Teacher Perspectives on School, Family, and Community Connections for Building Literacy Skills in a Kindergarten Program

Conceptual Framework

            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 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, 200, 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 study and 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 this 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 questions: 

1. 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?

2. Have teachers heard of family literacy or of third space? 

3.  How do they foster a community of literacy learners in the kindergarten classroom?  How do they include parents?

4.   How are the different cultures of children in the class celebrated through literacy activities? 

Researcher Identity

            Before beginning any qualitative study, it is critical for researchers to investigate their personal connections with the research in order to understand how their 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 former teacher and researcher trained in quantitative methods, my lens undoubtedly impacted the way I viewed this research. 

            When I think of myself as a researcher, I generally think in the past tense.  I think of my work at USDA after college, my fellowship at NIH, and even my work in research groups during my first master’s program, but I do not think of my work in the doctoral program.  The title of “researcher” has seemed to elude me since I began the program.  I have participated in research projects and have even presented at AERA, but I have not been able to come to grips with thinking of myself as a doctoral level researcher.  This is even true when I think about my next career path: How could I work at the university level or for a research organization?  I don’t know enough to do that.  I can’t be considered an “expert.”  What is it about qualitative research that holds me at arms’ length from considering myself as a researcher that has important ideas to share with the field of education? These questions are just a few of the thoughts I have struggled with recently as I grow nearer to tackling the idea of dissertation proposal; however I did not realize that they would impact my work on this project. 

            I have looked forward to qualitative research class for several semesters.  My first real 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. 

            Developing this project has been more difficult than I anticipated, particularly with choosing a research question.  I always assumed when thinking about my dissertation research that a topic would just one day come to me while I was in the shower or driving to work.  I think I know now that it is not that easy.  Brainstorms do hit at the time you least expect it, but I have learned that you cannot always wait for that to happen.  Developing a topic and questions means sitting down, confronting your interests head-on, and asking, “What is it that I want to know that advances the field of literacy?”  For me, this question always comes back to the area of family literacy, but the specific topic is more of a challenge.  I often want to combine every interest into topic, like “How do families support literacy instruction in the home, while using culturally responsive picture books, and storytelling, and daily activities, and reading time with siblings, and grandparents, and …” The fine art of narrowing down and asking what it is that I want to know has certainly not been perfected yet and I have serious reservations that I will even reach apprentice level in this skill; however if I do not want to drive myself to the brink during dissertation proposal, I have to take serious baby-steps toward learning. 

            This project has been the embodiment of my organizational challenges in qualitative research.  I began the course with the idea that I would study something related to family literacy, but I never really got much further with that idea because I was hit with one of the famous shower brainstorms that convinced me that I needed instead to take a break from family lit and try something new.  “Center your project on Ghana,” my mind said, and I began to formulate ideas about what I wanted to know.  What I didn’t anticipate was that it might be hard to find people to interview from Ghana and the HSRB might ask for more information that I could provide in a semester.  All in all, the first go of the project was a valuable learning experience for me.  I got to experience HSRB without my dissertation proposal riding on it and I got the chance to learn about flexibility.  I also have gotten the chance to develop a new project that has challenges of its own.

            For my newly renovated project, I decided to go back to my roots and think about family literacy.  With less than 2 months to complete my project, I knew that narrowing down a topic would be a must.  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 jive well with 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.  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?  Have teachers heard of family literacy, of third space?  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?  These are just a few of the questions I have for the teachers to help me better understand how the research I have read relates to my own building and practice.

            Even as a novice researcher, it is important for me to acknowledge what I think will come from my study.  I am gathering this information to learn more about the instruction that is occurring in the building where I work, but 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 interviewed 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. 

            After completing my interviews and data analysis, I feel like I can describe myself as a novice qualitative researcher.  Although this project showed me that I have much to learn, it has also helped to show me the power of learning from the words of others.

Methods

Participants

When first thinking about this research project, I initially did not plan to interview teachers from a school or even from the district where I am employed.  I intended to work with a school in another district that my committee chair had told be about during my portfolio review.  The school had a family literacy program that was well established and should be able to provide me with access to parents, teachers, and students who had participated in the activities.  Before I began the process of finding out contact information, I decided to change my project focus from family literacy, to interviewing families from Ghana about their educational experiences to gain more information for a trip I will be taking there in the summer to provide teacher training in literacy instruction.  I thought the project would give me an opportunity to learn about the educational system before I left, however what I didn’t count on was not getting HSRB approval and seeing two of the parents I initially wanted to interview in the child study process.  After evaluating these new challenges and potential ethical concerns (I am the school psychologist on the child study committee), I decided to change my topic back to family literacy and work on a rough pilot interview project for my potential dissertation topic. 

            At this point in the semester, I had only a little over a month left before I needed to write up my research, so I determined it was too late to try to make connections with the school I discussed earlier.  Instead, I decided to take advantage of the resources I encounter on a daily basis.  Although I have been working in my schools for 4 years, I have little knowledge about the role of family literacy in the kindergarten programs there. 

Therefore, I used purposeful selection methods to choose my participants (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).  Working with teachers from my own school allowed me to have a better understanding of family and literacy involvement for our youngest students to help me to work with staff and administration to possibly lead to later collaboration on family literacy projects that will benefit our school.  It is important to note, however, that this population was also a convenience sampling, meaning these participants were chosen because of their accessibility to the researcher given the time and project constraints (Glesne, 2006).  While this was a “practice” project, the selection methods still fell under Maxwell’s interpretation of Weiss’ research from 1994 on convenience sampling, noting that sometimes it is necessary to use when looking for information about a select group of individuals, in this case, the kindergarten teachers at my own school (Maxwell, 2005).  If I was able to do this project again, I would have made my decision for a topic earlier in the semester, worked to find a population where I had no previous contacts, and would have submitted the HSRB forms early enough to deal with potential difficulties like contacting the Human Subjects Board of the school system.  That way I could have had more opportunities for practicing interviewing with strangers and I could have potentially had the ability to write up my findings for a conference proposal, presentation, or even an article.  I think those things would have been helpful to my graduate studies, but I also feel that the process as it happened showed me how flexibility is key in research and also emphasized the importance of having a good understanding of what questions you want to investigate and the potential challenges of dual relationships as a researcher/practitioner.  I also learned the hard way that HSRB is a tricky but not impossible process that involves strict planning when working with time constraints.  All valuable information as I grow closer to beginning the dissertation proposal process. 

 I sent an e-mail out to the five kindergarten teachers at one of my schools, explained my situation, and asked if anyone would be willing to participate in a brief 30-45 minute interview that would be taped and used for my project only (no publication possibilities this time).  I explained that confidentiality measures, including using pseudonyms, would be taken to ensure teachers were offered the opportunity to meet in their classroom or at a nearby coffee shop and coffee was provided in appreciation of their participation.  They were assured that they could withdraw from the project at any time without personal or professional penalty.  Within a few hours, all five of the teachers had responded and agreed to be part of the project and I was ecstatic.  The teachers each had between 4 and 19 years of teaching experience.  

Data Collection

In order to collect data on teacher perspectives, information was collected using a semi-structured interview format, meaning I used a variety of open-ended and close-ended (yes/no) questions to solicit the data (Fontana & Frey, 1998).  I worked with each teacher to find a day and time within a three week period that would fit their schedule and would not interfere with their instructional time or preparation.  I brought each of the morning interviewees a Grande latte from Starbucks and for the two afternoon interviews, I gave them $5 Starbucks gift card, and all of the participants were pleasantly surprised by receiving the coffee or card, even though I had promised it in the invitation e-mail.  The teachers were asked a combination of 19 open (discussion) and closed (yes/no) questions.  Probing with additional questions was used as necessary to gather additional information or to clarify and answer.  The interview questions were developed based on my background knowledge in family literacy and the factors I wanted to study in regard to community, family, and school involvement in my workplace and they are located in Appendix B.  During the interviews, I utilized reflective listening techniques that I was taught as a psychologist.  Reflective listening involves using nonverbal and verbal signs, such as eye contact, repeating information, and restating information as a question to prompt expansion, and can be a difficult technique to use well.  It was not until I later reviewed the interviews that I realized I spent more of the interviews than I had hoped expressing my own opinions and even jumping ahead sometimes to answer for a participant.  I feel like this occurred mainly as I tried to identify with the teachers to build interviewing rapport and to separate myself from being a perceived administrator who may have the ability to critique their teaching styles and opinions. 

The interviews lasted between 25 and 45 minutes in length.  Four of the interviews were audio taped and transcribed by the researcher for analysis.  The fifth interview was conducted but not audio taped or considered for analysis because the teacher had laryngitis on the day of the scheduled meeting and time constraints did not allow for it to be rescheduled.  The interviews were transcribed as close to the recording as possible, however for this first attempt, concentration was not heavily placed on punctuation and interpreting inaudible information, which according to Weiss (1994) could have impacted the meaning gleaned from the data. 

One thing I have noticed is that it feels awkward at the beginning of each interview but I and the participants became more comfortable as the interviews progressed, particularly after we were able to laugh about something.  I felt like I gathered information that I needed during the interviews; however I believe I could have been more specific with the interview questions, especially with follow-up responses.  I certainly need more practice in the area of writing questions and learning to probe for additional information.  I felt uncomfortable during this project to ask too much or to question the teachers about specific examples when they did not automatically provide them.  I also felt uncomfortable with challenging some of the comments about ethnicity and social-economic status in relation to education, even when I did not want to argue a point but wanted to learn more about individual perspectives and how they came to be. 

Validity Concerns

Working with teachers from my own school posed unique challenges.  I currently am the school psychologist in the building where the teachers are employed and have known each of them on a professional basis between two and four years.  I am a monthly guest reader in each of the kindergarten classes and have worked with all five of the teachers in the child study forum.  It is important to acknowledge that while I have a good working relationship with each of the teachers, I must be open to the idea that participating in an interview about classroom practices may raise concerns with the teachers in respect to what will happen with the data after it is collected.  Teachers may feel less able to be to open about what happens in their classes because I may be seen as an administrator (even though I am not), they may be intimidated by lack of knowledge of some of the topics asked, or they may be hesitant to discuss the culture in regard to their classroom practices.  I believe that working with teachers with whom I have a prior relationship will be more helpful than detrimental to the project as long as I am open with the teachers and readers about my agenda and as long as I continue to be cognizant of my potential biases when analyzing the data.

Working with teachers from my own school posed unique challenges.  For example, will teachers feel like I am judging their practice or will they feel they have to participate for me to continue my reading program in their classes?  I feel that I have a good working relationship with each of the teachers, however I must be open to the idea that an interview about classroom practices may raise concerns with teachers about what I will do with the data I collect.  I think it is an advantage for my work in the school to have a better understanding of family literacy activities so that I can tailor my work for the next school year to address what I perceive will be a lack of understanding and time for program development.   Disadvantages to interviewing teachers at my own school may be issues including teachers feeling less able to be open about what happens in their classes because I may be seen as an administrator (even though I am not), they may feel intimidated by lack of knowledge of some of the topics asked in the questions, or they may be hesitant to discuss culture in regard to their classroom practices.  I think that for this project, working with teachers with whom I have a prior relationship will be more helpful than detrimental to the project as long as I am open with both the teachers and my readers about my research agenda. 

Data Analysis

After I conducted the interviews, I prepared to enter the “code mines” as Glesne described them in her book but first I realized I need to establish that coding was a needed technique for the methodology I incorporated throughout the project (2006, p.152).  At the beginning of my study, I determined that my questions were suited to the qualitative approach using the chart on page 87 in  Schram’s 2006 book and then reviewed information on several methods including narrative and grounded.  I decided that at this point in my research study, I wanted basically to compare the data from the interviews to see what, if any, ideas were consistent regarding parent, community, and school involvement in literacy instruction for the kindergarten program at my school.  Additional reading appeared to point to a constant comparison approach as the best fit.  (Creswell, 2005; Schram, 2006).  The constant comparison method looks for similarities and differences in the data and uses this information to develop categories for examination. The categories allow the researcher to look for relationships in the data and are a constantly changing process with the data guiding the direction of the interviews (Schram, 2006).  Although I had followed the initial ideas of the method, during my data collection I had not really adjusted the questions based on the responses I was getting from my respondents.  For this reason, I used a form of constant comparison but not the approach as it is traditionally taught. 

With this determined, I was ready to enter the “data mines.”  First, I transcribed each of the interviews from the audio recorder to the computer.  This was a painstaking process and I learned that it worked best using headphones.  Even with headphones and repetition, I was unable to understand what was said in some sections.  For these parts I chose to insert a line in the transcript to show that information was missing.  I also used the line in places where identifying information like names were used.  When the transcription was completed, I attempted to go back and listen to each interview while following along with the tape to ensure accuracy. 

Once the transcription was complete, I embarked on my first level of analysis, open emic coding.  “Coding is a progressive process of sorting and defining and defining and sorting those scraps of collected data…that are applicable to your research purpose”

( Glesne, 2006; p.152).    The goal is to then use the sorted information to “facilitate comparison between things in the same category and aid in the development of theoretical concepts” (Maxwell, 2005; p.96).  Open, emic coding allows the researcher to use the participants own words to glean pieces of comparable information from the larger interview.  Open coding was performed in this project by using a highlighter to identify information chunks directly in the interview transcript. 

The highlighted open codes were then sorted into categories during a process know as axial coding (Maxwell, 2005).  In this project, the axial coding was done from an etic perspective, meaning I derived the categories for comparison in my own words based on trends I saw in the data.  This was a tedious process, requiring me to almost re-type each of the interviews using only the respondents’ words.  Once the words and phrases were entered into one of the 11 categories I had determined, I then began to analyze the information within each category for goodness-of-fit.  I made notations directly on the category list, and even determined that one of the categories, Parental Interaction in the Classroom, could be combined with Perceived Parent Participation.  Ideally at this point in the research, I would have continued to compare the categories over and over until I was able to “ground” my categories with the data (Creswell, 2005); however as a beginning researcher on a shortened timeline with a very limited and not generalizable study population, I made the decision to stop my analysis here with organizational categories that can be found in Appendix C (Maxwell, 2005).  In addition, the organizational categories were able to provide the information that I needed to establish some areas to address for next school year. 

Open coding provided some important data regarding parent, home, and school connections.  First, in the area of perceived parent participation, all four of the teachers interviewed remarked that they did not have parent participation in the classroom setting.  The most common teacher perceptions of reasons for the limited visits included intimidation because of not speaking English, child care issues, work, and transportation difficulties.  The teachers reported that they as a grade level send home newsletters to parents to encourage involvement in homework and other school activities.  These are also supported by books, journals, and even in one class, a stuffed dog, going home to facilitate literacy practice in the home setting.  Second, the teachers interviewed all had limited knowledge of community literacy resources, except for the public library.  Although one teacher remarked, “I’ve seen some kids from school (at the library) and one reported that, “The librarians there are so helpful,” all noted very limited reports of use of the library from students.  Finally, none of the teachers was familiar with “third space,” and described that even though the school is “like the United Nations here,” children rarely bring in cultural items from home.  Writing was seen as a promising area for the children to incorporate their home and cultural beliefs into the classroom setting.  These ideas provide preliminary information regarding the four research questions: 1. 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?  2. Have teachers heard of family literacy or of third space?  3.  How do they foster a community of literacy learners in the kindergarten classroom?  How do they include parents? and 4.   How are the different cultures of children in the class celebrated through literacy activities? 

Discussion

The opportunity to begin a qualitative research project in this course has given me insights not only into my development as a researcher, but also into how I can help facilitate more effective family, school, and community relationships in regard to literacy instruction at my school.  Although I was able to complete only a preliminary analysis of my study for this course and I come from a primarily quantitative research background, I have determined that qualitative research is a good fit for me and for my area of dissertation study.  I will of course, be taking the advanced class in methods so that I can learn to move beyond axial, organizational coding and possibly even tackle “grounding” my theories when I have reached “saturation.”  This project taught me that I have much to learn in the area of interviewing, primarily in the way that I ask questions.  The questions I asked this time were too directive at times and as I later found out, did not always provide information that I needed to answer my stated research questions.  I especially noticed this in the coding when I came up with 11 categories!  With further analysis, I am sure that I would have been able to incorporate some of that information into a more tightly developed set of ideas, but it served as a reminder of the importance of focus and of using a pilot study before conducting major research.

            As far as the research questions were concerned, the comments provided to me during the interviews, while showing some connections between home, school, and community, were somewhat underwhelming.  While most of the teachers were familiar with the concept of family literacy, most had limited comments regarding culturally-competent practice.  Amstutz in 2000 reported that attention to cultural issues was critical to successful family literacy programs, however it appears from this very limited sample that my school division has room to grow in this area.  The teachers interviewed  also used many of the same comments of pre- and inservice teachers who were interviewed in 2000 by Foote and Linder.  These comments included a limited view of what constitutes family literacy involvement, such as homework and sending books home, instead of working to make out-of –school literacy activities seen as important to early literacy learning.  I hope to use this information, not to generalize or critique teachers in my school, but to help find constructive ways to connect our students and parents to resources like the community library and to help parents feel more comfortable with sharing in the instruction process.  I also see that more work is needed in the area of incorporating cultural awareness into the literacy curriculum, and hope to establish a way for teachers to have easier access to materials that will help them build a “third space” for children in their classrooms.  I am looking forward to my next attempt at qualitative research and believe that this project has given me much to think about before class begins in the Fall. 

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. 

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

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

Creswell, J.  (2005).  Educational Research.  Columbus, OH:  Pearson Education, Inc.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J.  (1998).  Interviewing:  The art of science.  In N. Denzin & Y.

Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (pp.47-78).  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage. 

Foote, M., & Linder., P.  (2000).  What they know and believe about family literacy: 

Preservice and mentor teachers respond and reflect.  In P. Linder, E. Sturtevant, W. Linek, & J. Dugan (Eds).  Literacy at a New Horizon, Washington, DC:  The College Reading Association. 

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.

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)

Weiss, R.  (1994).  Learning from Strangers.  New York:  The Free Press.

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

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

Appendix A

Conceptual Framework