Family literacy
practice and
research in Canada
Yvon Laberge
Éduk
Alberta, Canada
ylaberge@shaw.ca
Overview




Setting the table: The Canadian geo-political
context
Family literacy practice - examples from Alberta
Research in Family Literacy
Two cases studies explored
Huge landbase
Population






Most of the population concentrated along the
49th parallel
Officially bilingual - French and English
Canada is a land of immigrants
Aboriginal populations are the fastest growing
Largest cities are Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver all cosmopolitan
Rural areas tend to be more ethnically
homogeneous
Political organization:
Two tier system



National government (federal government)
Provincial and territorial governments (10
provinces and 3 territories)
Roles and responsibilities defined in the
national constitution
Division of responsibilities
Federal government
 No direct involvement in
education
 Redirect funds to
provincial/territorial
governments for adult
education
 No program delivery
mandate - only peripheral
support
Provincial/territorial
governments
 Education - raise
taxes, define
curriculum, etc.
 Manage adult
education systems
 Responsible for direct
delivery of
adult/family literacy
Consequences




No national literacy strategy (one of the few
industrial countries lacking such a strategy)
13 different approaches to literacy delivery
Little or no transferability between programs
from one province/territory to another
Generally poorly funded adult/family literacy
programs
Literacy levels (IALSS results)



Examined three forms of literacy: prose,
document, quantitative
Five levels
Level 3 is the level the OECD and
Statistics Canada consider to be the
minimum required to be able to function
effectively in a modern society and
economy.
Literacy levels (IALSS results)


42% of the working aged adult population
was at levels one and two on the IALS
prose scale
Represents approximately 9 million
Canadians
Literacy levels (Aboriginal
population)

Prose literacy performance of the
Aboriginal populations surveyed is lower
than that of the total Canadian population.

Younger Aboriginal people have higher
scores than older ones but all age groups
score lower than non-Aboriginal people.
Literacy levels (Francophone
population)

The proportion of Francophones with low literacy
is higher than the proportion of Anglophones
with low literacy - 52% across the country

56% in Québec

66% in New Brunswick
Literacy levels (Immigrant
population)

Overall, immigrants of work age performed
significantly below the Canadian born
population.

Immigrants whose mother tongue was neither
English nor French have lower average scores
in all four domains compared to immigrants
whose mother tongue is one of the two official
languages.
Unexpected results

Little improvement in the overall literacy
proficiency of adult Canadians between
1994 and 2003
Improvements had been
expected because:



Retirement of older, less educated
workers;
New immigrants tend to be more highly
educated;
Growth in the proportion of the
Canadian-born population with
postsecondary education
Impact of these results on
family literacy




Family literacy policies tend to focus on
children who are in “at risk
environments”
Target immigrant populations
Target aboriginal populations
Federal government has targeted
francophones in a minority context
In the province of Alberta

Parent-child literacy strategy

Family literacy initiative fund
Parent-child literacy strategy
Focuses on intergenerational educational
approaches that integrate adult literacy
development and early oral language
development for children aged 0 to 6 for
economically and socially
disadvantaged families.
Parent-child literacy strategy:
Objectives




Enhance the oral language, early literacy and
social interaction skills of children aged 0 to 6
Strengthen and build the basic literacy skills
of parents.
Support and foster the involvement of parents
in their children’s learning
Develop and enhance community-based
partnerships
Parent-child literacy strategy:
5 strategic axis





Awareness Raising
Assessing Need
Program Delivery
Training
Evaluation
Parent-child literacy strategy:
Key activities to date





English Express Special Issues
Parent-Child Literacy and Home
Visitation Partnerships
Intensive Family Literacy Pilot and
Evaluation (Learning Together Study)
Training
Family Literacy Initiative Fund
Parent-child literacy strategy:
Home visitation pilot project

Support home-visitors in providing
family literacy programmes in the home.
Training
 Materials and programmes
 Evaluation

Parent-child literacy strategy:
Innovative projects

A number of innovative projects are
supported including the Classroom on
Wheels (C.O.W.)
Alberta Prairie C.0.W.
Video interlude!!!
Sample Family Literacy
Programmes supported by
the FLIF*
*The following slides on
programmes have been
reproduced with the
permission of the Centre for
Family Literacy
Books for Babies
Provides resources to families
Encourages parents to read to their children
Builds strong foundations in literacy
Building Blocks
Literacy builders work with families in their homes
Builders work with parents and children,
with parents gradually taking over
Builders provide follow-up support by telephone
Help Your Child to Read
and Write
For parents of schoolage children
Provides strategies
for parents to use
in helping their
children with
reading and writing
Literacy and Parenting Skills
Provides literacy and parenting skills workshops
Groups choose from 14 parenting topics
Parents learn to model good literacy practices
with their children
Two programmes in French
Grandir avec les livres
Parents and caregivers of children birth to 4 years old
Workshops increase awareness of early learning and
foster interest in reading
Contes sur roues
Follow-up to Grandir avec les livres
Parents and caregivers of children
up to 4 years old
Home or daycare visitor models
reading activities, leaves
resources for family or daycare
to use
Parent-Child Mother Goose / Rhymes That Bind
For parents and very
young children
Develops oral language
through rhymes and songs
Promotes positive parenting
Storysacks
‘Sacks’ contain a story book, toys, and props
Language games and ideas for use are
also included
They can be used in families, daycares, libraries,
and other settings
PCLS - Supports a Training
Strategy



Foundational training
Models training
Training sessions designed to meet the
specific needs of key stakeholders
Foundational training





Offered in person or on-line
Covers 10 topics considered essential to
organize and offer a family literacy programme
Each topic is presented in a three hour session
Participants are given a manual that covers all
the information presented and more
Currently being adapted as a credit course
through a community college
10 chapters - 10 topics
1.
2.
3.
Understanding
Family Literacy
The Practice of
Family Literacy in an
Unjust World
The Dynamics of
Working with
Parents
4.
5.
6.
Understanding
Children and their
Development
Understanding
Emergent Literacy
Working with
Families in a Family
Literacy Setting
10 chapters - 10 topics
7.
8.
Working with
Communities
Administering a
Family Literacy
Project
9.
10.
Evaluating Family
Literacy Projects
Best Practices in
Family Literacy
Models training


Training is provided on specific
programme models
Offered during a two or three day institute
in a central location - or in the community
Targeted training

Training is provided to targeted groups
requiring a specific emphasis. Examples
of such groups include:
Community health workers
 Day-care workers
 Home-visitors


Introductory session on Family Literacy (23 hours)
Research
Overview


General state of research in Family
Literacy in Canada
Two case studies
General State of Research





Traditionally, priority placed on applied research.
NLS is moving away from applied research
Rapidly developing area of research by the
academic community
Research tends to be in specialized areas
A clearinghouse for research is CLLRNet
CLLRNet (Canadian Language
and Literacy Research
Network)

Multidisciplinary research program
integrates contributions from the many
sectors involved in children's language
and literacy development, including basic
and applied scientists, educators,
clinicians, students, parents and
caregivers, and industrial and government
partners.
CLLRNet (Canadian Language
and Literacy Research
Network)


Currently more than 50 projects
For more information on CLLRNet and the
research programmes:
www.cllrnet.ca
 www.cllrnet.ca/index.php?fa=Research.show

ONTARIO STUDY - FRENCH
“For my Child: A Study of the Impact of
French-Language Family Literacy
Programs on Francophone Families in
Linguistic Minority Settings in Ontario
“Pour mon enfant d’abord: Étude de
l’impact de l’alphabétisation familiale sur
les familles vivant en milieu minoritaire en
Ontario”
For my Child: Purpose
To assess the changes observed in literacy
habits and in use of French among
parents and children who have been
involved in one of the French-language
literacy programs offered by seven French
language literacy centres in Ontario.
For my Child: Methodology


Semi-directed interviews with the
participating parents, their literacy trainers,
and the directors of these centres.
Questionnaire used to guide the interview
For my Child: Methodology


Interviews with participants conducted at
the start of the programme and at the end
- using the same questionnaire.
Interviews with facilitators and
coordinators conducted at the end of the
programme
For my Child: Methodology

Cohort 1 - a total of 52 families involved


52 women and 10 men interviewed
Cohort 2+3 - a total of 177 families

161 women and 31 men interviewed
For my Child: Typology of
programmes - cohort 1


Six programmes had direct parent and
children involvement
Three programmes had direct parent
involvement and indirect impact on the
child
For my Child: Typology of
programmes - cohorts 2 + 3


Six programmes had direct parent and
children involvement
One programme had direct parent
involvement and indirect impact on the
child
For my Child: Findings

Few adults with low literacy skills
participated in these family literacy
programs.

More parents and children spontaneously
used French in daily literacy and nonliteracy related activities
For my Child: Findings



Children increased French vocabulary
Children were more likely to comply with a
routine and follow instructions.
Children developed a feeling of belonging
with the French language and associated
it with pleasant activities.
(as observed by parents)
For my Child: Findings
Family literacy programmes had a major positive
impact on parents in two respects:


on the parents’ parenting skills,
on their learning and their use of French.
More specifically, the parents who
participated in these programs now:





apply the parenting strategies that they have learned,
especially as regards disciplining their children and
encouraging their interest in reading and writing;
say that they are better equipped to play their role as
parents;
have become aware that any activity can be a learning
activity;
have a better grasp the importance of using French in
the home;
engage in more activities with their children, especially in
French.
For my Child: Findings
Family literacy programs play an important
role in the growth and development of the
Francophone community.
Increased enrolment of participants’ children
in French schools
 Increased participation in community activities

Learning Together
The Learning Together program offers sessions for parents,
an early childhood development program for the children, and
then joint sessions in which parents and children interacted
around literacy events.
The Learning Together program was developed as part of a
longitudinal study conducted by the University of Alberta.
The results were published in a book: Family Literacy
Matters: A Longitudinal Parent-Child Literacy Intervention
Study Linda M. Phillips, Ruth Hayden, and Stephen P. Norris
Data presented in the following slides is drawn from this
study.
Learning Together
Eight key units for each:
• Adult component
• Early years component
• Joint sessions component
* Programme developed by the Centre for
Family Literacy borrowed heavily from
BSA (Basic Skills Agency) programme
model, taken from the book - Family
Literacy Works (Brooks et al. 1996)
Learning Together: Themes
for each unit








Creative play
Developing language and literacy
Games
Beginning with Books
Early reading
Writing and drawing
Environmental print
Advice and guidance
Learning Together: Themes
for each unit


Facilitators advised and encouraged to “respect
and build on parents’ existing skills and abilities
within each of the units…”
Facilitators required expertise and skills in their
respective areas - working with adults and
working in early childhood development.
Learning Together:
Timeframe



Three mornings or afternoons per week
Over three month period
Total of 90 hours
Learning Together:
Timeframe




Separate adult session
Separate early-years session
Each has its own facilitator
Last 30 minutes each day, parents are paired
with their child. Facilitators remained in the
room to oversee.
Learning Together:
Methodology



13 week pilot study helped refine programme
model and research tools
Treatment groups of children and parents
compared with control/comparison groups
158 children participated in five sites - 3 urban
and 2 rural
Learning Together:
Assessment tools - Children



Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
Test of Early Reading Ability(TERA - 2 Forms A
& B)
Test of Early Reading Ability(TERA - 3 Forms A
& B)
Learning Together:
Assessment tools - Adults



Canadian Adult Reading Assessment (CARA)
Graded Word List
Graded Passages
Learning Together:
Interviews and Observations



Pre and post programme interviews conducted with all
participants
Yearly follow-up interviews conducted around the
anniversary of the completion of the programme
Each programme observed by one of the researchers for
a minimum of 2 hours
Learning Together: Findings



The program had a positive influence on all
children except those who were already in the
top 20 – 30% at the pretest stage.
Participant parents acquired and implemented
more frequent and varied literacy activities at
home than the control group parents.
Participant parents also reported being more
confident and secure in their own ability to help
their children.
Learning Together: Findings



The program was most effective for
children with the greatest need.
No specific increase in the parents’ literacy
levels because of the short length of the
program
There were qualitative improvements in
the parent’s ability to advance the literacy
levels of their children.
Learning Together: Lessons
learned




Recruitment of participants, especially for the control
group was very difficult and required a significant amount
of resources (staff time and money)
Particularly difficult to identify and recruit control group
participants that mirrored the treatment group.
Require a longer and more intensive adult literacy
component to make a difference.
Need to examine impact of less intensive programmes
Learning Together: Lessons
learned


Need to better understand cultural and
social differences and how they effect
literacy development
Need to use the research to develop policy
and practice that best utilizes limited
resources and ensures the use of the most
appropriate strategies for a given group