Understanding Home and School Early Literacy Connections:  An Idea Paper for a Qualitative Research Dissertation Proposal

            In the traditional education environment in the United States, there is an assumed standard of parental involvement in the education of children.   Children are expected to begin school with preacademic skills like recognizing their letters and numbers, and from kindergarten on, parents are expected to work with children at home on homework and other school-based assignments.  In addition, American literacy education implies that parents should spend a certain amount of time reading daily with their children.  For some families, however, this may be a daunting task.  Parental illiteracy, job commitments, language barriers, and cultural beliefs about education are just a few of the factors that may hinder families from engaging in literacy instruction in the home setting. 

Family Literacy

            Family literacy is the study of how families incorporate literacy skills into their home activities.  While the field has been studying parental involvement in literacy education at home since the early 1990’s, it has expanded to investigate the ways that extended family members, siblings, and intergenerational programs can impact skill building (Gregory, 1998, 2001, 2004; Volk & De Acosta, 2001; Weinstein, 1998; Williams & Gregory, 2001).  For children attending school, literacy activities can serve as an opportunity to share what they have learned at home and in the community.  These activities have been described as creating a “third space” for children to explore how their home and school cultures connect (Pahl & Kelly, 2005). 

Unfortunately, some previous studies have approached family literacy from a “deficit” model that assumes parents, particularly from low socio-economic or minority backgrounds do not use “appropriate” methods for teaching in the home.  Researchers have begun to address the deficit approach by using qualitative research methods to gain more descriptive information regarding what activities families are using in home and community settings to further literacy instruction for young and school-aged children (Gregory, Arju, Jessel, Kenner, & Ruby, 2007; Heath, 1983; Hull & Shultz, 2002; Nistl & Maiers, 1999).   Unlike prior research using quantitative methods that have primarily focused on standardized reading test performance of students, qualitative studies have given researchers the opportunity to critically study home, school, and community literacy activities using techniques like observations and participant interviews that help increase understanding of the reasons behind the educational practices conducted by families. 

Educators, like researchers, may also tend to view family educational practices from a deficit model.  Misunderstandings regarding cultural traditions, language barriers, and family obligations may lead teachers to believe that parents are not invested in their children’s education because of their lack of involvement in the school setting or with homework assignments (Arnold, Zeljo, Doctoroff, & Ortiz, 2008).  Removing communication barriers by forming partnerships between parents, teachers, and communities, can lead to effective collaboration to increase literacy skills and academic success (Amstutz, 2000, Nistler & Maier, 1999).  In fact, Nistler and Maiers state that “family literacy is not about program guidelines, policy, or money; it is about relationships” (1999, p.124).  Based on this idea, understanding teacher perspectives regarding parental and community ideas and resources for literacy education can help to end communication barriers and possibly lead to more effective literacy instruction for young children. 
 Purpose of Study

The purpose of my proposed study is to investigate teacher perspectives regarding the participation of families in literacy instruction for kindergarten students at a culturally-diverse suburban elementary school.  The study will attempt to gain insight on teacher perspectives by addressing the following: 

1. Describing teachers’ perspectives on the need for family involvement in literacy instruction at home and school, even if home standards may be very different from the ideals the majority population has set as standards.

2. Using data from interviews, artifacts, and field observations to discuss how teachers’ foster a community of literacy learners in and outside of the kindergarten classroom by including parents, family members, and community organizations in learning activities. 

3.  Describing how teachers’ use literacy activities to celebrate cultural differences between students and families to promote social justice and equity for all learners in their classrooms.

Qualitative Research Theory Connections

Constructivism

            In order to determine the best methodology for investigating these questions, I need to look closely at qualitative research theory and practice to determine which would be most appropriate in this instance for gathering data related to teachers’ perspectives and classroom techniques.  As a researcher and beginning scholar who has a constructivist view of learning and knowledge, I believe that experiences frame the way individuals construct their view of reality.  More specifically, I tend to prescribe to the social constructivist view with a feminist slant in that I believe our experiences are framed by our interactions with others and that often these situations are structured in a way that produces power inequalities among participants.  I feel it is my duty as an educator to become aware of these inequalities and to provide a forum for those in less power to share their knowledge and opinions.  For example, my beliefs mirror that of one of the schools where I am part of the educational staff who defines itself as a “community of constructivist learners.” With this statement, the staff indicates that they understand that students come from a variety of backgrounds which frame their worldview and background knowledge and support interactive learning as a way for students to explore other ways of thought while learning the standard curriculum.  It is only by starting conversations that learners are able to see beyond themselves and ponder the views of others.

I am hoping that my research will help to open dialogues between teachers, families, and community organizations as to how they can best work together to enhance learning opportunities for children.   It is not to bring a value judgment about one’s teaching practices, but instead to investigate patterns of teaching behavior that may promote social justice and the belief that all families have essential contributions to the education of their children. 

Grounded theory

            In order to gather the data needed for my analysis, I am in the process of critically examining overviews of qualitative methodologies that will possibly help me to organize and understand the information I collect in the most logical way for addressing my questions.  Two methodologies have emerged as possibilities:  ethnography and grounded theory.  Since my questions center around families, schools, and communities, which are all cultures in their own right as well as possibly part of a wider cultural view, ethnography, the study of observing cultures seems like it could be a good fit.  However, further reading about ethnography in Patton  (2002) and Denzin & Lincoln (2005) has helped me to realize that I probably do not want to look primarily at observations of culture, although this may be an indirect portion of my research. Instead I believe I want to examine trends in practice to open an on-going dialogue of how teachers can use family and community supports to foster collaboration to benefit early literacy education.  This led me to read Charmaz’s chapter in the Handbook of Qualitative Research, which looks at using grounded theory methods to promote social justice research (2005).  Grounded theory, she explained, has the potential to allow researchers to analyze information while allowing the voices of the participants to come through (2005).  Her discussion on the use of grounded theory to look at data in terms of fairness and equality while calling attention to those with less power and privilege seems to capture what I am looking for in terms of highlighting how teachers bring the voices of parents and community members to the forefront in their classrooms (2005).  Further reading of Corbin and Strauss (1990) and Patton (2002) has helped me to understand that utilizing the grounded theory method for analyzing my data would allow me to not only refine my questions and theories as I discover information from the research, but also to see that the process of writing memos will be essential to helping me investigate how my personal views are affecting the lens with which I am interpreting my data.  In addition, the idea of using a systematic examination to build my theory appeals to my researcher identity as a psychologist by providing rigor to my assertions.  Using grounded theory with an ethnographical bias appears to be the best fit for providing me with a research method that would effectively allow me to investigate my questions while formulating theories that would be beneficial to practitioners and researchers alike. 

Researcher Identity

            Before beginning any qualitative study, it is critical for the researcher to investigate his/her personal connections with the research in order to understand how his/her beliefs about the world may impact the way they interpret the data (Glesne, 2006; Maxwell, 2005; Schram, 2006).  Subjectivity does not have to negatively impact research and in fact, “instead of trying to suppress your feelings, you use them to inquire into your perspectives and interpretations to shape new questions through re-examining your assumptions” (Glesne, 2006, p.120).  As a psychologist, former teacher, and researcher trained in quantitative methods, my lens will undoubtedly impact the way I view my research. 

             My first introduction to qualitative research was not in a general methods course, but in self-study research class.  Self-study is a newer area of qualitative research, and I have learned, not the easiest one for a beginning qualitative research student, but I was intrigued and interested to learn more about it.  It was difficult in the class learning about “grounded theory” and “emic” and “etic” codes, since I had always been taught research involved statistics, numbers, and formulas.  While I tried the best I could to learn the very basics of qualitative research, I looked forward to understanding more about research methods that did not force me to compress my information about people into a series of numbers. This understanding has occurred 

I began to think about my own workplace, teacher research, and the possibilities for understanding more about family literacy in context of the teachers and families I work with on a daily basis.  During my internship, I was exposed to articles that discussed family literacy in the context of funds of knowledge and “third space.”  I found this reading fascinating, especially since it seemed to match my interest in using storybooks and storytelling as a way to bridge community, cultural, family, and school values.  This idea seemed to be especially important with the current climate of my school division, where I feel differences are currently not celebrated and prejudices seem to spring up on a daily basis.  Since we know that children are able to identify with cultural and racial identity as early as preschool, I decided to take a closer look at what is happening in the classrooms of the youngest students. The following tentative research questions have emerged as I’ve examined kindergarten classrooms and may guide my dissertation proposal:  Do teachers see a connection between the need for literacy instruction at home and school; even if home may be very different from the ideals we in the majority population have set as standards?  How do they foster a community of literacy learners in the kindergarten classroom?  How do they include parents?  How are the different cultures of children in the class celebrated through literacy activities? 

            Even as a novice researcher, it is important for me to acknowledge what I think will come from my study and having spent time in the classrooms for the last four years, I have ideas about what to expect.  While I think the majority of the teachers I will interview will have attempted in some way to incorporate families, the community, and culture into their work with the students, I am hesitant to think that any of them are familiar with the concept of family literacy or were taught about it during their preparation programs.  I also think that the teachers, like me, will describe themselves as engaging in culturally responsive practice, however it is my belief that they, again like me, have participated in limited introspection and conversation about race and culture that has challenged our claim.  I have done extensive reading on issues of culture, the achievement gap, and race in education in America, but I have rarely spent time examining my core beliefs on the subjects.  In the current climate of the area where I work, I have found myself torn between wanting to celebrate differences while at the same time asking why is it that people should not be asked to assimilate in language, thought, and actions when they have joined a larger society.  There are no easy answers to these questions and I am confident that the educators I will interview will have varied views also.  Even so, I believe from my observations and participation in classes, that the teachers I interview will have made some effort to connect families to literacy instruction.  I think the community connection piece will be less well defined as will the idea of using literacy to incorporate cultural awareness.   I believe this will be due to factors such as lack of teacher knowledge, fear of discussing culture/race in the classroom, and the sense of limited class time for activities not directly related to the county curriculum. 

Methods

Participants

Last spring, I engaged in a class project for Qualitative Methods where I interviewed kindergarten teachers at one of my schools regarding their early literacy practices in the classroom and with parents.  Working with teachers from my own school allowed me to have a better understanding of family and literacy involvement for our youngest students and gave me the chance to attempt my first interviews in a non-threatening situation.  For that project I used not only a form of convenience sampling but I also used purposeful selection methods to choose my participants since I was focusing on information pertaining to my own school (Maxwell, 2005).  Maxwell describes purposeful selection as “a strategy in which particular settings, persons, or activities are selected deliberately in order to provide information that can’t be gotten as well from other choices” (2005, p.88).  While interviewing teachers I knew helped with the completion of the class project, I do not feel this would not be as appropriate for my dissertation work because of the relationships I had with the participants.  For example, I was very familiar with each of the teachers I interviewed, including their teaching style, classroom routines, and materials used in their classroom which may have led to bias in some of my analysis of certain responses. 

For my dissertation proposal, I plan to again use purposeful sampling, but this time with the hope that information gathered from the research can be extended out to other cases with similar characteristics.   Patton refers to this kind of sampling as critical case sampling, which “permits logical generalization and maximum application of information to other cases because if it’s true of one case, it’s likely to be true of all other cases” (2002, p. 243).  For my critical case sample I plan to interview eight kindergarten teachers from Prince William County or one of the surrounding school districts.  Since I am focusing my research on students who may be bringing to kindergarten skills that are not the traditionally defined as pre-literacy skills, the make-up of the school where the teachers instruct is of great importance.  These eight teachers would come from one or more schools that have demographics similar to my own school, meaning the majority of the students are from minority backgrounds, close to 40 percent of the students are English as Second Language learners, and there is a high number of students with low socioeconomic backgrounds, as defined by the number of students receiving free and reduced lunch assistance.  The teachers should be fully licensed as kindergarten teachers and have at least 3 years experience in the classroom setting, making them non-probationary educators who are highly qualified. 

After permission to proceed is given from the school(s) principal(s), teachers will be invited to participate in the research project via e-mail and through a written letter.   They will be informed that participation in the project will involve at least one interview that will last approximately one hour, with the possibility for follow-up interviews if needed, a one-hour observation in their classroom during a reading or language arts block, and access to information that is sent home to parents regarding building literacy skills.  They will also be informed that the interviews will be taped and transcribed for use in the researcher’s dissertation.  Concerns about confidentiality, including the use of pseudonyms and storage and access to data, will be addressed as well.  Participants will be assured that the interviews will not critique teaching practices or teacher knowledge and will be used only as a source of information about parent, school, and community interactions.   Teachers will be offered the opportunity to meet in their classroom or at a nearby location and will be compensated with a gift certificate of a yet undetermined value to a neighborhood bookstore to purchase materials for their classrooms. 

Data Collection

Unlike my project from the spring research class, data for my dissertation will be collected through both interviews and observations.  When beginning my data analysis for the spring class project, I noticed that while I had interesting responses, they did not always relate directly to my research questions.  Further investigation of my interview guide led me to realize several key points in learning about the interviewing and data collection process.  First, from looking at the questions carefully, I realized that I had asked too many questions that could be construed as close-ended questions.  When participants answered the questions in the manner of a closed question, I did not probe to solicit additional information.  Second, the questions I had developed for the interview guide were too broad, leading to discussion of information that was not directly relevant to the study and leaving out some aspects that may have been more related to the research questions.  For example, when asking about student access to community resources, I spent much of the questioning on that topic focused on the availability of technology.  Since technology is such an important part of education today, the topic was appropriate but needed to be narrowed down to address how technology was directly related to literacy learning at home, school, or the community.  Finally, I learned from examining my interview guide and responses that my research questions were not well defined.  Defining specific research questions allows for the development of interview questions that target the information needed as opposed to gathering broad information and then picking through it to find the related pieces.  Probing responses from the questions appears to be a more efficient way to address broader issues while still focusing on the topic at hand.

For my dissertation research, I intend to conduct interviews using a semi-structured interview guide (Fontana & Frey, 1998, Patton, 2002) Since I am hoping to generalize the information gathered to make suggestions for early childhood literacy practice, it is important that each teacher interviewed discusses the same topics.  An interview guide gives the opportunity to structure question topics while allowing for additional probes to follow-up for information.  It also allows for the interview to be completed in a more conversational manner because questions can be presented based on the discussion.  The eight interviews will be audiotaped for later transcription which will aid with data analysis.  Limited field notes may also be taken during the interviews if they do not interfere with the pace of the interview or the comfort level of the participant.

Observations will also be an important part of the data collection process for my dissertation work.  Teachers will be observed in their classrooms during either language arts or reading time to give the researchers a more in-depth perspective of how school, home, and community connections are encouraged.  Observations of classroom decorations, student work, and classroom interactions will provide additional data to ideally support the information provided by the teacher during her interview.  The same support is expected from observations of materials that are provided to parents to encourage literacy skills building with their children at home.  Use of the observations is designed to promote triangulation as well as confirming evidence that will be critical to using a grounded theory method.  All the observations will be overt in my study, meaning teachers will be aware of what I am looking for when I visit their classrooms and look at their materials.  Ideally the combination of interviews and observations will allow me to strike a balance between the emic and etic perspectives when it becomes time to analyze the data (Patton, 2002). 

Validity Concerns

During the class project, working with teachers from my own school posed some unique challenges.  Since I am seen as an administrator in the building, although this is not the case but I have an office in the administrative area and work closely with them, I had to examine the fact that participating in an interview about classroom practices might raise concerns with the teachers in respect to what would happen with the data after it was collected.  I also had to address the idea that teachers might have felt that I was judging their practices or that I would not be helpful to them as a psychologist if they chose not to participate in my project.  Overall, I felt that being open with the teachers about the process lessened their anxieties and allowed me to learn a great deal about the literacy practices in kindergarten at my own school. 

For my dissertation research, however, I am planning to conduct data collection away from my own schools so that I can have a different perspective as an outside researcher coming in to look at a program.  I think this will help with my objectivity regarding teacher practices and will give me a measure of comparison to my own buildings as I attempt to make suggestions for practice based on my research.  Interviewing teachers I do not know will pose another set of challenges. My relationship with the teachers in my building is part of the reason that they agreed to help me with my class project, however, in another building I will not have that personal connection.  Teachers may not be as willing to give up time to interview with a stranger and may feel uncomfortable with having someone visit their classroom.  In addition, depending on how principals view my work, teachers may feel like they either have to participate or like the project is not that important and may not take it seriously.  This could impact both the interview and observation data.  It will be crucial for me to fully investigate these challenges prior to beginning my dissertation research.

Data Analysis

        Data analysis is one of the most important aspects of completing a qualitative research study.    For my dissertation research, the data from the interviews will be transcribed for analysis from the audiotaped material.  As part of the grounded theory methodology, a constant comparison procedure will be used to generate, connect, and compare incidents and information in the data (Creswell, 2005).  In the first level of analysis, open emic coding will be used to identify essential topics from the interview in the words of the participants.  Once basic topics are established, a second level of axial etic coding, coding that stays close to the original data but may use words of the researcher, will be used to organize the information in terms of topics (Maxwell, 2005). Themes will be compared across interviews to look for trends in teacher practices and opinions.  Observations will also be coded for themes that will be compared with the outcome of the interview data.   It is important not to stop at this point, but to continue to look for comparisons until you reach the point of saturation where no new trends are appearing (Patton, 2000 ).    

    Once the data has been coded and analyzed, I hope to have gathered information that will be beneficial to both researchers and practictioners.  I believe that the systematic review of teacher viewpoints regarding families is an area that has not been investigated well in the literature.  Information that I gain about kindergarten teachers and early literacy instruction could be later used in practice with developing professional development opportunities, programs for families within the school, or could spark teachers to review and improve their own dealings with the families of their students.  I believe that this project has great value to the field of literacy and I look forward to beginning the proposal process this spring.  

Amstutz, A.  (2000).  Family literacy:  Implications for public school practice.  Education

            and Urban Society, 32, 207-220.

Arnold, D., Zeljo, A.,Doctoroff, G., & Ortiz, C.  (2008).  Parent involvement in

preschool:  Predictors and the relation of involvement to preliteracy development.  School Psychololgy Review, 37, 74-90. 

Charmaz, K.  (2005).  Grounded theory in the 21^st century.  In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),

The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Third Edition (pp.507-535).  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A.  (1990).  Grounded theory research:  Procedures, canons, and

            evaluative criteria.  Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-21.

Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y.  (Eds.).  (2005).  The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Third

Edition.  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage.

Glesne, C.  (2006).  Becoming Qualitative Researchers.  Boston:  Pearson Education, Inc.

Gregory, E.  (1998).  Siblings as mediators of literacy in linguistic minority communities. 

            Language and Education, 12, 33-54.

Gregory, E.  (2001). Sisters and brothers as language and literacy teachers:  Synergy

between siblings playing and working together.  Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 1, 301-322.

Gregory, E.  (2004). ‘Invisible’ teachers of literacy:  Collusion between siblings and

            teachers in creating classroom cultures.  Literacy, July, 97-105.

Gregory, E., Arju, T., Jessel, J., Kenner, C., & Ruby, M.  (2007).  Snow White in

different guises:  Interlingual and intercultural exchanges between grandparent and young children at home in East London.  Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 7, 5-25.

Heath, S.  (1983).  Ways with Words:  Language, Life and Work in Communities and

            Classrooms.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press. 

Hull, G., & Shultz, K.  (Eds.) (2000).  School’s Out:  Bridging Out-of-School Literacies. 

            New York:  Teacher’s College Press.

Maxwell, J.  (2005).  Qualitative Research Design.  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage.

Nistler, R., & Maiers, A.  (1999).  Effects of a 2-year study of a family literacy program

            in an urban first-grade classroom.  Education and Urban Society, 31, 108-126.

Pahl, K., & Kelly, S.  (2005).  Family literacy as a third space between home and school: 

            Some case studies of practice.  Literacy, July, 91-96.

Patton, M.  (2002).  Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods.  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage

            Publications, Inc.

Schram, T.  (2006).  Conceptualizing and Proposing Qualitative Research.  Upper Saddle

 River, NJ:  Pearson Education, Inc.

Volk, D., & De Acosta, M.  (2001). ‘Many differing ladders, many ways to climb…’: 

Literacy events in the bilingual classroom, homes, and community of three Puerto Rican kindergarteners.  Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 1, 193-224.

Weinstein, G.  (1998).  Family and intergenerational literacy in multilingual

communities.  ( Report No.  RR93002010).  Washington, DC:  National Clearninghouse for ESL Literacy Education.  (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.  ED421899)

Williams, A., & Gregory, E.  (2001).  Siblings bridging literacies in multilingual

            contexts.  Journal of Research in Reading, 24, 248-265.