

(Listen to your parents' advice to avoid trouble.)

Researcher: Ilang beses kayong nagkwentuhan.

(How many times did you talk to each other?)

Auntie: Pag hindi kayo busy o hindi kami pagod.

(If you're not busy or we're not tired.)

Researcher: Nay [referring to the grandmother] Ano po ang mga kwento nyo?

(What else did you talk about?)

Grandmother: Fairy tales, galing sa libro.

(Fairy tales from books.)

Auntie: Meron siya dati na kinukwento sa aking yung sirena sa English naman yun.

(She told me a story about a mermaid [in English].)

Grandmother: Adarna.⁸ Ngayon, Cinderella. (Adarna. Now, Cinderella.)

Auntie: Ako na ang nagkwento ngyon kasi may anak na ako na 6 years old din.

(I am now the one who tells stories to the kids since I already have a 6-year old child.)

From the stories she has read, the grandmother retells these stories to her children [when they were younger] and to her grandchildren. The reading habits of children can be linked with the home environment that promotes home reading (Nutbrown et al., 2016).

Oral reading is a primary literacy development activity in schools. At home, the families consider oral reading as a primary literacy activity as well which involves other members of the family. Having said this, it appears that oral reading is a common family literacy practice that is continuously experienced by children. Again, the mirroring of experiences in oral reading provides a consistent literacy experience for the children.

Reading materials used at home are both conventional and non-conventional.

The limited resources of the families force them to utilize every available material that can be used for reading. The kinds of materials available in their home, although limited in quantity, are very broad and varied. There are conventional reading materials like charts, storybooks, Bible, flashcards and school textbooks. For the three families, these reading materials are usually borrowed from or given by neighbours and relatives, and supplied by the national government for basic education students. The aunt wants the children to maximize what they can get from these reading materials by asking them to read.

Among the three families, it is Family 1 that uses unconventional reading materials like tarpaulins (which also serves as a wall paper), flyers, torn newspapers, printed political ads, snack and candy wrappers and yellow pages, among others. They use these unconventional reading materials for learning the alphabet, numbers and pre-reading activities.

This practice of print flooding is also commonly done in schools in which the children are introduced to and given a number of texts to choose from. The children have the option to read and browse through those texts which appeal to them and which relate to them.

Reading is regularly promoted and observed in the family, there is a similar endeavour in schools.

It is evident that all three families attach much value to reading and its importance in promoting literacy among the children. Each family has its own way of promoting reading at home. The family condition and dynamics serve as motivating factors in their approach to promoting reading at home.

In the case of Family 1, it is the second generation that encourages the third generation to read by introducing conventional and non-conventional reading texts to the children. The second generation promotes reading by allowing them to read at the most convenient time. She also encourages the third generation to borrow books from neighbours and the school library. The first and second generations make sure that reading materials are available for the third generation.

Even though reading is no longer a regular practice of the first generation, the second generation had witnessed how the first generation did a lot of reading before, especially the grandmother. She often read paperbacks or what are popularly called ‘pocketbooks’ in the Philippines.

Child 1: Minsan po sina mama [aunt], si lola bumibili ng mga story ng binibili sa palengke na parang nasa mga kahon. Manipis lang siya, na ano libre.

(Sometimes my aunt and grandmother buy a storybook in a box in the market. It's thin and it's free.)

Child 2: Minsan nagbabasa din ako sa school.

(Sometimes I read at school.)

Aunt: Nagbabasa sila ng mga libro sa iskwelahan. Pati na rin magazine at komiks. Minsan, yung binabasa nila, pinababasa sa akin.

(They read books at school. Also, magazines and comics. Sometimes I also read what they read.)

In the case of Family 2, the first generation provides the initial modelling for reading. Both grandmother and grandfather are ardent readers and they show it to their children and grandchildren. They encourage each family member to do the same. Reading is a regular activity at home. Their home is full of reading materials including Bible, newspapers, encyclopedias, magazines and books about different subject areas. All used textbooks are kept and read again. Their love of reading is propelled by their motivation to learn. Hence, literacy is given high priority in this family.

Mother: [daughter of the grandfather] Sila ni daddy [grandfather] nag-aral ng English. Si daddy [grandfather] nag-aral ng sarili.

(My daughter and her grandfather study English. Her grandfather does self-study).

Aunt: [another daughter of the grandfather] Kahit Grade 3 ang tinapos ni daddy nakakapagbasa siya. Einstein ang tawag naming sa kanya. Kahit itanong mo sa mga tao, walang araw na hindi siya nagbabasa.

(Even if the grandfather only finished up to Grade 3, he can read. He calls himself Einstein. You ask other people, they will say that he reads every day.)

Father: [son-in-law of the grandfather] Nagbabasa siya ng Bible and newspaper.

(Grandfather reads the Bible and newspapers.)

Aunt: Si mommy palabasa din.

(Mommy also reads a lot.)

For the second generation, reading is considered to be an academic task. This is because they are secondary school graduates and have reached second year in tertiary education. Even though the children do not see them reading on their own as much as the first generation, they read with their children because they help them do their school assignments. In short, the assignments of the third generation become a springboard for the reading of the second generation. This participation as shadow teachers or tutors for the third generation provides them the opportunity to engage in reading.

Child: [grandchild] pag may assignment lang nagtatanong ako kay mommy.

(I only ask my Mom whenever we have an assignment.)

In the case of Family 3, it is the third generation who, show more interest in reading. They often read stories that were introduced to them in school and from watching television. The school is the primary place where the third generation reads. Nevertheless, the first and second generations are very supportive of this practice. They allow the children to read on their own and sometimes discuss with the children what has been read. With their limited resources, they still buy reading materials for the children. They also read with them if there is homework. Below is a narrative of the mother stating how well and how much her daughter is into reading:

Mother: Basta mga istorya ang binabasa niya, mga fairy tales at alamat. Nagbabasa din siya [referring to the daughter] ng diyaryo at magazine sa school. Nagpapabili din siya ng alamat. Sa palengke lang ako bumibili ng alamat. Kung meron lang ako ng pera, gusto niya araw araw, gusto nya na paiba-iba ang binabasa. Pag gusto niya magbasa, paulit ulit niyang binabasa ang istorya. Nag question and answer din kami pagkatapos niyang magbasa.

(She likes to read fairy tales and folklore. She also reads newspapers and magazines at school. She asks me to buy storybooks on folklore. These are available in the market. If I have money, she wants me to buy these every day, she likes to read different stories. If she likes what she is reading, she rereads them over and over again. After she reads, we have question and answer.)

Dialogic reading is very much evident. The mother initiates dialogic reading which is received positively by the younger generation. Dialogic reading is a way to promote family literacy because it encourages active participation from the child and caregiver in reading a book (Zevenbergen and Whitehurst, 2003). Based on empirical data, dialogic reading promotes emergent literacy skills and metalinguistic skills (Reese et al., 2010).

In the case of Family 3, the parent and the child did ‘questions and answers’ which could be evidence of scaffolding and levelling of understanding while strengthening the bond between mother and child (Bus et al., 1995; Mol et al. 2009).

In the context of low-income families, their family literacy has been redefined through the inclusion of family activities. They use this as a springboard to draw out learning for the younger generation.

Family literacy is much observed at home if there is strong family support from grandparents and parents to other elder members of the family. The elder members' personal concerns are set aside in favour of the children's education and well-being.

On the part of the children, their full cooperation is observed and expected. The children show cooperation by giving priority to their schoolwork and by being content with financial support from the family. For example, they are not expected to complain if they wear hand-me-down school uniforms, bags or shoes. They use recycled notebooks. Clearly, family members know what the collective priority of their family is. The cooperation shown by the children also proves that they learn by taking part in literacy activities and initiatives at home (Teale and Sulzby, 1986).

There are variations in family literacy practices among the three cases; this could be attributed to the differences in educational background of the older generation. Seemingly, the older generation with higher educational background has practices more complex than its counterpart. Nevertheless, these families still share the same regard for education and the value they give to it. The family literacy of these cases can be viewed as ‘authentic literacy’ (Anderson et al., 2010) because it is focused on the everyday experiences of each family.

Family literacy practices are bonded by the family's adherence to education. The appreciation and need for education are almost a transgenerational mind-set. These allow the family to undertake activities that directly or indirectly support the children's learning. It is manifestated that the children's literacy development is influenced by different family facets, and thereby requires cooperation among family members.

An ecological perspective views human development from a person-in-environment context, emphasizing the principle that all growth and development take place within the context of relationships (Bronfrenbrenner, 1986). This framework is significant in understanding children's literacy development. The theory purports to describe the active role of family and school in shaping children's literacy trajectories. The findings of the study support this theory that a myriad of intrafamilial and extrafamilial factors promote early childhood literacy. The conjunction between the family system and the school system can influence the learning experiences of the child.

Evidently, the dynamics manifested in each household are indications of a pro-literacy family ecology. The family ecology has become an impetus for family literacy practices which are now a union between formal and ground knowledge. Each family member's participation in their own ecology is centred on interaction to realize a common educational goal. The primary relationship provided by the older members of the family impacts on the literacy exposure of the children and is congruent with the direction provided by school and teachers. The decisions made by each member within the ecology are a reiteration and realization of the common goal. Each family recognizes and practices family literacy such as reading, print use and visual literacy among others.

Clearly, even without the family literacy programme initiated by the national government or local government, each family finds ways and means to give the utmost education to younger members of the family. They use personal and physical, tangible and intangible resources as a springboard for learning. Family ties is necessary to establish a viable learning environment at home. Through a strong relationship, each member of the family becomes a vibrant participant of family literacy.

Conclusion

Each family in this study found ways in which their limited socio-economic resources could be tapped and maximized to support the third generation's need for a better education. However, it only starts with the first and second generations' reflection and commitment to help the third generation become better and accomplish more. All of this is done in the context of the need for a better life and economic growth. The immediate tools they have related to language and ground knowledge. The family strength approach (Carter et al., 2009) acknowledges that the uniqueness of each family can be used to strengthen the literacy development of children. This uniqueness can come in the form of family routines, strengths and resources which can provide natural and meaningful opportunities to promot language and literacy experiences.

The approach highlights creating opportunities, modelling reading and language, interacting with their children and providing recognition as impetus and reinforcement for meaningful opportunities which allow children to engage in language and print positively and successfully.

Each family creates its own ecology that will best serve the interests of its members, especially the younger generation. In the context of family literacy practices in low-income communities, the focus is always on the welfare of the younger generation. Family practices centre on the literacy development of third generation family members (Bronfrenbrenner, 1986).

The family literacy practices exhibited by the three families in this study are anchored in family values and aspirations. These are the two driving forces that enable each family to pursue and sustain their literacy practices. The findings suggest that the economic condition of the family is not a deterrent to family literacy practices. Each family has ways and means to maximize the learning of children in their homes. However, additional support in the form of print that follows and structures literacy activities, to be given to each family, may further contribute to children's literacy development (Moll et al., 1992).

In this study, it is very evident also that family dynamics shown in family values make a significant contribution to family literacy promotion in each home. Because of this, any programme on family literacy has to account for the values of integration and promotion.

Family literacy practices depend upon the unique dynamics of each of the three families, which can be considered as their strengths. This mirrors the family strengths model which emphasizes the application of Hannon's (1995) model that focuses on creating opportunities for learning, providing recognition of the child's achievement in developing reading skills, interacting with children around literacy activities, and providing a model of literacy. Interestingly, the second generation usually makes up for the literacy limitation of the first generation so they can fully support the literacy development of the third generation.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Far Eastern University – Manila, Philippines through the University Research Center (URC).

Notes

References

Alba M (2007) Estimating literacy rate: A study relating literacy rate with combined gross elementary and secondary schools enrolment rate. Available at: http://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/ris/pjd/pidsjpd81-literacy.pdf (accessed 10 March 2018).

Al Otaiba

Fuchs

(2006) Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities 39: 414–431.

Anderson

Hiebert

Scott

, et al.(1985) Becoming a Nation of Readers, Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

Anderson J, Anderson A and Friedrich N (2010) Taking stock of family literacy: Some contemporary perspectives. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 10: 33–53.

Atkinson, R (1998) Internet access, help desks and online study. In: OLA virtual conference, 16–27 March. Available at: www.ola.edu.au/virtcon/atkinson/paper.htmhttp://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/asu/edtech/pubs/atkinson/ola-virtcon-atkinson.html (accessed 10 March 2018).

Axtell

(1968) The Educational Writings of John Locke, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Beatty

(1995) Preschool Education in America: The Culture of Young Children from the Colonial Era to the Present, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Blake

Hanley

(1995) Dictionary of Educational Terms, Aldershot: Arena.

Brandt

(2001) Literacy in American lives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10.

Bredekamp

(1987) Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8, Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

11.

Bronfrenbrenner

(1989) Ecological system theory. In: Vasta

(ed.) Six Theories Child Development Revised Formulations and Current Issues Vol. 6, Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.

12.

Bronfrenbrenner

(1986) Ecology of the family as a context for human development. Developmental Psychology 22: 723–742.

13.

Burgess

Hetch

Lonigan

(2002) Relations of home literacy environment (HLE) to development of reading-related abilities: A one-year longitudinal study. Reading Research Quartly 4(4): 408–426.

14.

Bus

van Ijzendoorn

Pellegrini

A D

(1995) Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research 65(1): 1–21.

15.

Carter

Chard

Pool

(2009) A family strengths approach to early language and literacy development. Early Childhood Education Journal 36: 519–526.

16.

Day PE (2010) Household Budget and Managing Debt. 2nd ed. Academy of Financial Literacy. Available at: www.academyoffinancialliteracy.com/UsingahouseholdbudgetFinal.pdf (accessed 12 March 2018).

17.

DeBaryshe

Binder

Buell

(2000) Mothers' implicit theories of early literacy instruction: Implications for children's reading and writing. Early Child Development and Care 160: 119–131.

18.

Department of Education (2017) DO 18, s. 2017 – Guidelines on the Utilization of the 2017 Every Child a Reader Program Funds for the Early Language, Literacy, and Numeracy Program: Professional Development Component. Available at: www.deped.gov.ph/orders/do-18-s-2017 (accessed 12 March 2018).

19.

Dickinson

Newman

(2006) Handbook of Early Literacy Vol. 2, New York, NY: Guilford.

20.

Fan

Chen

(2001) Parental involvement in students? academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review 1: 1–22.

21.

Farver JAM, Xu Y, Eppe S, et al. (2006) Home environments and young Latino children's school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21: 196–212.

22.

Gay

(2000) Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice, New York: Teachers College Press.

23.

Gonzalez J and Uhing B (2008) Home literacy environments and young Hispanic children's English and Spanish oral language. Journal of Early Intervention 30: 116–139.

24.

Hall

(2000) Literacy, play, and authentic experience. In: Roskos

Christie

(eds) Play and Literacy in Early Childhood: Research from Multiple Perspectives, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 189–204.

25.

Hannon

(1995) Literacy Home and School: Research and Practice in Teaching Literacy with Parents, London: Falmer Press.

26.

Harden

(1984) Maria Edgeworth, Boston, MA: Twayne.

27.

Hartas

(2011) Families' social backgrounds matter: Socio-economic factors, home learning and young children's language, literacy and social outcomes. British Educational Research Journal 37(6): 893–914.

28.

Hewison

Tizard

(1980) Parental involvement and reading attainment. British Journal of Educational Psychology 50: 209–215.

29.

Hogan-Brun

Mar-Molinero

Stevenson

(2009) Testing regimes: Introducing cross-national perspectives on language, integration and citizenship. In: Hogan-Brun

Mar-Molinero

Stevenson

(eds) Discourses on Language and Integration: Critical Perspectives on Language Testing Regimes in Europe, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–12.

30.

International Literacy Association (2015) Literacy in the Philippines: The Stories Behind the Numbers. Available at: www.literacyworldwide.org/blog/literacy-daily/2015/08/06/literacy-in-the-philippines-the-stories-behind-the-numbers (accessed 12 March 2018).

31.

Kumar K (1989) Conducting key informant interviews in developing countries. Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNAAX226.PDF (accessed 10 March 2018).

32.

Lazo KN (2013) PH literacy rate jumps by 5% in 10 years. The Manila Times, 30 December. Available at: www.manilatimes.net/ph-literacy-rate-jumps-by-5-in-10-years/64167/ (accessed 12 March 2018).

33.

Martínez-Mesa

González-Chica

Duquia

, et al.(2016) Sampling: How to select participants in my research study?. Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia 91(3): 326–330.

34.

Mascarenhas Ss, Moorakonda R, Agarwal P, et al. (2016) Characteristics and influence of home literacy environment in early childhood-centered literacy orientation. Proceedings of Singapore Healthcare 26(2): 81–97.

35.

Moll

Amanti

Neff

, et al.(1992) Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice 31(2): 132–141.

36.

Mol SE, Bus AG and de Jong MT (2009) Interactive Book Reading in Early Education: A Tool to Stimulate Print Knowledge as Well as Oral Language. Review of Educational Research 79(2): 979–1007.

37.

National Adult Literacy Agency (2010) At Home with Literacy: A Study of Family Literacy Practices. Available at: www.nala.ie/sites/default/files/publications/At%20home%20with%20literacy%20-20a%20research%20study%20of%20family%20literacy%20practices%202010_1.pdf (accessed 12 March 2018).

38.

Neuman

Copple

Bredekamp

(2000) Learning to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

39.

Neuman

Dickinson

(2001) Handbook of Early Literacy Research, New York: Guilford Press Publications.

40.

Nutbrown

Clough

Levy

, et al.(2016) Families' roles in children's literacy in the UK throughout the 20th century. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 17(4): 551–569.

41.

Palinkas

Horwitz

Green

, et al.(2015) Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 42(5): 533–544.

42.

Patton

(1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

43.

Purcell-Gates

(2000) Family literacy. In: Kamil

Mosenthal

Pearson

, et al.(eds) Handbook of Reading Research Vol. III, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 853–870.

44.

Ramani GB and Siegler RS (2014) How informal learning activities can promote children's numerical knowledge. Oxford Handbooks Online. Available at: www.psy.cmu.edu/∼siegler/2014-early-RamSieg.pdf (accessed 12 March 2018).

45.

Reese

Sparks

Leyva

(2010) A review of parent interventions for preschool children's language and emergent literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Research 10(1): 97–117.

46.

Risko

Walker-Dalhouse

(2007) Tapping students' cultural funds of knowledge to address the achievement gap. The Reading Teacher 61(1): 98–100.

47.

Sénéchal M and LeFevre JA (2002) Parental involvement in the development of children s reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development 73: 445–460.

48.

Taylor

(1983) Family Literacy: Young Children Learning to Read and Write, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

49.

Teale

Sulzby

(1986) Emergent Literacy: Writing and Reading, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

50.

Van Kleeck

Schuele

(2010) Historical perspectives on literacy in early childhood. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 19: 341–355.

51.

Venezky

(1987) History of the American reading textbook. Elementary School Journal 87: 247–265.

52.

Weigel

Martin

Bennett

(2006) Contributions of the home literacy environment to preschool-aged children's emerging literacy and language skills. Early Child Development and Care 176: 357–378.

53.

Wigfield

Asher

(1984) Social and motivational influences on reading. In: Pearson

Barr

Kamil

, et al.(eds) Handbook of Reading Research Vol. 1, White Plains, NY: Longman, pp. 423–452.

54.

Zevenbergen

Whitehurst

(2003) Dialogic reading: A shared picture book reading intervention for preschoolers. In: van Kleeck

Stahl

Bauer

(eds) On Reading Books to Children: Parents and Teachers, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 177–200.