Slide Title

Working for social change: New possibilities through family partnerships in early

childhood education in Chile.

Associate Professor Linda Newman, University of Newcastle, Associate Professor Christine Woodrow, University of Western Sydney Dr Leonie Arthur, University of Western SydneyMs Kerry Staples, University of Western Sydney

• Theoretical positions and assumptions

• Context

• Methods

• Findings

• Implications

Overview

• Sociocultural approaches celebrate difference and diversity

• Social-cultural-historical theory

– “literacy as social practice” (Street, 1984)

– “recognition of multiple literacies, varying according to time and space but also contested in relation to power… [and] rooted in conceptions of knowledge, identity, being” (Street, n.d., p.1)

• Pedagogy as a form of social practice that affects identity, cognitive, affective and moral development, which all influence literacy learning success.

Theoretical Assumptions

“Critical sociocultural perspectives may be

the only available tools for demonstrating

how children’s opportunities to learn are

both supported and constrained by the

role of power in everyday interactions of

students and teachers and by the systems

and structures that shape the institution of

schooling.” (Moje and Lewis, 2007, p.16)

This paper challenges literacy research that shows:

• the positioning of families from disadvantaged communities as deficit

Families from disadvantaged communities are often pathologised as a problem (Crozier & Davies, 2005) and their children as at risk of literacy failure.

• schools as the main or only site for literacy learning  

• skills-based and teacher directed models of literacy teaching

• individualising theories

– autonomous [individual] literacy ignores issues of power, culture, ideology and dominant paradigms and imposes western views of literacy on other cultures

Challenging Deficit Views

Contrary to many of the myths that low income families are ‘difficult to reach’ and ‘indifferent’ to their children’s schooling, they

• are frequently interested in their children’s education (Crozier & Davies, 2005),

• provide rich learning opportunities for their children (Ogbu, 1995; Volk & Long, 2005) and

• have high aspirations for their children’s learning (Delgado-Gaitan, 1992; Mohr, Zygmunt & Clark, 2012).

An Alternate View

This paper advocates a social change framework in which social cultural theory enables

• repositioning families as

– active agents in their children’s learning

– knowledgeable and capable

– partners with educators in their children’s learning

– interactive in the mutual constitution of children’s learning (Lave, 1988)

• repositioning literacy as

– a socially culturally and historically constituted process and multimodal

• repositioning literacy learning as

– occurring in families, communities and educational contexts

• repositioning educators as

– pedagogical leaders and active agents of change

Repositioning: Social Change

• Funds of knowledge (Amanti, Neff & Gonzalez, 1992; Zipin, 2009)

• Knowledge creation as situated and co-constructed

• Knowledge as constituted within power relationships

• Cultural models or ways of knowing (Gee, 1996)

• Social change – (Identities, agency & power)

• Cultural artefacts (pedagogical documentation) (Daniels, 2008)

• Partnerships

Key Concepts

Geo - Social Context

Region of Antofagasta, northern Chile, between the driest desert in the world (Atacama) and the Pacific Ocean from where copper is shipped. Extremes of wealth & poverty, high immigration from neighbouring countries, high incidence of drug-related violence.

Policy Context

• ECE as major element of policy reform to address social inequality.

• Expansion in provision of free access to ECE for children 4 months - 4 years and a component of social protection policy Chile Crece Contigo .

• Issues of quality remains a challenge.

• The country has a long history of interest and public policy in EC (Peralta, 2011).

• Educators generally had a deficit view of families

• Families were generally not invited into the setting other than to perform for the children

• Most families waited for their children outside the gate

• There was little exchange of information between the families and educators

In the beginning……

Research Focus

Futuro Infantil Hoy (FIH)The Development of Leaders in Early Childhood Education: A Sociological Study of Transnational Knowledge Exchange - Australia and Chile (2008-2014)

• Pedagogies for literacy learning and teaching

• Family participation in children’s literacy learning

• Pedagogical and community leadership

• Sustainable models of change

The research addresses two key questions:

• How do families perceive their contribution to children’s literacy learning in the home learning environment?

• What impact does pedagogical documentation undertaken by the early years educators have on families' engagement with and connection to their children’s literacy learning at the centre and at home?

Research Questions

Two phase sequential mixed methods design embedded with in a larger research project.

Data Collection

• Family Questionnaire (n = 418)

– Families from 15 early childhood centres /schools

• Family Focus group interviews

– 3 early childhood settings and 1 school

Data Analysis

• Four stages of qualitative data analysis based on literature

Research Design

1. Classifying data according to a matrix of literacy perspectives that considers a) mindset, b) approach to pedagogy, c) attitude to text, and d) power issues (Newman, Woodrow, Arthur & Staples, under review).

2. Using the ORIM model (Nutbrown & Hannon, 2011) to consider how families:

a) provide opportunities for learning,

b) recognise children’s achievements,

c) interact with children around literacy, and

d) model literacy use.

3. Extending the ORIM model based on our data to add two new categories:

e) have high expectations for their children, and

f) feel invited into learning opportunities

4. Developing a matrix of the extended framework against the FIH 5 Literacy Keys in collaboration with Chilean practitioner researchers.

Four Stages of Qualitative Data Analysis

The Literacy Connections 5 Literacy Keys

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-40 Más de 40

Femenino 19 81 117 110 45

Masculino 3 5 13 15 10

10

30

50

70

90

110

130

Frec

uenc

ia

Distribution of Age and Gender

Está cerca de la casa He oído que tienen un buen programa

Necesito que lo cuiden Otro

200

177

103

82

Why did you choose to bring your child to this centre.school?Frecuencia

Setting Choice

Close to home I heard it has a good program I need care Other

Contributing to the family literacy tree 26%Telling staff about my child 44%Telling staff about things I do at home or know about 35%Telling staff about my hopes and dreams for my child 20%Participating in the activities at the centre to share information 56%Going on excursions organised by the centre 41%Sending in photos of my child at home 36%Writing about my child in portfolios 34%Participating in learning experiences with the children 22%Other 5%

Total 418

Family Participation in Program

Family Engagement in Children’s Literacy Learning

Families Create Opportunities for Literacy Learning

Families Recognise Children’s Achievements

Families Interact with Children around Literacy Activities

Families Provide Models of Literacy Use

Families Have High Expectations for their Children

Families feel invited into learning opportunities

Literacy is a social practice

Reading environmental print; multimodal texts

Talking about signs; playing games, homework

Reading newspaper; playing computer games

Families contribute photos of everyday literacies at home and in community

Children learn literacy in their families and communities

Shopping, reading signs, going to McDonalds

Talking about signs; playing games, drawing and writing

Families give children workbooks and encourage completion of homework

Literacy café , literacy tree – educators invite families to share home literacies;

Play with familiar literacy materials encourages children to take on the roles of literacy users

Some play with texts – e.g. environmental print

Some recognise learning in play

Playing reading games on computer; some engage in role play

Literacy learning involves key concepts and processes

Children engage in reading, writing, drawing, and some critical literacy at home

Families value children’s reading and writing, learning new words

Learning letters and sounds; some families engage children in critical literacy around news

Model sounding out words; draw diagrams

Encourage children to do homework; want children to be professionals

Workshops for families about literacy ; families put on puppet shows, tell stories

Educators have a critical role in scaffolding children’s literacy understandings

Families read children’s portfolios and displays of learning

Families contribute to portfolios, participate in centre experiences and excursions

ORIM: a) Families create opportunities for literacy learning

Literacy as social practiceChildren learn literacy as they engage in family experiences such as

• Playing Nintendo

• Using computers – “He is really keen to read because he wants to use facebook.”

• Going shopping

• Eating at McDonalds

• Reading signs – “We look at the safety signs. He knows red is for stop.”

Literacy concepts and processes

• Families support children to complete homework and workbooks given by the centres and schools – e.g. drawing, and learning letters and sounds.

• Some families provide children with CDs with letters and numbers.

• Some families read books with children.

• “When they start reading things then they look at the signs and they say ‘this says the girl is running’. They might be making it up but they know it says something.”

• “We get surprised about how quick they are to connect signs and advertising.”

Family members read and contribute to children’s portfolios

• “They [educators] are always informing us about (children’s) language.”

ORIM: b) Families recognise children’s achievements

Literacy concepts and processes

ORIM: c) Families interact with children around literacy activities

Children learn literacy in play“I [father] am the one who does the play. For example my son pretends to be a policeman and he does ‘stop’. We talk about stop signs; we play like that – ‘stop’.”

Literacy concepts and processes

Engaging in critical literacy, for example one father said • “My son was watching the

news and asked about what was happening. It was a student strike. I explained the students are striking for better education. ….And this will also be better for you. They are doing something good.”

• Reading newspapers• Viewing television and

DVDs• Watching movies• Playing computer games• Sending phone messages• Using Facebook

ORIM: d) Families provide models of literacy use

Families had high aspirations and expectations for their children’s futures, and many chose centres because of the educational program. “I chose this school because they have the whole day from Year 1 (not all schools do this). In SIMCE they went up 5 points, then last year they went up 30 points.”

NEW: e) Families have high expectations for their children

Families aspirations include:

• “And if he wants to go to university I would support him. It is very important that he finishes school and then he can decide”.

• “To be professional”

• “To be better than me – all my four”

• “For the girl, be professional, be independent and not depend on a man”

NEW: e) Families have high expectations for their children

• “The school and the parents work together (half-half).”

• “We sometimes have the café [Literacy Café], and meetings. We came every day for one week. We had readings, and cards with questions.”

• “They (educators) have an album with photos. We had to write in the album what we did everyday with the children.”

NEW: f) Families feel invited into learning opportunities

f) Families feel invited into learning opportunities

• “We participate in some activities here in the school (e.g. telling stories with puppets). That’s very good. They (children) get confidence, because they were helping tell the story.”

• “Educators always involve the parents in different things”.

But not all families feel invited..

One father, in a school that maintains the tradition of restricting parent access, expressed a desire to be more involved, and to feel more welcome in the classroom:

“Some educators in other schools or in other levels invite parents into the classroom for the whole day – I would like to do this”.

• Families ARE interested and engaged in the literacy learning of their children and have high aspirations for their futures.

• Families DO engage in literacy practices in their homes and have a range of resources and funds of knowledge.

• Families are active agents in their children’s learning although not always aware and confident in their role in the co-construction of knowledge.

• Their understanding of literacy is strongly tied to success at school, reading, and aspiration for ongoing study – they understand the power of literacy.

• Families ways of knowing and their ways of modeling and supporting their children’s learning draw on their own experiences. These families support children’s literacy learning in the best way they know. In the main, this involves the support of “school-work” in the form of helping with homework and following the instructions sent home by teachers, although some families are also aware of everyday literacies and mulitmodal texts.

Discussion of Findings

Pedagogical documentation undertaken by the educators contributed to families’ engagement with and contributions to their children’s learning at the centre/school and at home.

• Some families were aware of literacy experiences at the centre/school

• Some families valued and contributed to literacy experiences both at the setting and at home

• Some families would like more access and input into the classroom.

• Some settings communicated more effectively with families and engaged families in more meaning literacy activities at the setting than others.

Discussion of Findings

There is more work to be done by educators to

1. Support families’ identities, agency and power and further open possibilities for social change, by strengthening families’:

• awareness of the potential of everyday experiences for learning

• understanding of how their interactions during everyday experiences enhance learning

• understanding of the importance of modelling language and literacy practices.

2. More can also be done by educators to

• develop stronger reciprocal partnerships with families and to place more emphasis on families’ input in decision- making

• explicitly document and draw families’ attention to the value of the literacy experiences in the centre.

• work collaboratively with families to support literacy learning in the centre and at home.

Implications

Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and Pedagogy. London: Routledge Falmer.

Daniels, H. (2008). Reflections on points of departure in the development of sociocultural and activity theory. In B. van Oers, W. Wardekker, E. Elbers & R. van Deer Veer (Eds.), The transformation of learning: Advances in cultural-historical activity theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (2005). Reflections from the field: Family narratives in multiple literacies. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, September, 36(3), 265-272.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1992). School matters in the Mexican-American home: Socializing children to education. American Education Research Journal, 29, 459–513.

Goldenberg, C. (2001). Making schools work for low-income families in the 21st century. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 211–231). New York: Guilford.

Hannon, P. (1995). Literacy, home and school: Research and practice in teaching literacy with parents. Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.

Hilado, A., Kallemeyn, L., Leow, C., Lundy, M. & Israel, M. (2011). Supporting child welfare and parent involvement in preschool programs, Early Childhood Education Journal, 39(5), 343-353.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mohr, J., Zygmunt,E. & Clark, P. (2012). Becoming good human beings: Low-income mothers’ dreams for children and their insight into children’s needs. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 12(2), http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v14n2/mohr.html

Moje, E. B., & Lewis, C. (2007). Rethinking conceptual frameworks. In C. Lewis, P. Enciso & E. B. Moje (Eds.), Reframing sociocultural research on literacy : Identity, agency, and power (pp. 15-48). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D. & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms, Theory into practice, 31(2), 132-140. doi: 10.1080/00405849209543534

Nutbrown, C. & Hannon, P. (2011). ORIM. A framework for practice. Retrieved from real-online.group.shef.ac.uk

Ogbu, J. (1995). Cultural problems in minority education: Their interpretations and consequences—Part one: Theoretical background. Urban Review, 27(3), 189-205.

Peralta, M.V. (2011). Early childhood Education and Public Care Policies in Chile: A Historical Perspective to Analyze the Present. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 5 (1), 17-27.

Perry. K. (2012). What is literacy? – A critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8 (1), 51- 71.

Taylor, D. & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning from inner-city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Villalón, M., Suzuki , E., Herrera, M. & Mathiesen, M. (2002). Quality of Chilean Early Childhood Education from an International Perspective. International Journal Of Early Years Education, 10(1), pp. 49-59.

Volk, D. & Long, S. (2005). Challenging myths of the deficit perspective: Honoring children’s literacy resources. Young Children, 60(6), 12-19.

Wikeley, F., Bullock, K., Musehamp, Y. & Ridge, T. (2009). Educational relationships and their impact on poverty, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(4), 377-393.

Zygouris-Coe, V. (2007 ). The missing link to school-wide literacy efforts. Reading Horizons, 48 (1), 57-70. 

References

Questions