The Family Backpack Project: Sounds Good But Where's the Data?

Last year, in Language Arts, Deborah Rowe and Jeanne Gilliam Fain shared findings on their Family Backpack Project.  At 249 urban students (48% African American, 35% Latino, 8% Middle Eastern, 7% European American, and 1% African) the program is large, especially so considering that, by design, it enlists not only students but their families as well.  The goal of the project is to promote school-home connections in a way that honors diversity.  The program divides the school year into six one-month units, and once during each unit a backpack is sent home with each student.  The backpack contains two books which are relevant to the unit, audio recordings of the books in English and in the student's home language, translations of the books into the student's home language, and an open-ended response journal to be completed by the student and family.

The program enlists a broad range of research to support it practices, including the 2008 article by Roberts referenced in a previous blog post, seeming to synthesize all the current trends around multiculturalism in the classroom today.

For all its research though, and for all the theoretical frameworks it attempts to employ, their assessments of the program are surprisingly sparse.  The bulk of the data seems to come from end-of-year survey responses.  The authors claim very encouraging feedback despite the fact that less than a third of families actually bothered to respond.  The low response rate suggests two things to me.  First, it implies a low degree of average engagement for the typical family.  Second, for those families who were sufficiently engaged and enthusiastic to have responded, the general tone of the response is likely to skew toward the positive.  Taking these responses as indicative of the general sentiment among all participating families seems very imprudent to me.  Adding to that the fact that, in general, good research looks at what people actually do and not simply what they claim to do on surveys, the findings discussed in this article seem very dubious indeed.

On a marginally brighter note, the family reader response journals indicated a slightly broader spectrum of participation.  Two thirds of families responded at least once in their journals (keeping in mind that there were six total opportunities to respond).  19% of all families responded once.  17% responded twice.  10% responded three times, 11% four times,  6% five times, and 4% responded all six times.  I am not sure whether to feel encouraged by these figures.  If I consider that two thirds responded in some way that sounds somewhat encouraging, but conversely, if I consider the fact that less than a third responded half the time I am not so encouraged.  When I consider that only 4% participated fully I am downright discouraged.  One piece of information which could have helped me make sense of these figures was the general trend of participation, that is, were families losing interest in reading at home over the course of the school year, or was the program picking up steam so that finally, by the end of the year, two thirds of families were participating?  The fact that this key piece of information is so conspicuously absent along with the fact that the authors seems a little overeager to present the program in a (dare I say “unrealistically”) positive light leads me to believe that the more unfortunate of the two trends was the case.

L1, L2, Electric Boogaloo: ELLs' Primary Language Literacy Probably Helps and Certainly Can't Hurt English Language and Literacy Acquisition

In an article from Reading Research Quarterly Theresa A. Roberts examines the results of a study involving preschool students who were English language learners.  In the study, students were randomly assigned to one of two groups, either a group composed of students whose parents read English-language storybooks at home with them prior to class readings, or a group composed of students whose parents read those same storybooks at home with students in their first language.  At the end of six weeks, students then switched: the students who had read the English storybooks at home now began to read storybooks at home in their primary language, and the students who had been reading storybooks at home in their primary language began reading storybooks at home in English.

The findings are very interesting indeed.  Although Roberts notes that the study would need replication before drawing any firm conclusions, students who read with parents at home in their primary language did significantly better on targeted English vocabulary acquisition after reading those same books in class in English than those students who read the book at home in English and again in class in English. 

After the switch, the students now reading at home in their primary language fared no better than the students who now read at home in English.  Interestingly though, both groups' rate of target vocabulary acquisition actually increased.

As the author is quick to point out, the tentativeness of these findings should not be taken to strongly suggest the implementation of any particular ELL literacy model.  There are a number of variables that should be considered in future studies.  For example, how might students who didn't make the switch at week six have fared against students who did?  Is the increased rate of vocabulary acquisition a result of the switch itself or just a consequence of the multiplier effect of acquired knowledge facilitate the acquisition of new knowledge?

At any rate, one thing is clear from the study: students who read at home in their primary language at home do at least as well as those that read at home in English, so that the use of one language clearly does not detract from the learning of another.  It seems to me though that results of the primary-language-at-home readers' rapid acquisition in the first six weeks suggests a definite possibility that a brief literacy unit involving primary-language materials at home at the start of the school year would, at the very least, do no harm, and quite likely do a great deal of good to scaffold ELLs' language acquisition and overall participation at this critical time of the year.  At the very least, cooperative development of materials and training of parents in at-home storybook reading techniques could go a long way in building community among ELLs and their families that will continue to be valuable throughout the school year and beyond.  The sort of parental involvement implicit in Roberts's method is likely to have ancillary benefits far down the line. 

Translocal Discourse in Biliteracy

In "Reading Across Communities" in Biliteracy Practice: Examining Translocal Discourse and Cultural Flows in Literature Discussions, Carmen Medina looks at how bilingual/biliterate kids construct meaning following a read-aloud and during group storytelling sessions.  Medina argues that these discussions open up spaces for meaning-making that move across time and geographical distance.  Furthermore, children who bring with them non-dominant cultural elements are keenly aware that the understandings they bring are not always appreciated or are appreciated less fully than they might be.  These kids come to recognize that certain forms of knowledge are valued only in their home countries or cultures.  But by allowing for a greater range of accepted responses that includes kids' personal histories, cultural knowledge, and pop culture or popular imaginaries (sets of symbols and knowledge in a particular social group), teachers can improve student engagement and sense of belonging.  

I remember a number of instances in China when I observed an apparent breakdown in knowledge across space even among adults.  For example, there comes a point in any friendship between a Chinese person and a foreigner when the concept of 上 火 (shang huo) eventually comes up.  In traditional Chinese medicine, certain foods are known to induce a fire-type reaction in the body.  Naturally, my Chinese friends at some point would want to know how to say this in English and I would have to explain that this concept does not really exist in the West.  Try as I may to be sensitive to this cultural difference, this stark contrast in knowledge is difficult to reconcile.  A typical response might be something like "well, in China, chillies cause you to break out" as if chillies and human bodies agree to operate according to different rules depending on their geographical location.  Another example where the "knowledge" I bring seems to invalidate Chinese knowledge came about when I asked my friend not to feed my dog chicken bones.  Chicken bones, I explained (somewhat paternalistically, I am sure) can splinter and get stuck.  "Yeah, but this dog is Chinese though.  She'll be fine." 

At a global scale, Western knowledge may be perceived as occupying a dominant position relative to traditional Chinese knowledge.  When these two types of knowledge reveal themselves to be at odds, even within China, the explanation may lie in different knowledge sets being applicable in different geographical locations, much in the same way that Medina observes children applying cultural understandings differently in one location versus another.

Having seen how easily knowledge can be invalidated, even when the non-dominant culture has a "home court advantage", I will be doubly aware of how I can expand the range of valued understandings.



 

Playshop

During a recent session with a five-year-old preschooler, he and I created a collaborative movie involving props, characters, and settings.  Previously, I had worked with this child on reading, writing, and drawing, so integrating these activities into the creation of a story shouldn't have been too difficult.  As I final condition to the project, we used the popular film/merchandise franchise Star Wars as the backdrop to our story-making.

In my earlier literacy work with this child, it became apparent that collaborative story-making was right up his alley.  During my first writing activity with him, I found that he needed to work with another person to make the story as he wrote and drew.  For him, stories were not just a thing that flowed from his mind to the paper, but rather a plastic discussion and a social event.  This lent itself nicely to the activity currently under discussion as we set about creating hand-drawn character cutouts, whole-page backgrounds, and props.

As he created the characters, he created the story, and as he created the story, he created more characters.  It was a looping process.  Finally, a more or less stable version of the story seemed to have emerged involved a lava monster who calls on Jay and Kitty Paw Paw Sidekick, as well as Emperor Palpatine and General Grevous at their house.

During filming, however, it seemed that simultaneous manipulation of the objects and narration were impossible.  Without breaks for narration during filming, the story started to change owing to a lack of grounding.  In a future session, we would need to perhaps sit down and write out the story to be narrated by a third party (not only was he unable to simultaneously narrate and manipulate, but I also was unable to simultaneously narrate and operate the camera!).

New Literacies and Multimodalities: Looking Back as Well as Forward

Jane Hare recently published the results of a study in The Journal of Early Childhood Literacy looking at how indigenous knowledge and schooled literacy intersect in Head Start programs on five First Nations reserves.  Though her study focuses on western Canada she draws on research from, and provides implications for, indigenous communities in the U.S., New Zealand, and Australia as well.

One major point to note is that many forms of literacy are already present in indigenous communities and families before children ever get to school.  Literacy, in this context, does not always take the form of reading text from books.  It may include books, but it will also include traditional forms such as storytelling, ceremonies, dance, and the consideration of landscapes as readable texts, as well as more recent forms like television and computers.  The current trend in teacher education programs of valuing multiple modalities and literacies is often used as a sort of short-hand to talk about appreciating different technologies as readable texts, but Hare extends this thinking backward in time as well as forward to recover traditional forms of literacy.

The problem arises out of the troubled history that indigenous communities have experienced in "educational" institutions that have ruthlessly and systematically attempted to destroy Native cultures and languages by severing the inter-generational lines along which they were traditionally transmitted.  These schools removed children as young as four from their families and attempted to indoctrinate them into European epistemologies.  As a consequence, many parents today who may very well desire their children to succeed in school-type literacy, narrowly defined, are still less than eager to engage educators.

And educators, for their part, perhaps ignorant of the scope of historical abuse, don't do enough to value indigenous culture and literacies which, research shows, is critical in successfully bridging the gap from home to school.  Teachers must be proactive in educating themselves.  Only by meaningfully engaging these communities can non-Native teachers learn to recognize and enhance opportunities to forge links between these literacies.  In a sense, they must take a page from indigenous forms of education which are experiential and holistic, experiential because their is no shortcut to engaging parents and other community members, and holistic because we cannot parcel out knowledge as European and Native.  Only when children see continuity in the valuing of (supposedly) different epistemes can they proceed on sure footing.

Transmedia: Legos' Logos

In the opening chapter of Literacy Playshop Karen Wohlwend uses the term transmedia to describe popular media that is bound up with the sale of consumer goods, be they toys, movies, etc.  She cautions us not to be too quick to dismiss the literary potential of such media forms.  She writes that teachers often steer students away from these types of media for fear that it is likely inappropriate for young children.  The result, she writes, is that "children with fewer economic resources are particularly disadvantaged" by this policy, going on to quote Seiter who claims that toys "most available to and popular with working class children are the toys most likely to be excluded from the classroom." 

In my own field experience this year, however, I have noticed what, at a gut level, seems to be a disturbing trend in the other direction.  I am referencing the Legos books that a number of children have brought into the classroom.  I call them "books" when, upon closer inspection, they seem to be cleverly disguised catalogs.  I find this (again, I am speaking from the gut and am happy to be corrected by anyone who knows better) particularly egregious since Legos, in their origin, were intended to be simple blocks which could be used to build any toy a child might desire.  But since their inception, they seem to have become training wheels for a generation of compulsive consumers.  A quick walk through the toy aisle will confirm that the "special" sets command outrageous prices, considering what they are.  Made of cheap molded plastic, I can't shake the feeling that the company is stockpiling and rationing their toy sets like the De Beers would blood diamonds. 

These slick catalogs market the expensive special sets exclusively.  The end result, from what I have observed, is the opposite of that described by Seiter.  By using a book or magazine format to create such a fascination with these pricey products, Legos effectively monetized literacy in my classroom.  We are accustomed to well off students bringing in toys that other children may not be able to afford, but bringing in text that markets toys (that creates an entire subculture around them) that many children's families can't afford feels like salt in the wounds.

Biliteracy: Beyond Bilingualism

As a teacher with no small interest in the ways that multiple cultures interact in classrooms, I have recently started researching how I might effectively implement policies that respect languages other than English in my future classroom.

Previously I taught English to students of all ages in China.  In that setting, I used a fairly strict English-only policy because total immersion is generally touted as paramount to second language acquisition, using English to teach English as the saying goes.  While an English-only policy may be appropriate with Chinese students for whom the classroom may represent the only opportunity for any significant degree of immersion, now that I am facing teaching in the US, I am concerned about showing respect to other languages and ensuring that the colonialist attitudes that have historically devalued other languages do not persist in my classroom.

During my field experience at a local elementary school with a relatively high number of ELLs, I have already observed how easily I am able to gain students' trust and inspire their confidence by speaking even a few words of their own languages.  In some instances, on the occasions when I have used another language (typically Chinese), it has been to clarify an instruction, but more often I have used the other language simply to demonstrate to an ELL, as well as to others, that his or her language has value in the classroom.

This will be of particular importance in the Navajo Nation where I will do my student teaching.  Historically, English-only policies in boarding schools have done much to disrupt the transmission of Navajo language and culture.  The colonialist attitude of the white educators at the time (until fairly recently, in fact) invoked the mantra "kill the Indian to save the child" as a way of justifying its own racism, and Navajo language was a principal target of the killing.

Furthermore, as a language learner myself, I am keen to practice my own Spanish in a way that honors Spanish-speaking culture in the American southwest, potentially in a bilingual school.  With that in mind, I read  Iliana Reyes and Patricia Azuara's "Emergent Biliteracy in Young Mexican Immigrant Children" in Reading Research Quarterly.

This article focuses on the first year (preschool) of a 3-year longitudinal study of 12 children living in Tuscon, Arizona.  The authors, themselves bilingual in Spanish and English, used multiple methods including in-school assessment tasks and at-home interviews with students and their families.  The in-school activities included children's analyses of environmental print such as food labels and of book print concepts such as directionality and sound-letter correspondence.  Additionally, the authors identified children's metalinguistic understandings of their own and others' language use.  At the children's homes, the authors observed the children during various types of naturalistic literacy activities with family.

One of this study's more relevant implications for the classroom is that biliteracy development is highly situated, relying much more on the environment (particularly the social environment) in which literacy takes place than on mere exposure (p. 392).  Of particular interest is that the children in this study often switched roles of literacy "novice" and "expert" depending on the language being used (p. 392).  When experiencing a literacy event in Spanish, a monolingual parent may be the expert and the child the novice, but upon switching to English the children may well find themselves in the role of expert, explaining for their parents.  The authors suggest that these interactions produce higher-order thinking and that by differentiating between one language and another children developed better metalinguistic awareness (p. 392).

All of these points could be used to argue for a more situated type of literacy activity in the classroom (like the one mentioned in a previous post).  If in-school literacy activities can be made to more closely resemble the socially mediated literacy events the study's authors have claimed to be at the heart of acquiring biliteracy, then paying particular attention to our ELLs could be a rising tide to lift all boats.  That is, from a universal design perspective, a situated literacy curriculum that accounts for how bilingual students learn best may benefit all of our students.