Implicit Theories 1

Running head: IMPLICIT THEORIES

Mothers' implicit theories of early literacy instruction:

Implications for children's reading and writing

Barbara D. DeBaryshe

University of Hawaii

Janeen C. Binder

University of North Carolina-Greensboro

Martha Jane Buell

University of Delaware

Early Child Development and Care, Vol. 160, pp. 119-131

Author Note

Barbara D. DeBaryshe, Center on the Family, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Janeen C. Binder , Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

Martha Jane Buell, Department of Individual and Family Studies, University of Delaware.

We would like to thank Deborah Cassidy, Vivian Halverson and Lois Yamauchi for commenting on drafts of this manuscript.

Address correspondence to: Barbara D. DeBaryshe, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Center on the Family, 2515 Campus Rd., Honolulu, HI 96822.

Abstract

Subjects in this exploratory study were 19 five- to six-year-old children and their mothers. Mothers completed surveys of family literacy practices and beliefs about early reading instruction and children’s emergent literacy skills were assessed. Results showed that one group of mothers held implicit theories that resembled whole language models of literacy instruction. A second group of mothers held views that resembled a phonics orientation, while a smaller group of mothers had more varied and idiosyncratic beliefs. Mothers’ implicit theories were associated with their modeling of literacy behaviors, helping their children write, and with their children’s independent exploration of writing and current levels of literacy skill. Results point to the importance of parents’ implicit developmental theories and the need to understand how parental belief systems affect the roles that families play in literacy acquisition.

Key words:Emergent literacy, writing, reading, parental beliefs, parent-child interaction,

school readiness, home influences

A central tenet of the emergent literacy perspective is that children acquire crucial foundation skills and an understanding of literacy well before the onset of formal instruction (NAEYC, 1998; Teale & Sulzby, 1986). The home environment is a particularly important setting for the acquisition of such knowledge because children may have opportunities at home to (a) become familiar with literacy artifacts, (b) observe the literacy activities of others, (c) independently explore literate behaviors, (d) engage in joint reading and writing activities with other people and (e) benefit from the teaching strategies that family members use when engaging in joint literacy tasks. Considerable variation in both the quantity and quality of these home literacy practices has been documented (Anderson & Stokes, 1984; DeBaryshe, 1995; Heath, 1983; Payne, Whitehurst, & Angell, 1994; Phillips & McNaughton, 1990; Teale & Sulzby, 1986) and there is ample evidence that this variation is associated with individual differences in children’s language and reading outcomes (DeBaryshe, 1993; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994; Payne, Whitehurst, & Angell, 1994).

Since home literacy practices have a substantial impact on children’s literacy development, it is important to understand the origins of family differences in these practices. In the past decade, increased attention has been given to the general topic of parental belief systems (Goodnow & Collins, 1990; Holden & Edwards, 1989; Sigel, 1985). Overall, this literature shows a moderate association between parental beliefs and the use of child-rearing practices that affect cognitive and emotional development. Although the literature on parents’ beliefs about language and literacy development is small, it does suggest that these beliefs influence the kinds of home experiences that parents provide. For example, parents with lower literacy levels tend to believe that basic reading and math skills should be mastered before school entry. These parents feel that academic materials such as flashcards and workbooks are important toys for children to own and prefer preschool and kindergarten programs with an academic focus. As parental literacy skills rise, parents are more likely to feel their children should develop basic skills on their own initiative, without pressure to use conventional forms (Fitzgerald, Spiegel, & Cunningham, 1991; Stipek, Milburn, Clements & Daniels, 1992). On the average, parents of two- to five-year-olds believe that the goals of reading aloud are to establish a love of literature, that children should be active participants in read-aloud sessions, and that instruction in code skills is not yet appropriate (DeBaryshe, 1995; DeBaryshe & Binder, 1994). However, variation in beliefs about the goals and outcomes of reading aloud are associated with the frequency of home book-reading, the number of books available at home, the age at which the parents began to read aloud to the child, and the linguistic and cognitive richness of parent-child interaction during book-reading sessions (DeBaryshe, 1995). These associations hold even when parental education and income are controlled (DeBaryshe & Binder, 1994).

A limitation of the existing research is that it does not address parents' beliefs about how children acquire literacy skills. We know something about what parents want their children to be able to do, but very little about how parents believe these goals are attained (Stipek at al., 1992). Even within professional circles there is considerable controversy concerning “best practices” in literacy instruction. The professional debate between proponents of phonics vs. whole language instructional techniques has been heated and highly visible (Adams, 1990; Goodman, 1992; Greenberg, 1998a; Stahl, McKenna, & Pagnucco, 1994; Stahl & Miller, 1989). Briefly put, proponents of the phonics orientation considers reading to be largely a bottom-up process. In this process, children must master prerequisite skills of phonemic awareness, letter recognition and letter-sound correspondence. Instructional methods emphasize practicing these skills in isolation until sufficient mastery and automaticity is obtained before children attempt to derive meaning from reading written texts. In contrast, proponents of the whole language orientation consider reading to be a holistic, top-down process. Listening, speaking, reading and writing are seen as inter-related aspects of the same underlying linguistic competence. The goal of instruction is to “bring children into literacy in a ‘natural’ way by bridging the gap between children’s own language competencies and written language” (Stahl & Miller, 1989, p. 88). Children are thought to acquire literacy skills by immersion in a functional literate environment, just as they acquire spoken language though immersion in a functional conversational environment. Whole language instruction uses children’s literature in lieu of basal readers. Children’s nonconventional reading and writing attempts are encouraged and treated as meaningful and functional. Code skills are addressed as the need arises in the context of “authentic” literacy activities, but are not included as isolated targets of instruction (Adams, 1990; Goodman, 1992; Stahl, et al., 1994; Stahl & Miller, 1989).

The purpose of this small-scale exploratory study was to test a methodology for examining parents’ implicit theories of early literacy instruction. Information on these theories was elicited by open-ended questioning and structured survey items about informal instructional techniques that parents might use at home. Specifically, we wished to determine whether parents’ ideas were consistent with whole language approaches, phonics approaches, or provided a blend of the two. We also explored whether parents’ instructional views are related to the kinds of literacy experiences they provide for their children and the level of skill that their children display.

We expected that parents with more holistic views would engage in behaviors that mimic whole-language instructional techniques while parents with componential views would use more traditional instructional strategies. Specifically, whole language-oriented parents would (a) show greater concern with their children’s motivation and enjoyment of reading and writing, (b) be more likely to model literacy behaviors as a way of ensuring their children would see the functional role these activities play, (c) engage in more frequent mediated reading and writing activities, and (d) focus on meaning rather than code in teaching interactions. Parents whose belief systems were more similar to the phonics orientation would engage in fewer holistic activities such as writing letters together or reading aloud, and include more frequent informal instruction in phonic skills. It was also expected that parents’ beliefs would be associated with individual differences in children’s literacy achievement. Consistent with the literature on differential outcomes of classroom teaching methods, children of phonics-oriented parents were expected to show more conventional reading and writing skills (Adams, 1990; Evans & Carr, 1985). Children of whole language-oriented parents were predicted to show stronger vocabulary and story grammar skills, and greater interest and confidence in experimenting with print activities (Feng, 1992; Graham & Harris, 1994; Shaw, 1991).

Methods

Subjects

Subjects were 19 children between the ages of 64 and 77 months (M = 69.9 months, SD = 3.67) and their mothers1. The present study was a follow-up to a study of parent-child reading interaction at age two (DeBaryshe, Caulfield, Witty, Sidden, Holt, & Reich, 1991). Families were originally recruited via newspaper announcements that advertised the opportunity to participate in research on the effects of reading aloud. Subjects were from a medium-sized southeastern U.S. city and the surrounding county area. Ten children were boys and nine were girls. Eighty-five percent were European-American and 15% were African-American. Maternal education ranged from a high school diploma (21%) to a college (32%) or graduate degree (47%). Most of the families were middle to upper-middle class. Seventeen children attended kindergarten (none were in the same classroom or school), two were still in preschool (one due to a late birth date, the other by parental choice), and one was home schooled.

Procedures

Each child was visited twice at his or her home, with visits spaced approximately two weeks apart. On the first visit, mothers completed three questionnaires and a short open-ended interview while their children participated in a literacy skill assessment battery. A tape recorder and the book Rotten Ralph's Show and Tell (Gantos, 1989) were left with the family. Mothers were asked to read the book with their child four times in order to familiarize the child with the story. On the second home visit, children were asked to read or pretend to read Rotten Ralph's Show and Tell to the experimenter. Children also wrote a letter with their mothers to a person of their own choice. The writing and reading tasks were recorded on videotape.

Measures

Family Survey (FS). The FS was designed to obtain information on family characteristics such as income, maternal education, ethnicity and child's school placement. The FS is based on a version used with preschool populations that showed acceptable item test-retest reliability (r's = .79 - .92) (DeBaryshe, 1992).

Home Activities Survey (HAS). Parents' and children's literacy interest and engagement were assessed with the HAS, a questionnaire designed for this study that was based upon a successful survey used with preschool children (DeBaryshe, 1992). The HAS contains 68 items that are answered on a seven-point scale. Examples of items include: “How often does an adult in your family use a typewriter, word processor or computer?", “How much does your child enjoy reading with you?", and “How often does your child ask what a letter is called or how it sounds?"

Ten composite variables were derived from the HAS by summing conceptually related items. These variables represented parents' and children's enjoyment of reading and writing, the frequency of parent-child joint reading and writing, and the frequency of parents' and children's solo engagement in reading and writing. The number of items contributing to each composite ranged from two to six.

Reading Instruction Belief Questionnaire (RIBQ). The RIBQ was adapted from a questionnaire used by Evans and Baraball (1991). Questions address goals and methods for helping children learn about reading. Fourteen items are written to reflect either whole language- or phonics-oriented views about literacy instruction (see Table 1). Parents rate the degree to which they endorse each item on a 7-point scale with high scores indicating strong endorsement. Internal consistency for the RIBQ is high; coefficients alpha for phonics and whole language items are .89 and .83, respectively.

Insert Table 1 about here

Open-ended belief questions. Parents were asked two open-ended questions about reading: “How do you think children learn to read?” and “Are there things you do, or did, to help your child learn about reading?”. They were asked the same two questions in regards to writing. Parents’ answers were recorded in written form. Answers were later transcribed, separated into unique comments, and sorted by content to yield dominant themes. Inter-rater agreement for these sorts was .86 (computed as # agreements divided by total agreements plus disagreements).

Parent-child joint writing interaction. Videotapes of the mother-child letter-writing session were coded using time-sampling procedures. The presence or absence of two categories of behavior was recorded in 15-second intervals; each video session lasted for a total of ten minutes duration. Conventional talk involved any discussion of letter formation, phonics, spelling or mechanical conventions such as writing from left to right or including a salutation or closing to the letter. Meaning talk included any conversation about the semantic content of the intended written message or the effect the message would have on the reader. Inter-rater agreement (computed as # agreements divided by total agreements plus disagreements) was .96 for conventional talk and .92 for meaning talk.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT). Children's language quotients on the PPVT served as our measure of receptive vocabulary. Reported split-half reliabilities range from .79-.84 for five-and-a-half to six-and-a-half-year-olds. Median test-retest reliabilities are .79 (Dunn & Dunn, 1981). PPVT scores from the age two assessment were used as a covariate in some analyses. Different forms of the PPVT (L vs. M) were used at ages two and six.

Test of Early Reading Ability-2 (TERA). Reading quotients on the TERA served as our norm-referenced measure of reading. The TERA is based on emergent literacy models, and covers both preconventional and conventional skills. Coefficients alpha for five- and six-year olds range from .89 to .93, and the alternate forms reliability is .79 (Reid, Hresko, & Hammill, 1989).

Story grammar. The story-telling task was based upon story-grammar research conducted by Morrison, Frazier, McMahon, Fornwald, and Trabasso (1992). Children were shown five laminated pictures portraying a coherent story. Children were asked to tell a story using the pictures. The oral stories were audiotaped, and later transcribed and scored for the use of nine aspects of story structure: (1) introduction, (2) setting, (3) characters mentioned, (4) problem identified, (5) goal, (6) plan of action, (7) understanding of accidental occurrences, (8) action, and (9) results/conclusion. The highest possible score on this task was 26. Because of the small sample size, this task (as well as the print task and emergent reading level described below) were independently scored by two trained coders. Disagreements (which were infrequent, occurring in less than 5 percent of the samples) were resolved by discussion and consensus.

Clay Print Task. The print task was modified from Clay (1979), and consisted of the following four sub-tasks: (a) letter identification, (b) copying a printed sentence, (c) sentence dictation, and (d) asking the child to write all the words he or she knew within a five-minute period. A total writing score was computed by summing the z-scores for each of the sub-tasks.

Emergent reading level. The videotapes of the children reading Rotten Ralph's Show and Tell (Gantos, 1989) were analyzed using Sulzby's (1985) classification scheme for emergent reading. Children are rated on a seven-level ordinal scale that orders the conventionality of picture- versus print-governed reading attempts. Barnhart (1991) reports good criterion-related validity for this method.

Results

Structure of Parents’ Implicit Theories

The RIBQ items were subjected to a cluster analysis. This procedure sorts parents into groups based upon similar patterns of responses across questionnaire items. A three cluster solution provided the most readily interpreted results. Clusters 1, 2, and 3 were labeled Code (n=6), Meaning (n=8) and Unique (n=5), respectively. On the average, Code group parents gave highest endorsement to phonic techniques (M= 5.44, SD = .57 on a 7-point scale where 4 represents “medium emphasis”) and medium endorsement of whole language techniques (M = 4.10, SD = .65). Meaning group parents gave the highest endorsement of whole language techniques (M = 5.48, SD = .58) and a more moderate endorsement of phonics (M = 3.69, SD = .59). Parents in the Unique group gave low endorsement to both sets of items (M = 3.37 and 2.43, SD = .54 and .69 for whole language and phonics, respectively).