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.
Implicit Theories 2
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
Implicit Theories 3
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
Implicit Theories 4
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
Implicit Theories 5
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
Implicit Theories 6
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
Implicit Theories 7
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 languageor 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
Implicit Theories 8
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,
Implicit Theories 9
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).
Family Demographics and Belief Systems
The groups were not significantly different in terms of income, ethnicity, child age or
Implicit Theories 10
school placement. The groups did differ on child sex, 2 (2, n = 19) = 5.81, p = .05, and
maternal education, 2 (6, n = 19) = 5.92, p = .05. All parents in the Unique group were parents
of boys. Meaning group parents were more highly educated than Unique group parents.
Home Literacy Practices and Belief Systems
To test hypotheses concerning implicit theories and home literacy practices, a series of
one-way MANOVAs were conducted with belief group as the between-subjects factor. Tests of
univariate effects were conducted if a significant mutivariate effect was found; this procedure
guards against inflated Type I errors.
Enjoyment. The four dependent measures were: parents’ interest in reading, parents’
interest in writing, children’s interest in reading, and children’s interest in writing. The
multivariate test was nonsignificant, indicating that maternal belief grouping had no association
with family members’ interest and enjoyment in literacy activities.
Frequency of literacy activities. The MANOVA on frequency measures had six DV's
representing the frequency of parent, child, and joint reading and writing, respectively. A
significant multivariate affect was found, F(12, 24) = 2.28, p = .04, effect size = .53. Univariate F
tests and Newman-Keuls post-hoc comparisons indicated that Meaning group mothers read for
work or pleasure more often than Code mothers. Meaning group mothers helped their children
write more often, and had children who did more independent writing than Unique group
mothers (see Table 2).
Insert Table 2 about here
Mother-child Interaction
Because the two measures of observed interactive behavior were not significantly
correlated, univariate rather than multivariate tests were conducted. The ANOVA for
conventional talk during the letter writing tasks was nonsignificant. The ANOVA for meaning
talk only showed a marginal trend toward significance, F(2, 15) = 2.85, p = .09. Means were in the
Implicit Theories 11
direction of the most meaning-related talk for the Unique group.
Child Literacy Skills
A MANCOVA on belief grouping was conducted using PPVT, TERA, Clay, emergent
reading level and story grammar scores as the five dependent measures of child literacy skill. To
control for the expected strong association between current literacy skills and prior oral language,
age two PPVT score was used as a covariate. Groups did not differ on the covariate.
A significant multivariate effect for belief grouping was found, F(10,20) = 4.90, p =.001,
effect size = .71. Univariate effects were found for TERA, story grammar and Clay scores and a
marginal univariate effect was found for the PPVT. Post hoc tests revealed that children in the
Code group had higher story grammar scores than children in the meaning group and higher Clay
scores than children in the Unique group. Unique group children had the lowest TERA reading
scores (see Table 2).
Open-ended Themes
Each unique comment made in response to the open-ended questions was transcribed and
sorted by semantic content. Results of the content analysis are shown in Table 3. Themes that
were mentioned by at least three mothers are displayed. There were also 8 rare themes, i.e., those
mentioned by only one or two parents.
When talking about children learning to read, all mothers discussed the importance of
reading aloud and the need to develop an understanding of code functions. Ways to instill code
knowledge included drill on letter identification, use of environmental print, and telling the child
what a printed word says. Modeling and motivation were also mentioned by a sizable minority.
Meaning group mothers were the most likely to mention environmental print and nonbook media
such as computer games. Only Code group mothers talked about the need for children to read
independently; this group was also the most likely to talk about going to the library and the least
likely to mention modeling. No mothers in the Unique group mentioned use of the library or
introducing reading aloud at an early age.
Responses about learning to write predominantly were about fine motor control and
Implicit Theories 12
mastering the mechanics of letter formation via repeated practice; this emphasis was shared by all
three belief groups. As with reading, modeling and motivation were also mentioned. Meaning
group mothers stood out in the extent to which they discussed intrinsic motivation, emergent
developmental sequences, and positive carry-over from reading aloud. Code group mothers were
the most likely to mention phonics.
Seventy-one percent of the rare themes were provided by mothers in the Unique group.
Examples of rare themes included telling oral stories, tracing the outlines of letters on the child’s
back, and not knowing how children learn literacy skills. These open-ended responses
corroborate the results of the RIBQ, suggesting that the Unique group mothers are less likely to
make use of core whole language or phonics instructional techniques and that they tend to
employ an individualized set of instructional methods.
Insert Table 3 about here
Discussion
The overall goal of this study was to pilot the feasibility of a method for examining the
content and correlates of parents’ implicit theories of early literacy instruction. Despite the small
sample size, the large number of statistically significant findings suggests that these methods
could be fruitfully used in larger investigations of parental belief systems.
The first major finding was that most parents in this sample held eclectic views on early
literacy instruction. Parents valued both code knowledge and the derivation of meaning and
reported using strategies to promote both sets of skills. Thus, parents endorse what many reading
educators see as optimal practice--the simultaneous focus on top-down and bottom-up strategies
(Adams, 1990; Feng, 1992; Greenberg, 1998a, 1998b; NAEYC, 1998; Stahl et. al., 1994; Stahl &
Miller, 1989).
Parents’ implicit theories are of pragmatic importance if they have consequences for
children’s development. For example, if children’s learning is enhanced when both the home
Implicit Theories 13
and school settings support similar goals, then the above-mentioned finding that parents, like
teachers, hold eclectic views is good news. Early childhood educators stress the value of
informal literacy experiences provided by both teachers and parents (NAEYC, 1998).
Presumably, parents are more effective partners in their children’s education and are more likely
to provide frequent, enriching home literacy experiences when their views on literacy acquisition
correspond with those of early childhood professionals.
Our data also suggest that individual differences in parental literacy beliefs have
consequences for what children do and what children learn. Although most parents in our
sample could be described as eclectic, we found different patterns, or degrees of emphasis within
this overall eclecticism. Children of more meaning-oriented mothers in our sample experienced
more frequent maternal modeling of reading and more frequent mother-child writing episodes;
these children were also the most likely to write on their own. Perhaps because these mothers
were least concerned with conventional correctness, they were more encouraging of their
children's emergent attempts which, in turn, motivated their children to experiment with writing
on their own. Beliefs were also associated with child literacy skills. Children of more codeoriented mothers had the highest tested performance in the areas of vocabulary, story grammar,
and conventionalized reading and writing skills. The overall disadvantage fell on children of
mothers who endorsed neither code- nor meaning-based strategies; their children showed the
least developed literacy skills. Parents who have difficulty articulating how a skill is acquired
may be less optimal tutors than parents who follow a clear conceptual model.
While it is premature to make causal statements, our results justify further study of causal
mechanisms. A large literature on parent-child verbal interaction has demonstrated how parental
input can affect oral language competence. A similar initiative is needed to study how the social
environment affects competence in written language. For example, do parental beliefs contribute
to children’s literacy outcomes via their impact on parents’ practices, or do parents’ ideas more
simply reflect their children’s developmental history and progress that was itself caused by other
influences?
Implicit Theories 14
The limitations of this study must be acknowledged. First, the sample size was small and
homogenous in terms of social class. Second, observations of parent-child literacy interactions
were limited to one 10-minute sample. Third, replication will be needed to determine whether
the three belief patterns identified in our cluster analysis would indeed generalize across samples
and whether these belief patterns are consistently associated with individual differences in home
practices and child outcomes. However, our results suggest that this general topic of study, as
well as our particular method of investigation would yield informative results.
Implicit Theories 15
Footnotes
1
20 mothers were interviewed, but one interview contained so much missing data as to be
unusable. Mothers were the target of this study because our experience with similar studies in
this community yielded extremely low participation rates for fathers. Only one father in this
sample wished to participate in the interview. Data from his interview are not included in the
current report.
Implicit Theories 16
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Anderson, A. B. & Stokes, S. (1984). Social and institutional influences on the development
and practice of literacy. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.). Awakening to Literacy
(pp. 24-37). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Barnhart, J. E. (1991). Criterion-related validity of interpretations of children's performance on
emergent literacy tasks. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(4), 425-44.
Clay, M. M. (1979). The early detection of reading difficulties. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
DeBaryshe, B. D. (1995). Maternal belief systems: Linchpin in the home reading process.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 1-20.
DeBaryshe, B. D. (1992). Early language and literacy activities in the home. US Department
of Education Field Initiated Studies Program. Final report for the project. Greensboro, NC:
University of North Carolina at Greensboro. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
351 406).
DeBaryshe, B. D. & Binder, J. C. (1994). Evaluation of an instrument for measuring parents'
beliefs about reading aloud to young children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 1303-1311.
Dunn, L. M. & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - revised. Circle
Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
DeBaryshe, B. D., Caulfield, M. C., Witty, J. P., Sidden, J., Holt, H. E., & Reich, C. R. (1991,
April). The ecology of young children's home reading environments. Paper presented at the
Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, April 18-20, Seattle, WA.
Evans, M. A., & Carr, T. H. (1985). Cognitive abilities, conditions of learning, and the early
development of reading skill. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(3), 327-350.
Evans, M. A., & Baraball, L. (1991, April). Child parent bookreading and parent helping
strategies. In M. A. Evans (Chair). Adult and child influences on early literacy interactions.
Implicit Theories 17
Symposium presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,
Seattle, WA.
Feng, J. (1992). Whole language approach: Is it really better? (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 349 548).
Fitzgerald, J., Spiegel, D. L., & Cunningham, J. W. (1991). The relationship between parental
literacy level and perceptions of emergent literacy. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 191-213.
Gantos, J. (1989). Rotten Ralph's show and tell. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Goodman, K. S. (1992). Why whole language is today’s agenda in education. Language Arts,
69, 354-363.
Goodnow, J. J. & Collins, W. A. (1990). Development according to parents: The nature,
sources, and consequences of parents' ideas. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1994). The effects of whole language on children’s writing: A
review of the literature. Educational Psychologist, 29, 187-192.
Greenberg, P. (1998a). Some thoughts about phonics, feelings, Don Quixote, diversity and
democracy: Teaching young children to read, write, and spell. Part 1. Young Children, 53(4),
72-83.
Greenberg, P. (1998b). Warmly and calmly teaching young children to read, write and spell”
Thoughts about the first four of twelve well-known principles. Part 2. Young Children, 53(5),
68-82.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and
classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Holden, G. W., & Edwards, L. A. (1989). Parental attitudes toward child rearing:
Instruments, issues, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 29-58.
Morrison, F. J., Frazier, J. A., McMahon, E. H., Fornwald, S., and Trabasso, T. R. (1992,
April). The influences of age and schooling on growth of coherence in storytelling. Poster
presented at the Biennial Conference on Human Development, Atlanta, GA.
Implicit Theories 18
National Association for the Education of Young Children (1998). Learning to read and
write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. Young Children, 53(4), 30-45.
Payne, A. C., Whitehurst, G. J., Angell, A. L. (1994). The role of the home literacy
environment in the development of language ability in preschool children from low-income
families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 427-440.
Phillips, G., & McNaughton, S. (1990). The practice of storybook reading to preschool
children in mainstream New Zealand families. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 196-212.
Reid, D. K., Hresko, W. P., & Hammill, D. D. (1989). Test of Early reading Ability-2.
Austin: Pro-Ed.
Scarborough, H. S. & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers.
Developmental Review, 14, 245-302.
Shaw, P. A. (1991). A selected review of research on whole language. Wisconsin State
Reading Association Journal, 35, 3-17.
Sigel, I. E. (Ed.) (1985). Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for
children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stahl, S. A., McKenna, M. C., & Pagnucco, J. R. (1994). The effects of whole-language
instruction: An update and a reappraisal. Educational Psychologist, 29, 175-185.
Stipek, D., Milburn, S., Clements, D., & Daniels, D. H. (1992). Parents' beliefs about
appropriate education for young children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13,
293-310.
Sulzby, E. (1985). Children's emergent reading of favorite storybooks: A developmental
study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 458-481.
Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent literacy: Reading and writing. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Implicit Theories 19
Table 1
RIBQ items
Whole Language Items
Having broad reading interests.
Having confidence to guess at printed words, using a variety of cues.
Understanding that reading and writing are much like talking, the purpose is communicating
meaning.
Knowing that reading and writing can be useful for many activities besides reading books.
Accepting attempts at writing as meaningful, even if they are incorrect (“reading” scribbles
as if they were real writing).
Recognizing unknown words by “what makes sense” from the other words and pictures on
the page.
Telling the child what the word is.
Using background knowledge that the child already has, rather than information from
the text to figure out an unknown word.
Phonics Items
Being able to sound out words on his or her own.
Being able to read aloud accurately.
Being able to match the sounds in spoken words with the letter combinations used to
represent them.
Learning to write letters and words correctly.
Sounding out letters and groups of letters.
Rules about how letter combinations sound (“e” at the end of the word makes the
vowel sound long)
Implicit Theories 20
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Univariate Test Results by Belief Group
_______________________________________________________________________________
Group
Meaning
Variable
M
Code
Unique
M
M
p
Contrast
_______________________________________________________________________________
Literacy Enjoymenta
Mom Likes Read
13.63
12.50
13.20
.27
Mom Likes Write
11.63
10.50
8.80
.14
Child Likes Read
13.62
12.50
12.40
.16
Child Likes Write
12.00
11.17
9.40
.38
Frequency of Literacy Activityb
Mom Read
26.12
23.17
25.60
.02
Mom Write
29.50
25.33
24.00
.12
Child Read
36.75
33.67
35.00
.21
Child Write
27.37
24.33
21.60
.006
Joint Read
12.88
12.17
11.40
.46
Joint Write
13.12
12.33
11.00
.03
meaning > code
meaning> unique
meaning > unique
_______________________________________________________________________________
(continued)
Implicit Theories 21
Table 2 continued
Mother-Child Interaction
Conventional Talkc
28.25
44.33
20.00
.25
Meaning Talkd
4.87
6.50
10.75
.09
Child Literacy Skillse,
f
PPVT
113.10
125.71
112.95
.06
TERA
117.00
118.62
101.85
.004
Sulzby Level
7.19
8.15
6.66
.74
Story Grammar
8.75
16.48
10.41
.008
code > meaning
Clay (z score)
.65
1.41
-2.76
.02
code > unique
Note. aF(8, 28) = 1.04, p = .43
b
c
F(12, 24) = 2.28, p = .04
F(2, 15) = 1.53, p = .25.
d
F(2, 15) = 2.85, p = .09.
e
F(10, 20) = 4.90, p = .001
f
Tabled values are adjusted for covariate
code, meaning > unique
Implicit Theories 22
Table 3
Themes emerging from content analysis of open-ended questions about reading and writing
Learn about reading
Themes about code knowledge
Learn about writing
Themes about mechanics of writing
Environmental Print (n = 10)
Reading signs and boxes.
Copying (n = 10)
You write a letter and they copy it.
Phonics (n = 8)
They should learn phonetically.
Provide materials (n = 10)
Provide markers, crayons and paper.
Sight words (n = 7)
Sight reading for small words.
Fine motor development (n = 9)
Encourage drawing and fine motor skills.
Letter identification (n = 4)
Recognizing letters and ABC’s.
Practice (n = 9)
Practice and repetition.
Answering child’s queries (n = 4)
Tell him what things say when he asks.
ABC’s and writing own name (n = 3)
Teach him how to write his name
Letter-sound drill (n = 3)
Use flash cards, they tell the letter’s sound
Connect-the dots (n = 3)
Make a dotted outline for the child to trace.
Themes about modeling and motivation
Themes about modeling and motivation
Modeling (n = 7)
Adults set an example by reading
Imitation (n = 5)
She just picked up a pencil, imitating me.
Motivation (n = 7)
Make reading fun.
Encouragement (n = 4)
We encouraged her
.
Inner motivation (n = 5)
Children will have a desire (to write).
(continued)
Implicit Theories 23
Table 3 cont’d.
Themes about reading aloud
Other themes
Read aloud (nonspecific) (n = 16)
Read to her.
Phonics (n = 6)
Sounding it out.
Read aloud from an early age (n = 7)
Read aloud from infancy.
Read aloud (n = 4)
By reading to him.
Books available (n = 6)
Provide books.
Authentic experiences (n = 4)
Let him write down words on the grocery list.
Use library (n = 4)
Go to the library.
Developmental sequence (n = 3)
Don’t learn to write until they can read.
Independent reading (n = 4)
Let him try (reading) by himself
Spell for them (n = 3)
Spelling to her while she writes.
School work (n = 3)
She’s learning at school.
Other themes
Media (n = 4)
Tapes of books, computer games.
Developmental sequence (n = 4)
There’s a progression: sight, sounds,
put sounds together into words.
Picture focus (n = 4)
Point to pictures in books.
Note. n represents the number of parents who discussed a theme.
Examples of responses are in italics.