Narrative comments/ talking about events in the past and the future 2 Explanatory talk, e.g how things work and why we do things

3. Non-immediate talk (talking around the book) during book reading 4. Talk during pretend play

Rowe (2013) used the language areas identified by Dickinson & Tabors in her longitudinal study where she examined parents’ use of decontextualized language with their children at the ages of 18 month, 30 month and 42 months. Rowe found that parents who used more narrative utterances and more explanations with their 3-5 year olds, had children with larger PPVT (Peabody Picture Vocabulary test) scores 1 year later. Rowe also found that parents used more decontextualized language as their children got older; at 18 months only 2.2% of parent utterances were decontextualized whereas at 42 months 9.4% were

decontextualized. She found that there was no association between use of pretend utterances and child vocabulary increase. This appears to contradict Beal’s (2001) findings that parents’ use of pretend utterances during play with 3-year-olds relates to children’s later vocabulary comprehension and to their ability to provide formal definitions. It also appears to contradict Weisberg, Ilgaz, Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, Nicolopoulou & Dickinson’s (2014) finding that children learned words related to fantastical themes quicker than they did words on realistic themes. Despite Rowe’s finding, however, her recommendations for the development of children’s decontextualized language include the recommendation that adults engage in

77 pretend play with children. She suggests additionally that adults answer children’s ‘why’ questions, talk about the past and the future, make predictions, read books and make connections between the story and the child’s life. Research on decontextualized language therefore indicates that it is important for children to practise decontextualized language because it prepares them for abstract reasoning required in school where they will use

language as an intellectual tool. Decontextualized language makes children better at re-telling narratives, giving explanations and thus clarifying their thinking.

Gee (2016) makes the claim that “there is no such thing as decontextualized

language” (p.11) and argues that people are referring to vernacular and non-vernacular forms of language when they speak of decontextualized language. Non – vernacular forms of language are socialised languages that people learn when they develop a specialist interest, for example, the language of medicine, architecture, plumbing, religion, street gangs and so on. Gee argues that if children are able to conquer the grammatical vagaries of their

vernacular language, they can also conquer same in the non-vernacular. This argument is supported by Gorski (2010) who writes that linguists know that “all language varieties are highly structured with complex grammatical rules and syntaxes (Gee, 2004; Hess, 1974; Miller, Cho, & Bracey, 2005)” (p.17). “What often are assumed to be deficient varieties of English — varieties spoken by some poor people in Appalachia, perhaps — are no less sophisticated”, says Gorski, “than so-called "standard English". Gee (2016) claims that

schools fail children, thus perpetuating social inequality, because they do not facilitate

children in switching from the social language of home to more formal language registers. The problem is one of cultural estrangement for children and schools have a duty to support children to bridge this gap, says Gee (2016). He describes the problem thus –

78 I may own coats, pants, shirts, ties, and shoes of all different sorts. These are my resources. But I may not know, for a given event or situation, how they are supposed to go together, that is, what coat, pants, shirt, tie, and shoes I should wear together to be “accepted” as having dressed “correctly” for the event or situation. When we are

talking about language, the resources are partly a “gift” from our human biology (that helped us acquire them), but the knowledge of how to combine them to be “accepted” as having used the “correct” language in a physics classroom is not. That has to be learned (Gee, 2016, p.13).

Gee’s (2016) arguments that perceived insufficiencies in the use of decontextualized language is more about cultural estrangement than poor language ability are important and valid. It seems that a two-pronged approach to supporting children’s language in school would therefore be appropriate, that is, a focus on both the technical or formal aspects of language and a focus on providing appropriate cultural learning contexts in schools. An appropriate cultural learning context should ensure that children are supported to learn how to use different types of language without denigrating the home language.

Parental Involvement in Children’s Learning

Parenting influences the child’s self-concept as a learner (Desforges and Abouchaar, 2003). Parental involvement in their children’s learning is associated with higher academic achievement for their children (Jeynes, 2005; Kim, S. & Hill, N. (2015)23. Parent-child interactions, (especially when they are warm, responsive and interesting to the child), influence a child’s academic development (Christian, Morrison & Bryant, 1998). Landry, Smith, Swank, Zucker, Crawford, and Solari (2012), described an intervention they used with mothers called The Play and Learning Strategies (PALS) curriculum, a coaching programme

23 _{In Kim, Sung Won Kim and Nancy E. Hill’s (2015) meta-analysis of parental involvement and student}

academic achievement, the relationship between parental involvement and achievement was equally strong for fathers and mothers, although mothers’ mean levels of involvement were higher than fathers’.

79 for parents, designed to strengthen the bond between parent and child and to stimulate the child’s early language, cognitive, and social development. Parents were tutored to respond to children encouragingly, building on children’s interests and using rich language. The authors found that mothers practised shared reading more effectively with their children after their involvement in the programme. For example, they used more open-ended questions and conversation prompts and expanded on children’s comments. Their children, in turn, asked more questions and sought information about the text and commented about the pictures and the text, and generally exhibited more enthusiasm for the shared reading activity.

The impact of parental involvement in their children’s learning when children are attending primary school is far greater than the impact associated with variations in the quality of schools (Desforges and Abouchaar, 2003). The scale of the impact is evident across all social classes and all ethnic groups.

Meta-analytic evidence indicates that family literacy interventions have a greater impact than most educational interventions (Swain, Brooks & Bosley, 2014). For example, parents learn how to support their children’s learning and from that often springs an interest in improving their own literacy; they learn more about how school systems operate and become more involved in social and supportive networks. In other words, parents were developing forms of social and cultural capital (concepts developed by Bourdieu, 198624) which is a metaphor for ways and means that allow people to improve their status in society (p.79). These networks often provide opportunities for parents to further their learning and development (p.77). Desforges & Abouchaar, (2003) describe the social and emotional

24 _{“Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital refers to the collection of symbolic elements such as skills, tastes,}

posture, clothing, mannerisms, material belongings, credentials, etc. that one acquires through being part of a particular social class. Sharing similar forms of cultural capital with others—the same taste in movies, for example, or a degree from an Ivy League School—creates a sense of collective identity and group position (“people like us”). But Bourdieu also points out that cultural capital is a major source of social inequality. Certain forms of cultural capital are valued over others, and can help or hinder one’s social mobility just as much as income or wealth” (Social Theory Rewired, 2011).

80 benefits that parents derive from being involved in their children’s literacy development: They develop greater resilience, greater mental health, improved relationships, greater social competence and less delinquent behaviours. Improved relationships then, in turn, improve shared book reading interactions. For example, research by Bus & Van Ijzendoorn (1988) found that parent-child dyads that were securely attached were less anxious during the reading session than less securely attached dyads. Those adult-child pairs that were anxious in approaching a reading session affected the emotional atmosphere surrounding a reading session and this in turn affected the outcome (Bus & Van Ijzendoorn,1988 p.1269). A key element of book reading is a mutually enjoyable atmosphere (Bus, 2002). Findings from Carpentieri et al’s (2011) report on meta-analytic research were similar to meta-analytic research undertaken by Swain et al. (2014) in the U.K. It found that family literacy

programmes are effective, both in improving child literacy and in improving parental support skills. A Turkish longitudinal study, part of one of the meta-analyses in the Carpentieri et al. (2011) report, found that family literacy programmes brought long-term returns to society, such as better employment outcomes in adulthood (Kağıtçıbaşı, Sunar, Bekman, &

Cemalcılar, 2005).

Some researchers argue that family literacy operates from a deficit model (Swain, Brooks and Bosley, 2014), that is, the tendency to blame disadvantage on the people who are disadvantaged rather than on the political system that causes it. They argue that family literacy is about imposing certain cultural values of school on families and not taking cognisance of the value of the culture of the family (Rocha-Schmid, 2010). (The concept of deficit thinking is examined in detail later in this review – see p.124). Others claim that being introduced to what happens in schools is empowering for parents and allows them to become part of school culture rather than keeping parents as outsiders. The experience could therefore be inclusive and empowering (Wolfendale, 1996). Hanafin and Lynch (2002) claim that the

81 voices of parents from working-class backgrounds have been absent from educational debate and decision-making for decades, mainly because they have been seen as unable to

participate. Schools, they argue, are biased towards middle class culture and government initiatives intended to support marginalised parents veer towards being patronising rather than egalitarian. Interviewed about the HSCL scheme in the Hanafin & Lynch (2002) study, a parent named John, commented “Now the only side I've seen of the home-school liaison teachers is that they're organising courses for parents, not the actual input into helping the parent and pupil which is I presume the basis of their organisation” (p.44). Hanafin and Lynch (2002) found that working class parents were interested and capable of being involved in their children’s schools but they were prevented by the structures and practices of the school system in their community.

The emphasis on dialogue rather than didacticism throughout The Storytime Project allows for an exchange of views and a sharing of expertise that makes the process of working with parents inclusive and reciprocal rather than didactic and passive. In addition to this, some of the Early Childhood educators who participate in The Storytime Project, live in the same communities as the parent participants. This may mitigate to some extent feelings of cultural dissonance for parents Delpit, 1995).

In a European Commission report, Family Literacy in Europe, Carpentieri, Fairfax- Cholmeley, Litster & Vorhaus, (2011) identified Ireland and Germany as behind in

recognising the importance of the home environment on literacy acquisition relative to their European peers. The introduction of Aistear, the early childhood curriculum framework (2009) in Ireland and the National Literacy and Numeracy strategy (2011) both highlight the role of parents in developing children’s literacy, thus bringing policy focus on the home literacy environment. Aistear emphasizes the importance of parental involvement in their

82 children’s education in a dedicated chapter in the Guidelines for Good Practice section called

Building partnerships between parents and practitioners. Here, it encourages parents to

support their child’s learning by reading to him/her, joining the local library and choosing books together (p.9). The Primary School Curriculum (1999) also acknowledges parents’ role in their children’s language development, for example, and it describes ways that parents might support children’s language development (NCCA, 1999, English Teacher Guidelines p.19). The National Literacy and Numeracy strategy (2011) similarly places strong emphasis on parental involvement in children’s educational development. The emphasis on parental involvement is evident at policy level but to transform this into practice is another challenge, especially if school systems continue to employ a deficit approach towards working class parents, as identified by Hanafin and Lynch in 2002.

Parent-child interactions during reading.

Using real-time audio recording, Gilkerson, Richards & Topping (2017) found that language engagement and interaction between parent and child is higher when they are engaged in story reading sessions than during non-reading sessions. Story-reading, therefore, is a worthwhile context to support the development of parent-child language interactions. There is a growing body of work suggesting the importance of specific types of language interactions -

Social–interactionist theories of language acquisition (e.g., Baumwell, Tamis- LeMonda, & Bornstein, 1997; Chapman, 2000; Landry, Miller-Loncar, Smith, & Swank, 1997) provide evidence that linguistically responsive facilitation strategies such as the use of open-ended questions, expansions, advanced linguistic models, and recasts are associated with positive language achievements in young children (e.g., Baker & Nelson, 1984; Nelson, 1977; Vasilyeva, Huttenlocher, & Waterfall,

83 2006;Wasik, Bond, & Hindman, 2006; Yoder, Spruytenburg, Edwards, & Davies, 1995). (Hamre, Justice, Pianta, Kilday, Sweeney, Downer & Leach, 2010, p.331). The linguistically responsive facilitation strategies mentioned above have been used in interventions and curricula that are associated with children’s language development (e.g. McKeown & Beck, 2006; Wasik et al., 2006).

Saracho (2017) examined a number of studies (e.g. Bojczyk, Davis & Rana, 2016; Neuman, 1996; Saracho, 2012), that explored parent-child interactions during shared story reading to ascertain what strategies were successful in expanding children’s vocabulary. Findings from Saracho (2012) include the following: Parents acceptance of and response to children’s ideas and predictions around books in a sensitive way lead to extended

conversations around books. Open-ended questions facilitated children’s predictions about and helped to ensure accurate responses in relation to events in the book. Conversations about the story fostered children’s ability to problem-solve in relation to the plot, absorb the vocabulary of the story and improve their abstract thinking. Bojczyk, Davis, and Rana (2016) examined the mothers’ reading strategies during shared storybook reading and categorised them based on the quality of children’s responses to them. They categorised strategies as low, medium and high level. Examples of low level strategies included encouraging children to “look or listen without pointing or verbalizing” (Saracho, 2017, p.557). Medium level strategies involved children pointing and making one-word responses and high level

strategies, eliciting high quality linguistic responses from children, involved strategies such as asking ‘WH’ questions, asking children to make comparisons related to the plot, asking children for definitions and building on the children’s utterances. Neuman (1996) found that active discussions of stories seemed to increase children’s vocabulary, understanding of story events, recall of stories, and knowledge of print conventions.

84 In addition to finding that the strategies above facilitate children’s language

development, research also found that training in how to use the strategies increases

competence in using the strategy (National Reading Panel, 2000). The author of this review incorporated a range of strategies to encourage and develop children’s talk, and these ideas have been modelled for parent participants in The Storytime Project and are used on the training DVD. Strategies included were adapted from Whitehurst (for example PEER and CROWD prompts (1992) in table 2.7 below and others, such as those described above, sourced in the literature.

Table 2.7 Oral Language Learning Strategies

Oral Language Strategy Example of Strategy Purpose of the Strategy Strategy as Referenced in the Literature Orienting

or setting the scene

I wonder what this is about …

Look at author, illustrator …

To focus the child Harris, Robinson, Chang & Burns, 2007

Checking the child is ‘with you’

It’s a beautiful blue sky and there are no cl----.

To focus the child and checks

comprehension

Blau, 1991

Connecting picture to text

Oh, look at the owl. I wonder does it say anything about the owl. Let’s see….. To develop concepts of print, print awareness and comprehension Coyne, McCoach , Loftus, Zipoli & Kapp (2009); Paivio, 1971; Sadoski & Paivio, 2013; Rosenblatt, 1994; Connecting to life experience and accessing prior knowledge There’s a cat. Do you have a cat?

To develop comprehension Rosenblatt’s Transactional Reader Response Theory (1994). Prior knowledge: Pearson, Hansen & Gordon, 1979; Rupey & Wilson, 1996

Text to self, text to text and text to world: Keene & Zimmerman, 1997; Goudvis & Harvey, 2000

85

Follow the child’s lead by talking about what he/she wants to talk about

To encourage the child’s talk

Mc Cabe & Peterson, 1991 Eliciting comments by questions, especially open-ended questions I wonder … Vocabulary development and developing comprehension

Cole, Maddox & Lim, 2006;

Landry, Smith Swank & Miller-Loncar, 2000; DeBaryshe, 1993

Discussing new words, phrases

He’s pulling my leg – what does that mean? Another word for ‘fib’? To develop vocabulary and comprehension Vocabulary: Harris, Golinkoff & Hirsh- Pasek, 2010 Research on idom: Gibbs, 1987, 1991; Levorato & Cacciari, 1992; Nippold & Rudzinski, 1993;

Nippold & Taylor, 1995; Nippold, Taylor & Baker, 1996.

Supporting

Echoing Sustaining comments

You’re dead right! Oh I see, and did he …? To boost self-esteem and encourage persistence Gambrell, 2011 Modelling and Pursuing/ Elaborating, Expanding

It’s good? Yes, it’s good and it might make the children try harder too. Why do you think?

To extend the dialogue

Mc Keown & Beck, 2006;

Landry, Smith, Swank & Miller-Loncar, 2000 (elaborative utterances) Fletcher, Cross, Tanney, Schneider & Finch, 2008

Recasting Child: He thrun the

ball

Adult: Did he? He threw the ball?

To model correct language without ‘correcting’ the child

Mackey & Philp, 1998 The Modern language Journal 82 (3) Repeating. Re-read text He huffed and he puffed and he ... To embed vocabulary. To support comprehension.

Childers & Tomasello, 2002; McKeown & Beck, 2006

Repeat what the child says. It reinforces the child’s verbalization, letting the child know that he/she is correct

Yes, that’s a cat. To boost self-esteem, reinforce vocabulary and aid comprehension Zevenbergen & Whitehurst, 2003; Whitehurst, 1992 Retelling a story “Guided reconstructions are more effective than mere retellings”(Mc Gee & Schickedanz, 2007, p.746)

To develop synthesizing skills (comprehension)

Cornell, Senechal & Brodo, 1988; Pellegrini & Galda, 1982; Mc Gee & Schickedanz, 2007

86

Vary tone and pace for dramatic effect and to support comprehension Performing voices for different characters in the story

To support the child in interpreting the story and to increase enjoyment of story

McGee & Schickedanz, 2007

Sipe, 2002

Summarising So far Goldilocks has broken the chairs, eaten the porridge, slept in the beds……

To developing comprehension and metacognition. To encourage the child to use decontextualized language.

Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994

Predicting I wonder what will

happen? To develop comprehension. To encourage the child to use decontextualized language. Strickland, 2002; Mc Gee & Schickedanz, 2007

Projecting What would you do

if you were Red Riding Hood? (text to self) To develop identity through story. To develop comprehension, theory-of-mind. Requires the child to use decontextualized language.

Bruner, 1996; Keene & Zimmerman, 1997; Goudvis & Harvey, 2000

1. Informing,