The Everglades By: Zach Martz Stephanie Hannon Stephanie Hannon.
CULTIVATING THE RESEARCH-PRACTICE CONNECTION · CULTIVATING THE RESEARCH-PRACTICE CONNECTION Peter...
Transcript of CULTIVATING THE RESEARCH-PRACTICE CONNECTION · CULTIVATING THE RESEARCH-PRACTICE CONNECTION Peter...
CULTIVATING THE RESEARCH-PRACTICE
CONNECTION
Peter Hannon
School of Education University of Sheffield, England
What’s he going to talk about?
Ground clearing How the garden has grown
Six research-practice connections? Cultivating the garden
Research with colleagues at Sheffield
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
ADULT & COMMMUNITY
EDUCATION
Parent involvement in
nursery and infant classes
1970s Individual-focused adult literacy provision
Parent involvement in teaching of reading
1980s Community focused adult literacy provision
Central control Preschool literacy
initiatives 1990s Two-generation model
from USA
2000s FAMILY
LITERACY PRACTICE
Growth of FL programmes in England
Literacy-oriented educational programmes that acknowledge and use
learners’ family membership and roles.
One definition of FL programmes
• Initial concept of FL as a set of processes, theory-driven (Taylor, 1983; Heath, 1983)
• Term subsequently extended to programmes – a different concept (e.g., Nickse, 1993)
• Some theory/research (e.g., Auerbach, 1989) • Research eclipsed by rhetoric (critique by
Hannon, 2000) • Re-growth of research and theory (Handbook
of Family Literacy, edited by Wasik, 2004)
How has the FL garden grown?
Seeking research-practice connections in six areas
1. Learning theory 2. Meaning of FL for participants 3. Realism about extent of participation 4. Outcomes for families 5. Gender 6. Changing nature of literacy
Other areas important but no time
The Sheffield REAL Project
• Based in Sheffield, England • Peter Hannon and Cathy Nutbrown • Several phases, since 1990s • Bilingual study, Kath Hirst • Follow-up study, 2 yrs post-programme • Research Fellow, Anne Morgan • Other professionals (̃8) contributed
Research background
• Inequalities in children’s literacy • Literacy measures at school entry predict later attainment
• Preschool home learning important • Potential of family literacy programmes • Not all parents want adult education now • Socio-cultural view of literacy development
REAL Project questions
• Is it feasible to develop an FL programme, based on socio-cultural view of early literacy development? (Can such a view be shared with parents?)
• Will parents, children and teachers value such a programme?
• Will the programme affect children’s literacy development?
• Will it affect parents’ literacy? • Will any effects on children’s literacy persist?
Nature of the intervention
Preschool family literacy programme. Low intensity long-duration. Offered to families in disadvantaged areas. No targeting of particular families, except in terms of area Some families bilingual (9%) Parents of 3-year-olds invited to join programme for 12-18 months before school entry Adult education opportunities offered, not required
Programme, based on ORIM framework, consisted of
Home visits by programme teachers
Provision of literacy resources
Centre-based group activities
Special events (e.g. group library visit)
Postal communication
Optional, literacy-related adult education for parents
Resourcing: Teachers given half a day per week to work with a group of 8 families
More details about the REAL Project
NUTBROWN, C.E., HANNON, P., & MORGAN, A. (2005) Early literacy work with families. London: SAGE Publications
Range of research methods
• Practitioner reflections and peer interviews
• Analysis of activity records • Post-programme interviews of parents • Post-programme interviews of children • Randomised control trial to investigate
effects on children’s literacy (N=176)
Measures of children’s development (for RCT)
• Sheffield Early Literacy Development Profile (SELDP) – Nutbrown (1997)
• British Picture Vocabulary Scale – Revised (BPVS – II)
• Letter recognition – Clay (1985) • School Literacy Attainment at Seven –
total of KS1 literacy assessments
Back to the six areas
1. Learning theory 2. Meaning of FL for participants 3. Realism about extent of participation 4. Outcomes for families 5. Gender 6. Changing nature of literacy
1. Learning theory
Why theory?
“Nothing so practical as a good theory.”
Attributed to Kurt Lewin
Questions for theory to answer
What is is being learned in FL programmes? – could be on a spectrum from skills to social
practices
What kind of teaching, if any, brings it about? – could be on a spectrum from direct instruction
to (Vygotskyan) facilitiation
Practices
Skills
Instruction Facilitation
A big question How do others help us learn?
Learning is essentially social. Relatively little learning entirely individual (and even that often turns out to be social
on closer inspection). A socio-cultural theory of learning focuses
on how groups (e.g., families) help individuals acquire cultural knowledge (e.g., of written language - literacy).
Some characteristics of socio-cultural learning
LEARNERS BENEFIT FROM
Opportunities No opportunities, no learning ‒ may require materials, situations, permission, practice.
Recognition Other people provide feedback and encouragement
Interaction Wide range possible ‒ from facilitation (scaffolding) to instruction
Model Seeing how others do things; wanting to be like them.
Unpicking early literacy development
SOME EARLY LITERACY STRANDS
Print Books Writing Oral Language
Environmental print
Packaging
Adverts
Street signs
TV texts
Junk mail
Good quality children’s books
Picture books
Story books
Non-fiction
Early mark making
Invented spellilng
Writing to communicate
Storytelling
Vocabulary
Phonological awareness
Talk about written language
The ORIM framework
A way of understanding what we are trying to enhance or change in early
literacy programmes
The ORIM framework
EARLY LITERACY STRANDS
Print Books Writing Oral Language
FAMILIES PROVIDE
Opportunities
Recognition
Interaction
Model
Can we affect all cells?
EARLY LITERACY STRANDS
Print Books Writing Oral Language
FAMILIES PROVIDE
Opportunities
Recognition
Interaction
Model
ORIM not the only show in town
There are other ways of conceptualising learning (some may also provide basis for action).
See Handbook of Family Literacy for examples.
Leichter (1984)
1. Environment – physical resources for learning opportunities
2. Child’s interaction with others in home 3. Emotional climate of home
Britto & Brooks-Gunn (2001)
1. Language/verbal interaction 2. Learning climate 3. Social/emotional climate
Roskos & Twardosz (2004)
1. Physical resources (inc. time) 2. Social resources 3. Symbolic resources
Wasik & Hendrickson
1. Parent characteristics 2. Child characteristics 3. Parent-child relationships 4. Resources in home environment
About theory . . . . . . .
All theories are limited.
Most capture some things that are important.
Choose on basis of how they satisfy our purposes (e.g., understanding, parsimony, fit with other theories, action).
2. Meaning of involvement
What it means to be involved in FL programmes can be different for – – Policy makers – Funders – Programme managers – Practitioners – Parents – Children
Meanings can be in conflict
Essential to study meanings
Outcome measures meaningless - until participants give them meaning. Research methods need to make it easy for participants to express negative views (implies ethnography, independent interviewers)
Look at some findings from the REAL Project . . . . .
Parents views of programme
• Overwhelmingly positive • ‘Sad’ about programme ending • Difficult to elicit any negative views • Reported ‘global’ and specific benefits for children
• Did not think it was ‘like school’ • Would recommend it to other parents
Children’s experience
• Children in programme group reported greater range of literacy experiences than those in control group
• According to parent and teacher reports, children enjoyed programme
Teachers’ views
• Strongly welcomed the opportunity to work with families
• Cautiously positive about benefits to children and parents
3. Realism about extent of involvement
• Take-up • Drop-out • Stop-out • Participation
Take-up and drop-out in REAL Project
• High take-up, low drop-out • Low take-up of optional adult education
component • 10% of adults gained accreditation • Participation rated by teachers
Levels of participation (teacher judgements)
5. Participated regularly - clear and continuing indications of activity between contacts.
4. Participated regularly - intermittently active between contacts/visits
3. Participated regularly - but virtually no indication of activity between contacts/visits.
2. Participated minimally or irregularly - very little work focused on literacy.
1. ‘Stopped out’ for one or more periods but did not withdraw from programme.
High participation
• 92% of families participated ‘regularly’ • 45% at the highest possible level of
participation.
4. Outcomes for families
• Increasingly strong evidence of positive outcomes for children (Brooks, et al., 2008; Anderson, et al., 2010)
• Evidence not so strong for parents (and population level impact reduced by low take-up)
Outcomes: 3 knowledge gaps
1. Can outcomes be demonstrated through RCT designs?
2. Do gains persist? 3. How do outcomes vary for different
population sub-groups?
Look at findings from REAL Project.
RCT design in REAL Project
• Full random allocation of families to programme and control groups
• Parents’ informed consent before invitations to join programme
• Initially, 88 3-yr-olds in each group • Independent, double-blind assessment • No pre-programme group differences • Low and non-significant attrition
REAL Project findings
• Gains for children in programme group compared to control group
• Impact varied for different sub-groups • Bilingual programme had high impact • Fade-out of gains after 2 years (but not
for all sub-groups)
Effect size varied for groups
5. Gender roles
• For ‘parents’, should we read ‘mothers’? • Mothers appear more involved than
fathers (virtually universal finding) • Dilemma: discourse of ‘parents’
obscures gender inbalance but discourse of ‘mothers’ increases fathers’ exclusion.
• Need to be clear about our values and what can be achieved.
Fathers in the REAL Project
• ‘Parent’ interviews mainly mothers on their own (a few with fathers present too, none with fathers on their own)
• Fathers’ home involvement explored through interviews with mothers
• 86% of children had a father or step father in their lives (not necessarily resident)
Fathers: REAL Project findings
• Visible programme participation low (9% centre-based attendance; 16% in home visits)
• Higher involvement with child reported in ongoing FL home practices (93%)
• 29% of fathers reported to help child as much as mother
• Fathers involved in all 4 ORIM roles (but less for Opportunities)
• Involvement related to socio-economic status
6. Changing nature of literacy
• The nature of literacy has been transformed in last two decades
• So how have FL programmes changed to keep up?
• Still oriented to paper and pencil technology and print literacy?
Sheffield pilot study of children’s home digital literacy • Preschool children from relatively disadvantaged area • Study led by Jackie Marsh (others in team: Margaret
Lewis, Louise Ritchie) • Exploratory • Re-visiting classic studies of early literacy
development in conditions of new technology • Methodological challenge of accessing home learning • Exploring practicality and acceptability of
collaboration with parents as co-researchers
Parent as co-researchers
• Four parents identified through school (all mothers) • Range of cultural and educational backgrounds • All 4 attended meeting with University research team • Aims and ethical procedures discussed • Mothers’ advice sought and accepted • Mothers used video camera, still camera and
notebook • Support through home visits by research team • Data collection limited to 4 weeks • Data analyses shared and discussed
Emerging findings
• Fathers involved in FDL but difficult to recruit them as co-researchers
• Mothers interested and committed • Four weeks data collection about right • Variations in preferred means of recording • More familiarisation with equipment needed • 65 video recordings and 325 still photos • Wide range of activities recorded
Huge range of preschool digital literacy recorded
• Very young children using mobile phones, laptops, digital camcorders
• Using other equipment (dishwasher, CD player, headphones)
• Extensive scaffolding by parents • Singing, dancing, talking to TV • Watching TV – alone, with sibling(s), with
parents • Using electronic toys (‘Bob the Builder’
phone, spelling toy, ‘Buzz Lightyear’ model, ‘Barbie’ laptop)
Emerging lessons about family digital literacy?
• Parents have been interested and committed • Parents have added to understanding • Potentially rich data • Difficult to see how data could have been
collected by an outsider • A lot of family digital literacy happening
Research-practice connections in the six areas
1. Theory: helpful for programme development 2. Meaning for participants: cannot be taken for
granted 3. Extent of participation: easy to over-estimate but
can be high 4. Outcomes: can be high for some sub-groups 5. Gender: fathers’ involvement under-estimated but
major inbalances persist 6. Digital literacy: FL programmes need to keep up
Cultivating the garden
Four suggestions: 1. ‘Evaluation budget’ (10%?) 2. Researchers to be engaged 3. Practitioners enabled to research 4. Critical and supportive exchange
This conference! Let a thousand flowers bloom