£32.31; . .75“: “AH‘WEF .‘-; u w ': m:- :4 H I I Mama-n .5: {$1 93-. ,I 3-1 3‘3 2“ _ . ’ JR?" ‘ ‘7‘: in ‘_ ~n‘fr‘1sA.Lu. 3: 0.4.3" «. . ' I ‘ "’4’ 1 "9341:" - $293» 5. c .{A s, m . n -_ 2.3" ‘46" . wt??? r. L,‘ ‘1» 14“}; 77; .. r as 9:35 ‘-' as ‘l ”v“ , ,-.s 'C , r ”I L .. , - ,1,,. u. , 1‘. .y > m... ‘ ,1,u_,.,.,", “ y: 1 . 3" ’Y‘.lv'o_ph l ..‘. ,. '3'... 19:3. . A. I. 3243‘ .. '3 '41 2'“ ' .. fi _ “ 7": ”3‘.’ 3... § '5‘: , V v 3 .4}. vi; . «um. . I . . s k . J . r . .145"; .. .2. 23. T . I .0 ; -‘ ' 3) . II‘. , figs-w g , v _ . THBS¢ 3 1293 00899 3606 IIIIHHIIIHIIIIIIIIllHIIHlIHIIIIWillIIIIIIIIHIIHIIII Fl, This is to certify that the dissertation entitled KINDERGARTEN HOMEWORK IN NON-MAINSTREAM FAMILIES: THE SCHOOL—FAMILY INTERFACE IN THE ECOLOGY OF EMERGENT LITERACY presented by PATRICIA FOLINO HEARRON has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D degree in Family Ecology WWI fl ' " ajor nrof or I Date March 13, 1992 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0‘ 12771 Mr LIBRARY Michigan Stat: 1 UNVQr.'ty “A WI PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. II DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE l 'JUL 1 5 i994” -- 1 ' , 11:) i333 =Tii MSU is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution remains-9.1 KINDERGARTEN HOMEWORK IN NON-MAINSTREAM FAMILIES: THE SCHOOL-FAMILY INTERFACE IN THE ECOLOGY OF EMERGENT LITERACY BY Patricia Folino Hearron A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family and Child Ecology 1992 6% :3" 35-73 ABSTRACT KINDERGARTEN HOMEWORK IN NON-MAINSTREAM FAMILIES: THE SCHOOL-FAMILY INTERFACE IN THE ECOLOGY OF EHERGENT LITERACY BY Patricia Folino Hearron Non-mainstream children (low-income, ethnic minority) are less successful with school literacy tasks than their middle-class counterparts. One explanation is that they lack the necessary experiences at home to prepare them for school demands. Schools attempt to meliorate this perceived deficiency with various types of parent involvement programs, sometimes suggesting or requiring that parents complete specific activities with their children. Such programs implicitly assume that non-mainstream parents lack knowledge or motivation to provide appropriate experiences, and that the activities themselves will help the children acquire literacy. Research is inconclusive regarding outcomes of parent involvement programs in early childhood, or homework in elementary schools, and little research has examined what actually occurs when families engage in these activities with children. This study used qualitative methods (participant observation, self-initiated tape recording in homes, ethnographic interviews, and collection of artifacts) to address three questions which emerged during the first semester of a year-long observation in a kindergarten serving 17 low-income, ethnic minority children: 1. How do families of non-mainstream kindergarten children respond to requests from school to help children with activities related to school tasks? 2. What is their understanding of those requests and how does that understanding compare with that of the teacher? 3. What are possible outcomes of such participation? Six volunteer families audio-taped their naturally occurring homework activities from February through June, 1991. Afterwards, the researcher interviewed five parents and the classroom teacher to elicit their understandings of the homework activities and literacy acquisition. The constant comparative method of data analysis was used to develop a grounded theory of kindergarten homework in non-mainstream families. A core category, integrating the emerging concepts with previous work and with theoretical perspectives of emergent literacy, human development, and family ecology, was variation in homework styles, revealed in structural aspects of the activities and in interaction processes (casual or family-like and formal or bureaucratic). Input categories included type of task, family resources, and interpretations of procedures and purposes. The relationship between interaction processes and potential outcomes was viewed as reciprocal. Recommendations were made for practice, for research, and for theory development. Copyright by PATRICIA FOLINO HEARRON 1992 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Several people deserve mention for their invaluable contributions to this project. Dr. Verna Hildebrand, my academic advisor, suggested the coursework in child language acquisition that led to my interest in new views of literacy acquisition, and she graciously chaired the committee that guided this dissertation. Dr. Linda Nelson, who introduced me to the exciting possibilities of ethnographic methods, directed the research, providing insightful--and nearly instantaneous-- feedback and encouragement at every step, as well as a very sharp editorial eye, extremely well-attuned to the finer points of the APA style. Dr. Margaret Bubolz and Dr. Sheila Fitzgerald raised thought- provoking questions that helped me to refine and focus my ideas and each provided me with a model of excellence toward which to strive in my own teaching. I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the entire committee in completing this project, while fully accepting responsibility for any errors or weaknesses that remain in spite of their best efforts. I am thankful to my husband, Tom, for his love and encouragement throughout this process, for cooking more wonderful meals than either of us can count, and for always knowing what to say to keep things in perspective when despair threatened. I appreciate the willingness of Mrs. Peters and the kindergarten children at Cooper Elementary to welcome me into their classroom throughout the school year. Finally, I am deeply grateful to the families of Cindy, Danny, Lisa, Michael, Regina, and Toyah, who allowed me into their homes and lives and who generously assisted with this research. Without them the study would not have been possible. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES O O O ...... O O ....... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ...... O OOOOOOOOOOOOOO ix LI ST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O ....... O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO x CMR 1 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O ...... O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 0000000000 1 Statement of the Problem....................... ...... . ....... ..1 Literacy Outside Mainstream America........ ............... 1 Competing Explanations for Differences....................2 Individual Differences Within Groups......................4 Need for Research............. ..... ...... ....... ...............5 Proposed Research..................... .......... ....... ........ 6 Theoretical Contexts for Study...................... ..... .7 Emergent literacy....................................8 Ecology of human development........ ..... ............8 Family ecology theory.......................... ..... 10 Research Questions ...... .................................12 Operational Definitions.............. ............. . ...... 12 Summary...... ........... ......... ..... .... ................. ...13 CHAPTER 2. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF LITERATURE. ...................... 14 Selection Criteria ........ ................. .............. .....14 Connecting Language and Literacy.. ..................... .......15 Comparing Home and School.....................................l6 Comparing Groups..................... ....... ............. ..... 17 Summary................................ ................... ....21 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLWY......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ..... O 0000000000000 22 Initial Phase of Study......................... ............ ...22 Second Phase: Focus on Homework............... ........ . ..... .24 Rationale for Tape Recording Method......................25 Selection of Participants................................27 Data Collection Procedures...............................28 Audio recording.................. ........ ...... ..... 28 Interviews..........................................30 Literacy artifacts..................................31 Data Analysis.................................................32 Validity......................................................33 Reliability...................................................34 Protection of Human Subjects..................................36 RiskrBenefit Analysis.................................. ...... .37 Presenting the Findings.......................................37 Citation of Data Sources.................................37 Language.................... ......... ......... ........ ...38 Summary.......................................................38 vi CHAPTER 4. TE SETTINGOOOOOOOOO ..... ...OOOOOOOOOOOOO ...... O ....... 39 The Neighborhood..............................................39 The School....................................................41 The Morning Kindergarten Class: People.......................42 Classroom Environment: Space and Time........................44 Ecological Contexts............................ .......... .....48 Summary.......................................................50 CWTER 5. TIE CHILDREN AND THEIR FMILIESOOOOOOO00.00.00.0000000051 Cindy's Family................................................51 Danny's Family................................................55 Lisa's Family....................................... ......... .58 Michael's Family............................. .......... .......62 Regina's Family.................................. ..... ........65 Toyah's Family................................................7O Summary.......................................................73 CHAPTER 6. OVERVIEW OF HOMEWORK......................... .......... 74 Types of Homework Tasks............ ....................... ....74 Language Tasks......................... ......... .........74 Word Lists...............................................75 Writing Tasks............................................76 Read Aloud Books.........................................77 Skill Practice...........................................78 Structural Aspects of Variation Among Families................79 Variation in Quantity and Types of Tasks.................79 Participants in Homework Activities......................81 Summary.......................................................87 CHAPTER 7. INTERPRETATIONS OF HOMEWORK PROCEDURES.................88 Ways of Constructing a Word List..............................88 Interpretations of a Language Task............................91 Understanding Written Directions.........................91 Creating a "Round Book"..................................92 Intepretations of a Writing Task..............................95 Filling the Book, Sticking to Facts......................95 Struggling with Mechanics of Printing....................97 Collaborative Representation of Experience...............99 Ways of Reading Aloud........................................103 Repeating Words.........................................103 Repeating Facts.........................................103 Sharing Meaning and Pleasure............................104 Reading for Oneself.....................................105 Interpretations of Skill Practice............................106 Summary......................................................108 CHAPTER 8. HOMEWORK PURPOSES AND IMPEDIHENTS.....................109 Adult Interpretations........................................109 Preparation for Kindergarten Assessment.................109 Extension of Classroom Curriculum.......................113 Preparation for Elementary School.......................115 Occasion to Spend Time with Children....................l20 Enjoyment...............................................121 Children's Perceptions.......................................123 Impediments to Homework......................................123 Summary......................................................125 vii CMER 9. CHILDRENAS AGENTSOOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 000000 126 Transmitting Expectations......... .............. ...... ...... .126 Content of Homework.....................................126 Timing of Homework......................................128 Homework Criteria............................ ....... ....129 Assistance and Independence..................................132 Making Sense of Homework.....................................134 Oral Language...........................................134 Stories.................................................136 Writing...... ............ ..... .......................... 141 Summary......................................................147 CHAPTER 10. EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL CONTEXTS.. ................ .148 Views of Homework............................................148 Parent Involvement......................... ........... . ...... 149 Studies of Homework in Process...............................154 Study Findings Compared to Reported Research... ........... ...156 Summary......................................... ..... . ....... 157 CHAPTER 11. TOWARD A SUBSTANTIVE THEORY OF HOMEWORK .............. 158 core category. 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O I O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 159 Suggested Propositions .......... . .......................... ..159 Limitat ions Of the Theory 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O 0 O O 1 62 CHAPTER 12. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................163 Methods............................... ....................... 163 Findings.....................................................164 Recommendations for Practice...................... ......... ..166 Recommendations for Research.... ......................... ....167 Recommendations for Theory Development.......................168 Closure......................................................169 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. UCRIHS Approval of Initial Phase................171 APPENDIX B. Consent Forms: Teacher.........................l72 APPENDIX C. Informational Letter to Parents........ ......... 173 APPENDIX D. Transcription Form for Fieldnotes...............174 APPENDIX E. Home Activities for January.....................17S APPENDIX F. UCRIHS Approval of Second Phase.................176 APPENDIX G. Recruitment Letter/Consent Form.................177 APPENDIX H. Communication Guides............................178 APPENDIX I. Tape Transcription Form.........................l79 APPENDIX J. Interview Guide: Teacher.......................180 APPENDIX K. Interview Guide: Parents.......................181 APPENDIX L. A Parent's Use of Writing.......................182 LIST OF REFERENCES... ................ .... .................. . ...... 184 viii Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. LIST OF TABLES Morning Kindergarten Class 1990-1991................. ...... 43 Homework Completed September 1990 - June 1991. ........... ..80 Content Analysis of an Audiocassette: Cindy..... ......... ..81 Tape Recorded Homework March - June 1991.... ............ ...82 Participants in Homework Activities...... ...... . ..... ......83 Four Interpretations of a Language Task......... ...... .....96 Types of Homework Interaction Processes Compared..........157 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Theoretical Views of Home-School Continuity.... ........ 151 Figure 2. Emerging Theory of Kindergarten Homework... ........ ....160 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem Literacy, the ability to read and write, is assumed to be a prerequisite for success in school and employment, for participation in democratic government, and for personal growth and development. High rates of literacy are a hallmark of developed nations, and within those nations, failure to achieve literacy is viewed as a cause of poverty (Szwed, 1981). In the United States, according to The Report of the Commission on Reading (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985), basic reading skills increased somewhat between the late 1930s through the 1970s, while more advanced reading skills declined steadily during the 19603 and 19703. Anderson and his colleagues found further cause for concern in comparative data showing that American students were disproportionately represented among the poorest readers and generally ranked at or below the international average. t a s d Ma nst eam Ame ca Within the United States, the human resource of literacy is not distributed evenly across the population, but rather seems to be associated with factors of race, ethnicity, and income. The nature of the relationship between these factors remains the topic of much debate. While in absolute terms, white, native-born Americans comprise the largest number of illiterate adults, the percentages of illiterate African-American and Hispanic citizens are higher. Of white adults, only 16% are functionally or marginally illiterate, while the comparable figures for African-American and Hispanic adults are 44% and 56%, respectively (onol, 1985, p. 4). Whatever the direction of causality in the complex relations 2 between income, race, ethnicity, and literacy in adults, there is much agreement that children from low-income families come to school apparently less well-prepared to benefit from the literacy instruction offered (McCormick & Mason, 1986; Teale, 1986). And they fall farther behind their middle-income counterparts as they continue through school (Chandler, Argyris, Barnes, Goodman, & Snow, 1986). Competipg Explanations for Diffegences The possible explanations put forth for this disparity have focused upon social-structural or cultural factors, or combinations of both. Examples of social-structural explanations include pressures of economic survival, which prevent parents from providing their children with the experiences that mainstream children can take for granted (Mavrogenes, 1990), or parents' lack of confidence in their ability to help children because of their own limited education (Anderson, 1982). Cultural explanations frequently focus on language differences, although they differ on whether the "problem" posed by those differences is located in the child, the school, or the larger social system. The deficit theory, which informed the compensatory education movement in this country and elsewhere, argued that, for whatever social or economic reasons, poor children lacked the necessary early experiences with people and objects to participate in the heavily language-based activities of the classroom, and therefore needed specific experiences designed to remediate this "language deficit" before they could succeed in school (Wells, 1986). According to Wells (1986), the sociolinguist William Labov represented an opposing argument, locating the problem in the school's failure to accept the considerable linguistic expertise of lower-class African-American children because it differed from Standard English. In a recent example of research informed by this perspective, Gilmore (1986) found that "sub-rosa” literacy flourished among inner-city school children and that their performance in play situations outside of school 3 far exceeded their teachers' negative estimates of their abilities to manipulate language, organize events, cooperate with others, or deal with expository texts. Also focusing on the mismatch between children's language and school expectations, Michaels and Cazden (1986) found that the digressive ”topic-associating” narrative style used by African- American children was not understood or appreciated by white teachers, who expected a more tightly focused ”topic-centered" narrative, with the consequence that those children were more often interrupted or cut off by their teachers and received less practice and instruction in organizing information according to a literate model. Wells (1986, pp. 139-141) characterized the theory of the British sociologist Basil Bernstein as somewhere in between "deficit” and ”difference” explanations. Bernstein located the problem in the society as a whole, where differences in power relations at work led to differences in types of relationships within lower- and middle-class families, and predicted that these relationships would determine the linguistic code emphasized. The "positional” relationships within lower-class families would be played out in a "restricted" linguistic code which relied heavily on implicit meaning or situational context. In contrast, the "personal" relationships in middle-class families would encourage the development of an ”elaborated" code, more easily transferred to the school setting where universal, context-independent meanings were emphasized. Miller (1982) disputed earlier empirical findings claiming to support Bernstein's theory as artifacts of the experimental situations and, based on her longitudinal study of three low-income two-year olds, found no evidence that children in poor families are linguistically deprived or that their language forms are inferior. However, she did find that the children in her study acquired non-standard forms (such as "ain't") and used language to talk back, assert themselves, dispute, and defend possessions. In her argument that these forms and uses of 4 language would be devalued by schools she echoed the position of Labov cited previously; however, in her explanation of the reasons for the differences she observed, she was reminiscent of Bernstein: If it turns out after much further study that children from South Baltimore use their considerable linguistic resources in different ways from children of more privileged backgrounds,if it turns out that they are more likely to assert, defend, defy, control their feelings, comply, or keep silent in certain situations, this will be the source of the differences: that one group needs to cope with the injuries of economic deprivation, while the other does not (Miller, 1982, p. 151). Ipdividual Differences Within Groups ‘ Miller's (1982) finding that lower-class children, like their middle-class counterparts, grew up in rich and varied linguistic environments and produced complex language adapted to those environments is corroborated by the findings of a large-scale, longitudinal study conducted by Wells and his colleagues in Great Britain (Wells, 1986). Wells and his colleagues began tape recording language in the homes of 128 children in 1973. They followed these children throughout their preschool years, and followed 32 of them through elementary school, where the middle class children were more successful than their working class counterparts. Examining the preschool data for possible explanations, the researchers found no significant differences between social classes in rates of development, range of meaning expressed, and range of functions for which language was used. Nor could social class account for the observed variation in the quantity and quality of language interactions between parents and children. Language in all the homes of the preschool children tended to resemble the restricted code in its heavy dependence on context, and when decontextualized language was observed, it was not significantly associated with social class. Differences between social classes were found, however, for frequency with which children had stories read to them, demonstrated an interest in literacy by asking about word meanings or letter shapes, or spent time on activities associated with reading and writing (pp. 142-145). 5 Just as research such as that of Miller and Wells has failed to support the notion of extreme differences in language development between children of different socio-economic groups, research on child language acquisition suggests a great deal of similarity in the ways children acquire language across cultures and, perhaps more importantly, wide individual variation within those broad similarities. A review of this literature is beyond the scope of this discussion (see DeVilliers and DeVilliers, 1978, for a summary). Miller (1982) concluded that the research paradigm that contrasted socio-economic groups of children was misleading because it masked the similarities between, as well as the variation within, those groups. Need for Research The Report of the Commission on Reading (Anderson et al., 1985) was criticized because it was based largely on research that applied only to mainstream children, when non-mainstream children represent an increasingly larger proportion of the children in the country's schools (Squire, 1989, p.4). While there have been important studies of early literacy in non-mainstream families (notably Heath, 1983; Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines, 1988; Teale, 1986), Teale has called for further work documenting the social meaning of literacy within the domains of activity in the home as well as a closer look at interactional patterns, particularly as related to social—structural and cultural factors. In other words, there is a need for a grounded theory of the particular ways literacy permeates the lives of non-mainstream families and the ways that interaction patterns within those families mediate the experience and meaning of literacy for their children. In addition to existing studies of literacy in children as an outcome, there is need for research that looks at the reciprocal effect of the literacy acquisition process upon the family. For example, Taylor (1986) argued that research had investigated the ways in which 6 family storybook reading helps children learn to read while neglecting the significance of that storybook reading for families. She suggested that researchers ask how reading stories was perceived by individual family members and how they used storybooks to mediate their experience of each other and their social and cultural worlds (p. 153). Some studies have documented that storybook reading is a rare event in low-income families (Teale, 1986; Wells, 1986). If literacy within the context of storybook reading is rare in low-income families, literacy within the context of school-related activities is not. For example, in the study reported by Teale, school-related activities ranked fourth (among nine domains) in frequency as well as duration among the literacy events observed in low-income families. In an earlier report on the same data, Anderson (1982) noted that homework of older siblings served as an important catalyst for literacy events witnessed by the low-income preschool children studied. Finally, studies of emergent literacy tend to focus on either the family or the school context, resulting in an incomplete picture of the child's total experience of literacy across microsystems. For example, McCormick and Mason (1986) based their inference that low-income families provided less support for literacy upon parent responses to questionnaires, while Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines (1988) based an unflattering portrait of school literacy instruction upon a single day's observation at school with only one child when their study involved four families and spanned several years. Proposed Research A central problem of literacy acquisition in non-mainstream children, then, seems to be not that they come to school lacking experiences with literacy, but that those experiences do not match the expectations and assumptions upon which schools base their programs. Conversely, the problem might be stated as the school's inability to .7 provide the programs and experiences that build upon the background that the children bring with them. Research suggests that non—mainstream parents want to help their children bridge this gap, but feel that they do not know how to do so (Anderson, 1982). From a human ecological perspective, the problem can be said to reside in the mesosystem or interface between the two microsystems with which the developing child interacts (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). This research project represents an attempt to fill the gaps mentioned above and to contribute toward a grounded theory of low-income children's emergent literacy within the context of the home-school interface. One way to focus on that interface is to look at the types of tasks with which schools expect parents to help children who are being introduced to reading and writing and at the interactions that occur as those tasks are completed. The decision to focus on this aspect of the interface between home and school grew out of the researcher's own grounding in specific theoretical perspectives of families, human development, and literacy acquisition, and from observations made in a kindergarten classroom during the preliminary phase of the study. The theoretical context for the proposed research will be outlined next, while the process of arriving at the focal topic of homework will be described in Chapter 3. Theogepical Context; for Study This study draws upon Bronfenbrenner's (1979) concept of multiple nested environments within which human development occurs, and the interface between those environments. It also attempts to integrate concepts from Family Ecology Theory, as it is being developed at Michigan State University (Bubolz 5 Sontag, in press), particularly those of the natural, physical-biological and human-built environments. This section will summarize key elements of both theories and suggest that each has relevance for the study of literacy acquisition, when that aspect of development is viewed from an emergent literacy perspective. 8 Eggpgent litepacy. Teale and Sulzby (1986) summarized the major components of the emergent literacy perspective as follows: Literacy development begins well before school: it consists in the interrelated development of writing, reading, listening, and speaking; it occurs in real-life settings and activities, with function being as important as form; it is an aspect of the important cognitive development that occurs before the age of six; like other learning, it occurs via active engagement with the world; it can be described as occurring in stages, but there is very wide variation among children (p. xviii). This realization that literacy is embedded in family life and that literacy acquisition begins within a family context suggests that the methods and theories of family studies might provide a fruitful avenue of inquiry into early literacy. Furthermore, in its emphasis upon the child as an active agent, constructing knowledge and meaning via interaction with persons and objects in the environment, the emergent literacy perspective is consonant with an ecosystems approach to human studies. Ecolpgy pf pumap dgvglopmgpt. Bronfenbrenner (1979) conceptualized the individual as existing and acting in relationship to a series of progressively more distant environments. He defined microsystem as "a pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person in a given setting with particular physical and material characteristics" (p. 22). For the young child, the microsystem would be the home, child care setting, or school. Interactions between these various microsystems comprise the mesosystem, and settings which do not directly involve the child, but in which events occur that affect, or are affected by the microsystem comprise the exosystem (p. 25). The actual or potential consistencies in the form and content of these systems, along with the organizing belief systems underlying them, comprise the macrosystem (p. 26). Bronfenbrenner conceptualized human development as increasingly complex and valid understanding of, as well as ability to impact, those successive environments (p. 27). He 9 hypothesized that learning and development were facilitated by the participation of the developing person in progressively more complex patterns of reciprocal activity with someone with whom that person has developed a strong and enduring emotional attachment and when the balance of power gradually shifts in favor of the developing person (p. 60). It is possible to map many of the concepts and findings of the emergent literacy perspective on to Bronfenbrenner's scheme. Literacy acquisition is an aspect of human development through which children gain a more complex and valid perception of their environments and the larger systems beyond, as well as the means by which they can impact those environments. Sulzby's (1985) proposed developmental sequence for children's emergent reading of favorite storybooks, building upon earlier work by Ninio (1983) and Ninio and Bruner (1978), seems almost a casebook example of "participation of the developing person in progressively more complex patterns of reciprocal activity with someone with whom that person has developed a strong and enduring emotional attachment" (Bronfenbrenner, p. 60) to achieve a more complex and valid understanding of the environment as reflected in, and influenced by, language and print. Having had a pleasurable experience looking at storybooks with parent or caregiver, the child attempts to read them alone, at first governed entirely by the picture, then gradually governed by the print. In between these phases, the child's stories take shape and begin to sound more like written than oral language, and attention shifts from the picture to the printed words. Bronfenbrenner's emphasis on reciprocal activity and emotional attachment as aspects of learning and development is borne out by several examples from the growing body of work on emergent literacy. Both of Taylor's studies (1983, 1986) are replete with examples of messages of love and affection produced by the young child for parents and other family members. Braig (1986) conducted a study involving the use of dialogue journals with six-, seven-, and eight-year olds and was struck by the intensity of the children's expression of affection and 10 regard for her as their writing progressed from personal representation to communicative functions. Bissex (1980) related an incident in which her five-year-old son, frustrated at being unable to distract her from her reading, presented her with an exasperated, rubber—stamped message, "'RUDF' (Are you deaf?i)' (p. 3). Family gcoiogy theory. Like Bronfenbrenner, Bubolz and Sontag (in press) conceptualized the human being as existing in and interacting with multiple environments. Unlike Bronfenbrenner, they were explicit in identifying one of those as the natural physical-biological environment, which they defined as consisting of unaltered natural phenomena. Human transformations and alterations of those natural phenomena comprise the human-built environment, while the social- cultural environment includes other humans along with their abstract cultural constructions and social and economic institutions. Within this scheme, literacy can be seen as involving several planes. Printed matter is part of the human-built environment and written language is a cultural construction and part of the social-cultural environment, along with the social and economic institutions that transmit and require literacy (families, schools, employers, forms of government). The physical environment is involved insofar as it is transformed to create written materials and the energy to read them. The ability to read, or the demand that one do so (for example, instead of playing outdoors as a young child), can also mediate one's knowledge of and relationship with the physical environment. Conversely, an understanding of the physical and social environments (including language), as well as one's relationships with them, forms the basis for the more specialized understanding that is called literacy. Perhaps the clearest explication of literacy as involving interactions across these environments is contained in Freire's (1987) autobiographical essay recounting his own development of literacy. For 11 Friere, reading the word flowed naturally from reading the world and his most meaningful literacy experiences maintained that connection. His own early childhood experiences were richly embedded in the physical natural world and the ...texts, words, letters of that context were incarnated in the song of the birds...in the dance of the boughs blown by strong winds announcing storms; in the thunder and lightning; in the rainwaters playing geography, creating lakes, islands, rivers, streams (p.32). His own sharpening perceptions of that world allowed him to form connections between the color, texture, and taste of ripening fruits and to diminish his childish terrors of ghosts imagined in the sounds and shadows of night. His first attempts to decipher written words were embedded in his reading of his world. I learned to read and write on the ground of the backyard of my house, in the shade of the mango trees, with words from my world rather than from the wider world of my parents. The earth was my blackboard, the sticks my chalk (p. 32). For his beloved first teacher "reading the word, the phrase, and the sentence never entailed a break with reading the world. With her, reading the word meant reading the word-world” (p.32). Just as his earliest reading experiences involved an active engagement with the physical environment, his later experiences with reading the word were made meaningful by the extent to which his teachers encouraged him to think critically about the relationships between the social-cultural and the human-built environments, and those experiences informed his own ideas about how to teach adults, which he viewed as a political act. He described using pictorial representations of various situations to provide contexts for written words which were selected from the "word universe" (Friere, 1987, p. 35) of the learners and thus were ”pregnant with the world" (p. 35). He claimed that the understanding of "how human practice or work transforms the world” (p. 36) derived from the pictures enabled them to reflect upon and modify their perceptions of the world, moving away from a fatalistic interpretation of their experiences. For Friere, "reading always 12 involves critical perception, interpretation, and rewriting of what is read” (p.36). Reading the word included reading the physical-biological, the human constructed, and the social-cultural worlds. Resegpch Qpestiops In qualitative research, the questions grow out of the research itself. Beginning with a general interest in the literacy acquisition of non-mainstream children in their home and school environments, the researcher entered a kindergarten classroom as a participant observer and gradually came to focus on homework as one indicator of the home- school interface. This process of initial data gathering and derivation of research questions will be more fully described in Chapter 3. The study was designed to answer the following questions: 1. How do families of non-mainstream kindergarten children respond to requests from school to help children with activities related to school tasks? 2. What is their understanding of those requests and how does that understanding compare with that of the teacher making the request? 3. What are possible outcomes of such participation? ngrational Defipipions Operational definitions of basic concepts were proposed as a point of departure for the research. Concepts of interest for developing grounded theory emerged from the data as they were collected and analyzed. Those concepts will be developed in subsequent chapters. Home-school interface: points of contact between the home and school, either through physical presence of individual members from one domain in the other, by actual written or verbal communication, or by assumptions based upon historical precedence or folk knowledge. Homework: activities performed at home by children, at the actual or inferred request of the child's teacher, with or without the assistance or involvement of family members. 13 Family: the kindergarten child, parents, siblings and other relatives occupying the same household. Family response: verbal and non-verbal behaviors of family members related to school-originated tasks. Mainstream: belonging to the category of white, middle-class, urban or suburban Americans. (Non-mainstream includes low-income as well as ethnic minority categories.) Understanding: the subjective meaning of a request or communication, as inferred from observed behavior and statements of the individual. Behaviors: Observable actions, including verbal and non-verbal. Literacy behaviors: Interactions with objects or other people involving actual or imitative reading or writing, or discussion thereof. Literacy: The ability to use written language to receive or convey information and meaning. Summary It has been proposed that literacy acquisition in non-mainstream kindergarten children be examined from an ecological perspective, focusing on homework as an indicator of the interface between family and school. Specific areas to be examined by the study include the process by which homework is completed in families; the families' understandings of homework tasks as compared to the teacher's; and possible outcomes of homework. The following chapter will present a preliminary review of literature. CHAPTER 2. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF LITERATURE Selection Criteria One of the assumptions of the qualitative method of research is that the researcher enter the field with limited preconceptions about the phenomenon to be studied. The studies reviewed below provide a context for the findings of this study and reflect the researcher's initial broad interest in literacy acquisition among non-mainstream families. The findings described are not proven or disproven by this study; rather, they provide additional slices of data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to formulate a more complete picture of early literacy in non-mainstream families. The researcher returned to the literature regarding homework and parent involvement after a preliminary analysis of her data. Those studies are reviewed and compared with the findings of this study in Chapter 10. The studies selected for review here were chosen because they are consonant with an emergent literacy as well as an ecological perspective. They are based on a view of literacy as intimately bound up with language and social development, and resulting from the active engagement of children with the people, language, and print in their environments, as contrasted with a concept of literacy as a single, well-defined ability, the origin of which can be fixed at a specific point in a child's development (Teale & Sulzby, 1986). The studies reviewed are limited to those that use qualitative methods to examine language and literacy acquisition among non-mainstream children, either focusing on home settings or comparing home and school settings. 14 15 Connecting Language and Literacy Vygotsky (cited in King, 1989) asserted that literacy exists on a developmental continuum of symbolism, beginning with speech and progressing through play and drawing to reading and writing. The complex and reciprocal relationships between these types of symbolism have been the focus of numerous studies. Looking at picture books with their parents, young children acquire new language (Ninio, 1983). Through conversation about those books, they negotiate meaning and learn culturally specific ways of taking from texts (Cochran-Smith, 1986). As children repeatedly experience books with adults, they move from conversation around those books to recreation of stories, using language that becomes more like written language, which they are able to map first upon the illustrations and later upon the print (Sulzby, 1985). Simply introducing storybook reading into a home where it had not been common practice has been shown to affect the way a mother interacted with her child, as well as the ways that child talked about experience (Heath, Branscombe, & Thomas, 1986; Heath, with Thomas, 1984). Retelling stories helps children move from speech to writing because it requires sustained discourse in which meaning is independent of situational factors, yet it does not require the child to organize and encode firsthand experience (King, 1989). Beginning writers talk as they write, and that talk is more relevant when the writing is spontaneous than when it consists of copying a model. Such talk appears to help children actively re-invent conventional rules for writing, and more talking/writing is associated with accelerated development, although talking decreases as writing ability increases (Blazer, 1986). Young children understand that writing can be generated from sources other than oral language and that it serves a variety of purposes, 16 including communication with others, aiding memory, self-expression, and learning (Freeman & Sanders, 1989). Comparing Home and School Miller (1982) studied the language development of three white, working-class girls over an eight-month period, beginning when each child was starting to combine words. In contrast to assumptions that working-class children's language development suffers as a result of deprivation, Miller found many similarities between these girls and their middle-class counterparts in the sequence of developing linguistic structures, in their strategies for mastering language, and in the support extended by their families. One important form of this support was direct instruction, which occurred in varying degrees in each family. Miller classified the instances she observed in seven categories: ”naming people and things; speaking appropriately; speaking appropriately to dolls; rhyming, singing, and playing verbal games; using correct grammar, pronunciation, and intonation; counting, reciting the alphabet, and identifying colors; and other” (p. 77). Miller later reexamined her video data with a particular focus on early reading and compared those findings with observations of first grade classrooms within the same working-class community (Miller, Nemoianu, & DeJong, 1986). The reading episodes which were observed involved naming, describing characters, scenes and activities, and storytelling. During these episodes adults demanded and then rewarded displays of competence in the children. However, these interactions were characterized by emotional intensity, warmth and closeness, whereas in school the adult-child interactions were more impersonal and complicated by the presence of peers whom the children viewed as competitors. The authors suggested that, since reading is embedded in 17 personal relationships which give meaning to print, the contrast between relationships at home and at school might be problematic for the working class children they studied, although they do not explain why it would not prove equally problematic for middle-class children who, presumably, enjoy a relationship with adults at home that is comparably warm, intense, and devoid of peer competition. They also found that the first-graders they observed tended to relate personal experiences in response to the stories read to them, and argued that schools should build upon this tendency to link personal and printed stories. Comparing Groups Heath (1982, 1983, 1986) studied three communities with distinct ethnic and socio-economic populations in the Carolina Piedmont and found marked differences in language socialization patterns and ways of taking information from texts. The language socialization patterns interacted with other cultural factors, such as use of time and space, patterns of leisure activity, acceptance of fantasy, and beliefs about adults as teachers and children as learners, all of which were reinforced by social-structural factors, such as access to resources like cars, and resulted in varying degrees of preparation for school success. The culture of mainstream families, regardless of race, was most similar to that of the school: books were highly valued, and children were encouraged to relate their content to life events and to answer evaluative or imaginative, as well as factual, questions. The "Roadville" families (Caucasian, rural, working class) emphasized nursery rhymes, accurate accounts of events, alphabet books, and factual questions. Children were allowed or encouraged to interact with the adult reading books to them until about the age of three, after which they were expected to sit still and listen passively. Story content was 18 not extended to real life situations. The ”Trackton" families (African— American, rural, working-class descendants of farmers) directed very little talk to children until they had acquired language. They encouraged children to tell entertaining, imaginative tales and asked them questions that required comparative analogies rather than simple identification of objects; however, they did not encourage children to explain either their stories or their analogies. Neither the Roadville nor Trackton children were as successful in school as the mainstream children. Although the Roadville children seemed to do well at first, they were unable to fulfill the school's demands for higher-level, imaginative thinking skills or to participate actively in book reading. The Trackton children, on the other hand, were unable to display the knowledge required by the school in answer to simple "what" and "why” questions. While Heath's broader ethnography of the three groups she studied considered literacy within the context of language and culture, Teale and his colleagues focused specifically on ”literacy events” in which children interacted with objects as if they were reading or writing (Teale, 1986). They conducted naturalistic observations of 24 low-income, Anglo, African-American, and Mexican preschool children, over periods ranging from three to eighteen months, and found great variety in the amount and types of literacy materials in the homes, as well as in the frequency and duration of literacy events; however, the differences could not be explained by social factors such as ethnicity, income, gender, family structure, or parent education. They reasoned that their findings with regard to ethnicity and income differed from Heath's because their participants were scattered across a broad urban area rather than clustered in cohesive communities. Qualitative analysis of the data revealed that literacy events were embedded in 19 social contexts across nine domains (defined by the actions of the participants as well as by their names for those actions): 1. Daily living routines (involving food, shelter, housekeeping). 2. Entertainment (instrumental, e.g., TV Guide; source, e.g., crossword puzzle) 3. School-related activity (school- and family-generated). 4. Work (directly related or search for). 5. Religion. 6. Interpersonal communication (cards and letters). 7. Participation in "information networks" (based upon participants' description of reading sports news). 8. Storybook time. A 9. Literacy for sake of teaching/learning literacy. The most frequently observed categories were daily living, literacy for sake of teaching/learning literacy, entertainment, and school-related activity. When duration of activity was considered, however, the order became entertainment, daily living, religion, school-related activity, and literacy for sake of teaching/learning literacy. All the children in this study experienced a wide variety of literacy activities, primarily as a social process, embedded in the ongoing flux of daily activities. On the other hand, they experienced very little literacy associated with the domain of work and storybook reading was a regular activity in only three of the twenty four families. Within these broad similarities, the distribution patterns of literacy events across the domains for individual families were widely varied, and influenced by social-structural factors (relations between families and outside institutions) and cultural (as distinct from ethnic) patterns, such as religion. Teale (1986) argued that the variation within this group of children challenged the assumption that 20 children of low socio-economic status come to school with a lack of literacy experiences. He further argued that the variation within the group could only be addressed by considering home background as a complex of economic, social, cultural, and personal factors. Taylor produced two long-term ethnographic studies of families with children who were successfully acquiring literacy: one involving six white, middle-class, suburban families (Taylor, 1983), and a second involving four low-income, minority families (Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines, .1988). Like Teale (1986) and his colleagues, she found that literacy experiences for young children were embedded in social interactions around the activities of daily life. She compared the uses of reading and writing she observed in her two sets of families with those reported by Heath. Heath's (1983) data suggested that non-mainstream children experienced all the types of reading and writing experienced by her mainstream subjects except for critical/educational reading and expository writing. In contrast, Taylor found no such distinction between the suburban and inner-city children she studied. Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines (1988) found that their inner-city families read sociohistorical, financial, and environmental material, and they used writing for instrumental, autobiographical, recreational, creative, educational, work—related, and environmental purposes in addition to those identified by Heath (1983). Because these categories emerged from the data for these researchers, it is difficult to make direct comparisons with the domains described by Teale (1986); however, it seems clear that literacy embedded in a wide variety of daily living activities is characteristic of the preschool experiences of all the children studied. 21 Summary This chapter has reviewed a selected body of research literature pertaining to literacy acquisition among non-mainstream children in family as well as school settings. The findings of these studies suggest that, while there are some differences between the early literacy experiences of non-mainstream children and their middle-class counterparts, the non-mainstream children nevertheless do come into contact with many forms of literacy before they enter school. These forms are embedded within ongoing family life and often associated with emotional intensity, warmth, and closeness. These findings provide a context within which to consider the findings of the present study. The following chapter will describe the methods and procedures used by the researcher. CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Initial Phase of Study In September 1990, with the approval of the University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) (Appendix A), the researcher began working one morning each week as a volunteer assistant to the teacher in a public-school kindergarten classroom. The researcher's area of interest was emergent literacy in non-mainstream children (i.e., ethnic minority and/or low-income), and the purpose of the classroom involvement was twofold: (a) to establish rapport with a pool of potential informants and (b) to collect observations of the children's use of spoken and written language from which to generate more narrowly defined research questions for the second phase of the study. As a family ecologist, the researcher's intention was to develop a second phase of the study which would include data gathered in family settings as well as in the school. This initial period of observation leading to formulation of the research problem and design is common to ethnographic studies (Agar, 1980; Jacob, 1982). The permission of the school district was obtained before approaching a teacher. The selection of a school for participant observation was made in consultation with the school district's coordinator of early childhood education and based upon the following reasons: 1. The population served by the school was predominantly African-American. 2. Many of the families using the school resided in an adjacent, Subsidized housing development for low-income residents. 3. The teacher in the kindergarten classroom was African-American 22 23 and, in the estimation of the early childhood coordinator, had demonstrated close rapport with families of children in her classroom. The researcher was Caucasian and an outsider, unknown to the families. The teacher’s acceptance of the researcher's presence was expected to facilitate subsequent contacts with families. 4. The teacher had several years of classroom experience and was acquainted with the researcher as a colleague in early childhood professional organizations. It was assumed that this background would increase the teacher's comfort with the observations and minimize the influence of a researcher's presence upon the teacher's usual classroom procedures. The researcher approached the teacher at the scheduled start of the 1990-1991 school year, described the project, and provided her with a copy of the proposal. She agreed to participate (Appendix B), but a teachers' strike postponed the actual starting date for another two weeks. The teacher said she thought there would be an opportunity to observe more reading and writing in the morning class because she had placed the youngest and least advanced children in a combination kindergarten and ”young fives” afternoon class. Confident that she would witness many examples of emergent literacy in either session, the researcher accepted the teacher's suggestion and agreed to observe the morning kindergarten session each Thursday during the school year. At an orientation meeting before the first day of school, the teacher introduced the researcher, who explained her purpose in general terms to the parents of all kindergarten children. This was followed by a letter sent home to each family with the children on the first day of school (Appendix C). Although it had been the researcher's intention, and her agreement with the teacher, to act as a volunteer assistant in the classroom thrOughout the year, she was not used in this capacity beyond the first few weeks. At the beginning of the year, the teacher assigned the 24 researcher specific tasks, such as helping the children make applesauce, but it soon became apparent that the teacher's customary curriculum had been planned without the expectation of adult help in the classroom, and the researcher's assumed duties evolved into preparation of various craft materials during the hour before children arrived as well as occasional assistance with distributing materials or supervising children during class. As a result, the researcher was able to make copious notes of her observations, including many verbatim records of language used in the classroom. These notes were expanded and transcribed to computer disk at the researcher's home immediately following the observations, with one or two exceptions when other commitments interfered and the notes were transcribed a day or two later. In addition to observing the classroom every Thursday morning, the researcher attended the parent orientation meeting mentioned previously, an evening open house, and two parent-teacher conference days. Each of these contacts was recorded in the same way as the classroom observations (Appendix D). Second Phase: Focus on Homework During the first few months of classroom participation, the researcher observed that the children's families were asked to assist the children with a number of activities at home and send objects or written records of these activities back to school. She also noted several differences in the ways families seemed to approach this ”homework." At the most obvious level, some children brought a great many assignments back, while others brought few or none. Furthermore, the appearance of the assignments suggested that the children had varying degrees of assistance with the drawing and printing; in some cases, the varieties of handwriting on returned assignments suggested that several different people helped the child with the activities. Finally, different families often did the same activity in 25 different ways and sometimes in ways that differed from what the teacher said she intended. For example, when asked to fill a page with words beginning with a particular letter of the alphabet, some families cut out pictures of objects, others out words from newspapers or magazines, and others simply printed lists of words in pencil or pen. Given booklets to fill with text and illustrations, almost all the families had an adult or older sibling print the text for the kindergarten child instead of printing on a separate paper for the child to copy, as the teacher said she wished. In one extreme example, the activity actually completed was entirely different from the activity described on the printed assignment: A child brought a cardboard diorama of the business college her mother attended instead of the collage that had been designated as that week's homework (Appendix E). Reflecting upon these observations, the researcher looked for a way to expand the study by observing families in the process of "doing homework” with their kindergarten children, in the hope of gaining insights about the ways the families did the homework, the meaning that the homework had for them, and the possible outcomes of the process. The research questions mentioned in the introductory chapter were formulated at this point. W In consultation with the teacher who, having taught at the same school for several years, had prior acquaintance with many of the families, it was decided that they would probably be most comfortable, and therefore most likely to volunteer their participation, if they were asked to tape record themselves as they worked with their children rather than to allow the researcher to observe them directly. A number of additional reasons contributed to the decision to use this method. First, it was not known when the families typically did the homework activities with their children and, for practical reasons, the researcher could not plan to be in their homes at any hour of the day or 26 evening. The alternatives of hoping to "catch" some homework activity during a given observation period or asking the families to "perform" the activities when she was present were both unacceptable. Providing the families with tape recorders to use whenever they might do homework with their children seemed the most flexible solution. Second, allowing the families to control what and when they recorded was a way of respecting their privacy and giving them a greater role as participants in, rather than subjects of, research. They were also offered the opportunity to erase any parts of any tape with which they were uncomfortable, and asked to assist the researcher in understanding what was said on the tapes or what was happening while they were made. Third, given that the act of observation always alters, to some extent, the phenomenon observed, it seemed no more likely that the families' behavior would be influenced by the presence of the tape recorder than it would by the presence of an outside observer. The fact that the families would be tape recording activities over a period of several months made it further unlikely that they would be able to maintain uncharacteristic patterns of interaction for that length of time. At the same time it should be noted that the homework situation itself is, in a way, "artificial," and the way families interact in this situation might be very different from the way they interact while having breakfast, for example, or even while reading and writing for personal reasons. Finally, the audio recordings could be analyzed in conjunction with observations of the children at school and the families at home as well as with the artifacts produced by the families during the recorded episodes. Such a triangulation of data would yield a more complete and accurate picture. In sum, it seemed that the gains of the method would outweigh the sacrifice of data that might have been obtained through observation in person. Therefore, the researcher sought and obtained 27 permission from the University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects to recruit volunteer families during the second semester of the school year (Appendix F). n c ants Seventeen children were enrolled in the kindergarten selected for observation. A detailed description of the ethnic and socio-economic composition of the group is presented in Chapter 4. Because all the families could be classified as non-mainstream (i.e., ethnic minority or low income), they were all invited to participate in the second phase of the study. In consultation with the dissertation committee, it had been determined that a minimum of four families was needed for the study and that enlisting six families would provide a cushion should one or more discontinue their participation for some reason. This number of participants is comparable to that in previous ethnographic studies of language and literacy in non-mainstream families (Miller, 1982; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988). The recruiting process began with a letter sent home with the children in mid-February (Appendix G). Two families volunteered almost immediately, and a week later, assuming that at least some families had never received and/or actually read the notes, the researcher began approaching parents who visited the classroom and telephoning the other families on the class list to request an appointment to explain the project in person. Four additional families agreed to participate after receiving such an explanation. The explanation followed the communication guidelines approved by the University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects (Appendix H). One family declined to participate, and some could not be reached by telephone. It was not feasible to work with more than six families, given the time requirements for home visits and transcribing tapes in addition to the ongoing classroom observations and transcription of notes; therefore, there were no further attempts to recruit participants once six families 28 had agreed to participate. The families participating in the study were not randomly selected; however, they were representative of the kindergarten class in several characteristics and correspond to what Glaser and Strauss (1967) have referred to as a theoretical sample as distinct from a statistical sample. They included families who frequently sent homework to school with their children as well as those who rarely did so. Four of the six were described by the teacher, based on her observations, as average in reading ability and the two others were described respectively as the class's poorest and best readers. The six children were also representative of the kindergarten group as a whole in terms of ethnicity, family composition, gender distribution, and income level. (See Table 1, Chapter 4.) D t 01 so 0 ocedures The procedures used were similar to those used by other researchers in the field of emergent literacy (e.g., Heath, Branscombe, & Thomas, 1986; Taylor, 1983 and 1986; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988). They included audio tape recording, interview, observation and collection of literacy artifacts. Augig pegorging. During the first visit with each family, the researcher provided a small tape recorder and adapter for use with electric current as well as a blank ninety-minute audio cassette, and demonstrated its operation. The audio recording occurred between February 25 and June 20, 1991. Five of the participating families were contacted by telephone at two to four week intervals to arrange appointments for reviewing completed cassettes and exchanging them for new blank ones. The sixth family had no telephone, so an attempt was made to schedule subsequent appointments during each visit. During the second visit with each family, the researcher reviewed the tape they had made and asked for clarification regarding the identity of the speakers and the circumstances surrounding the taping 29 (e.g., location, date, time of day, accompanying activities). In some homes the kindergarten child and his or her siblings participated in this process, while in others it was accomplished with only the mother present. Although all the families were offered the opportunity to erase any part of a tape that they might wish, none of them elected to do so. Some families seemed to enjoy this review while others seemed uncomfortable with it. For example, one mother went to another part of the room and sat with her back toward the table where her daughter and the researcher listened to the tape, although she did turn around to answer questions and smiled or laughed from time to time during the review. The families set the boundaries for all visits to retrieve tapes by naming the day and time that was convenient for them and letting the researcher know, both verbally and non-verbally, how much time they wished to devote to a particular visit. When a mother came to the door with tape in hand, for example, and it could be seen that she had a visitor, the researcher did not press to review the tape with her but simply asked a few informational questions about it and left her a new cassette. On three occasions, when mothers said they could not meet during a particular week, they sent completed tapes to school with their children. One family that sent a tape in this manner enclosed a note identifying the various speakers on the tape. The families also set the boundaries on what was actually taped. Because the researcher hoped to capture examples of spontaneous discussion of literacy or school related topics, she requested that the families simply start the tape recorder when they began a homework activity and leave it running until the tape ended. In actual practice, however, the families all controlled the content of the tape recordings by starting and stopping the recorder, sometimes several times within a single homework episode, and the researcher did not press them to do otherwise. One mother requested copies of the tapes for her daughter's 30 "school memoirs," and having agreed to provide them, the researcher offered to do the same for each of the other families. Four families said that they would like copies while the fifth mother declined, saying that she heard enough of her daughter's voice as it was. The researcher planned to obtain four tapes from each family and actually did obtain that number from four of the families. One family accidentally destroyed a completed tape before it could be retrieved and consequently produced only three tapes. The sixth family produced only two tapes. The researcher entered fieldnotes regarding these visits on a computer immediately upon her return home and transcribed the tapes as soon as possible thereafter (Appendix I). Intepviews. In addition to collecting the audiotapes of homework activities, the researcher interviewed the mothers of five of the children during the visit at which the final tape was retrieved. The researcher also interviewed the teacher at the end of the school year in order to verify patterns observed in the field notes and to elicit her ideas about language, literacy, and parent involvement with school-related tasks at home. The purpose for scheduling the interviews at the end of the school year was to minimize the possible influence that the interview process might have upon "typical" interaction patterns during the observations and taped activities, or upon other possible home-school interfaces. The interviews were structured around a series of questions regarding the participant's views of the homework activities and literacy in general, as well as the parents' own memories of early experiences with literacy at school and at home (Appendices J, K). The order in which these questions were asked, as well as the follow-up questions generated by the responses, varied with each interview in an attempt to allow the questions as well as the answers to be discovered from the informants (Spradley, 1979, p. 84). Each interview was tape recorded and transcribed onto computer disk at the researcher's home. 31 Because of a crisis that completely disrupted the home of the sixth child, it was impossible to interview that mother. It had been the researcher's intention to include other family members in the interview, especially those who had participated in the homework with the kindergarten child; however, this did not prove practical because these other participants were usually out of the home during the researcher's visits. Litepggy arpifacts. Throughout the school year, the researcher collected and photocopied the writing and drawing that the children did while she was in the classroom. She also asked the teacher to save the homework that the children brought back to school so that it could be photocopied before it was returned to the children. In this way it was possible to collect several examples for each child; however, it was impossible to determine how complete the collection was since the researcher was not at the school every day and, given the many other demands on the teacher's time and attention, she may have returned some assignments without saving them for the researcher. The usefulness of some of the data collected in this manner has been limited by the requirement (of UCRIHS) that pseudonyms rather than first names be used to identify the children in the study. Unfortunately, much of what beginning writers produce consists entirely of, or prominently features, their first names and when those names are masked for the sake of confidentiality, there is little left of the literacy artifact. If a similar study were to be undertaken in the future, a stronger argument should be made for retaining the use of children's first names, while protecting the families' confidentiality in other ways. At the initial visit and again at the final interview, the families were asked to provide examples of the children's writings and drawings produced at home; however, although several of them indicated that their child wrote often, none of them actually provided samples. The 32 researcher did not pursue the request between the first and last contacts because she did not want families to feel obligated to produce writing that would not have occurred otherwise. Observations of literacy artifacts or behaviors made during the home visits were recorded in fieldnotes and, during the final interview, parents were asked to help catalog all the items in the home that they felt might help a child learn to read or write. .Data Analysis The study was intended to generate categories, properties and propositions rather than to ”prove" any given hypotheses regarding non-mainstream families and literacy. Therefore, the method appropriate to quantitative studies of sequentially collecting, coding, and then analyzing data would have been inappropriate. Instead, data were coded and analyzed in a recursive process, using the grounded theory procedures and techniques outlined by Strauss and Corbin (1990). Following these procedures, the researcher examined and re-examined transcriptions of fieldnotes and tape recordings in order to identify concepts and to develop their properties and dimensions. As concepts began to emerge, they were grouped to form categories. Specifically, the researcher listened to each tape several times and compiled charts comparing the assignments completed by each child. These data were compared with the material artifacts collected and the fieldnotes based on classroom observations. The earliest categories to emerge centered around the types of homework and the families' perceptions of the purposes of the homework. As the researcher continually compared the transcripts of the individual families engaged in the various types of homework, a core category, variation in homework styles, began to emerge, around which all other categories could be integrated. The method relies on theoretical sampling in which incidents (as opposed to persons) are sampled in order to gather data related to each 33 component of the model. According to Strauss and Corbin (1990), theory that evolves from the study of a phenomenon in a single situational context is substantive theory, whereas the study of a phenomenon under a broad variety of situations yields a formal theory. This method is analogous to, and compatible with, the developmental research sequence described by Spradley (1979), in which ethnographic data are analyzed to derive domains, taxonomies, and cultural themes, which can be interrelated in thesis statements in written presentations of findings. As the researcher moves through these levels of analysis, data gathering continues, and descriptive questions give way to structural and then contrast questions. In either terminology, a central concern of the researcher is to understand some aspect of ”reality" from the perspective of the people who experience it. In order to accomplish this, the researcher must be prepared to move in a cyclical and recursive fashion between the processes of gathering and analyzing data. Validity Validity is a measure of the extent to which a scientific explanation of the world matches actual conditions in that world. Internal validity exists when the research actually measures or describes what it purports to measure or describe. External validity refers to applicability of findings across groups. According to LeCompte and Goetz (1982) the former is a special strength of ethnographic research, while the latter poses a special problem. The high level of internal validity in ethnographic research design derives from its particular methods of data collection and analysis, all of which are aspects of the present study. First, extended periods of field research allow continual data analysis and comparison, leading to a greater match between the researcher's constructs and the participant's reality. This match is further assured by an emphasis on 34 ethnographic interviewing which elicits the participants' categories rather than imposing abstractions, and on participant observation in "real life" as opposed to contrived settings. Finally, analysis involves self-monitoring by the researcher to acknowledge and minimize the intrusion of the researcher's subjectivity. The present study incorporates data from ten months of participant observation in multiple settings. Classroom observations occurred over an entire school year, and family interactions were recorded at intervals over a four-month period. Observations were recorded as objectively as possible, using verbatim conversations. Tape recordings of interactions between parents and children were transcribed with the assistance of participants to minimize misunderstandings due to the different social and ethnic background of the researcher. Triangulation of data from observation, interview, and artifacts helped to understand the meaning which participants attributed to phenomena, and these meanings were cross-checked with informants. External validity may be approached, if not attained, in a study in which the informants are drawn from such a limited pool. However, the constructs generated by this study can be compared to those generated by similar studies with other groups. Discrepancies would suggest a need for further study in other populations. In any event, no claim is made for the applicability of these findings to groups other than the one studied. Reliability External reliability refers to the extent to which a study could be replicated by another researcher. It is addressed in this study by providing a detailed description of the strategies used for collecting and analyzing data. The role and status of the researcher within the settings studied have been made clear so that subsequent investigators could supplement this study from other perspectives. To supplement this 35 information, it is noted that the researcher's background includes her own inner-city childhood and a combined total of nearly twenty years' experience as a teacher of young minority and low-income children and as a consultant to programs for children. In a course on family research techniques at Michigan State University, she conducted a pilot study, focusing on language and literacy behaviors in a low-income family, which incorporated many of the methods used in this study. The process for selecting informants for this study has been described, and detailed descriptions of the actual informants as well as the physical, social, and interpersonal contexts within which data were gathered are included in the presentation of findings. Finally, the theoretical constructs underlying the findings have been made explicit in an introductory and a summary chapter. Internal reliability refers to the degree to which several observers within a single study would agree. Because this study uses a single researcher, there is a danger of producing idiosyncratic rather than systematic observations. This problem is addressed by several methods: 1. Low-inference descriptors are used to record field notes in rich detail, including verbatim conversations wherever practical. This provides a rich base of primary data to support findings and allows the reader to make independent judgments of the reliability of this researcher's interpretation of reality. 2. Mechanical recordings of interactions within the home have been transcribed with the assistance of participants to assure accuracy. 3. Observations, and more particularly, inferences, have been verified by checking with participants. 4. Field notes and analyses have been scrutinized by the research advisor in an effort to check for bias or idiosyncracies. 36 Protection of Human Subjects Several precautions have been taken to protect the human subjects involved in the study. First, the majority of the study consists of unobtrusive participant observation within the children's classroom. The researcher acted as a volunteer assistant to the teacher, which is a role that many, if not most, children as well as parents have encountered in their previous experiences with preschool or daycare. The rapport developed with children (and with some parents) in this setting was assumed to make both children and parents reasonably comfortable with the prospect of the researcher's presence in the home for specific purposes. Written parental consent was obtained before families were visited or interviewed at home. In addition, the children's right to consent to or decline participation in the project was respected (Fine & Sandstrom, 1988). The tape recording and follow-up observations and interviews conducted in the home intruded as little as possible on the families' daily life and, in fact, seemed to be enjoyable for many of them. Families were informed that they had the right to discontinue participation in the study at any time. Confidentiality was protected at each stage of data collection and presentation of findings. Only the first names of children and first names or initials of school personnel were used in fieldnotes. Code names were used to label and transcribe the audiotapes made by the families as well as the tape recorded interviews. Data codes were kept at the researcher's home with no access to anyone else and will be destroyed when no longer needed. Prior to transcription and analysis, families had the option to delete from the tapes any material which they deemed sensitive or confidential. Tapes and transcripts are being retained by the researcher for possible subsequent reanalysis, but without any identifying information that would link the content to a specific person or family. The names of all individuals in this 37 presentation of findings have been coded, as have the names of the school and communities involved. Risk-Benefit Analysis The risk for families and children involved in this project seems to have been limited to a loss of privacy and perhaps some initial discomfort with the taping or observation/interview process. That risk was minimized as described above. The potential benefits include the enjoyment mentioned by some of the families who participated. The teacher gained an extra pair of hands one morning each week to help with preparation of class materials, and the children in the classroom benefitted on occasion from the addition of another adult's attention. Long range benefits for children could include more appropriate programs at school and more productively involved parents. The larger society may benefit as well if the study yields information that helps both schools and families to meet the needs of children more fully. Presenting the Findings In the process of writing this presentation of findings, the researcher struggled with two issues. First, it was necessary to develop some coherent system of citing multiple data sources. Second, the researcher wanted to preserve the actual voices of the participants as nearly as possible without sacrificing readability or resorting to an insulting parody of their language. W As mentioned, observations in the classroom and during home visits were recorded in fieldnotes on the day they occurred. Findings and examples drawn from these notes are identified as such, with the relevant date, immediately following each reference. Each tape recording of homework activity was made by a family over a period of several weeks, and the families were not asked to record the precise 38 date on which they completed any particular activity, although some of the tapes contain references to dates. Quotations from these tape recordings are identified by the date on which the recording was retrieved from the family. Quotations from interviews with the teacher or with parents are identified as such, with the date of the interview. La a e Most of the participants in this study spoke Black English, which is a variant of Standard English with its own rules for grammar and pronunciation. In transcribing the verbatim conversations recorded in fieldnotes, as well as the homework activities and interviews recorded on tape, an attempt has been made to render the flavor of the participants' actual language by including some of its characteristic features. A more precise representation of the language would have required phonetic transcription which was beyond the needs of the study, as well as the present skills of the researcher. The inclusion of these forms should not be construed as a reflection upon the "correctness” of the participants' language, and it should also be recognized that a verbatim record of the speech of even so-called Standard English speakers would reveal several deviations from its accepted written forms (e.g., "gonna" for ”going to"). Summary This study of families doing homework with their kindergarten children evolved as the researcher pursued a more general interest in emergent literacy among non-mainstream children. The research questions arose from the early field observations and the research procedures were refined with input from the participants. Research methods and procedures have been described in detail to enable the reader to make informed judgments about the credibility of the findings which will be presented in subsequent chapters. The following chapter provides a description of the research setting. CHAPTER 4. THE SETTING Although part of a mid-size industrial city's school system, Cooper Elementary School (as it will be known for this report), serving about 250 children, sits at the boundary between that district and the surrounding rural area. Large, uncultivated fields lie to the northeast of the school building as well as beyond the two housing clusters on either side of the school. School is a short walk away for elementary age children in these neighborhoods, although their older brothers and sisters ride city buses to the junior high and high school on the city's east side. Just across the main road to the south of the school, all children ride buses to their schools in the adjacent suburban district. The Neighborhood The two housing clusters served by Cooper Elementary comprise two distinct neighborhoods. To the southeast of the school is Plainfield Village, a subsidized housing development with graduated rents based upon income and family size. The housing units are two-story rows of brick townhouses, arranged in a series of U-formations around asphalted cul-de-sacs, which provide space for parking and large garbage dumpsters. Narrow sidewalks ring the parking areas and lead through small lawns to the front door of each unit, while the back door opens onto large, shared, grass-covered expanses. In warm weather, some residents work on their cars in front of the homes while others sit on their front step or in lawnchairs on the sidewalk and children play on the grassy slopes. To the northwest of the school, beyond the asphalted playground and the grass-covered ballfield, is Meadowview, a residential area comprised of modest single-family dwellings, most of which are one-story frame 39 40 construction, with small lawns in front and paved driveways between the houses. During the day at least, there is less observable human a“tiarity in this neighborhood than in Plainfield Village. While the ethnic make-up of both communities is diverse, comprised of M-:1-‘:L<=an-American, Hispanic, and Caucasian families, the residents of Plfiinfield Village are predominantly African-American. Although both neighborhoods appear peaceful and reasonably well ma"Lutained to an outsider's eye, beneath this placid surface, families in these communities are struggling with many of the problems common to “than inner cities. Both the kindergarten teacher and a mother of one of the children alluded to illegal drug traffic occurring in Plainfield village, and two mothers expressed fear for their children's safety when tlfley played outside (Fieldnotes 10/11/90, 2/23/91). One mother forbade he: adolescent son to attend the funeral of a classmate who had been killed in a gang-related shooting and said she wanted to move from the neighborhood as soon as possible (Fieldnotes 4/12/91). She also reported that, a few doors from her home, police had arrested a man wanted for multiple murders in another state (Interview 6/13/91). Several children in the kindergarten class experienced violence within their own families as well as in their neighborhoods. A girl who lived in Plainfield Village reported that her grandfather had died when his girlfriend shot him in the mouth, and her mother confirmed the accuracy of the report (Fieldnotes 6/13/91; Interview 6/20/91). The father of a boy who lived in Meadowview was serving a prison term for beating and abducting his wife, and at the end of the school year, five Children were removed from another home in Meadowview because, according to social service authorities, their mother was involved with a man who was alcoholic and brandished firearms in their presence (Interview 6/5/91; Fieldnotes 6/13/91). 41 The School Cooper Elementary is a two-story brick building oriented on a northeast-southwest axis, with classrooms on either side of a single hallway. Decorative split-rail fencing defines small grassy areas at the front of the school, which faces southeast. A parking area separates the building from the street, which in turn separates the school from Plainfield Village. A metal and glass shelter on that street is where junior high and high school students congregate each morning, waiting for their city buses. To the south of the school and parking lot is another grassy area, surrounded with a tall chain link fence, which a few years ago was the Cooper School garden, the project of a former principal (Fieldnotes 5/30/91). The children were reminded periodically that, to preserve the appearance of the school, they were not to sit on the decorative fencing, nor to run on the grass. Inside, terrazzo floors in the school corridors were polished and buffed to a high sheen throughout the school year. They led past a glass-enclosed office, school clinic, teachers' lounge, and school library to the south end of the first floor where the kindergarten, junior first, and first grade were housed. The corridors were brightly lighted and usually lined with displays of children's work. The second floor housed the upper grades as well as some adult education classes. At an orientation meeting attended by the parents of 28 (of the 34 enrolled) kindergartners, the teacher said she was proud of the family atmosphere at Cooper Elementary, where parents, teachers, and staff all worked together (Fieldnotes 9/19/90). Later in the year, she credited the low absenteeism rate in kindergarten to the school's policy of telephoning the home of each absent child to verify the reason for the absence, just as she attributed the high attendance at parent conferences to a similar policy of telephoning parents who failed to sign up or keep appointments (Fieldnotes 11/8/90, 1/10/91). In one 42 instance, when a mother without a telephone failed to keep appointments regarding her several children, the principal went to the home to inform her that the appointments had been rescheduled for that afternoon and she was expected to attend (Fieldnotes 4/25/91). The Morning Kindergarten Class: People The 1990-1991 kindergarten class at Cooper Elementary was initially comprised of 34 children, and although a few children left during the year and a few others came, the number did not fluctuate far from the initial 34. Seventeen of these attended the morning session, which was observed by the researcher throughout the school year. Table 1 summarizes some of the family characteristics for the 17 children in the class. The one Caucasian child left the group when her family moved to another state in February. All but one of the children were eligible for the school's free breakfast program on the basis of their family income. Five of the children lived in the private housing of Meadowview, the remainder in the subsidized townhouses of Plainfield Village. Nine of the seventeen had been in preschool with the same kindergarten teacher during the previous year, while all but one of the remaining children had attended some other preschool or daycare center. Several families had a longer association with the school. The kindergarten teacher had taught the older siblings of two children when they were in preschool, and three mothers told the researcher that they themselves had attended Cooper Elementary as children. Mrs. Peters, a tall, slender African-American woman who looked younger than her 55 years, had been at Cooper Elementary for several years, having taught preschool, then a split schedule of preschool and kindergarten, and finally a double session of kindergarten. She was well liked by children, parents, and school staff. The principal described her as "very professional" (Fieldnotes 9/19/90), former 43 Table 1. Morning Kindergarten Class 1990-1991 Gender Neighborhood Ethnicity Father Older Younger Family Present Siblings Siblings Income (Other Source Children) *M Meadowview Hispanic - 0 1(1) ADC *F Plainfield Afric.Am. - 1 0 ADC F Plainfield Biracial - 0 0 ADC F Meadowview Afric.Am. - 1 2 ADC M Plainfield Afric.Am. - l 1 ADC F Meadowview Caucasian - 0 2 ADC F Plainfield Afric.Am. - 0 1 ADC F Plainfield Afric.Am. - 0 0 ADC *F Meadowview Afric.Am. - 4 0(1) ADC *F Plainfield Afric.Am. - 1 0 ADC F Meadowview Afric.Am. (foster) 3 1 Employed F Plainfield Afric.Am. - 0 1 ADC *F Plainfield Afric.Am. + 1 3 Employed F Plainfield Afric.Am. - 0 0 ADC F Plainfield Biracial - 2 1 ADC *M Plainfield Afric.Am. -/+ 2 0 ADC M Plainfield Afric.Am. - 0 0 Employed *Children whose parents agreed to participate in homework project during second semester (Danny, Lisa, Regina, Toyah, Cindy, Michael). students broke into broad grins or ran up to hug her when they encountered her in the hallway (Fieldnotes 9/20/90), and parents of former students went out of their way to stop in and visit her during the fall open house at school (Fieldnotes 10/17/91). At the end of the school year, parents in both morning and afternoon sessions came to the school office to obtain lists of telephone numbers so they could organize secret collections for gifts for her and she became visibly moved when telling the researcher about the gesture (Fieldnotes 6/20/91). One mother said she wished her daughter could stay with Mrs. Peters for more than the two years she had been with her already. She just teach the kids and they either do it or she gonna make 'em do it. Toyah said she's mean. I said she's not mean, she just wants you to learn. Cause she wants you to do at your age, she wants you to be right where your age group should be. And she do. I wouldn't have no--oh, I'm so proud of her (Toyah's mother: Interview, 6/13/91). 44 For her part, Mrs. Peters seems to extend herself in a number of ways that would merit this sort of attachment. At the orientation meeting in September she told parents that she hoped they would communicate with her often, not only about their children or school matters, but about anything that might be troubling them which could be lightened by just having someone to listen (Fieldnotes 9/19/90). In addition to providing cookie and candy treats for holiday parties and classroom rewards throughout the year, she used her own money to buy warm winter coats for two girls in the morning class who lacked them and asked the principal to present them anonymously. When her generosity was commented upon, she explained her action as an attempt to live the lessons she learned at Bible study each week (Fieldnotes 2/7/91). Classroom Environment: Space and Time The kindergarten classroom measured approximately 25' X 40', with a self-contained bathroom, low counters along two walls, a chalkboard along a third, and coat hooks, closets, and entry door on the fourth. About two thirds of the room was carpeted. The bulk of the room was occupied by children's work tables. Each table seated two and contained individual shelves for storing crayons or other materials. The tables were clustered in four groups, each allowing four or five children to sit facing each other, and Mrs. Peters assigned children to particular places by taping to the surface of the table a tagboard card on which their first names were printed. Since the tables were occupied by different children in the morning and afternoon, each table was labelled with two names. At the beginning of the year Mrs. Peters assigned one of the four boys in the morning class to each cluster of tables. Later in the year she assigned all four boys to a single cluster. A single table was situated in the center of the four clusters and usually contained bins of crayons and stacks of mimeographed drawings. The uncarpeted end of the room contained a floor-level sandbox 45 (approximately 4' X 4') and a large round table where children sometimes worked with an adult on some project, such as frosting a cake. At the other end of the room, near the chalkboard, three lengths of masking tape had been stretched in parallel lines on the carpet to indicate where children were to sit for group discussions or listening to stories. A piano, placed so that it was perpendicular to the chalkboard, separated this group area from the corner which was designated as the housekeeping area. The space allotted to this area (approximately 5' X 5') was almost completely occupied by the child-size furniture items: stove, sink, refrigerator, table, chairs, doll beds, ironing board, pushcarts. A low wooden divider separated the housekeeping area from the carpeted area in front of the coat hooks where the children often pulled out and built with a supply of wooden blocks stored in a cardboard box. A refrigerator, teacher's desk, and file cabinet bounded this area on one side, and behind the teacher's desk, under another set of unused coat hooks, were four small plastic stools where children could sit to look at picture books while they listened to accompanying cassettes through headphones. About a third of the wall opposite the door was comprised of a large window that let in the morning sunlight and contained several houseplants, some hanging from above and some stacked among the various supplies on the shelf in front of the window. Children's paper craft projects covered bulletin boards on three walls and hung suspended from the ceiling throughout the room. A mother commented at the fall open house that the room ”looked happy” (Fieldnotes 10/17/90). Children who arrived before the school bell rang at 8:50 a.m. stood outside the school or in the hall outside the school office. The one child who customarily appeared at the classroom door a few moments early was told to wait there until the bell rang because it would not be fair to the other children to let him come in early. When the bell did ring, the children poured into the room, full of conversation about the cold 46 weather or some other notable event that occurred on the way to school. They hung up their coats, put books or homework papers in the assigned places, and helped themselves to breakfast, which was set out on the counter near the sink. They carried the food to their assigned seats and continued chatting with each other or with Mrs. Peters as they ate. Those that chose not to eat breakfast, and those that finished before the others, moved to the taped lines at the front of the room and selected books to look at from a collection stored in a wooden wagon. While the children ate, Mrs. Peters took attendance, responded to individual children's comments and, at frequent intervals, reminded them to "eat instead of talking so much" so that they would finish "on time." After about fifteen minutes she told them that they should be finished with breakfast and, by 9:10, she assembled the group on the carpet at the front of the room. After reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and singing "My Country 'Tis of Thee" with the children, Mrs. Peters asked them the day and date. She printed this information on the chalkboard after coaching a selected child to pin the appropriate number to the calendar on the bulletin board. Following these rituals, Mrs. Peters explained the children's seatwork assignments for the day, usually a "writing" assignment that involved copying print and pictures from the board, followed by an "art” project that required the children to cut, paste, color, and/or assemble various construction paper components to produce an object similar to the model provided by the teacher. On several occasions during the year, she explained to the researcher that these projects were intended to provide the children with much needed practice in skills such as following directions, cutting, or folding paper. Children were released from group to begin work on these activities at their seats between 9:30 and 9:45. As they worked they talked and argued with each other about a variety of topics: who would finish first or who had taken someone's crayon of a particularly popular color. Mrs. 47 Peters circulated among the tables, answering questions, repeating instructions, or redirecting children's attention to the work at hand. She frequently commented that the children were talking too much and would not finish their work in time to have "free time." Sometimes she mentioned before school that there had been so much work to do that they had not had "free time" all week and so she particularly wanted to provide time for it on that day. She said that she would like the children to have more free time and do less copying from the chalkboard, but she felt that she must prepare the children for what she said would be entire days of such work in first grade and beyond. She often mentioned the pressure she felt from the teachers in the later grades to send them children who could sit still, print well, and recognize beginning sounds. As children completed their assignments and had them checked and approved by Mrs. Peters, they were allowed to select an area in which to spend their free time. No more than three were allowed in the housekeeping area and, perhaps because of this proscription, this seemed to be the most popular area. As children neared the completion of their tasks, they kept an eye on the housekeeping area and announced to one another as each of the available places was taken. By about 10:30 all the children were usually engaged in some free time activity: digging in the sandbox, rolling out playdoh, assembling puzzles, listening to recorded stories, or drawing on the chalkboard. After about fifteen minutes, Mrs. Peters flashed the lights off and on to signal that children were to put away their materials and reassemble on the carpet for another group activity, perhaps a story read by the teacher or some other exercise, such as taking turns naming pictures of foods and telling the group something about them. Sometimes this was a phonics lesson or an exercise in graphing that Mrs. Peters said she knew the children would not comprehend, but she wanted them to have a small taste of what they would be expected to do in first grade. This was also the 48 time that Mrs. Peters reviewed the homework that children had brought in, reading the stories in their booklets or asking them questions about the pictures pasted on their papers. At about 11:15, children got their coats on and Mrs. Peters distributed papers that they were to take home. Fifth graders wearing orange safety patrol belts came into the room just before dismissal and escorted the kindergartners out at 11:30. Ecological Contexts The foregoing description portrays a kindergarten classroom within its context of school and community. The classroom, like the family, is a microsystem within which human development occurs, and the interface between these microsystems comprises a mesosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The focus of this study is on that interface, in particular as it is manifested in homework activities. However, just as the homework represented some of the school's specific impact upon the families, there were a number of ways in which ”outside” environments were reflected in the classroom, and brief mention of some of those manifestations will be made here to help place the study within its ecological framework. Following Bronfenbrenner's scheme, those "outside” environments might be viewed as concentric systems, with the exosystem existing outside both the school and family settings as the locus of events which, while not directly involving the kindergarten children, nevertheless affect or are affected by them. The macrosystem, again following Bronfenbrenner, is conceptualized as the social or cultural patterns which underlie the system and distinguish it from similar systems in other countries or within other subcultures within this country. At the mesosystem level, the children's experiences within their homes and families penetrated almost every aspect of their classroom life. Some of the most striking evidence of this interface occurred within their play and their conversations as they completed their 49 seatwork assignments; these glimpses of the experiences that the children brought to school with them ranged from the benign and even humorous to the opposite extreme. The pervasiveness of the electronic media was reflected in the almost daily references to ”Freddy Krueger," a monstrous character in a currently popular series of slasher films; in the boys' leaps and pirouettes as they imitated their basketball heroes; and in the spontaneous rendition of a song from a television commercial for a candy bar that the children received on Valentine's Day (Fieldnotes 2/14/91). The children's experiences of family life were reflected in comments like that of one girl who told the boys in the housekeeping area, "Then you need some women" (Fieldnotes 4/25/91), and an argument about whether ”everyone has a father" (Fieldnotes 5/23/91). Another girl performed what must have been a perfect imitation of her mother, cooed as she peeled a recalcitrant playdoh piecrust from the table, "Come on, baby, come on now" and moments later, warned her friend, "My mama said if you do drugs you know what gonna happen? You gonna die" (Fieldnotes 1/17/91). The children spoke often and matter-of-factly about arrests they had witnessed or shootings they knew about, but they revealed the five-year-old reality of this apparent wisdom beyond their years when a discussion about running away and going into a foster home where "you do your own cooking" led to one girl's anxious question, ”What if you don't know how?" (Fieldnotes 3/14/91). At the exosystem level, a state budget crisis led to decreases in the welfare grants that comprised the family income for almost all the kindergarten children. One child's mother, confined to a wheelchair following surgery, undertook to organize a series of weekly protest marches at the local offices of the welfare agency and was featured in an article in the local newspaper (Fieldnotes 3/14/91). An aspect of the macrosystem became apparent when the United States initiated an attack on Iraq in January, 1991. It had been widely reported that 50 African-Americans were disproportionately represented among the 0.8. troops in the Middle East, and that fact was underscored by the number of children who raised their hands when their teacher asked how many knew someone "over there." One child said that her mother had been crying because her cousin was there; another said she saw her friend in church and she was crying; a third said she was "up half the night watching. They was shooting and had bombs.” Some children thought the bombs would be dropping on them next (Fieldnotes 1/17/91). Summary This chapter has described the natural physical—biological, human- built, and social-cultural environments of the families and children who participated in this study. Meadowview and Plainfield Village are two distinct neighborhoods, existing at the boundary of a small industrial city and its rural environs. Children from these neighborhoods attend Cooper Elementary where staff pride themselves on the high degree of cooperation they elicit from parents in matters of school attendance and participation in parent-teacher conferences. Mrs. Peters, the kindergarten teacher, is seen as warm and caring by the families of her pupils, and she works hard to prepare the children for what she feels will be required by later grades. The following chapter describes the six families who agreed to participate in the second phase of the study. Because it is the presence of the child within each microsystem (the school and the family) that creates the mesosystem or interface between these microsystems, the description of each family will begin with a description of the kindergarten child, based upon observations at school as well as at home. In addition to providing a context for the homework activities which are the focus of this study, this reflects the order of the researcher's own experience in coming to know the children, first at school and then, later, in their home environments. CHAPTER 5. THE CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES The previous chapter described the morning kindergarten class at Cooper Elementary, as well as its school and community environments. This chapter will acquaint the reader with the six children in that classroom who participated, along with their families, in the study of homework. For the researcher, the voices engaged in homework activities on the tape recordings belonged to flesh-and-blood children whose unique personalities had been revealed over months of classroom observation. In the process of collecting the data on homework, the researcher also became acquainted with the family members who worked with the children and the settings in which they did so. The researcher's intent here is to ”recapitulate the cultural scene" so that readers might envision that scene as she witnessed it (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984, p. 2). Cindy's Family Cindy was a sturdily-built girl who leaned slightly forward from the waist as she walked and wore a solemn expression on her face that was exaggerated by her dark, thick eyebrows, so that the mother of one of her classmates commented that she "looks so serious all the time” (Fieldnotes 1/10/91). She was frequently a few minutes late arriving for school and watched the class silently as she removed and hung up her outer wraps. Her dresses, jackets, and snowsuits always appeared new and freshly pressed. She carried a plastic box to school each day, containing her own crayons, pencils, glue and other supplies, which she used to complete her seatwork. After carrying her breakfast to her seat, she closed her eyes, folded her hands, and murmured a quiet grace before eating it. When a question was put to the group, Cindy's hand was the first 51 52 one up and, although occasionally she was unable to follow through with a response when actually called upon (Fieldnotes 10/18/91), she usually produced lengthy comments or explanations for the topic at hand, as in the following example of her answer to the student teacher's question about the meaning of "responsibility": Like when you're home do what your mama says--sweep the floor, wash the dishes....Without your mother telling you to, you make up your bed and wash the dishes (Fieldnotes 1/31/91). She often compared new information with her own knowledge and experience. Once Mrs. Peters showed the children a picture of a family on a picnic and, after eliciting their answers to a question about the color of the blue and white checked tablecloth, commented that another name for it would be ”checkered." Cindy, apparently reminded by that word of her own experience with the game of checkers, said, "I knew checkered but it didn't have no black on it" (Fieldnotes 10/11/90). She also used this knowledge to challenge the ideas of her classmates. Several of the children had single mothers who either married or planned weddings during the school year. Whenever it came up in school, the subject of marriage elicited raucous laughter and giddy conversations among the children about kissing and hugging, accompanied by choruses of ”Oooooohi" Cindy's response to one of these outbursts was that her mom and dad were already married and they kissed and hugged, that when her cousin got married, they kissed too, and it was "not no big deal" (Fieldnotes 1/3/91). When another child proclaimed loudly, ”I ain't got no dad,” Cindy countered authoritatively that "Everybody has a dad” (Fieldnotes 5/24/91). Cindy lived in Plainfield Village, with her mother, father, and four sisters, aged ten, four, two, and one. Her older sister was in the fifth grade at Cooper Elementary and her four-year-old sister attended a cooperative nursery school across town. Cindy's mother, Ruth, was one of the first to volunteer to participate in the study, just as she had volunteered at the parent orientation meeting to come in and help in the 53 classroom whenever needed (Fieldnotes 9/19/91). The floor plan of Cindy's home was identical to others in the complex, with a narrow corridor leading past a small galley kitchen to a combination living and dining room. The living room was carpeted and furnished with upholstered chairs and sofa, a television, and several tables bearing plants, pictures, or decorative items. The dining table at the other end of the room was surrounded by chairs and a highchair for the baby. An upright piano was squeezed into the space between the table and the wall, with a playpen next to it in one corner and a stack of cardboard boxes in the other, full of drawings and school papers brought home by the three oldest children. During an initial visit to explain the study and provide a tape recorder at 4:00 on a Saturday afternoon, the house was quiet and darkened. Ruth was wearing a cotton housecoat and invited the researcher in to sit at her dining table. The baby, dressed in a fleecy blue sleeper, stood in the playpen and watched with a solemn expression from beneath thick, dark eyebrows like Cindy's. Ruth explained that it was naptime and the other children were sleeping upstairs. This arrangement was apparently purposeful, for on subsequent visits, with one exception, the children were either napping, outside, or upstairs playing, and Ruth would allow Cindy to come in toward the end of the visit because, she said, she would be disappointed otherwise. Ruth appeared to manage her large family and busy household with ease, remaining calm and cheerful in spite of occasional crises such as a sick baby or automobile breakdown which required her to rearrange appointments (Fieldnotes 3/16/91, 6/1/91). She apologized profusely when she scheduled one of the home visits for the same time that she was to be at school for a parent-teacher conference, and displayed the large calendar in her kitchen where she recorded upcoming events using a color-coding system to identify various categories, e.g., red for things pertaining to her children (Fieldnotes 4/18/91). Her children responded 54 to her questions with ”Yes, ma'am," or "No, ma'am," particularly when she was reviewing household rules, but also when she asked them something about a story she had just read (Fieldnotes 4/18/91, Tape 3/16/91). During the first home visit to retrieve a tape, however, Ruth's plans for a quiet conversation did not materialize. Cindy and her sisters were sitting on the front steps when the researcher arrived, and Ruth was negotiating with her ten-year-old daughter to take the baby outside. The tape recorder had been set out on the dining table in advance, but before many minutes of the tape were reviewed, the baby and then all her sisters decided to come inside. Soon they all sat around the table, listening to the tape and each announcing, with whispers and gestures, when it was her voice being heard on the tape. Cindy asked for a piece of paper so she could take notes too and when the researcher offered a piece to each of the other children as well, Ruth said "Oh no,” under her breath, but she smiled and produced pencils for all but the baby. In response to a comment that the two-year-old grasped the pencil with her fingers and thumb instead of her fist, Ruth said that she and her husband believed in giving the children pencils as soon as they were no longer likely just to put them in their mouths. She picked up the baby and nuzzled her face, saying, "It'll be your turn soon, won't it?” (Fieldnotes 3/16/91). Ruth said that her husband had completed an associate's degree and that she lacked only eighteen hours toward a bachelor's. She was the youngest of seven children, three of whom died in childhood, and she recounted with pleasure many instances in which her parents, a factory laborer and domestic worker, shared their knowledge and values with her. She laughed and said that she had been read to a great deal as a child because her older sister had found that was a way to keep her quiet. Her own memories of school were pleasant and focused on particular teachers whom she believed came at crucial points "when it threatened to 55 become monotonous and redundant." One such teacher was her kindergarten and first grade teacher: Those earlier years I really believed were shaped by her. Because she gave school life. It wasn't a test, it was a joy. I hated not going....And so there was a joy in learning that I really believe came from her (Interview 6/12/91). She described her own household as being filled with books and said that there was hardly a time when someone was not reading or writing. Even the youngest children, she said, were included in these activities, asking questions about the checks she wrote to pay bills, adding their comments to letters, or wondering what was funny when she laughed at something she was reading. During the early part of the school year, in fact, Ruth worried that she had ”overdone it on the brain and underdone it on the muscles” when Mrs. Peters reported that Cindy's "large muscle coordination was a little bit off,” and she was relieved that Cindy was said to be a "well-rounded" child at the last parent-teacher conference (Interview 6/12/91). Danny's Family Danny was a slender, soft-spoken boy whose silky, black hair touched his collar in back and stood up in a spiky crewcut on top. He always seemed to take a little longer than the other children to finish his breakfast or the seatwork assignments, and as a result he sometimes sat at his seat and finished coloring something while keeping one eye on the rest of the children who were taking part in some group activity at the front of the room (Fieldnotes 10/11/90). When she saw him talking or looking about, Mrs. Peters asked him if he was going to be the last one to finish (Fieldnotes 12/13/90). Occasionally, when copying print from the chalkboard, Danny would put down his pencil and wring his hands or shake them, dangling limply from his wrists. His mother said that his hands got tired when he wrote because he pressed too hard on the pencil, and she told him that he did not have to do so (Tape 4/18/91). He often sang or talked with the other boys at his table as he worked, 56 but when Mrs. Peters reminded the class that they should be working, he urged his seatmates to be quiet and told Mrs. Peters, ”I ain't being silly“ (Fieldnotes 1/17/91, 5/16/91). He paid close attention to what Mrs. Peters did during group activities, once predicting (accurately) that she would draw a fish to illustrate the letter F after looking at the commercially produced, illustrated alphabet cards displayed above the board (Fieldnotes 11/29/90), and another time informing her that she had already called upon a particular child (Fieldnotes 12/6/90). When he was called on, he often hesitated to answer or fell silent when asked to elaborate on what he said (Fieldnotes 12/13/90, 1/17/91, 3/7/91). When he did answer a ”why" question, his words came rapidly and his tone seemed to suggest that the answer was obvious: The story about the snowchild was true because "She's made out of snow” (Fieldnotes 12/20/90); boats ”stay up [rather than sink in water] because boats are not people" (Fieldnotes 3/21/91). Sometimes he wandered about the room at the beginning of "free time," and Mrs. Peters offered him a number of suggestions before he chose one activity (Fieldnotes 9/20/90, 1/24/91). When he did become involved with something, however, he often spent the entire period engrossed in it and protested mildly when told that it was time to join the group (Fieldnotes 1/3/91). Once, as he attempted to solve a mimeographed maze, he left his seat to check the completed sample posted at the chalkboard, returned to his seat to try again, and finally carried his paper to the board, where he placed it next to the model and copied the pencilled line (Fieldnotes 2/21/91). Danny lived in Meadowview with his mother, Maria, and his eighteen- month-old brother, as well as his maternal grandmother and her two sons, ages eight months and twelve years. Maria took care of her own youngest son and her infant brother while her mother worked. She spoke with Mrs. Peters at the beginning of the year to tell her that Danny had undergone 57 many changes in his life, in particular that his father was away in prison and that Danny was seeing a therapist to help him deal with his feelings. She wanted Mrs. Peters to let her know if his school performance declined, or if his work became "sloppy” (Fieldnotes 3/7/91). Both Danny's mother and his grandmother came to the school open house in October. His grandmother said that all her children had attended Cooper Elementary (Fieldnotes 10/17/90). When the children made Christmas cards in school, Danny asked Mrs. Peters to help him address his "to Grandma," and she agreed because, she said, he spent more time with his grandmother than with anyone else (Fieldnotes 12/20/90). This did not seem to be the case, however, since his grandmother worked full time and was not present during any of the home visits. Once, when Maria was ill, she said that her doctors wanted to hospitalize her because she had pneumonia, but that she had no one to look after the children and so had stayed home (Fieldnotes 4/18/91). Danny also spent some time with his paternal grandmother with whom, his mother said, he most liked to garden (Interview 6/5/91). A pot of plastic flowers hung from the doorframe of the family's single-story, frame house. The curtains were always drawn shut, and the top section of the screen door was missing. Two tiny, barking dogs greeted any intruder. Two couches faced each other from opposite walls across the bare wood floor of the living room, and a television was usually playing at one end. The eight-month-old baby scooted around the room in a walker, while the toddler navigated on foot. When Danny was home during the visits, he sat near his mother on one of the couches and smiled silently as she talked. A narrow corridor led from the living room to two bedrooms, and across the corridor a table and chairs were visible in the kitchen. Maria said that there was also a large room downstairs that she had "fixed up" as her boys' bedroom, complete with their own television (Fieldnotes 3/7/91; Interview 6/5/91). 58 Maria was 24 years old and had five younger brothers and sisters. She had taken classes at a local junior college and worked as a bank teller until the bank closed and she lost her job. When Danny attended a cooperative nursery school she had served as co-editor of the parent newsletter. When she was fourteen her own mother had gone back to college to complete an associate's degree, and she had assumed almost total responsibility for the care of her youngest sister and felt that the experience of finding things to interest her sister had prepared her to do the same thing for her son. Her own memories of school were vague, although she did say that she felt good when her parents "got involved with things” at school and that was why she tried to do the same for Danny at the cooperative nursery school. She regretted that the programs for parents at Cooper Elementary were held in the afternoons, which meant that children in the morning kindergarten did not participate. Lisa's Family Lisa's high cheekbones and almond-shaped eyes gave her face a pixie-like appearance and made her almost perpetual smile seem especially mischievous. She pranced, trotted, or skipped instead of walking about the room. Even on the balance beam, which her classmates attempted with solemn concentration and faltering steps, she danced halfway across before losing her equilibrium and stepping down (Fieldnotes 1/17/91). She frequently provided a voice accompaniment for her body movements, singing jazz-like variations of the alphabet song, chanting numerals or leading a chorus of "doo wah ditty" while doing the seatwork assignments with the girls at her table (Fieldnotes 10/11/90, 10/25/90, 3/7/91). She often hurried through breakfast and then sat in Mrs. Peters' chair at the front of the room, holding up a book that she pretended to read to the other children. When it was time for her to listen to her 59 teacher read, however, she wiggled, danced or yawned, and was sometimes scolded, sent back to her seat or made to sit next to Mrs. Peters (Fieldnotes 11/15/90, 12/20/90, 4/25/91). Her spirits seemed undaunted by such reprimands, however, and when made to sit alone at a table, she continued to smile and laugh as she watched the other children play or participated in their Valentine's Day party from afar (Fieldnotes 12/20/90, 2/14/91). Once, when Mrs. Peters commented on the "good" behavior of some girls, Lisa mimicked under her breath in a sugary falsetto, ”I see three girls and they are really, really nice" (Fieldnotes 1/3/91). On another occasion, when Mrs. Peters warned the group that they would lose outdoor play time if they talked instead of finishing their work, Lisa muttered to the person next to her, "I don't want to go outside” (Fieldnotes 5/13/91). Several times during the year she was reprimanded for fighting with some other child, until finally Mrs. Peters warned her that in first grade she would be sent home from school for hitting (Fieldnotes 6/13/91). Once, when she complained to the researcher that another child kicked her and was encouraged to talk about the problem with the child in question, she said, "You're supposed to get her in trouble. Tell her to sit there.” Later that day, when asked for suggestions to illustrate the sentence, "Our room has seven corners,” Lisa said that they could make someone sit in the corner (Fieldnotes 5/16/91). At the end of the first week of school, she announced exuberantly, "I like this school" (Fieldnotes 9/27/90), but a few months later, she protested doing the art projects, insisting that she did them in preschool (Fieldnotes 12/6/90). Once, when told she had pasted some pictures on the wrong side of a paper, she announced, "I ain't cuttin' no more pictures. Forget it. Just forget it” (Fieldnotes 12/13/90). The seatwork assignments completed by Lisa often bore her distinctive stamp. When directed to draw a carrot to illustrate the letter C, she drew several and pretended to eat them off the page with 60 noisy sound effects (Fieldnotes 1/3//91). When given a mimeographed page on which she was to color the foods of her state, she colored the potato orange instead of the suggested brown or red, insisting that she ate orange [sweet] potatoes at home (Fieldnotes 5/23/91). When Mrs. Peters asked the children to make a sentence using the words "teacher" and "foot," Lisa suggested ”My teacher ate a foot,” which was rejected as not being sensible. Over the next half hour or more, Lisa completed a series of seatwork tasks, including copying the accepted sentence, "My teacher made us hop on one foot," but when asked by the researcher what she had written, she leaned close, grinned and said, "Our teacher ate my foot" (Fieldnotes 5/23/91). Her ability to impose her own meanings on the tasks was not always evident. When copying from the board a list of items needed for a picnic, she printed "blanlls" and, although she knew she had "messed up,” was unable to see that she had combined "blanket" and "balls" until the list was reprinted on paper for her (Fieldnotes 5/27/91). She often chose to spend her free time listening to tape-recorded stories, and was able to select the appropriate cassette for each book without help as well as follow along in the book, reciting the dialogue with dramatic expression (Fieldnotes 12/13/90, l/3//91). She was aware, and took advantage of, the classroom rule that exempted children who were listening to stories from clean-up duties, telling the children listening with her when Mrs. Peters signalled clean up time, "She's not talking about us" (Fieldnotes 11/15/90, 1/31/91). Lisa talked about her grandmother often at school, and mentioned her godmother in California, her aunt and uncle and grandfather, but she proclaimed loudly on more than one occasion, "I ain't got no father” and held to that opinion even when challenged by another child who said that "Everybody has a father“ (Fieldnotes 12/20/90, 3/21/91, 4/11/91, 4/25/91, 5/24/91, 6/13/91). She lived with her mother, Rita, and an eight-year-old brother in Plainfield Village. In February, Rita was two 61 months pregnant with a third child and complained of not feeling well. When the researcher commented one morning that she had not seen Lisa at the previous evening's open house, the child said she had forgotten to tell her mother about it (Fieldnotes 10/18/91). Her mother had come to school the week before, however, and spent about a half an hour helping Lisa color in the features on an outline of her body silhouette (Fieldnotes 10/11/91). Their home was furnished with a glass and chrome dinette set, upholstered living room suite, and color television. A potted plant, large plush bunny, and displays of greeting cards were arrayed on surfaces about the room. During the initial home visit on a cold, snowy Sunday afternoon in March, there were pots steaming on the stove and cornbread baking in the oven. Rita checked it for doneness by patting the surface gingerly with her fingers. The eleventh of fifteen children, Rita had taken some classes at a local junior college, but said she dropped out when her other responsibilities became overwhelming. She remembered school as largely uncomfortable because speaking up in class or writing on the board made her "nervous" and, in fact, still did. She said.that she had taken a "grammar course" at a business school because she knew her brothers and sisters were right when they criticized the way she talked (Interview 6/20/91). Lisa watched her mother sign the consent to participate in the study and commented that she had made a B [her middle initial] (Fieldnotes 3/3/91). She asked for a sheet of paper to write on as the first tape was reviewed with her mother, and afterward Rita told Lisa to throw the paper in the wastebasket (Fieldnotes 3/17/91). During a later visit, when asked to name the reading and writing materials in the house, Rita said that, in addition to crayons, pencils and chalk, "They got paper up in their room--whenever they want to make a mess" (Interview 6/20/91). Rita said her mother told her that she used to pretend to read 62 books when she was only a few years old and her mother said she saw many similarities between her daughter and her granddaughter, although Rita was very shy and Lisa was bold and outgoing: ”She says what didn't come out in me came out in her.” Rita concluded that her daughter was really smart: I'm not worried about her at all. Unless she don't do too good in the first grade. I'm not worried about Lisa at all. Nobody else is. My mother said don't worry about her 'cause she will make it (Interview 6/20/91). Michael's Family Michael was taller and looked older than his classmates. His high top shoes, with the laces dangling, scuffed along the floor as he walked. His demeanor with adults was aloof, avoiding eye contact, and many of his interactions with other children took the form of teasing or scoffing at their attempts to print or use scissors. His teacher said she worried about this and had spoken to him about it. Once, when it appeared that he was muttering to himself as he sat alone at a table and ate his breakfast, closer attention to his words revealed that he was actually commenting upon or responding to the conversations going on at the other three tables in the room (Fieldnotes 12/6/90). Sometimes, when the entire class was seated on the rug in the front of the room, he poked or scowled at the children behind and beside him while at other times he anticipated and called out repetitive lines in the stories or dictated each letter of the date, his eyes darting from the large calendar on the bulletin board to the chalkboard where Mrs. Peters was printing. At the beginning of the year his printing was faint and wispy, and the letters of his name were scattered in almost random fashion on the page. He seemed bewildered by the daily tasks of copying print. In December his teacher complimented him twice on the improvement in his printing and asked if he has been practicing at home, but his answer was a resolute ”No” both times (Fieldnotes 12/6/90, 12/13/90). He tackled 63 seatwork assignments hastily, predicting that he would finish before his seatmates, comparing his progress with theirs, directing and criticizing their work, battling them for possession of a favored pencil or crayon color, and all the while keeping a sharp eye on what went on in the rest of the room--whose name had been put on the board for talking too much and who had finished the seatwork in time to claim one of the three highly coveted places in ”housekeeping" (e.g., Fieldnotes 3/21/91). When he was not spending his free time in the housekeeping area, or conspiring to eavesdrop on or invade the play of the girls who had occupied it, Michael often engaged in dramatic fantasies in the sandbox, burying or "trapping" plastic figures he named after movie villains. Occasionally he busied himself with puzzles or counting games and once muttered that ”they got it wrong" as he rapidly rearranged, in correct numerical order, a series of number puzzles that several of his classmates had attempted without success and abandoned in disarray (Fieldnotes 11/29/90). Nevertheless, he insisted that he hated school, particularly in late spring when he would rather be riding his bicycle. Michael lived in Plainfield Village with his mother, a seven-year- old brother and a nine-year—old sister. At the beginning of the year the teacher said Michael's father had left the family, but he was in the home, working in the kitchen, during four of the five home visits between March and June. As in the other townhouses in Plainfield Village, a narrow corridor led from the front door past a small galley kitchen into a combination living and dining room. The researcher did not go beyond the first floor of the house to see the bedrooms upstairs or the basement where Michael's mother, Louise, said she stored the children's bicycles. A chrome and formica dinette set and a freezer chest occupied one end of the living room. The other half contained two sofas, an easy chair, end table and a large, console model, color television which was playing whenever the researcher telephoned or visited. Whether impelled by wrestling boys or an adult moving one to 64 indicate a place for a visitor to sit, the sofas slid about easily on the bare wood floor, giving the room arrangement an impermanent air. Sometimes the house appeared freshly scrubbed, there was a scent of disinfectant in the air, and Louise was busy folding clean laundry. At other times there were piles of dirty dishes and pans in the sink or spilled food on the floor. Michael's entire family appeared interested in the research project. His father and an adult cousin asked several questions during the first home visit, and his sister wiggled in between the researcher and her mother on the sofa, commenting that her mother signed her name on the consent form “in cursive.“ On a later visit, in marked contrast to his aloof manner at school, Michael raced upstairs to retrieve the tape recorder and, while his mother plugged it in, he gleefully recounted the stories that his cousin and sister had read to him. As he listened to the tape, he laughed frequently, predicted what was coming next, and complained that he wanted to hear parts that the researcher skipped. On the other hand, when Louise once apologetically explained that she had tried without success to repair a jammed cassette and discarded the resulting tangle of tape, Michael looked up from his plate of tacos and yelled vehemently that it had contained ”a lot of stories," which he named, and that he was not going to read them again. His parents looked at him and shook their heads slowly during his exuberant outbursts, and his mother often asked with concern whether he acted "that way” at school. Louise said that she had been in special education classes and dropped out of school in the tenth grade. She described herself as "the baby” of a family of six children, and her own memories of school centered largely on feeling left behind when the older children went on to junior high and high school. She said that no one read to her as a child, although she sometimes watched her older siblings do their schoolwork. She felt unable to help her children as much as she would 65 have liked because of her own limitations, which frustrated her. Because you know, [my daughter will] come and ask me something and I'll say well like, "Get the dictionary," but it be something easy and it won't come up in my [head], it won't come up here for nothing. It won't come for nothing (Interview 6/19/91). Louise said she "couldn't get into" a book that was not her own and therefore did not read much. When asked about the importance of writing, she responded in terms of the need to use the muscles of the hands lest they become weak. However, she revealed that she sometimes relieved her own feelings of tension by writing and that when she felt like crying she would sometimes write down "something negative about what I don't like about myself." She said that after writing such things and letting the paper sit around for a day or so, she threw it away and, as an example, pulled from the wastebasket a torn, crumpled sheet of newsprint with a self-recriminating litany laboriously printed in pencil (Appendix L). Regina's Family One of the smallest children in her class, Regina had a quick smile and a penchant for talking that Mrs. Peters said was the reason she was last to finish her work (Fieldnotes 1/3/91, 2/7/91). As often as not, she talked to no one in particular, but maintained a running commentary on what she was doing, sometimes chanting a particular word or phrase over and over, as in the following incidents where she searched for numerals in newspaper advertisements and practiced printing the letter of the day. I need me a four. I need me a four. What's next after five? I can't find one of them turned up things [a six] (Fieldnotes 1/10/91). I'm making my lower down letter and my upper one. Big letter, small letter. Big letter, small letter. Oh, oh, oh, I know another p-word (Fieldnotes 1/24/91). She verified the meaning of words that puzzled her, invented words as she needed them, and seemed to love to use long words, sometimes 66 simply taking pleasure in their sounds. When reminded to put the comma in the date on her paper, she asked, ”That, that little thing beside it?" (Fieldnotes 11/29/90). She invited a friend to play with "that waiter thing, what you put things in and you weigh 'em" (Fieldnotes 3/21/91). For several weeks after Mrs. Peters introduced the word, Regina would grin and shout, "Abbreviate iti Abbreviate it!” as the date was printed on the board (Fieldnotes 10/18/90, 10/25/90). When the children made paper caterpillars, Regina crooned to here, "Poor little baby caterpillar, don't got no mommy," and chanted "vanilla, caterpillar" as she carried it to the counter (Fieldnotes 4/25/91). During free time she often raised or lowered the pitch of her voice in an exaggerated way to perform her chants. She squeaked over and over that she was "making little bitty baby cakes" in the sandbox (Fieldnotes 1/10/91) and, in a giggling bass, invited other children to "eat a baby toe, a little white toe," as she carried a doll about the classroom (Fieldnotes 6/6/91). While she cheerfully shared her word games with anyone at hand, she had a special friend in Monica, who was as diminutive as she. Once she sat and looked uncharacteristically glum during free time, complaining that there was nothing to do, but declining to join the two children already in housekeeping because Monica would not be able to accompany her: "If four people could play there, I would” (Fieldnotes 3/21/91). She sometimes let her attention wander to nearby children during group time, but she most often paid close attention to Mrs. Peters' stories and questions, offering answers that led her teacher to conclude, ”She's always thinking. You can see it in her face" (Fieldnotes 10/25/90). Once, when Mrs. Peters tried to lead the children to the conclusion that the events in a story were make-believe, she asked whether toy bears could really talk, and all the children agreed that they could not except Regina, who leaped to her feet and shouted, "Not unless they got batteries” (Fieldnotes 10/25/90). 67 Regina noticed the print in her classroom and worked hard at understanding it. On the day that Mrs. Peters set out numbered signs to label each cluster of tables, Regina announced as soon as she entered the room, "Oooh, she got numbers" (Fieldnotes 10/25/90). She often chose to print and draw on the chalkboard during free time and printed her own name as well as copying some of the words that Mrs. Peters had put there earlier (Fieldnotes 10/5/90, 12/13/90, 12/20/90, 3/7/91). Nevertheless, she struggled with the task of copying print from the board to her paper, and often implored adults in the room to help her, predicting that she could not do it or announcing that she "messed up" (Fieldnotes 1/10/91). She exerted a special effort to comply with Mrs. Peters' suggestion that the children use their finger to measure the space to be left between each word, chanting over and over to herself, "Put my little finger right here" (Fieldnotes 11/29/90, 1/3/91, 1/10/91). Sometimes she announced that she "ain't gonna look at the board to write,” but during second semester she adopted the practice of pushing her chair up to the board to create a writing surface before which she knelt to copy the required words (Fieldnotes 3/7/91). Mrs. Peters said she noticed a marked improvement in Regina's printing after she began doing this (Interview 6/20/91). In addition to struggling with the mechanics of printing, Regina formed her own hypotheses about its relation to sounds, once asserting that ”Wagon starts with Y. I know two words that start with this” (Fieldnotes 12/20/90). Regina lived with her mother, Vicky, a ten-year-old brother, and three sisters, ages twelve, fourteen, and sixteen, in a two story frame house at the corner of Meadowview furthest from Cooper Elementary. Perhaps because she lived so far from school, she never walked home alone, but always waited on a bench near the office until her mother, an uncle, or an older sibling came to take her home. On the first day of school her mother said that, instead of accompanying her to the 68 orientation meeting the previous day, Regina had stayed home with her sixteen-year-old sister, who was pregnant and not feeling well. In January, Regina told Mrs. Peters, "My sister got a baby now. I'm a auntie“ (Fieldnotes 1/31/91). Mrs. Peters knew Regina and her family from preschool the year before and said that both her parents had been very involved with her school activities until, near the end of the year, her father left the family and married another woman. She said that she had asked Vicky's permission to refer Regina to the school social worker in the hope of getting some assistance for the family, and Vicky had concurred, saying that she needed all the help she could get (Fieldnotes 11/15/90). Regina came to school without hat or mittens on cold days (Fieldnotes 1/31/91) and, on the day after her birthday announced, ”My birthday passed,” adding that she would get a cake when ”my mama gets her check" (Fieldnotes 3/7/91). The family's resources were strained even further when Regina's grandfather died in February and his younger children came to stay in Regina's home for a few weeks. One cousin attended Mrs. Peters' kindergarten class for those weeks and told her that it was her second year in kindergarten. Regina told Mrs. Peters that her family was glad when the relatives moved out because it had been too crowded in their home (Fieldnotes 3/7/91). The family's house sat on a bare plot of land at the edge of the subdivision, with an empty field behind it. There were no trees or shrubs around it to give it a settled look. Plastic garbage bags were often stacked by a side door, and occasionally a large brown car stood in the driveway. The family's tiny black dog, Sparkle, was usually sleeping outside one of the doors and would dash around to greet any visitor. Small mats protected the carpet in front of two easy chairs and the sofa in the living room, and Vicky showed where she had stacked Regina's storybook and homework papers from school on an end table. 69 During the first visit, Vicky readily agreed to participate in the project, saying that she and her other children often worked together with Regina, or they all read together, so it would be fun to tape the homework. Her new grandson slept in a bassinet on one side of the room, and a movie played on the television in the corner, where three or four plastic videocassette cases were stacked. The movie involved the methodical murder or maiming of several characters, and Vicky laughed when the researcher was distracted by the groans, screams, and sobs emanating from the set, saying that she watched such movies ”all the time" (Fieldnotes 3/7/91). After the initial visit, contacts with this family proved difficult. Vicky sent a note to postpone the next appointment and then was away from home during several subsequent attempts. Sometimes the house was simply deserted, while at other times, an uncle or friend would answer the door and suggest another time to visit. One afternoon in May, Vicky's fourteen-year-old daughter answered the door in her bathrobe and, with Regina's help, located the tape recorder and retrieved the cassette. When asked whether she were sick or ”playing hooky,” she smiled and said it was the latter (Fieldnotes 5/9/91). One more tape was retrieved when the researcher happened to arrive while Vicky was at home a few weeks later. Then in June, Regina missed two days of school,and on the following day her father brought her. He told Mrs. Peters that social service authorities had removed all the children from his ex-wife's home. Regina, who seemed her usual cheerful self that day, although her clothing seemed newer and her hair more thoroughly brushed, said that she had to live with her grandmother for a year and that the police had come because of ”a man my mama go with." But, she said, she did not like it because she wanted to be with her mother (Fieldnotes 6/13/91). 7O Toyah's Family Toyah was a stockily-built girl who, as she colored, usually talked and giggled, or hummed the songs she learned in her church choir. She was often the first one to finish her seatwork and claim a space in housekeeping (Fieldnotes 1/17/91). Her large eyes filled with tears when a small plastic toy thrown in the sandbox landed on her hand, but when the responsible child was confined to a chair as punishment, Toyah pulled her own chair close, leaned forward to ask, ”How come you cryin'?‘ and took the child by the hand to find an area where they could play together (Fieldnotes 6/6/91). She reminded Mrs. Peters when someone was passed over for a turn, and she reported on herself when she accidentally kicked someone, adding that she had said she was sorry (Fieldnotes 12/13/90, 5/23/91). She kept her eyes on the teacher during stories, tried to imitate the finger motions with songs, and always raised her hand to answer questions, although her answers were sometimes not accepted because they digressed from the topic or simply repeated what another child had said (Fieldnotes 2/7/91). She often brought books from home and, at the end of the morning, reminded Mrs. Peters to read them or her homework papers to the group (Fieldnotes 3/7/91, 5/23/91, 6/13/91). Toyah recognized the names of three of her classmates early in the year and frequently asked whose name was printed on various objects (Fieldnotes 11/8/90, 12/13/90, 1/31/91, 3/7/91). She independently read most of the names on the valentines she brought to distribute (Fieldnotes 2/14/91). She printed her own name on her papers, although she drew some of the letters with upward strokes (Fieldnotes 2/21/91). Late in the year she also printed on her own paper the name of a boy she said she liked (Fieldnotes 5/16/91). She was not always enthusiastic about writing, however. Once, when told that she forgot to print her name and copy the rhyming words from the chalkboard on one assignment, she protested, ”Aw, man!” as she tramped back to her seat and finished 71 the task (Fieldnotes 3/14/91). Later, as they knelt before the chairs they had shoved near the chalkboard and copied the sentence that a substitute teacher had printed there, Toyah and another girl commiserated that “This teacher writes too much.” Toyah said that Mrs. Peters "don't ever write that long," and her friend, leaping up to touch the chalkboard seam that happened to be in the middle of the sentence, added that she "never writes more than this" (Fieldnotes 6/6/91). Toyah's mother Thelma came to the classroom frequently during the year and attended all events to which parents were invited: open house, Halloween party, and parent-teacher conferences in the fall and spring. Both Thelma and Toyah were actively involved in their church, and sang in the choirs for children and adults in addition to attending several services each week. At the Wednesday evening open house Thelma mentioned that she was missing church and when she saw a list on which Mrs. Peters had printed what each child wanted to be for Halloween, she quickly asserted that her church did not allow children to dress as witches (Fieldnotes 10/17/91). When she and her mother arrived for the Halloween party, Toyah told Mrs. Peters that she had prayed for her the night before, and when the teacher displayed a card game that involved counting caricatures of devils and angels, Toyah said that she wanted an angel, not a devil (Fieldnotes 10/31/90, 1/10/91). As predicted by Mrs. Peters, who knew Thelma and Toyah from preschool the year before, Thelma was the first to volunteer to participate in the study. Toyah lived in Plainfield Village with her mother and fourteen- year-old brother. An image of the American flag, printed by the local newspaper during the Gulf War, was taped to the window in the door during the initial home visit in February. Thelma shouted out, asking who was there before opening the door. She had just come from the doctor because of an ear problem and wore a scarf drawn up from beneath her chin, over her ears and tied on top her head. Muffled sounds came from the basement where Thelma said her children were watching 72 television. The carpeted living room was almost bare except for a dinette set at one end. Several studio photographs of Thelma and her children were hanging on the wall or propped on a low table across the room. One was a portrait of Thelma in her high school graduation robes. By the following month, the living room had acquired an upholstered couch and chair. Thelma always had the tape recorder set up on the dinette table and plugged in before each home visit. She sat with her finger poised over the "play” button, until she saw that the researcher was ready with notepad and pen to review the tapes she had made. As she listened to the tapes, she repeated Toyah's words and explained what she and Toyah were doing at the time of the taping. She laughed at several sections on the tape: when she broke into snatches of a gospel song she had been practicing for church; when she talked about the failure of Toyah's father to send support money; and when she told Toyah she was becoming angry with her. When asked if she wanted anything erased, Thelma said, ”No, leave it. Leave everything. That's real life" (Fieldnotes 3/14/91). Thelma was 41 years old, the seventh of ten children. She grew up in a southern state and remembered working in the fields from the time she was a little girl. She said that no one had time to read to her or help her with schoolwork because they were always too busy working, too busy even to come see her break records at high school track meets. She said that she did not feel bad about this, however, and described her own childhood as growing up in "a big loving family, and a happy family." She said her decision to be so heavily involved in Toyah's schooling in contrast to her own experience "just come to me" (Interview 6/13/91). When asked about her own memories of early schooling, Thelma said that there was no kindergarten and all she remembers about first grade is "Dick and 'Run, Sally. Run, Dick. Jump up, Sally and Dick.'" She read the Bible and magazines about the Bible to do research for her 73 Sunday school, writing her ideas in a spiral bound notebook and reading them aloud before the congregation. Toyah, too, learned short speeches about Bible topics which she recited at Sunday school. Summary These portraits suggest the uniqueness of each of the six children and their families. It is true that descriptors such as low-income and ethnic minority applied to all the families and that five of the households had only one parent during at least part of the time period studied. These similarities seem overshadowed, however, by the distinctive qualities of the lives experienced by the families, distinctive qualities which will be reflected in the families' interaction with the school as they engage in kindergarten homework activities. The following chapters will present the findings regarding that homework, beginning with an overview of the types of homework tasks and the participants in those tasks. CHAPTER 6. OVERVIEW OF HOMEWORK As mentioned previously, the decision to focus on the ways that families helped their kindergarten children with homework grew out of observations of the homework that children brought back to school. There appeared to be a wide variety in the types of homework completed, the ways in which the tasks were completed, and the family members who helped with the tasks. These informal observations were borne out by the systematically collected data. Types of Homework Tasks Homework is defined, for purposes of this study, as any activity with which the school requests families to help their kindergarten children. Five types of homework were observed during the year: language tasks, word lists, writing tasks, read-aloud books, and skill practice. The labels assigned here were devised by the researcher, based upon observations and conversations with the teacher. an a a Printed instructions for four weekly assignments were sent home at the beginning of each month, October through May. Mrs. Peters said that these assignments were created several years earlier by a group of teachers and administrators with the purpose of fostering language development in preschool and kindergarten children. The assignments required the parent to complete some activity with the child, such as counting fire hydrants and mail boxes in the neighborhood or finding pictures of a particular class of objects in newspapers or magazines. The teacher recorded completed assignments on a large chart near the entrance to the room and displayed finished assignments on the bulletin board. She promised at the beginning of the year that children who 74 75 completed all the assignments would receive a prize and, at mid-year, said that she had begun giving candy rewards to children who brought work back, with the result that several parents had begun requesting replacements for lost assignment sheets. On the last day of school, one child received a stuffed animal for bringing her homework all year; four others received prizes for completing what Mrs. Peters said was six months' worth of homework. Word Lists At least once a week, children took home a sheet of manilla paper labelled at the top with an upper and lower case example of a particular letter of the alphabet and the word "words,” beginning with "Aa words" in September and ending with ”22 words” in June. Children were expected to collect examples of words beginning with the indicated letter and bring the completed pages back to school, where they were displayed on the bulletin board. Some children's pages came back covered with examples of printed words that had been cut from magazines or newspapers and pasted on the paper. Others completed the task by cutting pictures from magazines or newspaper advertisements. The pictures were often labelled, usually by a parent or older sibling and occasionally by the kindergarten child. Some children brought lists of words which were printed by an adult or older sibling and included terms that are probably outside a kindergartner's range of experience, such as "fax machines," ”futons,” ”etageres,” or “exclusive.” Once when Mrs. Peters asked a child where she had found so many such words for the letter E, the child responded, "My Ma wrote 'em. She found 'em in a book" (Fieldnotes 10/25/91). Mrs. Peters frequently told the children and their parents that they were welcome to help themselves to her collection of old newspapers if they had none at home. She did not send home written instructions for completing the pages, and during parent conferences in April, when she displayed one child's completed page of "Rr Words” cut from 76 magazines, several parents asked if that was how she wanted the pages done (i.e., with words rather than pictures), and expressed mild surprise when she said it was (Fieldnotes 4/18/91). W i ask Children took home writing tasks at irregular intervals during the year. Sometimes these consisted of a single page, such as a mimeographed sheet with the heading, ”Things that make me feel," over two columns labelled "happy" and ”sad." Families were to record their children's ideas about what made them happy or sad in the appropriate column. Other writing tasks were more lengthy. In connection with holidays and seasonal changes, Mrs. Peters provided each child with a blank booklet, comprised of six or eight pages of newsprint stapled inside a construction paper cover. These were cut into various shapes related to the season at hand (apples, turkeys, Christmas trees, or flowers) and labelled on the cover: ”My Apple Book," "I Am Thankful," "What Christmas Means To Me," ”Spring Is." Again, parents were not given written instructions for completing these booklets with their children. Most of the completed booklets appeared to have been printed by an adult or older sibling, with illustrations by the child, although in some cases the drawings also appeared to be the work of someone older. Mrs. Peters often expressed her frustration that no matter how many times she told the children to have their parents write on a separate sheet of paper for them to copy, the parents still wrote in the booklets for the children. On the morning of parent-teacher conferences in April, Mrs. Peters printed the following message on the chalkboard: "Parent, please pgip your child with his/her homework. Do pp; do it for them" (Fieldnotes 4/18/91; emphasis in original). When children brought in booklets that Mrs. Peters deemed insufficiently illustrated, she encouraged them to go back to their seats and add more pictures (Fieldnotes 4/11/91). 77 gggd-Aioug B0935 In January, when with the help of the school librarian she had accumulated a quantity of children's books equal to the number of children in the morning and afternoon groups combined, Mrs. Peters sent home a contract which parents were to sign, indicating their commitment to read aloud each book that their child brought home. Once they brought back the signed contract, children were allowed to borrow a book each Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, to be brought back the following day. The collection contained paperback editions of contemporary and traditional stories as well as some informational books about nature or animals. At the beginning of the program, Mrs. Peters attempted to assign a particular book to each child each day, and to keep track of which books the children had already borrowed. She soon decided to let them choose their own books and to take the same book home more than once if they wished. Although some children reported week after week that no one had read their books to them, the signed contracts notwithstanding, most of them chatted enthusiastically about the books they brought back and named various stories or characters as they leafed through the collection to find another book to take home. Toward the end of the school year, one girl stamped her foot in mock anger and complained that there were no books left that her mother had not already read to her. At the end of April, Mrs. Peters obtained primer editions of a basal reading series for two girls whom she felt to be ready for more formal practice with reading. She read a similar book to the entire group one day and explained that "This is a book you take home to learn words. It's not just a storybook" (Fieldnotes 5/30/91). One of the two girls happened to be Cindy, whose tape-recorded homework includes an episode in which her mother coaches her through ”reading" one of the stories in the book in a way that suggests she makes the same distinction between storybooks and books for ”learning words,” that is, 78 with the emphasis on pronouncing the ”correct" words rather than the pleasure or meaning of the story: Cindy: Bob said, [with Mother] Here comes the school bus. Come on Jim. Mother: Now say it again. Cindy: Here--Bob said here comes the school bus. Come on Jim. Mother: And then, who's this? Jim said-- Jim said-- Say Jim said. Cindy: Jim said [with Mother] I am not going to school. [alone] But-- Mother: No. Cindy: Bob-- Mother: This is still Jim. (Tape 5/16/91) Skili Prgctice At parent conferences in November and April, Mrs. Peters reviewed with parents the children's mastery of skills listed in the school district's kindergarten assessment for that period. She also told them the skills that would be assessed at the next marking period and urged them to work with their children on those skills. For example, in November she suggested that parents make flashcards of the alphabet letters and numerals from zero through nine and practice with their children so that they could recognize the letters in random sequence and arrange the numerals in ascending order. She offered to provide paper or tagboard for constructing the materials if the parent needed it. She recommended that such practice be limited to ten minutes at a time, but that it occur daily because otherwise the children would forget what they had learned. At the end of the second marking period in January, when the school did not schedule parent-teacher conferences, Mrs. Peters sent home a note to all parents requesting that they help their child with any items marked "N" on the report card. She added a list of the items to be assessed at the third marking period in March, and asked parents to help their children with them, suggesting that they come in to speak with her if they had questions about any of the items. The items listed were the following: understands positional words (middle, top, bottom); follows 79 three-part directions in sequence; prints name correctly; catches an object; understands comparison concepts (more-less, short-long, small- medium-large); classifies; and patterns AA BB (Fieldnotes 1/31/91). In May, in anticipation of an item on the final kindergarten assessment that required children to name the initial letters in a series of twenty-six words, Mrs. Peters began sending tagboard strips home with the children. Single words were printed on the strips that she called ”labels," and she told the children that they should study them with their parents so they would do well on the beginning sounds test (Fieldnotes 5/16/91, 5/23/91). She said that she also sent home a list of words that started with each letter to be used in the assessment. The children copied the words for this list as she printed them, one at a time, on the chalkboard. She explained that none of the words on this list actually appeared on the assessment and gave the example of ”pudding” which she included on the list instead of "puddle," which appeared on the assessment (Interview 6/20/91). Structural Aspects of Variation Among Families One of the earliest contrasts to emerge as the tape-recorded homework activities were reviewed was the variation among families in the number and types of tasks that were completed, in the amount of time spent on those tasks, and in the family members who participated in those tasks, in either directive or peripheral roles. These contrasts were eventually categorized as structural aspects of variation among families, as contrasted with the variations in the interaction process as the homework tasks were completed. These latter types of variation will be discussed in a later chapter. Va a on in n it nd s o Tasks As stated previously, the six children whose families participated in the study included those who completed very few homework assignments as well as those who completed a great many. Table 2 summarizes the 80 number of homework tasks completed by each of the six children during the school year and reveals variations across types of homework as well as across children. Data are based upon observations of completed assignments the children brought to school, augmented, in the case of Language Tasks, by the teacher's record of completed assignments. Although the teacher saved completed assignments for the researcher to copy before returning them to the children, it is possible that some homework assignments were returned to the children in the intervals between classroom observations, without the researcher's knowledge. Two types of homework, Read Aloud Books and Skill Practice, yielded no product for the child to bring to school and therefore are not included in this table. Table 2. Homework Completed September 1990 - June 1991 Child Language Writing Word Tasks Tasks Lists *Cindy l4 4 14 *Danny 24 5 3 Lisa 0 3 12 Michael 3 3 6 Regina 6 6 14 Toyah 8 4 19 Maximum Possible 32 6 26 *These two children received prizes on the last day of school for completing "six months of homework." Once the families began tape recording their homework activities, it became possible to collect data regarding two additional types of homework tasksz‘ Read Aloud Books and Skill Practice. A task is defined as a specific piece of work, assigned or suggested by the teacher, and completed, or at least attempted, by a family during the taping. For 81 example, between 4/18/91 and 5/16/91, Cindy and her mother recorded their work on six different tasks, as shown in Table 3. Table 3. Content Analysis of an Audiocassette: Cindy Activity Description Elapsed Time Task Mother and children read and Read discuss A Talg 9; Peter Rabbi . 7 minutes Aloud Book Mother and children read and Read discuss Jump, Epog, Jump. 5 minutes Aloud Book Mother reviews words which she calls ”spelling words" and asks Skill child to make sentence with each. 4 minutes Practice Mother and child read a story, Jim'g Eping Fishing, from a Read basal reader provided by teacher. 8 minutes Aloud Book Mother asks child to name several words beginning with particular Skill letters. 6 minutes Practice Mother asks child to list insects observed during a walk outside, assignment for Week II in May. 4 minutes Language Task Each of the tapes produced by the six families was analyzed and coded in this manner so that all the families could be compared and contrasted in terms of the number and types of activities they completed and the amount of time they spent on those activities. Table 4 summarizes those comparisons. Pa c n w c v t'es Observations of the homework assignments brought to school during the first half of the year suggested that the children received help from a variety of sources. Regina's book of Halloween stories, for example, included what appeared to be two distinct handwriting styles. Michael's booklet, entitled ”I am thankful...," included a page with the following text printed over the caption, "My sister": ”I am thankful for my sis because she hlep me with my homework. She read to me 82 sometime. to play with me. [sic]" Another child's "I am thankful" booklet was inscribed on the back page, "Pictures by: [Name] Writing by: Daddy. Table 4. Tape—Recorded Homework March - June 1991 Number of Activities (Amount of Time) Percent of Total Recorded Time Child Total Read Language Writing Word Skill Time Aloud Tasks Tasks Lists Practice Books Cindy 169 min. 16 (112) 3 (29) l (6) - 4 (22) 66.2% 17.1 3.5% 13.0% Danny 99 min. 2 (19) 9 (69) 1 (8) - 1 (3) 19.1% 69.6% 8.0% 3.0% Lisa 173 min 16 (150) 1 (4) 1 (3) 3 (16) - 86.7% 2.3% 1.7% 9.2% Michael 49 min. 6 (49) - - - - 100% Regina 31 min 2 (12) 1 (5) - 3 (l4) - 38.7% 16.1% 45.2% Toyah 131 min 2 (4) 2 (41) l (35) 3 (30) * 3.1% 31.3% 26.7% 22.9% *This family's tape recordings included three episodes of general conversation, totalling twenty minutes, during which the mother occasionally asked the child for some display of knowledge, such as giving the date, spelling her name, or relating some activity from school. These exchanges were so brief that the time actually spent on ”skill practice" cannot be calculated meaningfully. The tape recordings made by the six families during the second half of the year corroborated these observations. In four of the six families in the study, it was the mother who primarily directed and completed the homework activities with the kindergarten child, although this role was sometimes filled by the child's father, older siblings, adult relatives or a friend of the mother. The tape recordings also revealed that, in addition to the person who directed or helped the 83 child with the homework, other people, most often siblings of the kindergarten child, were frequently present and participating to some degree in the activities. Table 5 summarizes the number and variety of participants in the kindergarten homework activities within the six households. Table 5. Participants in Homework Activities Child Mother Father Older Younger Other Friend Sibling Sibling Relative Cindy * + + (+) - - Danny * - - (+) - - Lisa * - + - - - Michael + - * - + + Regina + - * - - - Toyah * - - - - (+) Key: + Helped or directed some taped homework activities * Helped or directed more than half of taped activities (+) Participated in homework activities on tapes - Did not participate or not applicable Only two of the children had fathers in the home, and only one of those fathers participated in the homework. Michael's father requested flashcards to teach Michael his ”times tables," which he insisted he himself had learned at an even earlier age (Fieldnotes 3/3/91), but when asked later if he ever did any of the homework with Michael, he said that every time he thought of doing it, someone else had already done so (Fieldnotes 5/9/91). Michael's mother gave a different reason, however. She said that Michael's father had tried to do some of the assignments with Michael but quit when the boy had argued about the way to do them. He tried but it didn't work cause Michael, like he'll say "No, you do it thisaway,” and he'll say, ”Nope you gonna do it my way or we ain't gonna do it" (Interview 6/19/91). Cindy, whose mother sometimes read stories to the children just before they left for school in the mornings (Fieldnotes 3/16/91), said 84 that her father wanted to read a story to them but he always slept too late (Fieldnotes 3/28/91). When he did read some stories to his daughters, Cindy reported that fact at school with some excitement and predicted that those who listened to that tape would ”crack up 'cause he's so crazy” (Fieldnotes 5/23/91). According to Mrs. Peters, Cindy also said that it was her father who sat down and "studied" the words she brought home on tagboard labels late in the year (Interview 6/20/91). He supported the homework activity in another way as well, by calling the baby away when her crying intruded on something his wife and older daughters were doing (Tapes 4/18/91, 5/16/91). Others who read stories or helped the child with homework tasks included an adult cousin and a family friend (Michael, Tapes 3/25/91, 5/9/91). In two of the families, an older sibling worked with the child on most of the taped activities: Michael's nine-year-old sister (Tapes 3/25/91, 5/9/91, 6/19/91) and Regina's sixteen-year-old sister (Tape 5/9/91). In two other families an older sibling read one story to the kindergarten child with the support and help of the mother: Cindy's ten-year-old sister (Tape 4/18/91) and Lisa's eight-year-old brother (Tape 5/23/91). Family members (and, in one instance, a neighbor's child) participated in the homework in ways other than directing or reading to the kindergarten child. Sometimes that participation was compatible with the task at hand, while at other times it seemed more of an interruption. For example, whenever stories were read, Cindy's sisters were present, giggling, commenting, or asking questions. Even the baby's squeals were sometimes interpreted as comments on the story: Mother: [Reads] In the morning he was cold and sick. Baby: [Cries] Mother: [Continues reading] He had caught an alley fever from sleeping in the trash heap. I'm lonely, he thought. And he began to cry. [Aside] You gonna cry like kitty, [Baby's Name]? (Tape 3/16/91) Mother: [Reads] The boys and girls will be so happy. Baby: [Squeals.] 85 Mother: [Echoes squeal and continues reading] Yeah, said the toy clown... (Tape 4/18/91) After hearing the story of Peter Rabbit and her mother's explanation of the need to follow rules, Cindy's ten-year-old sister asked, "Isn't that called the moral, Mom?” (Tape 5/16/91). At other times, the younger sisters complained that they could not see the picture books or that they wanted someone to move (Tape 4/18/91). Danny's eighteen-month-old brother was present during all of his taped homework activities and seemed to be an active participant: Mother: [Reading] ...I can do all that. Brother: Ma. Mother: What? Brother: Who dat? Mother: That's Fozzy Bear. [Resumes reading] (Tape 3/28/91) Mother: [Dictating spelling of 'hide-in-seek" for Danny to print in his book about Spring] H. Danny: H. Right here? Mother: Mmhmm. Danny: [Sighs] Mother: Good. I. Danny: [Sighing] I. Brother: . . Mother: D. Danny: D. Brother: D. Danny: Big D or small D? Mother: A little D. Brother: D. D. D. Mother: E. Brother: E. Danny: Big E? Mother: A little E, Danny. Use a little one. Dash, I, N, dash. Brother: I. N. Mother: S. Brother: S. I. Mother: E. Brother: E. Mother: E. Brother: E. Mother: K. Brother: K. Mother: Seek. That spells hide... Brother: I. Danny: Go seek. Mother: No, it says hide 'n' seek. (Tape 4/18/91) Frequently, either Maria or Danny told the younger child not to touch something. Once Maria told him, "Don't [do that]," and then asked 86 him, ”You want to write on something? You want to write on something too? You got paper down there? Get that paper. Go get the paper." Later, when Danny tells his brother to stop touching something, Maria reminds the toddler to write on his paper again (Tape 4/18/91). A few weeks later he asks for a pencil as Danny dictates statements for his mother to write in one of the Language Tasks: Brother: My pencil. My pencil. A Mother: No, you don't need a paper and pencil. ' ...Don't touch that. (Tape 5/23/91) A nine-year-old neighbor, visiting at Toyah's house while her own mother was away, watched as Toyah and her mother pasted pictures in a booklet, and commented, "Y'all do what I had for school." A few moments later, Toyah's mother attempted to gather all the pictures of animals and the following exchange occurred: Mother: Where is the other animals? See, get your knees off the bed and get the stuff. This animal missing. I know I had another one. Toyah: Hmmm? These animals? What's that? Mother: I don't know but I know it's a animal. Visitor: Oh, I know what it is. It's one of them bears. [Picture pasted in booklet is a koala bear.] Mother: Panda or something. Panda bear. Visitor: [with mother] Panda bear. (Tape 5/16/91) One final "participant” in the homework activities should probably be mentioned: the family television which could be heard--sometimes more in the foreground than in the background--on most of the tapes produced by the families. Its presence seemed more of a hindrance to the researcher than to the children, however, for they seemed not to pay the slightest attention to it. Cindy's mother said that under normal circumstances there would have been even more background activity, that her older daughter might be practicing the piano, for example, but that the family had tried to minimize other noises to make the tapes intelligible (Interview 6/12/91). 87 Summary Given five types of homework tasks, the six families in this study differed from each other in the types of homework they chose to complete, the number of tasks they attempted, and the amount of time they spent on those tasks. They also differed widely with respect to which family members were involved in the homework activities and in what capacities. These differences have been conceptualized as structural aspects of the variation among the families. The families also varied in the ways they interpreted the homework tasks. In other words, while two or more families might have completed the "same" language or writing task, the process by which they did so may have been different for each family. The next chapter will begin to examine how the processes differed by looking at variation among the participants in interpretation of procedures and objectives for the homework tasks. CHAPTER 7. INTERPRETATIONS OF HOMEWORK PROCEDURES At even the most basic or literal level, members of the six families differed from each other and sometimes from the teacher in their interpretations of what the homework tasks required of them. As already mentioned, they printed in the children's books instead of printing elsewhere for the children to copy; they printed lists of words (sometimes gleaned from the dictionary) and cut out pictures instead of printed words to exemplify various initial sounds. This chapter addresses the question of what the families did in preparation for later discussions of why and how they did it. Ways of Constructing a Word List Some variations in the literal interpretations of the word list task were described in Chapter 6, but even when families sent similar products to school, they used different procedures to arrive at them. For example, Regina's collection of ”S-words” and Lisa's collections of "O-words" and "N-words” were all cut from a newspaper, but the tape- recorded episodes during which they were constructed suggest that the activity was a very different experience for the two girls. When Regina's sister worked with her, she began by asking Regina to name some s-words, and Regina responded quickly, "Um, sun, snake, space, socks, shirt, um sun, sad and space." Her sister interrupted that she "already said that,” and Regina continued, ”Oh, and uh sugar, school, and sing, sun and [her voice trailed off]” Each of these words was printed at the top of the page that Regina brought to school. After Regina listed the words, her sister told her they had to cut some out of the newspaper and Regina apparently recognized "Sunday" and the name of the publication with no difficulty. Her sister tried to help Regina 88 89 read the next two words by giving her clues which focused on the meaning of the words rather than the letter sounds. Sister: What do you be seeing when they be playing? What is when they be playing basketball? What do you call it? Regina: Um, sports. Sister: Now you got to cut out the sports section. OK, when you tell somebody something what do you do? Regina: Sad. Sister: No. You ain't sad. It's said. Regina: Said. Sister: OK, let's see. Hold this right there. And what do you do when you do this right here? Regina: Cut. Sister: No, not cut. This word right here. Regina: Uh, say. Sister: OK. How many words you got to cut out? (Tape 5/9/91) Lisa's mother protested that she just gave Lisa the paper and told her to find the words; that she did not do homework with her (Fieldnotes 3/3/91). However, the tape-recorded episode in which she and Lisa found words beginning with "N” and ”O” revealed substantially more support for the child's efforts and a marked contrast in tone with Regina's experience. They worked on the words for "N" and "0” simultaneously, and Lisa's mother alternately followed her daughter's lead and actively directed the activity. Mother: O-N spells on. Lisa: On? [Giggles] On, off! Mother: You can find the letter, the word off. Lisa: There go a 0! Mother: Yeah, we have that word already. Of. O-F. We have that one.... Lisa: Where that word I just found? Mother: It's the same word. It's the same word. We don't want the same word. Lisa: Oh. Mother: We have that word already. I'm runnin' out of paper. You just need the letter 0. We have those words, babe. Same word. (Tape 3/17/91) She told Lisa what the various words were and spelled them for her. And when Lisa digressed to the topic of rhyming words, she not only tolerated it, she made a few rhymes herself and expressed delight and approval of Lisa's ability to create rhymes. Even though it seemed that they had entirely lost sight of the activity they started to do, it became apparent that they both had continued the search for "O-Words" in the newspaper. Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: Lisa: Mother: 90 This is nation. Nation. Nation. Ma, see we do rhyming words at school. Nation, pation, kation. It does? Yep. What should rhyme with on? On, shon. On, shon. That's all? That's all you can think of? N. C. Nuh-uh. Nah. I thought you could think of rhyming words. Yeah, rhyming words. On-- Say, like-- Oh, we got that. Yeah. Like-- H. Daitch. Space. H. Space. That doesn't rhyme. Doesn't rhyme. Lon, don, fon, gone. That's what we, Ma, we got the rhyming word. We do it at school. What? Wha--gun. Gun, run. Yep. Fun. Yeah. That's what we do at school. Today. Mop. Mop, hop. Yeah. Flop. Flop, hop. What else? Can-- Can, han. See? All right! What else? Bee, key. Bee, he. Me. Me, he. She. She. What else? Can't think of any rhyming words? There go a O! That's oven. Oven, coven. Oven, coven. [Sings] Oven, coven. Ma, that's, there go a 0. That's over. Over. We don't have over? No. (Tape 3/17/91) They continued the activity, alternately announcing the words they had found in the newspaper and generating rhyme sequences, until the episode concluded with Lisa humming and softly whispering, "News, booze, shoes" (Tape 3/17/91). 91 Interpretations of a Language Task Literal interpretations of these tasks sometimes differed between parent and child as well as between parents. The printed instructions sent home for Week II of April, for example, were the following: Make a booklet out of the classified ad section of the newspaper. Use a large plate to trace around for a round book. Give your child a magazine and have him/her look for pictures of one of the following categories: people, toys, animals, food, tools, cars. Label the book ”(your child's name)”, book of (category chosen). Have your child out and paste the pictures in the round book. Send the book to school to share. - (Parent-Child Home Activities for April) Two of the three families who approached this activity while tape recording their homework encountered disagreements about the materials to use, and the two families who completed the book differed in their understanding of what it was to include. Understanding Wripten Directions Danny's mother tried, without success, to convince him that they could substitute ordinary paper for the newspaper section mentioned in the directions: Mother: [Reads] Make a school book out of paper ads. OK, we can use a paper for that. OK, what we're gonna do... Danny: No. Newspaper. Mother: We don't have newspaper, Danny. Danny: They--they got lots of newspaper over there [at school]. Mother: Do they? Danny: Mmhmm. I'll just ask her for newspaper. Mother: You wanna wait till another day then? Maybe on the weekend we'll do it? You can ask your teacher for some newspaper for your homework. Danny: I'll ask her. You want me to ask her tomorrow? Mother: Yeah, you can ask her tomorrow, OK? You can always use paper, Danny. It doesn't matter. Danny: I wanna use... Mother: All right, fine. (Tape 4/18/91) Danny and his mother apparently never returned to the task; it was not mentioned again on the tapes and he did not bring a completed book to school. Toyah and her mother reached a similar impasse, although they seemed to reverse the roles taken by Danny and his mother, and they 92 eventually returned to and completed the task. Mother: OK, you got to take a book. We need a paper plate. Toyah: A plastic? Mother: No, we need a paper plate. That's what it says. Toyah: We don't have no paper plate. Mother: OK. See, you give your child a mag--OK. [Reads] Use a large... Toyah: I gotta make a big one. Mother: ...plastic to trace around for a round book. Give your child a magazine and cut... Toyah: Pictures. Mother: Mmhmm. We got all that. You got to cut out toys, animals, [Reads] people, toys, animals, food and tools and cars. Label the book your child's name. Books. Toyah: We don't cut out no houses? Cut out people? Ma, does it say cut out people? Mother: Yeah. You gotta cut 'em out and put 'em around the book, but I don't have a book made. Have to get a plastic--I got to get a paper plate. Toyah: Well, I know who gots a paper plate. Mother: Hmm? Toyah: I know who gots paper plates. My Auntie Mary. We could just make one. You know what I'm sayin' Ma? We can just make one. I know how to make some paper plates. You gotta make a big old circle, Mom? Mother: Mmhmm. Toyah: I know how to make one of them big old circles. Mother: We might have to finish this after you come to school tomorrow. I gotta get some paper plates. Maybe I can get a couple from the school. Toyah: Just get one? Mother: I don't have any. I don't have no paper plates. Toyah: I can just draw one, Ma. She don't care if I draw one. (Tape 5/16/91) When she reviewed the tape, Toyah's mother said she had later realized that she did not need a paper plate to trace and they worked on the book the following day (Fieldnotes 5/16/91). Cre t A a "Ro n Boo ” Both Toyah and Cindy brought completed books to school, and the tape recordings produced by their families contain material pertaining to the production of those books. The finished books as well as the tape—recorded data indicated different ways of approaching the same task. The tape recording of Toyah and her mother working on the book extended for 32 minutes. At one point they were joined by a neighbor's child, who commented on the activity and offered a suggestion when Toyah's mother could not think of the name of an animal in one of the pictures they had cut out. Most of the conversation consisted of 93 Toyah's mother directing the construction and organization of the book, interspersed with giggles and playful snatches of musical chants from Toyah. There was little discussion of the reasons for including specific items in the book. Toyah: Now put 'em up there. I'm done. I'm done. Mother: No, we--you gotta get the food. Toyah: [In a singsong cadence] Foods, foods coming up. Foods, foods, coming up foods. Foods. Mother: Then the animals. Toyah: Animals? Mother: Mmhmm. C'mon, let's do the food. Toyah, you're not doin' it like I said. Toyah: OK. [Giggles] Mother: That look--don't mess it up. Toyah: I'm not. I just pushed it a little up 'cause I used it up on them others. Hmmm, glue all over my hand. Oh no, [visitor's name], that's not next. This has to be next. These good. Visitor: I got them. Mother: Let me show you something, Toyah. If you would do like I say, it wouldn't take you no time. Leave it like that. See that? (Tape 5/16/91) The finished book that Toyah brought to school was comprised of a cover and nine pages, eight of which bore pictures in one of the following categories named on the tape: cars, smiling groups of people (which Toyah first called “families,” and later, ”happy people"), entertainment celebrities (”famous people"), garden tools, foods, animals, and toys (two pages). A section of a state road map was pasted on the last page. Approaching the same assignment, Cindy's mother read the directions for the assignment and then turned the tape recorder off while she went to get the materials. When she resumed recording, the book had apparently been completed, and she reviewed its contents with Cindy. In contrast to Toyah's book, Cindy's contained only pictures of people. Her mother's questions centered on why the various pictures were chosen, and Cindy's answers were delivered with solemnity, often seeming to he attempts to guess at, or remember, what her mother determined to be ”correct." Two of Cindy's sisters, ages two and four, were present during the review and could be heard echoing some of her responses. Mother: Cindy: Mother: Cindy: Mother: Cindy: Mother: Cindy: Mother: Cindy: Mother: Cindy: Mother: Cindy: Sister: Mother: Cindy: Mother Cindy: Mother: Cindy: Mother: Cindy: Mother: Cindy: Mother: Cindy: Mother: Cindy: Mother: Cindy: Mother: Cindy: Mother: Cindy: Mother: Sister: Mother: Sister: Mother: Cindy's completed book contained thirteen pages. 94 OK, so you chose to have your round book about what? People. So it's gonna be... Cindy's Book. Mmhmm. Cindy's book--with people? Of people. Of people. So who'd you choose first? A lady that's graduating. OK. What kind of people are these? Working people. Working people. Good. Exercise people. Exercise. Exercising people. Why did you choose these people anyway? They exercise a lot. What do you like about these working peOple? Um, they, um, look pretty and they work and um... Are they all doing the same thing? No ma'am. They doin' different things, like growing food for to eat. Somebody graduating, somebody coming home from the army. Um, exercising people. They exercise a lot. Um, lot of people? Happy people. Happy people. Why do you think these people are happy? think they're happy? Um, they probably is proud of their son or their brother or they probably--he probably proud of his daughter or his family or something. Model people. No, those are famous people. Famous people. Little people. People who model clothes. They wearing model clothes. People who MODEL clothes. People who model clothes? That sounds funny. No, that's what models--you have to model something. In this case you chose clothes. I chose people, that's all. animals, food, tools... And that's why you chose people out of all these--let me What makes you And model people. People is more important than see. You had these categories to choose from: people, toys, animals, food, tools and cars. And you say people --what? People--people is more important than food, toys, or animals. Or cars. [Age 4, reading, and misreading, letters of Cindy's name from book cover] C, I, H. OK, there's nothing wrong with that. [Age 2]: C, H. People are more important. I agree. OK we're finished. (Tape 4/18/91) Interspersed between six pages of pictures there were six pages on which someone had drawn straight lines and Cindy had printed titles for the various 95 categories: ”working people, people who exercise, happy people, famous people, little people, people who model clothes." Several weeks later, Cindy's mother displayed two similar books which she said the younger girls had made, adding that whatever she did with Cindy the others wanted to do too (Fieldnotes 6/12/91). These examples indicate that written directions are not a guarantee that all families will follow them. Adhering to them too literally can, in fact, result in abandoning the activity. Also, two families can read the same set of directions in entirely different ways, resulting in very different experiences for the children doing the "same" homework task. Interpretations of a Writing Task Four of the six families tape recorded their work on one of the Writing Tasks, a booklet entitled "Spring Is.” Comprised of five sheets of newsprint and a yellow construction paper cover, it was cut in the shape of a stylized flower, stapled together, and labelled on the cover with the title. In all four instances, the mother worked with the kindergarten child to fill this booklet; in two of the four families, younger siblings were present during the activity. Some of the observable differences in the finished products are summarized in Table 6. Reviewing the tape recordings made by the families revealed additional differences in what each family did in approaching the task: simply filling the book, struggling with the mechanics of printing, or collaborating on the representation of the child's experiences to construct the meaning of the book's content. 1 n h t to F s Lisa's mother began by asking her daughter a question. Some elements of Lisa's lengthy response appeared as captions in the finished booklet, as well as two statements that were contributed by her mother. 96 Table 6. Four Interpretations of a Writing Task Child Number Number Print Drawings Minutes Pages by by on tape Cindy 6 4 child child a adult Danny 14 4 child child Lisa 3 4 adult child Toyah 35 9 child a adult child & adult Twice during the activity Lisa's mother corrected or challenged something Lisa said, and although Lisa's mother made what appeared to be attempts to initiate or continue the conversation, it never seemed to develop any momentum. Lisa did not seem to be actually working on the booklet during this conversation, for there were no pauses or statements such as "I'm gonna draw....” The captions were printed by Lisa's mother while the illustrations were drawn by Lisa with very little elaboration. When she saw a photocopy of her finished booklet a few months later, Lisa asked, ”Who did that?” Because the exchange between Lisa and her mother during this activity was so brief, it is reproduced here in its entirety. Statements which appeared in the finished booklet are inserted in brackets after the corresponding statement in the conversation. Mother: What do you think, what is springtime? What do springtime Lisa: I:?bring out birds and rabbits, cats, dogs, monkeys, and it's rain and they make flowers. They make trees grow, make grass grow, and it make, and it make flowers grow around the house and they look so pretty and they turn different colors. [Flowers come up. The trees are budding. It rains a lot.) Mother: And what else do spring do? You said a lot. It brings rain. Lisa: I know that. I already said that. And it bring, um-- Mother: Make the grass turn green. [The grass grows and gets greener.] Lisa: It make the grass turn green and it make, um, trees, and it make, um, and it make-- Mother: Huh? Lisa: It make, what else? It make dogs. 97 Mother: How do the rain, how do spring make dogs? Lisa: I don't know. Mother: Than why you say it? Huh? Children play outside more. [Kids play outside.) Lisa: And they ride they bikes and they ride skateboards and they skate and-- Mother: What you gonna do this spring? Lisa: I'm gonna ride my bike and drive my car too. And I'm gonna skate outside, walk around, and be people friend and be good to 'em. Mother: Don't you want the people to be good to you too? Huh? Lisa: Yep. Mother. Yes. OK. (Tape 4/25/91) St u w th e anics Pr nt n Danny and his mother spent fourteen minutes on this task, and it was clear from the statements in their tape-recorded conversation that they were actually producing the booklet as they spoke. They decided on the content of the book in a perfunctory manner within the first few moments as Danny dictated his ideas and his mother printed them on a separate paper for him to copy. She accepted, without comment, his suggestions as well as his correction when she misunderstood him, and printed what he said. He seemed to watch her printing very closely and questioned her about the letters she printed. The remainder, and by far the majority, of the exchange was devoted to copying those statements into the booklet with ”correct" spelling, letter formation, and format. Danny's younger brother was present and could be heard babbling in the background as he and his mother worked. Mother: No, [Brother's Name], move over there. OK, Spring is what, Danny? Danny: I don't know. I know. Spring is playing out in your yard. Mother: Playing outside. Danny: We gotta do some drawing too and color the drawing. Is that a G? Mother: Mmhmm. Danny: C? That's a O, huh? Brother: [Sneezes] Mother: OK, that's for page one. OK, you can go back and draw your pictures when we get done, OK? OK, what, spring is what else? Danny: Spring is-- Brother: [Babbles] Danny: Spring is, Spring is birds flyin'! Mother: Spring is birds flying. OK, that's page two. OK. Danny: Spring is--playing. Spring is playing--hide and go seek! That's a P, huh? 98 Mother: Mmhmm. Danny: And a G. Mother: A G. Danny: H. Don't [Brother's Name]. No! Mother: OK, that's page three. Danny: No. No, [Brother's Name]! Spring--giggles]. Mother: OK, now page four. Danny: Spring is-- Mother: Don't touch that. Spring is what? Danny: Spring is [very rapidly] riding a bike! Mother: Riding a bike? Danny: Riding--your--bike. Mother: Riding your bike. Brother [Babbles] Mother: Don't touch that, [Brother's Name]. Danny: [To brother] No. Mother: OK, now you have page four. Danny: [To brother] I said no! No! Mother: When you write it, write it nice, OK? Don't forget to leave enough space between your words so it don't look all crowded together. That's page one. Danny: We gotta, what do we gotta do? Mother: There's the first one you wrote, play outside. This is the first word, playing. You can put it right here on this. Danny: Draw me? Mother: No, you're gonna, you can do your drawing afterward. You're gonna write the words first. Danny: Up here? Mother: Nope, down here. (Tape 4/18/91) During the remainder of the activity, Danny's mother told him where to place specific words; criticized his printing when she considered it ”sloppy"; reminded him to use the "whole space” allotted between the lines on the paper and to leave proper spacing between words; and admonished him not to press so hard that his fingers "get tired.” For his part, Danny checked with his mother to verify what he was supposed to write and whether he "got it right.” Danny's tenuous knowledge of letter forms was suggested when he asked his mother if a ”Y" is a ”different '0',” and although she corrected him, she did not pursue the question or the reason for his confusion. Later her use of the word ”little” to indicate ”lower case” resulted in Danny printing a minuscule upper case ”B” instead of the required lower case letter, and although her tone of voice suggested some irritation, she did correct herself: "Danny, that's a CAPITAL 'B.' You know what a little--lower case--'b' is.” 99 MW Parts of the thirty five minutes that Toyah and her mother spent on this task were also occupied with correct spelling, letter formation, and letter placement; however, these concerns were dealt with more lightly and seemed to receive less emphasis than the decisions regarding the content of text and illustrations. Toyah asked her mother how to spell various words, laughed out loud when her lower case "e" looked ‘ like an ”a” to her, and reminded herself to "cut line, out another line," apparently meaning to leave a space between words as she printed them. Toyah's work on this task, as on the "round book" described earlier, was punctuated with playful giggles and impromptu musical chants. The following exchange occurred as Toyah continued working at the dining room table while her mother moved to the kitchen to begin cooking bacon: Mother: Keep doin' your plant. Draw another one. Toyah: I'm is. Dirt. Dirt. Dirt around my plant. All black dirt around my plant....THUNder. THUNder. THUNder. It make the trees go, to grow. [Calls loudly] I'm doin' pretty good, Ma. Mother: [From distance] OK, just keep it up. (Tape 4/12/91) Toyah's mother suggested most of the statements that were printed in the booklet by Toyah, but she accepted and encouraged her daughter's ideas about how the statements should be illustrated, and printed labels for various elements in those illustrations. In addition to directing Toyah's printing or rejecting what she considered redundant suggestions, she offered to help with printing and drawing, elaborated upon Toyah's comments, and complimented her work. Toyah: Spring is kick--now I gotta do somethin' on this. Um, how about trees grow? Mother: You did that on the other page. No, they were plants. You got trees on the other page.... Mother: Whatever ball. We play ball. We play KICKball in the spring. Toyah: Spring. And, and it, and it, and flowers grow we will say. I mean make the grass. Mother: Grass. Toyah: Make the grass so they can kick. Mother: OK, yeah. You're smart. (Tape 4/12/91) 100 Frequently her mother's comments were playful: To illustrate the caption, ”We play kickball in the spring,” Toyah drew two figures and identified them. Toyah: Me and you kickin' the ball. Mother: Oh yeah? Toyah: Yeah. Mother: I'm gonna win. Toyah: Nah-ah. We not playin' win ball. Mother: Oh, OK. [Laughs] Toyah: We playing kickball. Mother: OK. Whatever you say. (Tape 4/12/91) Toyah's mother drew one human figure to illustrate the caption, "We go fishing,” and Toyah drew another, but her figure was placed higher on the page than her mother's and appeared to float above the water. She interpreted the placement in terms of her knowledge of physical reality as representing the act of leaping into the air and verified this with her mother. Her mother encouraged her to continue, suggested what elements were needed, labelled parts of her picture and connected the child's present surroundings to the pictured situation by asking a playful question. Toyah: I'm jumpin', Mom? Mother: Mmhmm. Keep fishin'. Toyah: Wait. I gotta make the stick on the water. Mother: You gotta make his body. And then you write we go fishin. Toyah: And that's the stick. 'Cause I'm doin' 'em. Mother: Yes ma'am. Toyah: Ma, that's you with your curly hair. Mother: [Laughs] OK, Toyah. [Kitchen noises; voice from distance] You want some bacon while you fish? (Tape 4/18/91) When Toyah drew a car, her mother asked her, "Where you goin' in a car? On a trip?” and brought the idea back to the topic of spring by suggesting, "You could write spring vacation. You want to write that?" When Toyah drew a house, her mother asked her, "Who gonna live there?" and, apparently unable to connect the drawing with the topic of spring, suggested a subject for drawings that appeared on the next page, "Easter's in the springtime." Cindy's mother apparently began taping this activity after the text had been printed in the booklet and at least the first illustration was 101 completed. She asked Cindy, ”What kind of flowers are those?" and Cindy responded, "These is dandelions." Cindy reviewed the captions for each page with prompts and corrections from her mother. Cindy: And spring is when trees grow. Mother: What happens to trees? Cindy: They grow? Mother: What happens to trees? They grow after spring too. Cindy: Leaves come back on the trees? Mother: Yes. (Tape 4/18/91) The caption printed in her booklet was, "When leaves come out on trees.” The remainder of the tape segment consisted of discussion about the illustrations for the captions. Cindy's baby sister could be heard babbling in the background until called away by her father. Her four-year-old sister was also drawing pictures and added her own comments from time to time, and her two-year-old sister begged for a pencil, without success, throughout the episode. In addition to coaching her daughter's "reading” of the captions, Cindy's mother offered advice when Cindy said she did not know how to make a leaf or to She suggested additional elements to be "get 'em on the tree either." included in a picture and playfully accepted Cindy's ideas. Mother: You know something that you didn't mention that happens in spring? You have 'em chirpin' all over the place. You even feed 'em every morning. Cindy: Who--BIRDS! Mother: Birds come out in the spring. You could have a bird's nest in your tree. Cindy: Huh? Mother: Just take your brown-- Cindy: And that's a bird house. Mother: And make a bird nest. Cindy: Mmmm. Mother: You can put it right in the branches. Someplace safe. Cindy: Like this? Mother: Yes. They build 'em out of straw and hay and anything else they find. Don't they? Cindy: Yes, ma'am. Mother: You gonna put birds in it? Cindy: Yes, ma'am. I'm makin' EGGS in here. Mother: Oh, these birds haven't hatched yet. Cindy: Gotta make 'em white. Mother: Yeah. They don't have to be. Birds' eggs are different colors. Cindy: Like what? Mother: Some are pretty blue. Depend on what kind of bird it is. Cindy: A hummingbird. Mother: Oh now. Give me a break. Just, just-- 102 Cindy: A plain bird. Mother: You choose a color. They might be pale yellow, light blue, pretty birds' eggs. Cindy: I'm gonna put this one. That'll work? Mother: Mmhmm. It's your bird's eggs. Now finish the leaves on the tree. Cindy: Oh. Mother: And then we'll move on to the rest of what spring is. Cindy: Can I, um, draw the bird? Mother: Can you what? Cindy: Draw the birds? Mother: If they hatched already, sure. (Tape 4/18/91) Later, Cindy drew a cake with six candles to illustrate the caption, "When my birthday comes," and her mother helped her get the correct number of candles, then instructed: Mother: OK. Now you're gonna color 'em. Cindy: I need some lights. Mother: Oh, of course. They must burn. My fault. I'm sorry. (Tape 4/18/91) When Cindy told her that the cake was "gonna be red and green and purple,” she answered, ”Interesting cake. Happy birthday.” While the four finished booklets were essentially quite similar in content, with some variations in execution, the experience of producing the booklets was vastly different for the four children on cognitive as well as affective levels. For one child, it consisted of a brief quasi-conversation, followed by quickly drawing four simple pictures. For another, the struggle to recognize and produce acceptable letters in the designated positions on the pages precluded any possibility of embellishing the content. Finally, for two others, it was an occasion for playful interactions with their mothers and a chance to have their own ideas accepted by an adult who was willing to help execute them. The conversations in these two families were varied and pursued beyond a single statement. The children were reminded of their own past experiences and given new information to consider. Objectively, there was one assignment; from the subjective perspective of the children and their families, there were probably at least four assignments. 103 Ways of Reading Aloud At least four ways of reading aloud appeared in the tape-recorded homework. They can be characterized as repeating words, repeating facts, sharing meaning and pleasure, and reading for oneself. Re W d Michael's family produced 49 minutes of recorded interactions during which four people read a total of six stories to Michael: an adult male cousin, an adult female friend of his mother, his mother and his sister. Regardless of who read to him, the reading proceeded in staccato bursts of single words or short phrases which Michael repeated. When he failed to repeat a line, his cousin and sister told him sharply, ”Say it!" (Tape 3/25/91). His mother's friend seemed surprised by Michael's periodic interruptions to repeat her words, and once burst out laughing when Michael interjected with an echo of each word in the ”chinny chin chin" refrain of Thg Three Little Pigs (Tape 5/9/91). When asked if Michael was sitting next to the reader so he could see the print as he echoed the words, his mother said that sometimes he was while other times he might be across the room (Interview 6/19/91). On one of the tapes, in fact, Michael dozed off while his sister read and his voice grew weaker and weaker until she finally shouted at him: Now you ain't gonna read this! You gonna fall asleep. You ain't gonna read it at all. You fallin' asleep. Now go in your bed. We ain't gonna finish it today. We gonna cut it off now (Tape 5/9/91). Re e act Although to a lesser extent, Regina's sixteen-year-old sister also fragmented the story that she read to Regina. Instead of pausing after each phrase for the child to repeat it, Regina's sister paused after every two or three sentences to quiz Regina about what she had just read and either corrected her or read the passage again when Regina's answer was not satisfactory: Sister: Down by the beach he came upon a cat but monsters don't eat cats so he went on by. Do monsters eat cat? 104 Regina: Yep. Sister: Listen, OK? I'm gonna repeat. [Rereads passage.) Do he eat cats? Regina: No. (Tape 5/9/91) , In another taped episode, Regina's mother asked her questions about h uf . She announced to Regina twice, as they worked on word lists, that she was going to ask her about the book she read. Finally she said, ”Tell me about the three billy goat gruffs." Regina's recounting of the story included several phrases that seemed to be direct quotations from the language of the printed story, rendered in a reading intonation. Her mother prompted her with factual questions when she paused: "What was under the bridge?” ”Did the middle size one come?” Regina concluded, ”And then they all went on the other side to eat the green sweet grass and there they lived happy ever after,” to which her mother responded, "ox, OK, that was good. At least you did know something about this book" (Tape 4/21/91). Sh Me n In contrast to the solemn quality of story reading in these two families, read-aloud books for some families were an occasion for pleasurable interactions that often included other family members as well as the reader and kindergarten child. Cindy's mother read thirteen storybooks during the tape-recorded homework activities, and in every instance the voices of the other children could be heard throughout the story, laughing, commenting on or asking questions about the content, complaining that the others were in the way, or--in the case of the baby--sometimes babbling or fussing and crying until called away by her father. When Cindy's ten-year-old sister took a turn to read a story, her mother became part of this active audience, answering questions about the meaning of words and asking others on behalf of the younger children when they appeared confused. The girls' father, calling himself "the sandman," read two bedtime stories with comically exaggerated inflection that elicited squeals of laughter from his 105 audience and, Cindy promised, would make anyone who listened to the tape "crack up" (Fieldnotes 5/23/91, Tape 6/12/91). When Cindy re—read, with frequent prompts, one of the stories her father read to the girls, he told her that she read "pretty good” and she responded, "With a little help" (Tape 6/12/91). e d n or Onese f The activity of reading storybooks aloud was interpreted yet another way by Lisa and her family. Lisa's mother read fifteen stories, and her eight-year-old brother read one. After listening to nine of them, Lisa ”read” them aloud herself, usually managing to recapture the basic elements of plot and rendering dialogue in a variety of pitches to suggest multiple speakers, just as she did at school. Only once, when re-reading the story her brother had just read to her, did Lisa wait for him to prompt her and then repeat the text, fragment by fragment (Tape 5/23/91). The following example, which occurred just after her mother had finished reading The Gingerbread Mag, illustrates the way Lisa's mother supported her attempts to read the stories. Lisa: Can I read it now? Mother: Yes, you can. Lisa: [Whispers inaudibly] Mother: Come on. Read the book. Lisa: OK. OK. It was a little old man, a little old woman. The man said--the lady said she'll make a gingerbread man. He said that's good cause I'm hungry! And then she made a face and a body. She got out the dough, the milk, the flour-- Mother: And the bowl. Lisa: And the bowl. Then she put 'im in the oven. Nah ah, not that part. She got-- Mother: She gave him two eyes-- Lisa: Two eyes and a nose and a mouth and three, and three buttons. That's all. Then she put him in the oven. Mother: Mmhmm. Lisa: He said--he, he--the old man said that sure taste good. Mother: No. That sure smells good. Lisa: That sure smells good. When it gonna be ready? That the old man? Mother: Mmhmm. , Lisa: And he looked. Then the gingerbread man came out of the stove. He ran. Went downstairs said the gingerbread man. The old woman cried the old man cried. It was two girl-- one girl and a boy. They said come back gingerbread man. You can't catch me cause nobody can't catch me. And then the girl said stop stop meow meow. Nobody can't get me. I ran from the old man, the old woman, the boy and the 106 girl. Mother: He said run run as fast as you can. You can't catch me. I'm the gingerbread man. Lisa: [With mother] Run run fast as you can. You can't catch me. I'm the gingerbread man. And then he said how I'm gonna get, um, over the water? He shoulda go there. Mother: The river was wide. Lisa: And they was gettin close and close. And then a fox came up to him and said. You need a little help? Yes I can. Help my feets gettin wet. My feets gettin wet. Come on, come on. Hey my body gettin wet. I'm gonna melt. I'm gonna melt. Get on my nose. Mother: [Laughs] Lisa: Then he gobbles him up. (Tape 4/25/91) Interpretations of Skill Practice Practicing skills such as letter or numeral recognition as Mrs. Peters recommended yielded no written "product" to bring to school: however, based upon observations in the classroom and the children's homes, it appeared that approaches to this task varied, as for the other homework tasks. Sometimes the parents and Mrs. Peters each interpreted the tasks differently and, in one example, the child provided yet a third interpretation. At the spring conference Mrs. Peters recommended that Danny's mother work with him on the notions of top and bottom and recalling events of stories in sequence. Although Mrs. Peters was referring to the convention of equating the top of a page with "the part farthest away from you," Danny's mother related the idea to Danny's difficulty following her directions to get something from a top or bottom drawer at home (Fieldnotes 4/18/91). When confronted with a list from the teacher that told parents (without explanation) to practice AABB patterns with their children for the next marking period, Cindy's mother plunged ahead by printing a series of paired letters (AA, 88, aa, bb, AB, ab) in random fashion on one side of a page and again on the right. She then had Cindy draw lines between the matching pairs and reported with apparent pleasure that, after drawing the lines, Cindy had counted the pairs on each side and announced that her mother had ”missed one" because there were six on 107 one side and only five on the other (Fieldnotes 4/18/91). In the classroom, AABB patterns referred to the process of completing or continuing an arrangement of objects in patterns that had been initiated by the teacher: alternating two red, then two green cubes in a tower or selecting the appropriate shape to add to the November calendar where the dates had been marked in a series of alternating pairs of turkeys and pumpkins. Thus the school's task of pattern repetition was interpreted as a visual discrimination task by Cindy's mother and as a mathematical exercise in comparing sets by Cindy herself. As indicated in Table 4, Chapter 6, very little of the tape- recorded homework consisted of Skill Practice. The following episode provides another example of variation between a mother's interpretation of a task and the teacher's. As mentioned previously, toward the end of the school year, Mrs. Peters sent home labels on which various words were printed. She told the children to go home, find their labels, and study them so that they would do well on the test for beginning sounds (Fieldnotes 5/16/91). There was no emphasis on recognition of beginning sounds in the activity involving these labels at Cindy's home. Her mother called the words on the labels ”spelling words” and, after coaching Cindy to read each word, required her to "spell" each word and use it in a sentence. The rapidity with which Cindy recited the letters in each word suggested that she was reading the letters rather than spelling the word in the sense of reciting the letters from memory. When Cindy succeeded at these tasks, her mother increased the difficulty of the task. Mother: What is this word? Cindy: Floor. Mother: Very good. Cindy: That's the one we did today. Mother: OK, spell it. Cindy: F-L-O—O—R. Mother: Sentence? Cindy: This is our one we did at school today. Mother: Think of another one. Cindy: We sit on the floor at group. We have to. Mother: That's not the one you used at school? Cindy: Yes, Ma'am. 108 Mother: Think of another one. No fair. Cindy: I sit on the floor at home too. Mother: OK, I'll let you get away with that. What is this? Cindy: Floor. (Tape 5/16/91) Danny's method for arriving at the acceptable answers on the phonics exercise differed from his mother's idea of how the task should be done. Danny's mother read the directions which required the child to “Look at the pictures. Say their name. Which two names begin with the same sound? Draw a line under each of these names." She praised him when he selected two "correct" pairs: Mother: ...Good. Next one. Danny: I'm just lookin' at the words. Mother: No, you're supposed to--oh, you're looking at letters, huh? Danny: Yeah. Mother: Well sound the words out. OK? See clown and-- Danny: Clock. Mother: Clock. You cheated. I'm gonna put my hands on this other one so you can't see. Got to go by the sounds. (Tape 6/5/91) Summary The examples in this chapter have demonstrated the complexities involved in even the most basic interpretation of the kindergarten homework tasks. The teacher, the parents, and the children all had their own ideas about what each task should involve and sometimes those ideas differed sharply. As a result, the "same” task (writing about spring, for example) was a very different experience for Danny, Cindy, Lisa, and Toyah, even though they all brought a similar product to school. Part of the difference in the various interpretations of what was to be done was related to differing interpretations of why it should be done. The next chapter will examine some of those variations in perceived purposes for the homework. CHAPTER 8. HOMEWORK PURPOSES AND IMPEDIMENTS Adult Interpretations Based upon what they said and did, there appeared to be some congruence between the parents' perceptions of the purposes of the homework activities and those of the teacher; however, there was also incongruence. Furthermore, both teacher and parents saw the various types of homework as serving different purposes. The children, too, had their own ideas about why they should do the homework, although they did not seem to make distinctions between the types of homework. Weenies; Much of what Mrs. Peters did with her kindergartners was in preparation for the assessments that were administered four times a year. She seemed to view the items on these assessments as difficult and to feel that only through their hard work and conscious effort could the children perform successfully. In September she warned the children that they would have to recite a nursery rhyme for the January assessment and, in October, began the practice of requiring each child to do so as a condition for dismissal from the group at the end of the morning (Fieldnotes 9/27/90; 10/18/90). When the children guessed that ”seed starts with c,” she warned them that they would "make a lot of mistakes on c-words” in the final assessment and told them that they "really have to study these sounds" (Fieldnotes 5/16/91). In January, when she found that some children ”forgot” the skills that had been assessed for the November report card, Mrs. Peters said it proved the importance of repetition (Fieldnotes 1/24/91). In addition to her own efforts to help her pupils do as well as possible on the four assessments, Mrs. Peters actively solicited the 109 fi' -..I-LJ In—IEII LI A 110 assistance of the parents. Much of each parent-teacher conference was spent explaining the items that the parent should work on with the child for the next assessment (Fieldnotes Ills/90: 4/18/91), and when there was no scheduled parent-teacher conference a note was sent home with the same information (Fieldnotes 1/31/91). She felt that the parents' role was crucial. When asked what she felt accounted for the differences between the children who could not name the initial sounds of at least fifteen words on the last assessment and the child who "zipped right through," she answered: Parents. What made a difference for them, I know it was the help they got from parents at home. because [childJ's mom helped her and I know directly that she helped. Everything, all of the words that I sent home with them to work on the sounds, they worked on them. And I could tell because some of the same words that she took home I asked her again what letter those words began with. She was able to tell me. The minute I mentioned the name of that word she could tell me (Interview 6/20/91). Of the five types of homework tasks, Skill Practice was most clearly and directly related to the goal of successful performance on the assessments. In addition to specific tasks with numerals, letters, or words described previously, Mrs Peters urged the parents to cultivate particular methods of approaching many activities with their children. For example, she said that in order to help children learn the conventional left to right progression of our printed language she began, even in preschool, to ask parents: Be sure whenever you're doing anything in order for them, be sure you start at the left. If you’re doing it in order, if something has to be put in a row, start and go from left to right. So that the children will get the concept of reading, going from left to right and not reversing (Interview 6/20/91). Although the data from the tape recorded homework activities and interviews with parents contained little direct evidence that the families worked with their children on specific skills, they did suggest that several families shared the idea that school success required conscious ”study" on the part of their kindergarten children. Mrs. Peters said that Cindy told her that her father ”went over" her words 111 with her (Interview 6/20/91), and Cindy's tape-recorded homework included four episodes during which her mother worked on letter or sound recognition skills with her (Tapes 4/18/91; 5/16/91). Some families seemed to view other types of homework tasks as a test, or at least preparation for a test. As mentioned previously, Regina's sister and mother quizzed her on the factual content of stories they read. Michael's cousin also interrupted his reading of storybooks to quiz Michael on factual details of the story content, and when he was dissatisfied with the response, said he had to "go back over" the story (Tape 3/25/91). Michael seemed to share this view of story reading as work or study. He shouted that he would not read the stories again after his mother accidentally destroyed one of the tapes (Fieldnotes 4/25/91), and after his mother and her friend each read him a story, demanded, TAsk me some questions” (Tape 5/9/91). Lisa's mother explained that she did the word lists, although she did not particularly enjoy them, and felt they were important because Lisa "knew her abc's" but still got ”mixed up on her d's and b's and her p's because they're all the same shape” (Interview 6/20/91). As she worked on one of the word lists with her daughter, she told her about a new skill she would be working on in school: Mrs. Peters said she gonna be doin' sounds. You know, when she tell you a word you gotta tell her what is the sound-- what letter it start with. What it sound like to you, right? (Tape 4/25/91) Beyond these examples of working with their children, the parents made statements that indicated they accepted this responsibility for insuring their children's success on the assessments, and expressed chagrin when they felt they had not lived up to their expectations of themselves. Before she had even learned the results of Michael's final assessment, his mother assumed he had done poorly and poured her feelings of self-recrimination into a written note blaming herself for not helping her boys or ”being there" for them. She was concerned that Michael could not read a book on his own yet and said that it was her 112 idea to have him repeat each word of the stories that were read to him because she thought it would help him learn, although she worried that her way of reading to him might not be ”the way you're supposed to do it" (Interview 6/19/91). Cindy's mother said that she had worried after the first parent-teacher conference: ...in the beginning of the school year, when Mrs. Peters was saying that Cindy's large muscle coordination was a little bit off, that really got me because we do a lot of mental things as opposed to physical things, and I came home and said we got to get more physical....So when she said that I said ”Oops, I overdone it on the brain and underdone it on the muscles.” And then she said she finally got it right, so I said, "good” (Interview 6/12/91). In addition to accepting responsibility for teaching her child, sometimes a parent claimed responsibility for deciding which demands were appropriate. Toyah's mother agreed when, during parent-teacher conferences, Mrs. Peters told her that Toyah needed to take more time with cutting and to practice writing smaller on lined paper (Fieldnotes 4/18/91); but she expressed reluctance to work on letters because she did not want to ”push" Toyah (Fieldnotes 11/8/90) and wondered whether the children had not already ”had" a picture-sequencing activity in preschool (Fieldnotes 4/18/91). She reported with evident pleasure and pride that Toyah "worked hard at home" (Fieldnotes 11/8/90). The connection between the other types of homework and "school success" was not drawn as clearly, and parents drew different conclusions about the reasons for doing them. Lisa's mother, for example, seemed to see the language tasks as a form of skill practice that was unnecessary if Lisa already knew the content: I didn't do the activities where once a week you had to do something different. I didn't do it for my son [either]. I didn't think that was worth it. She's as smart as I don't know what. She's gonna--I don't know. I didn't do those. It was boring to me. I might ask her a question of them, but just to take it and do it and send it to school, I didn't do that....She asked about things that--like some things be bigger or smaller. Put 'em on a piece of paper or cut 'em out a magazine or something like that. And I just asked Lisa. What was bigger, what was smaller. And I 113 didn't do it. I just asked her to see if she knew it herself. You know (Interview 6/20/91). She did, however, do the things that she felt worthwhile: She worked with her eight-year-old son on his geography each week and, as noted previously, she helped Lisa with the word lists because she thought it would increase her letter recognition skills. Ex 0 of C r rr cu u Danny's mother seemed unsure about what happened to the homework after they completed it. During one tape-recorded activity, she asked Danny if the other children had been doing their homework, and he answered with a monosyllabic "Yep." She returned to the question a few moments later and asked, "What do you guys do? You talk about these things in class or what?” She got no explanation, however. Danny simply raised his usually soft voice and yelled, "That's our homework, Ma. Don't you understand?” (Tape 3/28/91). Perhaps because she did not know how (or if) the homework related to Danny's classroom activities, she ignored the fact that the language task assignments were each designated for a particular week of the month. She said she made it a practice to wait and do the entire month's homework assignments at one time: ”I wait mainly till the middle of the month to do the homework sheet. Until maybe like the third week of the month to do it” (Interview 6/5/91). In one taped episode, as they finished the third Language Task in one thirty minute session, Danny asked, "We're doing all the homework in one day?" His mother answered, "Mmhmm. you know we always do that" (Tape 3/28/91). On another tape, the four language tasks for the month of May are completed in a single twenty-four minute session (Tape 5/23/91). Mrs. Peters made no comment about Danny bringing in several assignments at one time, but she did express the opinion that doing the homework this way had little use: ... and I know when a parent brings in two months of homework at one time, and they've done it overnight, I know there hasn't been any learning in that. And this is what happened with one of my afternoon little girls. I know her parents brought in two months at one time....She [the 114 mother] just did it and sent it just so the girl could get some stickers on it. And there wasn't any learning in that (Interview 6/20/91) She gave another example of a child who brought in four word lists at one time and concluded that his parents had done it themselves, "so no learning has taken place.” Although she objected to the parents doing the homework "just to get stickers,” Mrs. Peters said that she did remind the children "every once in awhile, bring your homework back because I'm putting the stickers up so I'll know who's brought it back." She felt, however, that she had not pressed the issue in kindergarten as much as she had in preschool when the record of returned homework assignments had to be sent "downtown” [school administration offices] (Interview 6/20/91). Unlike the parents who completed several assignments at a single sitting, Cindy's mother believed that it was important for her to work on each Language Task during the designated week because "they do lessons in school on these things during the week" (Fieldnotes 4/18/91). In fact, however, this relationship between the homework and the classroom activities was true only in part, and only for some of the other types of homework. For example, during the first semester, the alphabet letter featured on the word list for a given week was also the focus of the children's daily writing exercises. This was not the case later in the year when Mrs. Peters stopped spending an entire week on a given letter; however, she said that she did review the word lists that the children brought in, partly as a technique to motivate others to follow suit: I would go over the words with them, the ones that brought the words back. Go over the sounds, the word-letter sounds, and letter words. I tried to put them up on the bulletin board because I think they like to see their work on display also. And that's basically what I did with them. Read them ...basically so that the other kids would--give them an incentive to bring theirs back....Sometimes I would have the child to read what they had written themselves...(Interview 6/20/91). 115 The read aloud books also became a link between homework and classroom activities when Mrs. Peters chose some of them to read to the children during the last few weeks of school. When she did she observed that the children who had taken a particular book home were familiar with its content and able to predict the content (Interview 6/20/91). Mrs. Peters considered the language tasks "something extra” for parents to do with their children and did not refer to their content in school beyond recording completed assignments on the chart and displaying them on a bulletin board. She said that she did not try to coordinate her classroom activities with the printed language task assignments (Interview 6/20/91). Preparation :9; Elementary School Beyond helping the children do well on the kindergarten assessments or complementing the classroom activities, homework seemed to be viewed as a preparation for later school experiences. This preparation could be global, in the sense of cultivating certain attitudes or dispositions in the children, or specific, in the sense of honing particular skills which, while not measured by the kindergarten assessment, were perceived as necessary for school success. For example, although her questions suggested she was unsure of the precise relationship between the homework tasks and what her child did in school, the fact that Danny's mother completed nearly all of the language tasks with him suggests that she believed them valuable for some reason. She described one reason as building the self-discipline that will be needed in later school years: ...I think the homework that they have now does help them because it's gonna prepare them for in first grade when they have homework to bring home and they do have to do something. And just having them sit down and do it helps them realize what--well, this is what school is like. I'm gonna have to be bringing things home and doing it. I'm gonna have to make time. I'm gonna have to discipline myself....This is my homework and I have to do it (Interview 6/5/91). The belief that it was helpful to give kindergarten children a taste of what first grade would be like was one shared by Mrs. Peters. 116 For example, when she decided that two girls in the kindergarten class were ready for them, she sent primer editions of basal readers home with them and later gave this explanation: They're harder because they're getting into [basic sight vocabulary] words....A lot of those words are included so I sent those so that they could start to be familiar with those. And it's harder for them to get into that rather than the easy readers that they have, you know the storybooks. So that's why I did that with some of them, so that they could get used to some of those words....That's what they'll use later on when they get into the phonetic sounds....That's why I'm trying to introduce them to as much as possible. So first grade won't be so difficult (Interview 6/20/91). The expectation that children work on "correct" letter formation and word placement in their writing might be viewed as another use of homework as preparation for later school experiences. These aspects of writing did not appear on the kindergarten assessment tool, which required only that the child be able to identify the upper and lower case alphabet at the three last marking periods and print his or her first name at the last two. Nevertheless, as noted earlier, children practiced letter formation and copying words or sentences from the chalkboard throughout the school year, and Mrs. Peters said she wanted the parents to let their children copy print into the booklets she sent home. As mentioned earlier, four families happened to tape record at least a part of their work on one of the writing tasks, the booklet entitled, ”Spring Is." Of those four families, one mother printed the captions in the booklet for her daughter, and a second, although she apparently printed the captions for her daughter to copy in the booklet as Mrs. Peters wished, did not record the process of copying the print. The recordings produced by the remaining two families contain the following examples of the parent's attempts to "correct" the child's letter formation and placement. In Toyah's case, these attempts comprise only a small portion of the total interaction with her mother as they construct the booklet; in Danny's case, however, the focus on 117 "correct” printing comprises the bulk of the interaction. Mother: Write this up right here. Start there. Toyah: [Sighs] Mother: N. I-N. 0 right down there. On the LINE. Go right here, Toyah. Start right there. I. N. Good. That's a M. You know how to make a N. Right. The. Toyah: T. Mother: That's wrong. You got 'em too close together. OK, now write it. T. Toyah: No, wait. Mother: Right there, T. Toyah: OK. Mother: M. H [with emphasis]. E. Well, look at that E. That's tacky. Toyah: [Giggles.] (Tape 4/12/91) Danny and his mother working on the words, "Spring is”: Mother: B. Is that a little E? That looks kinda sloppy to me. You can do better writing than that. Start over. 1. Brother: I. I. Mother: E. Brother: 8. Mother: That is a capital D. You don't write a capital D there. You need a little D. Danny: This real little right? Mother: A D, Danny.... You can write better than that. Danny: I'll do this over it. Mother: Go to the next page.... Use this space up right here. The whole space. Danny: Maaa. Mother: Yep. See how they have the lines in here? You write in between the lines on here, OK? Danny: Like this? Mother: All this space in here you write in, OK? So when you do it you're gonna go like this. See? And you're gonna make your, the rest of your B like that. That's B. OX? Danny: [Whispers] Yes. Mother: I. Danny: So I write just like this, right? Mother: Mmhmm. R. Danny: R. Go like this? Like a capital R? Mother: No, a little R. [They continue in this vein until booklet is completed.) You can write your name. Nice and neat. Danny: Like that? Mother: Not messy like you been doin' it. (Tape 4/18/91) In addition to these examples of families working on writing tasks, the tape—recorded homework indicated that some families treated other tYpes of assignments as writing tasks. As mentioned earlier, some c=l'lildren's word lists contained printed words in addition to (or instead "f) the words and pictures cut from magazines or newspapers. In some c’Caes the printing appeared to be that of an adult or an older sibling, 118 while on other papers at least some of the printing appeared to be done by the child. In the following excerpt, Toyah and her mother are working on her word list for the letter "N”: Mother: Do your work neat....Write your name at the top. OK. News. W. Don't write 'em so big. Write 'em like you did that homework you did before. Toyah: Hmm? I writed so small with that A-P? Mother: Mmhmm. Toyah: W-O-U. I ain't got enough paper. Ma, you shouldna put all them right here, right here. Mother: You can write your, uh, write your names all up in there just as long as you get your names on there. It ain't nothin' but a little bitty word. Now write N-O. N. Toyah: I already wrote it. Mother: OK. Well, write O. Toyah: O. Mother: Write N-A—A-C—P. You can write it small. You writin' too big. Toyah: Like that? Mother: N-A-A-C-P. (Tape 3/14/91) In a similar way, Cindy's mother treated one of the language tasks as a writing task by having Cindy print the captions on the page. Cut open a paper bag and lay it flat. paper bag trace around your child's hand. child dictate to you what hands are for. This is what the printed instructions for the assignment said: At the top of the Now have your Start with the sentence “Hands are for:' Send the bag to school to share with the class (Parent-Child Home Activities for April). In addition to tracing Cindy's hand, labelling the bag, and printing some of the words that Cindy dictated, Cindy's mother embellished the activity by having Cindy out pictures from magazines to illustrate the various uses for hands and print some of the labels The excerpts herself, copying them from samples printed by her mother. below occur as Cindy works on copying the labels. Mother: Write "playing” right on this nice crease in the paper right here. Learn to make your letters LONGer. Cindy: a-r. Mother: 'Member how I showed you to make a Y. Cindy: And I? N-G. Mother: The long straight line goes down under. See, it's not so hard. And remember the stem on the P goes down long that way. Good. OK.... Cindy: [Now working on the word "eating.”1 T. Mother: Now see? You started going down. Where you gonna go? Cindy: All the way down here? And your T is upside down almost 'cause you made it so low. Keep goin'. N. 119 Mother: Looks like a H. You can't do it. Cindy: G. Mother: Now does that look like this one? Cindy: This how the other one is. Mother: No, because this part--so that you see this looks like a G from my way but you have to turn the paper like this in order for it to look the same. See, you just have to learn to take time when you do something. Don't always try to rush through it. You don't have to rush. If you take your time-- Cindy: It look upside down! Mother: Yes it does. Yes it does. Cindy: Like this it do....[She is now printing the caption, ”shooting baskets.'] Mother: You're going up, Cindy. Supposed to be going straight across. It's the way you turn your hands. You have got some straight across here. Why you start going up like that I do not know. Cindy: Like that? Mother: But you've got to bring this down. Otherwise you're not going to have room. You're going to write up into this picture. (Tape 4/18/91) It seems clear from these examples that the parents considered "correct" writing to be at least a part of the purpose for the homework. To a certain extent, they shared this goal with Mrs. Peters, who said that she worked all year on getting the children to understand the difference between a letter and a word, to put spaces between words, and to adhere to the convention of printing from left to right on their papers. She also identified what she considered the ”best writer" in her classroom in terms of legibility, although she added that thoughtfulness, creativity and the ability to ”go back and read" what was written were important criteria as well. Making the letters clearer doesn't always make a good writer but I think putting thought into what you're saying. And wanting to be different from the others (Interview 6/20/91). One of her goals in assigning the writing tasks was to help children develop the concept of writing as recorded speech: And so this is what I try to go on with the kids. Saying it and then writing it, you can see it and then you write it yourself. And then after you write it you can go back and read it. And hopefully most of them have kept some of those little books that they've done and will go back to them (Interview 6/20/91). Listening to the mothers as they struggle to direct their children's printing during parts of the tape recorded activities made it 120 difficult to escape the conclusion that these other goals for the writing tasks were being subordinated to the goal of "correct" form. 0 ca T w C i dre As stated previously, Mrs. Peters said she did not view the Language Task assignments as relating directly to her curriculum, but rather as ”something extra" for parents to do with their children. [I saw it as] something extra for the parents to do. [Just to get parents] involved more. Because what you find is some parents do complain, you know, what can I do with them? ...It was trying to get the parents to get out of the house, too, with the children...or just taking some time with the children (Interview 6/20/91). The parents shared the view that spending time with their children was, categorically, a good thing. Danny's mother said that the assignments ...were fun and it gave me time to spend with him other than taking him out. I usually try to spend one day out of the week some special time with just him, himself. And, whether it's just to take a walk or if, when [her younger son] is taking a nap, reading a book or just sitting down with Danny and watching TV (Interview 6/5/91). Toyah's mother asserted that it was "good for parents to spend time with their kids," and added, ”That's what's wrong: most parents don't" (Fieldnotes 5/16/91). She said she enjoyed the homework activities and believed that, by working with their children, parents could have a positive impact on attitudes toward learning: I liked it all. Anything--right. 'Cause see, anything you get involved with your children you know it give them the courage to go on anyway. And that's what I been trying to do. [It's] VERY important. It make 'em want to do it. You know, learn how to use the scissors and go through the newspaper and find the letters (Interview 6/13/91). Cindy's mother declared that the pleasurable and beneficial aspects of the homework extended to her entire family. She said that she and her husband were sometimes forced to refresh their memories about things, that her younger children often completed their own versions of Cindy's assignments, and that her ten-year-old daughter loved the chance to be an authority on some topic. She thought the activities were important as well as enjoyable. 121 Not just for the mechanical reasons but for the stimulation part of it, because, like I said, it forces you to take a different look, maybe even change your perspective once you hear what they [the children] have to say. I mean lots of times they say things and you say, ”I never thought about it that way. Yeah, I guess it could be." 'Cause we kind of get stagnant in the way we think. It avoids that. I like that (Interview 6/12/91). Enjoyment The element of pleasure in the homework activities was mentioned by several parents. Even Michael's mother, whose reading method fragmented the stories into a series of short phrases, each echoed by Michael, proclaimed that one had to read with expression and make the book enjoyable ...'cause you don't make it enjoyable it's just like, you know, just there and the kid'll go somewhere else....Even the grownups. I have to do it too. If it's not interesting I'm just going to be in another world. I hear and I don't hear (Interview 6/19/91). Cindy's mother emphasized the importance of enjoyment associated with reading and said that she worried that children "these days get caught up in the task of doing things [so that] nothing is fun." ...[Cindy's father] tends to read stories like puppeteers tell stories, you know. It's a riot when he does it. And so, from their very beginning he does it so that it's fun. It just becomes fun. Not a chore, but something that's fun. At least around here (Interview 6/12/91). Lisa's mother said that doing the language tasks, writing out answers to questions that she felt Lisa already understood, was "boring" to her, so she did not do it. Yet, when she did work with Lisa on a word list, an assignment she considered important, she not only tolerated Lisa's digression to a rhyming activity, but joined her with evident delight (Tape 3/17/91). On the other hand, several parents said they particularly enjoyed the activities that required them to go outside the house. Danny's mother, for example, contrasted the language tasks with skill practice. I enjoy doing it and...a lot of the stuff is interesting to do, like looking through magazines and stuff like that. And then when it got toward the end and you start doing experiments with water and with air, I like that and doing the walks. I like that, too, going out. And it wasn't just 122 paperwork like practice your abc's or stuff like that. It was interesting to them too, so I think he got a lot out of it (Interview 6/5/91). Whether Danny "got a lot out of” the experiments with water and air or the walk "to look for things in the environment that need improving," other than the pleasure of handling the materials or walking with his mother, is open to question. Both activities were included in the tape recordings produced by this family and, although Danny squealed and said "This is funny, huh Ma?" as he and his mother filled plastic bags with water and with air in accordance with the assignment's printed directions, neither he nor his mother seemed very confident about what he had ”learned": Mother: Now what did you learn about air and water from the experiment? Danny: Air is thick. And you blow into the bag and you, and you, [hissing sound] and you, you put your hand inside it feels like, like somebody's breath is in there. Mother: Then do you think that makes your breath when you, when you breathe in? You breathe it in with just water? Danny: [Whispers] Yeah. Mother: Hm? Danny: Yes.- Mother: That moisture or something? Danny: Huh? Mother: That, that the air has moisture? Danny: And that's how the water--DON'T. What I learned from the WATER, when water's in the bag shapes come and you see it. The water. Shapes come. Mother: That the air has moisture. What else about air? (Tape 3/28/91) Danny and his mother completed the language task regarding "things that need improvement in the environment” through a similar process of suggestion and coaxing. Although his mother kept reminding him that "We're talking about the environment, things around you," Danny offered "your mind,” "the floor," and ”fire hydrants" when pressed for suggestions. When asked leading questions he agreed that "papers outside" should be ”cleaned up” and that it was not safe to go for a walk because "people will take you" (Tape 5/23/91). 123 Children's Perceptions The children's perceptions of the purposes of homework can be inferred from several of their comments. On the one hand, Danny suggested that he did not know the purpose when he shouted at his mother, ”That's our homework, Ma. Don't you understand" (Tape 3/28/91), and Regina seemed equally puzzled when her mother and sister asked her about the homework (Tapes 4/18/91, 5/9/91). For Michael, it was a chore that kept him from being outside on his bicycle. Toyah seemed concerned about complying with Mrs. Peters' expectations, insisting that she had "to think" and do her own work and musing that if she put enough pictures in her book her teacher would not "have to argue at" her (Tape 5/16/91). Lisa used a homework occasion to display her knowledge of rhyming words and show her mother what she did at school (Tape 3/17/91). Cindy seemed to enjoy the homework activities and once suggested that she make up her own (Tape S/16/9l). For many of the children, an important goal of doing homework might have been receiving the candy and stickers that Mrs. Peters gave them, or the satisfaction of having her read their papers before the class. Impediments to Homework Whether they looked upon the homework as pleasurable or as an obligation, however, the families faced a number of impediments to completing the various assignments. Those cited by the parents were lack of cooperation from the children and lack of necessary resources, including materials, time, and their own abilities. The teacher considered a lack of motivation on the part of the parents to be a major impediment. In one family the child's recalcitrance was associated with homework in general, while in a second family it was specific to a particular type of homework. Michael's mother complained that she could not get him to stay inside and sit still long enough to do any homework 124 (Interview 6/19/91). Danny's mother said that she could not "motivate" him to work on the Word Lists, although he was able to recognize print in the environment when they went out together (Interview 6/5/91). A ready supply of old magazines to be cut up for the word lists or various language tasks could not be taken for granted in many families, and Mrs. Peters' offer to provide newspapers did not solve the problem for everyone. Danny's mother said she borrowed magazines from a neighbor (Interview 6/5/91); Toyah's mother said that she obtained a magazine from her postal carrier, who happened to be a friend (Fieldnotes 11/8/90). Michael's mother said she knew that Mrs. Peters had newspapers but she never went in to school to get any, choosing instead to copy words from the dictionary for some of Michael's Word Lists (Interview 6/19/91). When Regina said there were no newspapers to cut apart at her house, Mrs. Peters sent a bagful home. Then Regina complained that her mother had no paste and, when Mrs. Peters suggested that she make some out of flour, Regina had said they had no flour either (Fieldnotes 3/28/91). Time was another resource perceived to be in short supply for some families. Michael's mother said that when the homework assignment came home she would ”just let it sit around” while she did other things and explained that she felt pressured by the housing authorities to spend more time on housekeeping: Those people, they have been bugging me about how I keep the apartment.... So I was just putting my time towards that and I wouldn't do nothing else. It was so much ironing and washing. Iron and wash and put away (Interview 6/19/91). Lisa's mother said that, in addition to working most nights until 11:00 p.m. at a grocery story, she often cooked meals for her own mother and, each Thursday night, tried to help her eight—year-old son, who was having difficulty with geography. Consequently, she said, she simply had very little time to do homework with Lisa (Interview 6/20/91). Finally, for some parents, their perceptions of their own abilities created an impediment to helping their children. Although only 125 Michael's mother spoke openly about her feelings of inadequacy and worried that she ”took the easy way out” instead of doing the word lists the way Mrs. Peters wanted or perhaps did not read the stories to Michael ”the way you're supposed to do it," several other parents made a point of inspecting completed assignments on display in the classroom and asking Mrs. Peters if that were the way she wanted them done. It is possible that other parents were unsure of what exactly was expected of them and, instead of coming in to ask, simply did not do the tasks. Mrs. Peters was sensitive to many of these impediments and repeatedly offered to provide supplies for families who did not have the materials to complete the assignments. She told of how, the previous year, she had arranged for Michael's mother, who was too embarrassed or shy to attend the group parent meetings, to come in for special instructions in completing the homework with him. Nevertheless, she attributed the failure of parents to complete the homework with their children to a lack of commitment: So when you send something home and they still don't do anything, you know they--they're not really looking for anything to do with them (Interview 6/20/91). She felt that one way of increasing their involvement would have been to "keep the pressure on" as she had been able to do in preschool where she saw the parents on a daily basis instead of twice a year for conferences (Interview 6/20/91). Summary Whether parents did the homework tasks with their children, which tasks they chose to do, and how they did those tasks all appeared to be associated with their perceptions of the purposes of the tasks as well as with the resources available within each home. The process of translating school-like tasks to the home environment appears to be complex and involve many factors other than the level of the parent's desire to help the child or the amount of "pressure" from the school. CHAPTER 9. CHILDREN AS AGENTS In each of the six families, homework was a dynamic process, and the children were powerful agents within that process. They had a voice in what was done as well as how it was done; and they worked hard, with varying degrees of success, to make sense of the activities in their own terms. Although each family was responding to a series of specific assignments from the school, what they did and how they accomplished it were products of a negotiation between the individual children and the adults or older siblings who helped them with the tasks. The degree of negotiation varied among the families, some of whom appeared very receptive to the child's suggestions and ideas, while others assumed an almost totally directive stance. Even in the most directive families, however, the child was an active participant, for it was the child who possessed, or seemed to possess, information about "what the teacher wanted”; it was the child who knew what help he or she needed to complete the task: and it was the child who ultimately made some sort of sense of the activity. Children were, therefore, agents in at least two senses listed as synonyms in 39gg§;g;zhggag£g§. They were "doers" or "actors” in accomplishing the tasks, and they were "go-betweens” or "mediaries" between the school and the home (Lewis, 1961, p. 27). Transmitting Expectations To begin with, the child was a necessary mediary for transmitting information from school to home about what was to be done as well as, in some instances, when and how it was to be done. Co t o om w k The children carried home the various papers to be filled with print or pictures, and they relayed the teacher's directions about what 126 127 they had to do. Even in the absence of such material evidence, parents sometimes asked the child for information. Toyah's mother asked her twice, as she quizzed her on the date or the spelling of her name, ”What else you gotta do?" (Tape 3/14/91). The following example illustrates what happens when this flow of information between home and school was interrupted, as well as at least one child's evident awareness of her role in the process. Regina was unable to participate in the read aloud program for the first week or so because she failed to return the contract with her mother's signature. Urged to bring the contract back so she could join the other children in taking books home, she drew the corners of her mouth down and said that she could not because she had left it at the home of her mother's friend. Provided with a duplicate copy of the contract to take home, she brightened visibly, but when it was suggested that she put it in her bookbag for safekeeping, she grinned and said that she left her bookbag at the same friend's house. She pointed to the tear-off portion at the bottom of the page and said ”I got to bring back this part right here” (Fieldnotes 1/10/91). In spite of Regina's evident understanding of what was expected of her in this activity, she seemed to vacillate between confidently relaying information from school and relying on her mother for directions about what she was to do. During one of the taped activities with her mother, she explained the classroom system for lending the books, but asked her mother several questions about what she was supposed to do. Mother: Did you get a book today, Regina? Regina: Nuh-uh. We didn't take no books. Tomorrow we got to pick out our own books.... Regina: We done with these words? Mother: Yeah, we got to do some on your book too. Regina: Do some of what? Mother: I want you to tell me a little bit about your book. Regina: And then what we got to do after the book? (Tape 4/18/91) 128 W In addition to bringing the assignments home, the children frequently provided the reminder for families to complete them. Danny's mother said that when the end of the month drew near he would remind her that they had not done the four weekly language tasks yet (Interview 6/5/91). Mrs. Peters said that Regina's aunt had complained that Regina's constant requests for her family's help with her homework was "driving them crazy" (Fieldnotes 4/18/91). As they worked on one of the word lists, Toyah reminded her mother three times about a language task that was due and tried to convince her to work on it that evening: Toyah: Ma, we gonna hafta do my hand?...You know we hafta do my hand....She say she needed our hand homework Mother: OK, we gonna do that to-- uh, uh-- Toyah: Tonight? Mother: When you come home Sunday. We gonna do it. Toyah: We can do it now. It won't take long to do it. Mother: Yeah, but I gotta fry the fish. (Tape 4/12/91) After Cindy's mother read the directions for the language task for the first week of April, Cindy asked, ”Can I do Week Two?" and her mother told her, ”So, let's get one done at a time" (Tape 4/18/91). A month later, after an oral review of "spelling words" with her mother, she suggested an expansion of the activity: Mom, I could have a piece, I coulda had a piece of paper. I coulda write all of it, took it to school, and I could do my homework I made up myself. (Tape 5/16/91) Her mother, apparently misunderstanding her point, told her, "You've done that already," and proceeded to the next language task. On the other hand, the children sometimes resisted the homework activities instead of instigating them. Michael's mother complained that she could not get him to sit still long enough to do the homework (Interview 6/19/91), and this was corroborated by one of the tapes his family produced. As his cousin read him a story, Michael said that he wanted to go outside, but was told, "You gonna finish your homework first.” When his cousin told him to "come back over here“ to answer 129 questions at the end of the story, Michael giggled, ”I ain't," although he did answer two more questions before the taped episode ended (Tape 3/25/91). Danny sometimes made apparent attempts to escape from the homework by requesting to go to the bathroom (Tape 3/28/91), to get a drink of water (Tape 4/18/91), or to get a cushion (Tape 5/23/91), and his mother either denied the request or urged him to hurry back so they could finish the homework. gomgwork Criteria Some families looked to the children for information about how the assignments were to be done, although the children's knowledge was often incomplete. At the beginning of the year, when Mrs. Peters distributed sheets of manilla paper labelled 'C-Words,“ Regina asked, ”What we got to do on our C-paper?" (Fieldnotes 10/11/91). When her mother told her how they were going to complete a word list, Regina confirmed that it was the "correct” method. Perhaps she was remembering Mrs. Peters' reminders that she wanted parents to let their children copy print in the writing task booklets. Mother: I'm gonna write 'em down. Then I want you to copy 'em down on this paper in the way they s'posed to be. Regina: That's what my teacher told me for to do. (Tape 4/18/91) A month later, when her sixteen-year-old sister asked Regina about another word list, she was answered by another question from Regina: Sister: How many words you got to cut out? Regina: Huh? Sister: How many words you got to cut out? Regina: How many I'm supposed to have? (Tape 5/9/91) Some of the other children were firmer in their convictions about what was to be done with the homework assignments and frequently offered their parents unsolicited advice, although at times the advice was overridden or simply ignored. When Danny, for example, told his mother that "You're supposed to do it with pictures” (instead of just printing words in a language task concerning the function of hands), she murmured, "Mmhmm," and continued printing the words (Tape 4/18/91). 130 When he told her that they were not required to complete the second side of a phonics worksheet, she said "OK. Well, we'll still finish” and proceeded to do so (Tape 6/5/91). He argued unsuccessfully about the placement of print when he was printing as well as when his mother was printing for him. Mother: You're gonna write the words first. Danny: Up here? Mother: Nope, down here. 5 Danny: Ma, we hafta do my-- ' Mother: ”P" right there. Danny: Ma, we hafta start up here. Mother: Why? Danny: Because I have to draw down here. Mother: Why do you--you can draw on the top up here. ‘“ Danny: Ooooh Kaaay. Right here? (Tape 4/18/91). Mother: So you say a mother is someone who cares about you? OK. Danny: You're supposed to put it right here. Mother: Well, I'll just leave it like that and then I can put whatever you want to say down here. What else? (Tape 5/23/91) In the activity requiring that the child's hand be traced on a flattened paper bag, his mother offered him a choice of colors, which she then rescinded, and only after three requests from him did she allow him to take a minor part in the process. Mother: Come here. We're gonna trace your hand. Put it on here. Pick out a color from here. We'll use a color crayon and that way we can see it. Danny: Oh. Mother: Pick out a nice dark color we can see. Danny: This. Mother: That's brown. It won't show up too good. Pick a blue or a red or something. Danny: What? Mother: Use this color. Danny: OK. Can I trace it? Mother: Stretch your hand out. Danny: Let me trace one, Ma. Mother: Open your fingers. Danny: Can I do it? Mother: OK, good! Just go over some of these little places that are kinda light, OK? Danny: OK. (Tape 4/18/91) Although his mother did not accept Danny's opinion in these instances, she later acquiesced when he refused to substitute plain paper for newspaper and, as mentioned previously, they postponed that language 131 task until they could get some newspaper, ultimately not doing it at all (Tape 4/18/91). Like Danny, Toyah frequently told her mother how she was "supposed" to do the various tasks, and although her mother could hardly be described as passively complying with all of Toyah's directions, she did take them into account and often followed them. When they began work on the list of uses for hands, Toyah asserted, "Ma, you know I have to do J it with ya." But her mother appealed to the authority of the written directions, arguing ”It didn't say that. It say out on a paper bag and lay it flat." Toyah also told her mother where to print the words and, “ judging from the appearance of the finished product, her mother did as directed. Toyah: Ma, we don't write in the hand. Mother: Where we write it? On the outside? (Tape 5/16/91) ZHowever, when Toyah suggested with a giggle that ”Hands are when you go ‘to the bathroom you wipe yourself," her mother was less compliant and said, ”I ain't gonna put that on there” (Tape 5/16/91). Sometimes Toyah invoked the authority of Mrs. Peters to do the homework the way she thought it should be done. She directed her mother to write words on "a different page” from which she could copy them into her booklet and rejected a suggestion to color a flower yellow because "My teacher can't even see yellow" (Tape 4/12/91). Working on a word list, she worried that her mother had not cut out the pictures properly: Toyah: Ma, you--how come you didn't cut that part out? Mother: No, we don't need that. I just gave you the part we need. Toyah: But we have to have the whole part. Mother: Not necessarily. Toyah: Yes we do. 'Cause my teacher said we have to cut the whole part out. That's what she said. Mother: OK, there's the rose. Toyah: Ma, she say out the whole part out. Just don't cut one part out. Hafta cut the whole part out. (Tape 4/12/91) Mrs. Peters did, in fact, frequently admonish the children not to use pale colors when they printed on their papers in the classroom, but to use colors that she could see. And she emphasized several times that 132 the children were to cut out the ”whole word" and not just a letter. When Toyah gave these directions, her mother occasionally argued for her point, but often she acceded with a chuckle or a resigned sigh, "Whatever you say, Toyah" (Tape 4/12/91). Michael told his mother to ”ask me some questions" after she read a story to him (Tape 5/9/91), and when a friend of his mother read The Ih£§§_L$££l§_£iQ§ he commanded her to "say it" the way his cousin and sister had commanded him and argued for what he considered the correct wording of a particular line until she accepted his version. Friend: [Reading] Then I'll huff and I'll puff-- Michael: I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down. Friend: Mmhmm. Michael: Say it! Friend: Yeah. Michael: You s'posed to say blow your house down. Friend: And he said, and I'll blow your house down. You said it. [Continues reading with Michael echoing each phrase] ...And he blew the house in. Michael: And he blew the house DOWN. Friend: Well, it got IN in the book. [Laughs] I know what it say. [Continues reading until next occurrence of the phrase.]...And I'll blow-- Michael: I'll blow-- Friend: Your house in. Michael: And I'll blow your house DOWN. Friend: Well it say IN in here. [Chuckles.] Michael: They didn't do it right. Friend: [Continues reading with Michael echoing each phrase]...And he puffed. Michael: And he puffed. Friend: But he couldn't blow the house in. Michael: He couldn't blow the house down. It's down. Friend: You got it right. [Continues reading.) (Tape 5/9/91) Assistance and Independence A second area for negotiation between the children and their families was the amount of help to be given with the assignments. The children's requests for help with various aspects of the homework have been described in previous sections: Danny wanted help with letter formation and placement; Cindy wanted help with drawing leaves on a tree and deciding what color to make the eggs in her bird's nest; Cindy and Lisa both asked for help in understanding the storybooks being read to 133 them, though Lisa asserted that she could read her own books. The interplay of family support and children's independence constituted a dimension of variation in the homework activities completed by the families. At one extreme, Regina seemed to ask for a great deal of direction and reassurance but get very little in the taped activities. As they worked on one of the word lists, she told her mother, "You have to show me," and twice asked for confirmation that she had found the required letter: ”Is, is this a upper case P, Ma?" and "What is this? P?" When her mother agreed that the letter at hand was a "P,” Regina described it in a questioning tone, as if still unsure: "That down and up?" Without acknowledging the question, her mother changed the subject: "While I'm doin' this see can you find some O-words.” Later when her mother directed her to write some words, Regina asked ”What for to write 'em down with? Where you start out?” Her mother responded to the first question ("Haven't you got a pencil?”), but instead of showing her where to write she told Regina, "I want you to tell me some names of some O-words, that start with '0'" (Tape 4/18/91). Representing the opposite extreme, Toyah was often heard protesting that she did not need help: ”Ma, you can't tell me. I have to think" (Tape 5/16/91). When she accepted her mother's suggestions, she often added her own ideas as well. As her mother dictated the spelling of "grass," Toyah told her to "Wait! I know,” and her mother apologized with an exaggerated "'Scuse me." Later she told her mother that she knew how to make an "H," and her mother again responded, "Excuse me" (Tape 4/12/91). Thelma reported to Mrs. Peters with evident satisfaction that Toyah had completed the Word List for the letter "R" alone (Fieldnotes 4/18/91) and told the researcher, "She don't ever want me to help. If she can do it, she'll do it" (Interview 6/13/91). 134 Making Sense of Homework The third area involving negotiation between the children and their helpers was the construction of meaning or the process of making sense of the homework activities by drawing connections between those activities and the children's experience or knowledge of their environments. Danny, for example, made his own sense of a language task involving an inflated plastic bag and predicted that he was to "try to pop it." His mother told him twice not to do so, but after being coaxed to agree that the air in the inflated bag felt wet, he asked again as she began the next ”experiment," "What are gonna do? Pop it?" Moments later, when Danny asked again, "What we gonna do?" his mother's repetition, "Don't pop it," suggested that his behavior continued to inspire the prohibition (Tape 3/28/91). The active role played by the child in this enterprise was thrown into sharpest relief when the child's meaning was unexpected or differed from that of the adult. The families negotiated meaning for oral language, for stories, and for written language. Qral_Lansaage Regina made sense of the directive to think of some "O-words" by combining a series of words with the exclamation, ”Oh," (”Oh-words" instead of 'O-words”). This strategy did not make sense to her mother, however, who at first seemed to ignore and then rejected Regina's suggestions, "Oh my" and "Oh me," telling her to "Stop playing.” She provided Regina with two "acceptable" examples, "orange" and "one,” but these seemed to confuse Regina, perhaps because she could not hear the letter name in them. She responded with three halting guesses (”name," "TV,” and "pillow") that resulted in another demand that she "stop playing” and the activity was finally abandoned (Tape 4/18/91). Working on a word list for the letter "S,” Lisa did not seem to share Regina's confusion, perhaps because the letter name in this case did not resemble an English word. Nevertheless, there were several 135 points in this tape recorded interaction where Lisa's mother corrected or questioned the meanings that Lisa articulated. Mother: Here go a s-word: South. Lisa: South. That's where my auntie live. Down south. Mother: Live on the south side [of town]. Lisa: South side. Mother: Been living on the south side for a long time.... Mother: You have another s-word: Small. Lisa: Small. [brother's name), you small. Mother: What is small? Lisa: Um, like I'm is. It's almost, but I'm medium. 4 Mother: You're medium? ? Lisa: Yep. Mother: Who would you consider small, Baby? (Tape 4/25/91) At other times during this activity, Lisa's mother anticipated her daughter's need for clarification of meanings. Mother: Here go another S-word: Sears. That's the name of a store. On the mall. Sears, Roebuck and Company, but they don't use Roebuck anymore. Just Sears. Lisa: Ma, here go a s-word. Mother: Senate. Lisa: Senate. Mother: Senate are people up in Washington DC. They decide on bills, you know, makin' laws.... (Tape 4/25/91) During one exchange, however, she appeared to remain unaware that she and Lisa were using the same pronoun to refer to different aspects of the same object, and they did not arrive at a shared meaning. Lisa is apparently clearing some of the remnants of newspaper from the table where she and her mother were working. Her ”this” referred to a scrap of paper; her mother's "this" referred to the print on that paper. Lisa: Ma, this junk? Mother: Huh? Lisa: This junk? Mother: Naw, this is swing. Lisa: I thought this was junk. Mother: S-words. Lisa: I thought this was-- Mother: Junk start with a J. Lisa: J. (Tape 4/24/91) Lisa's mother apparently remained concerned that Lisa had confused dissimilar initial sounds because her next comment to Lisa conveyed the information that the teacher would be expecting the child to be able to name the initial letter of words: "Mrs. Peters said she gonna be doin' 136 sounds....You know when she tell you a word you gotta tell her what is the sound, what the letter start with, what it sound like to you." Stories In addition to negotiating a mutual understanding of activities and language with their families, the children actively strived to make sense of the stories that were read to them. The families used a variety of techniques that supported this engagement by focusing the children's attention on the books and encouraging their active participation in the reading. They commented on the story content and directed the children's attention to the pictures, the words, and the story elements in the books. They asked the children to predict what might happen next and to decode elements of print. Mother: [Reads] He picked up the chair and fixed the plant. [Aside] Boy, he was busy, huh? Danny: Yeah. Brother: (age 18 months) Dah. Dah. (Tape 3/28/91) Mother: [Reads] You're pretty smart for a little frog, said Fozzy. [Aside] See? That little frog must be old enough to take care of himself, huh? Danny: Mmhmm. Mother: Look at all that stuff Fozzy got. Junk food, huh? Danny: Yuk. (Tape 3/28/91) Sister: [Reads] One little rabbit said she was tired walking down the road to call on old friend toad. [Aside] See? There's the rabbit sitting on the grass with her feet in the puddle and she's tired. (Tape 4/18/91) Mother: [Reads] Horses should always be free to run and kick and nibble, said father. When they got home, Harry ran right to his room. Sister: (age 4) Move, Cindy. Mother: Uh oh, what do you think Harry's gonna do? Cindy: Get his horse. Sister: (age 2) His horse. Mother: Get his horse? [Resumes reading] (Tape 3/16/91) Mother: Now, look at these signs on here. What is this? Cindy: A pig! Mother: But it says s-o-x, which is socks. (Tape 3/16/91) Mother: [Reads] Robin pointed to a sign. No, Fozzy. We go that way. [Aside] What do you think the sign said? Where are they going? 137 Cindy: The zoo is that way. Mother: Right. [Resumes reading] (Tape 4/18/91) Mother: [Reads] Fozzy took the food to the lion's cage. No, Fozzy, Robin yelled. He pointed to the sign on the cage. [Aside] What do you think it said? Danny: No people allowed? Mother: No. Probably it says do not feed the animals. Brother: (age 18 months) No. (Tape 3/28/91) The following exchange between Cindy and her mother presents an especially vivid picture of the way children made sense of stories by drawing connections with their own experiences and knowledge of the world. Cindy's mother was reading a picture book involving trains, and Cindy commented on one of the illustrations. Cindy: They look dump trucks. Mother: Oh, some of 'em are hauling things. Is that what you're talking about? Cindy: I don't know what hauling things is. Mother: Hauling. Means they're carrying. You talking this part looks like a dump truck? Cindy: Mmhmm. Cause when WE be in trains people be riding in them, not dumping. Mother: That's a passenger-- No, no, no. There's more than one kind of train. That's a passenger train. That people ride on but this is a freight train where they carry merchandise. Cindy: Oh. Mother: These kinds of trains bring things to cities. They carry-- Cindy: They carry-- It ain't nothin but a lot of rocks and that stuff. Mother: You'd be surprised. How do you think cars get to town? Cindy: Through the woods. Mother: Cars? They have to bring 'em here. They have to take 'em to cities and towns all over. They use the railroad tracks. Trains. Trains bring some places food. Lookit, here are tractors. They come on the train. Cindy: I don't see any food. They ma-- um, they put that kind in there with the stuff that they bring to cities like Alabama. Mother: That's a state. Cindy: Oh. I mean-- Mother: But trains are used to bring all kinds of things all over the place. Cindy: California? Mother: Trains go to California too. [Resumes reading.) (Tape 4/18/91) The child's active role in this process was perhaps even more strikingly apparent in Michael, who, without the kind of supportive framework provided for Cindy, and in spite of a somewhat fragmented 138 delivery, provided several cues during the tape-recorded episodes that he had made sense of the stories. For example, on one of the tapes, during a story about a seven-year-old boy's dismay because he had not lost any baby teeth, Michael's cousin read in a halting monotone, "I can knock / that tooth out / in a sec-- / in one flat second he said." Michael reiterated the line fluently, then giggled and added, "Wooo ooool Knock that tooth out in one flat second. Boom!" (Tape 3/25/91). On another tape, when his sister's phrasing produced the fragment, “Head toward the," Michael's repetition included an additional word to complete the thought, "Head toward the what?" (Tape 5/9/91). In addition to embellishing upon or completing the fragments he hears, Michael occasionally related some aspect of the story's content to his own experience of the world. When his mother read a story involving swimmers, Bunnies and Their S rts, Michael interjected, ”They're at the Y.M.C.A.," before he resumed his customary repetition of the text (Tape 5/9/91). While reviewing the recording of his sister reading another story in the same staccato fashion, Michael explained to the researcher, "They clock is wrong," when the text described a clock striking eleven and a comic protagonist announcing noon (Fieldnotes 3/25/91). The enormity of Michael's accomplishment in making sense of these stories was underscored by the fact that at times he seemed to understand the text more accurately than the adult cousin who read to him. Cousin: [Reading] One afternoon while Arthur was wiggling, wiggling his tooth during math he heard a loud scream. Francine jumped up. What do you think happened, Michael? Michael: She lost her teeth. Cousin: She didn't lose her teeth. We talking about Arthur. He's a man. He's a boy. Michael: Oh. Cousin: Mother is Francine. Now let's go on to the next one. (Tape 3/25/91) The next line read by the cousin, however, revealed that Michael was correct. The characters, Francine and Arthur, were classmates and 139 Francine had indeed just lost her tooth. Cousin: [Reading] My tooth just fell out. Michael: My tooth just fell out. Cousin: On my desk. Michael: On my desk. Cousin: She cried. Michael: She cried. (Tape 3/25/91) A few lines later, Michael's cousin again disputed what appeared to be an accurate assessment of the story content by Michael. In spite of his cousin's persistence in his earlier misunderstanding about who has lost a tooth, Michael adhered to his own understanding of the central problem of the story, that unlike his classmates, the character named Arthur had not lost any deciduous teeth. Cousin: [Reading] Class, how many have you lost a teeth--a tooth? Michael: How many you have lost a tooth. Cousin: Asked Mr. Marco. Michael: Hmmmm. Cousin: Come on now. Michael: Asked Mr. Marco. Cousin: [Reads] Everyone but Arthur. Michael: Cause his teeth ain't gonna come out. Cousin: His teeth came out already. You're not keeping up with the book. You gotta pay attention. [Reads] What's the matter, Arthur? Michael : [Whispers] Cause he gotta lose some teeth. (Tape 3/25/91) This particular style of reading and echoing fragment by fragment appeared in the tapes produced by the other families precisely when the focus shifted from understanding the story content to accurately reproducing the story text. For Lisa, this shift occurred when her eight-year-old brother read to her; for Cindy it occurred when her mother coached her "reading" of a story in a basal reader. After Lisa's brother struggled through a story, with frequent hesitations and mispronunciations, she began to "re-read" it with her customary fluency and expression. When her brother interrupted her with two corrections, however, she lapsed into a pattern of waiting for his prompts, which she simply echoed. Lisa: OK, let's begin. [Adopts a reading intonation.) And then, he found a bag of seeds. Brother: [Whispers] Corn seeds. Lisa: Corn seeds. And then he said do you, cow, do you want to 140 help me? I have, I have, I have planted the seeds. And then he asked cow can he help me. Nuh-uh 'cause I'm asleep. No because I'm asleep. And then he asked, not now said the cow. Brother: [Whispers] I'm asleep said the sheep. Lisa: I'm is asleep said the sheep. Brother: [Whispers] Oh crowed crow. Lisa: Oh crowed crow. Brother: [Whispers] I will do it all by myself. Lisa: I will do it all by myself. (Tape 5/23/91) The remainder of the story was rendered in a fashion very similar to the stories read by Michael's family, and even repetitive lines such as "Who will help me...," were fragmented into individual words read by her brother and echoed by Lisa. Again like Michael, however, Lisa demonstrated her comprehension of the story content by occasionally producing entire lines of dialogue without waiting for her brother's cues. Brother: Not Lisa: Not Brother: Now Lisa: Now went the cow. No, well I will do it all by myself.... Brother: Not now. Lisa: Not now said the, um, chicken. Well I will do it all by myself. (Tape 5/23/91) As Cindy worked her way through the story in the basal reader her mother interrupted her frequently to admonish her to "Look at it,” and to ”Read it, don't say it” (Tape 5/16/91). Mother and daughter proceeded through the story with Cindy sometimes echoing her mother's cues and sometimes pronouncing lines in unison with her mother. However, Cindy's own ideas about what made sense interfered with her ability to passively follow her mother's directions. Mother: [Reading] Jim says. Cindy: Jim says. Mother: Know what this word is? Cindy: My. Mother: I'm. Cindy: [Reading] I am not. Mother: No. I'm. It's I am when you put 'em together. Cindy: I am-- Mother: No, I'm. Cindy: I'm. Mother: Not. Cindy: Going to school. 141 Mother: Today. Cindy: Today. Why? Mother: Read it again. Cindy: I'm am not. Mother: No, I'm. Cindy: I'm am not. Mother: No, I'm. Cindy: [Giggles] I'm am not going. Mother: You can't say I'm am not. Just saying the same thing. It's a double-- Cindy: I'm. Mother: Not. Cindy: Oh. I'm not going to school today. (Tape 5/16/91) Lisa's mother explained one of the stories she read to her daughter in terms that underscored the distinction between reading as decoding print (associating sounds with symbols) and reading as comprehension of meaning. Lisa's questions illustrated the give and take involved in constructing that meaning. It seemed like Violet was much smarter than Arthur. Mother: 'Cause she understood the words and Arthur didn't. Lisa: He don't know how to read? Mother: He know how to read, but he get the wrong meaning of words and Violet got the right meaning. Know what I'm saying? Cause he thought if you win the contest you'll have dinner with King Kong. [But the text of the story actually says that] You win a picture of King Kong and you have dinner for two at your favorite restaurant. Lisa: I thought that boy said that. Mother: No, she said that, but Arthur told her she didn't know how to read hard words. Got it? You understand? Lisa: Aahh. Mother: OK. (Tape 6/20/91) using Just as they had to interact with the text and with the person reading to them to understand the stories, the children negotiated with their families to put their own meanings into writing. Working on a language task that required children to dictate several sentences in the pattern, "It is easy to ... but it is hard to ...,” Danny was called upon to explain several of his suggestions to his mother. Danny: It's hard for me to, um, cut. Mother: To cut? You know how to cut, don't you? Or is that still kind of hard for you to do? Danny: I know how to cut but with them junky old scissors I don't know how..... Danny: It's hard for me to make food. Mother: Hard for you to make food? 142 Danny: Yeah. Mother: Well you don't even know, you don't make food. Danny: I know. It's hard for me.... (Tape 3/28/91) Danny not only defended his ideas when they were questioned by his mother, he rejected one of her suggestions when it did not make sense to him and tried to dissuade her from writing other things which, though he had admitted were true, seemed to be embarrassing for him. For Danny, meaning in the written word had emotional as well as factual content. Danny: Put it this way. It is hard for me to-- Mother: [Whispers] Ride your bike? Danny: No. I already rode on it. Mother: You don't think that's hard. Well, we'll put it's hard to-- What's hard for you to do? Danny: I'm thinking! Mother: Comb your hair? Danny: Yeah, that's it! That's it! Mother: Get ready for school sometimes? Hard for you to wake up in the morning, that's-- Danny: Oh yeah. That's it! That's it! But don't write it. Mother: Yeah! You have trouble getting up in the morning. Danny: Ma! (Tape 3/28/91) He checked to make sure his mother was in fact writing what he has dictated, and he edited his ideas to eliminate those that did not meet his standards. In the following example he and his mother were working on a language task that required him to dictate as many endings as he could for the statement, "A mother is ....” Danny: A mother is to someone take care of you. Mother: Cares about you? A mother is someone who cares for you? Danny: Takes CARE. Mother: All right. A mother is someone who takes care of you. OK. Danny: [Whispers] You. Mother: What else? Danny: Um, a mother is to-- Someone help you-- Mother: A mother is someone who helps-- Danny: you--do--things. Is-- Are you writing do things? Mother: Do things. OK, what else? Danny: A mother is-- A mother is who tells you what to do. No not-- Mother: A mother is someone who-- Danny: Don't put that. No. (Tape 5/23/91) Danny rejected his next three ideas as "icky" and "stupid." When his mother urged him to think of a few more, he said, "I don't know no more,” and they left that activity for the next week's assignment. ‘ '| I 143 Like Danny, Cindy apparently considered veracity a necessary component of writing. In an example noted in Chapter 7, when Cindy's mother asked her to compose a sentence with one of her ”spelling words," her concern with the accuracy of what her sentence conveyed seemed to make it difficult for her to comply with her mother's insistence that she produce an original statement. She justified her repetition of the sentence used in school, "We sit on the floor at group," with her insistence that "We have to [sit on the floor) (Tape 5/16/91). Another example illustrates Cindy's concern that her writing make sense to others as well as to her. As mentioned previously, one language task required the parent to trace the child's hand, ask the child to name all the things that "hands are for,” and list the responses on the paper. Cindy completed this assignment, with help from her mother, by finding magazine pictures involving hands and printing labels for each picture. When her mother said that the children in one picture were ”shooting baskets,” the following exchange occurred. Cindy: How do you shoot a basketball? Mother: You do just what they're doing. Throw it in there. That's all. Cindy: I thought they called it throwing, not shoot. Mother: Nah, they call it shooting. Cindy: I call it throwing. Mother: Shooting baskets. Cindy: Ma, they'll think you was-- You don't have the basket. Mother: I promise you they'll know what you're talking about. Two words. Shooting. Baskets. Start over here. Put the S. Cindy: It's not ball? (Tape 4/18/91) One of the most striking examples of a parent supporting the child's efforts to make sense of a writing task occurred as Toyah and her mother worked on the booklet about spring mentioned in a previous chapter. Throughout the activity, Toyah's mother actively solicited and accepted her daughter's ideas about what to write or draw in the booklet, at the same time that she tried to connect those ideas to the subject at hand which was Spring. The first time Toyah suggested a theme that deviated from the topic, her mother offered her an 144 alternative which she momentarily accepted. Mother: What you gonna write next? Toyah: Oh, I gotta write some, um-- gotta write some on this. I wanna write, I write the rain. Mother: OK. Toyah: And I wanna write the--wanna write the—-the-- Mother: What? Toyah: The--the, um, the house. Mother: The house? Toyah: Yeah. Mother: You can grow PLANTS in the spring. Toyah: Oh yeah! Plants. Lemme draw 'em. Mother: Or either make a-- Let's see what we can say. Toyah: No. I'm play--I'm, I'm making plants. Mother: Yeah, uh, whatever you say. (Tape 4/12/91) When the one of the plants that Toyah drew evolved into a tree, her mother suggested a specific attribute of trees in springtime, and although she protested mildly when Toyah decided to draw more flowers, she acquiesced. Toyah: Because that's how you make plants. Mother: That's right. Plants. Toyah: A little circle. Down. This tree right on this side. OK, Mom? Mother: That's a tree? OK. Toyah: That-- It gonna be a-- Mother: That's a tree. Toyah: Tree. Mother: Turnin' green. Toyah: Wait! I'm not through. I gotta make the flowers. Mother: You made some flowers al-- OK, whatever you do. (Tape 4/12/91) Accepting her mother's next suggestion, Toyah illustrated and copied the caption, "We play kickball in the spring," and then returned to the topics of trees and flowers. Her mother protested that she had already included those, and when Toyah brought up the idea of drawing a house again, her mother changed the subject to fishing and reminded Toyah that they did that while visiting friends in another state. Toyah: Spring is kick-- Now, I gotta do something on this. Um, how about trees grow? Mother: You did that on the other page. No, they were plants. You got trees on the other page. Toyah: No I don't. That's a-- Oh yeah, that's ONE tree. And I plant me some flowers. Mother: Mmhmm. Toyah: This flower's pretty and this is too. Mother: Mmhmm. Toyah: I forgot to color this. Mother: Mmhmm. 145 Toyah: They just break all the time. Now THIS flower and this flower are pretty. Mother: Mmhmm.. Toyah: And I-- Mother: Spring. Uh-uh, girl, we ain't gonna plant no more trees. We goin-- Toyah: Ma! Only I plant one tree. Mother: OK. Toyah: House. Mother: Oh you can uh-- For spring-- Oh, you made me forget my thought. What else we do in spring? We play ball. We walk in the park. We go for boat rides in the springtime. Well, that's mostly summer. Toyah: This summer. Mother: You fish. You fish in spring. That when people start fishin. Toyah: OK. Mother: Well, we fished in Ohio. (Tape 4/12/91) As they worked together to produce this page in the booklet, Toyah's mother alternated between offering assistance and insisting that Toyah do her own drawing and writing. She accepted Toyah's suggestions -of what to draw and helped her label the elements of her picture so they would be identifiable to others. Toyah: Water. Mother: Yeah, girl! Toyah: Ma, you, you write it and I start to gettin it. Mother: [Chuckles] OK. Toyah: Look. It was green. When y'all had fishin. Mother: Well, put it whatever color that--Write water on there. Write water in ink so they'll know what it is. OK? Toyah: 'Cause I wrote it in pencil. Mother: W. T. E. Toyah: Ma. Mother: Write water on there. You fishin. (Tape 4/12/91) She assured Toyah that her work was acceptable and accepted her interpretation of a drawing even when it differed from her own. Toyah: Ma, let me write my fish first. Fish. Mother: Want me to help you put them fishes in the water? Toyah: Yeah. I messed up. Mother: That's all right. No, no. It's not messed up. Toyah: You write the fishin? Gonna get some more? Ain't that some-- Mother: Gonna draw the person fishin. This his pole, this his line, and this his hook. He fishin. Toyah: That's me fishin, ma? Mother: Mmhmm. Toyah: That was me fishin. Mother: OK, let me write. We-- Toyah: Fish in the summertime. (Tape 4/12/91) 146 Toyah urged her mother to make more of the drawing for her, but she accepted her mother's refusal without argument just as her mother accepted her pronouncement that she planned to continue drawing with the pen. Perhaps her mother's disparagement of her own drawing abilities offered a subtle encouragement to Toyah that she could do as well. Toyah: You should make somebody else fishin too. Mother: OK. We need another fish then. Toyah: Make a lot of them. Mother: No. Toyah: Ma, you shoulda make you and me. Mother: You gonna draw the people. I'm just gonna draw the little fish that I can. We'll pretend that's a fish. Toyah: What's them? What's them? Mother: These are fishes. Toyah: OK. I'm gonna make all the people with the pen. Mother: Yep. (Tape 4/12/91) After completing this page, Toyah announced that she was going to make a car, and without questioning the relevance of cars to spring, her mother agreed to help her make one, identifying each component as she drew it. She then told Toyah to make one and apparently left the room to tend her frying bacon. Back in the room, she suggested a way to connect the drawing to the topic of spring. Toyah: First I need to color it. No. This is the wheel. This is the wheel. I'm makin' it, Mom. Mother: That's a car. Where you goin in a car? On a trip? Toyah: Oh. Mother: You could write spring vacation. You wanna write that? Toyah: Yeah. And it has some lights in the back. All over the car. Lights in the front. (Tape 4/12/91) Toyah asked for help in spelling ”car,” and her mother called out the letters from the kitchen. Back in the room with Toyah, she repeated her suggestion. Mother: Vacation. Toyah: Vacation. OK, like-- Ma, let me write car first. Mother: Yes ma'am. (Tape 4/12/91) The word "car" appeared in a child's handwriting on the finished page, accompanied by the words, ”car” and ”vacation time" in an adult's handwriting. But Toyah had not forgotten her earlier idea, and she again proposed drawing a house. She had already begun the drawing when 147 her mother saw it and perhaps that is why, instead of arguing, she asked a few questions about the house before, once again, mentioning a topic that was more closely connected to the idea of spring. Toyah: I mean not a car. I mean a house. I'll make it on the next page. Only got one more page to do! Mother: [From a distance] Yep. Toyah: See? Mother: [Back in room] What's that? Toyah: It's gonna be a house. Mother: A house? Who gonna live there? Toyah: Me. Mother: What? We? Toyah: Me and you and [brother's name]. Mother: [From a distance) And who else? Toyah: That's all. You and [brother's name] and me too. Mother: [Back in room] Easter's in the springtime. (Tape 4/12/91) Toyah apparently accepted this suggestion, for she covered the last page of her booklet with images that she identified as ”a bunny rabbit," ”a Easter basket,” ”flowers,” and "a 'frigerator with stuff on the bottom." The episode ended with Toyah and her mother eating the bacon that had been sizzling in the background. Summary As mediators between home and school, and as actors helping to shape the interactions within their families, the children were powerful agents within the homework process. They transmitted school expectations about what was to be done, as well as when and how it was to be done. They asked for, and sometimes rejected help with the tasks. And they made sense of the activities in their own unique terms. Before considering this finding in connection with the types of variation described in various chapters, the next chapter will attempt to develop a context for these findings by examining selected theoretical and empirical literature regarding homework and parent involvement. CHAPTER 10. THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL CONTEXTS In keeping with the conventions of grounded theory and ethnographic research techniques, the preliminary literature review presented in the introduction to this study was limited to a general overview of literacy and language development studies which suggested that, while non-mainstream children do have many varied experiences with literacy before they enter school, they nevertheless seem less able than their middle-class counterparts to profit from the literacy experiences offered by school. The decision to focus on homework as a vehicle for observing the intersection of family and school approaches to literacy emerged, in part, from this review and from the researcher's perspective, which was informed by theories of emergent literacy, human development, and family ecology. The study was designed to generate concepts and propositions grounded in the data, which could either be compared with previous findings, possibly supporting or extending them, or be tested by future research. A review of literature pertaining to homework was purposely postponed to avoid approaching the data with predetermined categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The purpose of this chapter is to provide contexts for the findings of this study within other work on the topic of homework and to attempt to integrate these elements in preparation for developing a tentative substantive theory of the role of homework in literacy acquisition. Views of Homework In a review covering two decades of research and debates concerning the supposed advantages or disadvantages of homework, McDermott, Goldman and Varenne (1984, pp. 393-394) summarized the arguments as polarized in relationship to its supposed impact on five areas: (a) school 148 149 aachievement; (b) involvement with the larger community; (c) home-school :relations; (d) character development; and (e) feelings about school. Homework's impact on school achievement is seen either as positive Ibecause it extends learning opportunities beyond the classroom or as neutral because assignments do not meet individual needs. It is viewed as encouraging involvement in the wider community or as impeding such involvement by encroaching on children's time. It supposedly fosters closer home-school relationships by informing parents about schoolwork, or it disrupts family life and confuses children by asking unqualified parents to help with the work. It is thought to develop desirable traits, such as independence and initiative, or potentially to suppress those traits when home environments are not conducive to study and parents do the work for their children. It either raises or lowers children's appreciation and enthusiasm for school and learning. They concluded that, although quasi-experimental studies had produced contradictory results regarding the relationship of homework to school achievement, parents and teachers agreed (for different reasons) that homework was valuable. They argued that there was a need to develop homework policies that took into account family features and student differences as well as school requirements. Parent Involvement Because children in kindergarten cannot complete homework assignments without help of some sort, a discussion of kindergarten homework necessarily encompasses a somewhat broader concept, that of parent involvement. Parent involvement, in turn, is a concept that has become associated with a compensatory education model in which poor or uneducated parents are taught to help their children with specific school-related tasks (McDermott, Goldman, & Varenne, 1984). In the present study in particular, at least one of the types of kindergarten homework (Language Tasks) was an extension of a similar series designed 150 expressly for the school district's compensatory preschool program for children deemed at risk for school failure. Support for the notion that this form of parent involvement is sometimes associated with a deficit model may be inferred from the finding in two large-scale survey studies that, although teachers who were not identified by their principals as leaders in parent involvement reported expecting that parents with little education could not or would not help their children (Epstein & Becker, 1982), parents with less education reported significantly more frequent requests for help from such teachers than did parents with average or advanced education (Epstein, 1986). Recent discussions of parent involvement have moved beyond a deficit model to a more neutral discussion of perceived differences between schools and non-mainstream families. Wading through these discussions is sometimes difficult because authors use different terms for similar concepts and sometimes use the same term in different ways (Kagan, 1987). Figure 1 represents this writer's attempt to integrate and summarize concepts used in several discussions of the issue: Powell's (1989) discussion of home-school continuity, Kagan's (1987) discussion of home-school linkages, and Epstein's (1986) discussion of competing theories of parent involvement. It is suggested that homework in general, and the kindergarten homework observed in this study in particular, while only one form of parent involvement, can be used as a lens through which to focus upon several aspects of the concept of home-school continuity. The model (Figure l) accepts Powell's (1989) definition of home-school continuity as comprised of "linkages,” consisting of structural aspects such as level and type of communication, and "congruence," or substantive aspects such as similarity of goals and values (p. 24). It incorporates Kagan's (1987) historically-derived definition of parent involvement as including the concepts of citizen participation, citizen control, parenting education, and parenting 151 Home-School Continuity I I I Linkage Congruence (Structural aspects: (Substantive aspects: type and level of similarity of goals communication) and values) I I : ' : : ' : To School From School Possible Impossible I I I I I I -Citizen -Parenting -Desirable Particip- Education ation I i I -Citizen -Parenting -Undesirable Control Support Figure 1. Theoretical Views of Home-School Continuity support. These concepts are classified by this writer as linkages, in part because Kagan used the term and in part because they represent types of communication. The flow of information can be viewed as directed from parents and the larger community toward the school or from the school toward parents and families. Furthermore, the power relationships between schools and parents implied by each type of communication can be conceptualized as points on a continuum. ”Citizen participation” implies a collaborative relationship between schools and parents, while ”citizen control" implies a more coercive relationship. "Parenting support" implies that schools assist parents with what they are already able to do, while "parenting education" implies that parents need information from the school in order to fill their roles within the family. ”Congruence," or similarity of goals and values between families and schools may be seen as either possible or impossible, and if accepted as possible, may be seen as either desirable or undesirable. In a review of literature on home-school continuity, Powell (1989, p. 115) drew three conclusions: First, discontinuities between home and school in values, expectations, and interaction styles seemed to be greatest for children with parents having low levels of education and/or 152 ethnic minority background. Secondly, while the effects of this discontinuity are not known, and in fact, according to Powell, there is some theoretical support for the notion that an optimal level of discontinuity is beneficial, research indicates that it is likely to pose risks for non-mainstream children. And finally, the effectiveness of programs designed to meliorate that discontinuity is not known, although there is empirical evidence that teacher requests for parents to help children with learning activities at home are associated with positive feelings toward the school and teacher. Kagan (1987) noted that the dichotomy between home and school has become blurred since colonial times when schools were responsible for transmitting a limited body of prescribed knowledge and credited organizations of parents and women activists with expanding the school's role early in this century to include aspects of education, like manual skills and domestic science, that were formerly considered the exclusive domain of the family, thereby altering forever the "nature of relationships between parents and schools“ (p. 163). Subsequent mechanisms of home-school cooperation grew up within and alongside school bureaucracies, and Kagan cited numerous studies documenting the positive impacts for parents, communities and children. She traced the concept of reciprocity between home and school to the development of an expectation in the 1960s not only that parents support schools through their taxes, but also that schools support families via special programs. In spite of this movement toward greater cooperation, Kagan (1987) said, current efforts to promote home-school relations and family support programs are undermined by three persistent assumptions: (a) that schools and families share, or should share, congruent values; (b) that the physical presence of parents in schools is indicative of school effectiveness: and (c) that equity and sameness exist within American education. She challenged the first assumption on the basis of 153 sociological distinctions between families as primary groups, comprised of permanent members with personal ties, and schools as bureaucratic organizations with transitory membership stressing merit and expertise. Because of these differences, families can be more flexible and adaptive than schools, which are bound by rules and procedures, and, although the two institutions share responsibility for the education and socialization of children, their roles and functions'differ markedly (Litwak and Meyer, 1974, cited in Kagan, 1987, p. 167). Kagan argued that acknowledging these differences could create the basis for genuine cooperation between families and schools. Kagan (1987) noted that the second assumption grew from a tendency in the 1960s and 1970s to equate the effectiveness of parent involvement programs with the number of hours during which parents were in direct contact with schools. She argued, in fact, that such contact between lay persons and experts, between consumers and producers, served to alienate the parents and increase the psychological power of the school over them. Nevertheless, she suggested that when there is little congruence between values of home and school (i.e., when social distance is large), physical presence can help bridge the gap and increase educational effectiveness. Finally, Kagan noted that low-income, minority families have had small impact on public schools and that many broad reforms, intended to promote equity, have actually had little effect, while among programs targeted specifically for the poor, only those with vocal constituencies have survived major budget cuts. While Kagan questioned whether congruence between home and school was possible or necessary, Epstein (1986) couched her research in what she characterized as opposing theories of school and family relations, one emphasizing incompatibility, competition, and conflict and supporting separation of the two institutions, the other emphasizing cooperation and complementarity and encouraging communication and collaboration. She focused on parent involvement as "parental 154 assistance on learning activities at home” (p.280) and concluded that her findings regarding parents' positive responses to home activities supported the latter theory. Parents who were asked to help their children at home rated teachers more highly in teaching and interpersonal skills, reported increased knowledge about the school program, and received more ideas for things to do with their children. Studies of Homework in Process At least one ethnographic study challenged the hypothesis that discontinuity between home and school accounts for the difficulty that non-mainstream children have with school literacy. Chandler et al. (1986) observed 31 low-income families from a variety of ethnic backgrounds as they worked at home on a homework-like task with their children. They found that the interactions between these parents and their children suggested that parents and teachers held similar implicit theories regarding (a) structuring the physical environment and task; (b) motivating the child; and (c) helping the child with the form and content of the task. They found, further, that both parents and teachers varied in tone and degree of helpfulness; held differing expectations for children of the same age; emphasized spelling, handwriting, and accuracy; introduced vocabulary and punctuation; and believed that a "good reader" could be identified by behavior and task orientation (i.e., he or she finished assignments). Because of these perceived similarities, the researchers concluded that an explanation other than home-school discontinuity was needed for low-income children's literacy problems. In other words, Chandler et al. (1986) found that, when asked to perform school-like tasks, families seemed to operate on principles very similar to those that guide schools. On the other hand, McDermott et a1. (1984) argued that such similarity might well be part of the problem. They contrasted learning modes in families with those in 155 schools, arguing that, in families, children seem to learn new skills in casual, invisible, and nearly always successful ways, while schools make more overt efforts to teach, demand that learning be displayed, and foster failure as well as success as part of a sorting process. Homework, they said, requires families to become more like schools by making learning visible and demanding displays of knowledge. Instead of constructing efficient learning environments as subroutines of daily life tasks, families are asked to "play school," to "display typical teacher-student behavior while never really getting any task in focus, while never really arranging for learning" (McDermott et al., p. 392). McDermott et a1. (1984) analyzed videotaped homework sessions in the homes of two working class families and found that one family was able to incorporate homework with ongoing activities while the other accomplished very little, in spite of (or perhaps because of) repeated efforts to isolate the task. They argued that one reason for the first family's relative success was greater access to the community's literacy resources via the mother's involvement in local political issues and concluded that the problem had to be addressed at multiple levels, with schools providing more individualized homework, reflective of student's needs and family resources, and communities providing alternative routes to literacy training for families. In other words, they suggested, parents' involvement in the larger community rendered their involvement with their child's education more effective. Although his study focused neither on kindergarten children nor homework, Clark (1983) also argued that the relations between families and the larger community, as well as continuity between families and schools, had a bearing on the school achievement of academically successful and academically unsuccessful African-American high school seniors. All the families were low-income and both the successful and unsuccessful groups included one- and two-parent families. Clark proposed a ten-component model depicting reciprocal and causal relations 156 between parents' history, existing social support systems, family characteristics, school opportunities, and outcomes. He argued that the methods used to examine instructional dynamics in the classroom could be applied to the home and that "the way resources (human, material, time, space) are used during any particular activity affects the child's cognitive behavior, interest, and attitude during the activity. These mental processes affect, in turn, the child's level of intellectual development" (Clark, p. 205). Study Findings Compared to Reported Research The findings of the present study corroborated those of Epstein (1986) and the research reviewed by McDermott et al. (1984) in that both parents and teacher saw homework as a means by which parents helped insure their children's school success and believed that it was important for parents to spend time with their children. However, given that much of the homework bore no direct relation to the classroom program, and that the parents expressed uncertainty about its use, it seems that in this case, requests for help with homework did not lead to a better understanding of the school program as argued by Epstein (1986). When the findings of this study were reviewed in the light of distinctions between family and school settings drawn by Litwak and Meyer (1974) and McDermott et al. (1984), a cluster of contrasts emerged that were categorized as opposite poles on a continuum that described the variation in interaction processes among the families as they engaged in homework activities. The poles were conceptualized as casual or family-like interactions versus formal or bureaucratic interactions. The characteristics of the two types of interaction, derived from the data, are described in Figure 3. Examples of these qualities of interaction processes may be found throughout the previous discussion of the six families' interpretations 157 Table 7. Types of Homework Interaction Processes Compared Characteristic Casual/Family-Like Formal/Bureaucratic Language Use conversational, rote response digressive Focus process, meaning product, surface features Child Input emphasized de-emphasized Affect positive (praise, neutral or negative laughter, affection) (correction, reprimand) Integration task related to child's task treated as isolated experience in home phenomenon and community of homework procedures and purposes, and children's roles in that homework. The categories encompassing these qualities within two major types of interaction emerged when the data were considered in connection with other work on homework and parent involvement. The variation between these two types of interaction processes occurred within, as well as between, both families and types of homework. Taped homework produced by four of the six families included episodes of each type. The two families whose taped homework could be characterized almost exclusively as formal or bureaucratic were also the families who taped the least amount of homework, in terms of time as well as number and variety of tasks. In numerous instances, the ”same" task was approached formally by some families and more casually by others. Summary When the data from this study were reconsidered in light of reported research on homework and parent involvement, two categories of interaction types emerged: casual or family-like and formal or bureaucratic. The following chapter will integrate these categories in a grounded theory of kindergarten homework in non-mainstream families. CHAPTER 11. TOWARD A SUBSTANTIVE THEORY OF HOMEWORK At this point it may be possible to propose a tentative theory of the role of homework in literacy acquisition that integrates the findings from this study with research on homework and parent involvement as well as with elements of theories of emergent literacy, human development, and family ecology. The theory is substantive rather than formal (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 174) because it evolves from the study of homework in one particular situational context, i.e., non-mainstream families with children in a single kindergarten classroom. Further work with other families in other situational contexts is warranted. From a philosophy of science perspective, the theory may be described as hermeneutic as opposed to positivistic (Habermas, 1984, cited in Bubolz and Sontag, in press). It does not propose linear cause and effect relationships, but rather is an attempt to understand reasons behind family responses and acknowledges subjectivity on the part of both researcher and participants. In addition, the participants were engaged, to an extent, as active partners in the research (Bubolz and Sontag, p. 20). This theory views homework as a manifestation of the interface between the home and family microsystems within which young children acquire literacy as one aspect of their development. That interface may be conceptualized, at one extreme, as the intrusion of the school upon the family and at the other, as an invitation for the family to extend its sphere of influence into the school. The process of completing the homework may have repercussions within either setting and is, in turn, influenced by factors within and outside of each. In and of itself, homework is neither "good" nor "bad," but may be experienced as either, 158 159 or somewhere in between, depending upon the fit of the family and school systems around a particular activity. The kindergarten child can play an active and important role in establishing that fit. Core Category A core category which emerged as data were coded and compared was variation in homework styles. This variation was analyzed as comprising structural aspects of the homework situations (participants' roles and surface features of the activities) as well as interaction patterns within the homework process (casual and family-like or formal and bureaucratic). Three categories emerged as input in relationship to this variation, including type of task, family resources, and interpretations of procedures and objectives. A final category included potential outcomes in school and family settings. Relationships between the categories of variation and outcomes are viewed as reciprocal and interactive. A schematic representation of the relationships between concepts and categories is presented in Figure 2. The theory emerges from the data and builds upon previous work regarding homework and parent involvement. In its conceptualization of children as active mediaries between school and family, struggling to read their worlds as well as words in each setting, it is informed by concepts derived from larger theories of emergent literacy, human development, and family ecology. Suggested Propositions The following propositions are suggested as a partial description of the reciprocal and interactive relationships between the concepts in this substantive theory. They do not exhaust all possible relationships. 1. Families' perceptions of the purposes of homework tasks will influence which tasks they complete and the way in which they do them. 1160 Fee;::eflesources Type of Task Materials Language Task Knowledge Writing Task Interest level Word Lists (adult/child) Read-Aloud Books Community support Skill Practice vs. intrusion Interpretations ' I Procedures Purposes Teacher Teacher prepare for test prepare for ales. sch. 'soeething extra“ Parents . display/acquire knowl. extend curriculue Child .. Agent €~ ): Parent self-discipline ”courage to go on“ ”$332? ”wuum' ties with child tieing enjoy-ant criteria Children Assistance/Independence Making Sense oral language stories writing “it's our hoeework' coeply/please teacher duplicate school (display knowledge! win rewards \L Struktural Aspects V I Participants' Tasks Roles Type I Ties/Amt - Mueber Directive Peripheral Variation injyeeework Styles I Interaction‘Processee I ’1 Casual Foreal (Easily-like! (Bureaucratic) conversational Rote Response Digreasive Drill Pbcus on Process Focus on Product Mother Sibling Appearance Father Other Child Input Child Input Sibling Eephasized -De-eephasized Other Positive Affect Negative/Neutral Laughter Reprieands Praise Corrections Affection Task related to Task treated as child's isolated experience phenomenon in community Potential Outceees School Environ-ant Rewards Teacher approval Candy, prizes Ieproved Performance teacher inference parent prediction I Paeily Environ-eat Feelings of Competence TL Perceptions of Ability (seen as expert! Feelings of Closeness Enjoyeent/Exasperation .Refresh Knowledge Figure 2. Emerging Theory of Kindergarten Homework 2. 161 Family resources will influence which tasks they complete and the way in which they do them. 3. a. Family members' perceptions of their own abilities will influence their willingness to help with homework. b. Families' access to material and human resources will influence which tasks they complete and the way in which they do them. The way in which homework tasks are completed will be related to the type of task as well as to family interactive processes. 4. a. In early childhood programs, homework tasks which capitalize on the primary group characteristics of families will yield more positive results (from both family and school perspectives) than those which require families to behave as bureaucratic institutions. b. Some families will be able to treat many types of homework tasks as occasions for warm, informal family-style interactions, while others will interpret even "natural" activities (such as storybook reading) as occasions for drill and display of knowledge. The more information families have about the purposes of the homework and the way it "should" be done, the more confident they will be in their ability to help the child, and therefore, the more help they will provide. 5. a. Families rely on children, as well as (and in some cases, more than) on direct communication from schools, to define homework tasks. b. Children will be able to provide more help to families as they interpret tasks if those tasks are clearly related to the classroom curriculum. Doing homework can be associated with enhanced or diminished feelings of competence on the part of family members. 162 6. Doing homework can be associated with family members' enhanced or diminished perceptions of each others' abilities. a. Homework tasks which are beyond the child's developmental capabilities, whether intrinsically or because of the family's interpretation of the task, will result in negative experiences and lowered opinions of the child's ability. 7. Doing homework can be associated with enhanced or diminished feelings of closeness between family members. 8. The number of completed assignments returned by children is not systematically related to the amount of time their parents spend with them. 9. Neither the amount of time spent on a particular assignment nor the appearance of the finished product is systematically related to the quality of the experience for either the child or the family. Limitations of the Theory The theory proposed is hermeneutic and substantive. It focuses upon one aspect of the interface between family and school as it relates to children's acquisition of literacy in a specific situation. It does not adopt a critical science perspective (Bubolz and Sontag, in press) or address issues such as the families' access to literacy resources within the larger community, which has been suggested as an important source of variation between families (McDermott et al., 1984; Teale, 1986). While such an expansion of the theory is feasible, it would require consideration of factors within the exo- and macrosystems which were beyond the scope of this study. CHAPTER 12. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Methods This study began with the researcher's entry into a kindergarten classroom in September, 1990, as a participant observer one morning per week, with a particular interest in literacy acquisition among non-mainstream children. The study attempted to answer three questions which emerged during the first semester of classroom observation: 1. How do families of non-mainstream kindergarten children respond to requests from school to help children with activities related to school tasks? 2. What is their understanding of those requests and how does that understanding compare with that of the teacher? 3. What are possible outcomes of such participation? A qualitative, hermeneutic approach was adopted in an effort to achieve an understanding of kindergarten homework from the perspective of the children, their families, and their teacher. Methods used included self-initiated tape recording of homework activities, interview, continued observation, and collection of artifacts produced by the children and families. The class was comprised entirely of non-mainstream (ethnic minority and/or low income) children. Six families volunteered to participate in the study of homework, and each was provided with a tape recorder and ninety-minute cassette tapes in order to record naturally occurring homework activities within the home. Families maintained control of what was recorded and assisted the researcher in understanding the language on the tapes as well as the circumstances surrounding the recording. Tape recording occurred from February through June of 1991, 163 164 and tapes were collected by the researcher during home visits at three or four-week intervals over that time period. Four families produced four tapes each while the remaining two families produced two and three tapes respectively. At the end of the school year, the researcher conducted individual interviews with five of the parents and with the classroom teacher to elicit their understandings of the homework activities and the ways that children acquire language and literacy. Each interview was tape recorded. All tape recordings of homework activities and interviews were transcribed in their entirety onto computer disk by the researcher. Fieldnotes made during classroom observations and home visits were expanded and transcribed by the researcher as well. Code names for participants were used in transcriptions and on labels for tape recordings in order to protect the confidentiality of the participants. The researcher used the constant comparative method of data analysis to cross-check categories continually as they emerged from the data. Findings were compared with other studies of homework and parent involvement, and a core category was developed which integrated the emerging concepts and categories with previous work and with theoretical perspectives of emergent literacy, human development, and family ecology. Findings The data indicated that the process of completing the homework could not be described in simple linear terms as information passing from school to parent to child. The six kindergarten children in the study were active participants who helped to shape the process on many levels, and their families interpreted the assignments in highly individual ways so that even when four children brought very similar versions of a completed project to school, their actual experiences in creating the products were vastly different. 165 The core category which emerged when data were coded and compared with findings of other studies was variation in homework styles. This variation was analyzed as comprised of structural aspects of the homework situations and interaction processes. Structural aspects included both participants' roles and surface features of the tasks, while interaction processes included two general types: casual or family-like and formal or bureaucratic. Three clusters of categories emerged as input in relationship to this variation, including type of task, family resources, and perceptions of homework objectives. A final category included outcomes in school and family settings. Relationships between the types of interaction processes and outcomes were viewed as reciprocal and interactive. In general terms, some of the tape recorded episodes seemed to be pleasurable interactions among family members and occasions for expressing affection, reaffirming shared experiences, and accepting all contributions as valid. Others seemed to be less pleasurable and more stressful for all participants, with truncated conversations, few connections drawn between the homework and family experiences, and little or no acceptance of children's contributions. Bearing in mind the finding that families of high-achieving high school students were found to provide instruction and assistance during ”highly affective” interpersonal encounters and to ”directly or implicitly convey knowledge and warmth (emotional nurturance)” that fostered the child's competence (Clark, 1983, p. 198), one might predict differences in academic outcomes for the kindergarten children whose homework activities seemed pleasurable as opposed to stressful. However, while academic outcomes might be paramount from a school: perspective, a family ecological perspective suggests a more reciprocal relationship between home and school. Just as families may influence children's school success by the ways in which they help or fail to help with homework, the process of helping with that homework may influence 166 families, enhancing or exacerbating interaction patterns and shaping members' views of their own and others' competence. It is also likely that these effects upon families will, in turn, have an effect upon school performance and subsequent interactions around homework activities, so the relationship is recursive as well as reciprocal. Examples of supportive forms of this influence abounded in the data. Parents expressed delight at their children's displays of knowledge, included younger siblings in the homework activities, and offered praise and encouragement. Less supportive examples occurred when parents' expectations of children's behavior exceeded the children's developmental capabilities. Sometimes these expectations were superimposed by the parent, for example, when a parent expected a kindergartner to be able to read the storybooks sent home from school. At other times the task seemed to lend itself to such inflated demands; for example, when instructed to print words on a separate page and let their children copy them, parents expected their children to be able to produce “correct” letter forms and placement, and often scolded them when they failed to do so. Recommendations for Practice Viewed from this perspective, the relevant question for schools (at least in early childhood programs) might be not only how to induce or even train parents to help children with school activities at home, but also (assuming such requests are somehow in the best interest of the child and family) how to design activities that are consonant with an atmosphere of emotional nurturance. In other words, observing Litwak and Meyer's (1974) distinction, homework tasks might be viewed as home-school linkages, designed to capitalize on the unique capabilities of families as primary groups based on emotional ties, rather than asking them to adopt the behaviors of bureaucratic organizations. In practical terms, this means that schools might assign as ”homework" the 167 types of things that families are already doing with their children, perhaps without being aware of the relationship of such activities to literacy. Further, if schools expect parents to do the homework at all, or to do what the school expects, it is necessary to convey to the families the purpose and relevance of the homework tasks. This study suggests that by insuring that the children know what they are to do and how they 1 are to do it, schools could capitalize on children's ability to act as agents, transmitting expectations and shaping interactions, thereby empowering both children and their families through the homework process. The children in this study repeatedly shared their understandings of tasks with their families, and those understandings were most complete and accurate when the homework tasks were related to, or duplicated, things that children did in the classroom. Finally, schools can support teachers' efforts to tailor homework tasks to individual family needs by reducing pupil load and providing time for home visits and other forms of contacts with families. Teachers who know more about their pupils' families and home environments can plan more individually appropriate curricula, while families who have had more opportunities to become acquainted with school personnel and expectations will have more of the information they need to meet those expectations. Recommendations for Research The findings of this study indicated that the families did not always do the homework in the ways the teacher intended and attributed varying degrees of importance to the types of homework based upon their perception of its purposes. It is not known whether those activities were more or less beneficial than the things they would have done with their children had they not been given homework to do. Further research of naturalistic design is needed to develop an understanding of the 168 kinds of activities children experience at home in the course of their daily lives, and the ways in which those experiences contribute to emerging literacy. This study suggested that variation in homework styles was not constant, either between families or between types of tasks. Within each of the four families who produced the greatest amount and variety of tape recorded homework, some tasks were approached in a casual, family-like manner, while others were approached in a more formal, bureaucratic manner. Furthermore, the same task was often approached by one family in a casual way and by another in a more formal way. Further research might reveal additional types of variation among families and types of tasks or examine potential relationships between homework styles and other family characteristics, including the family's relationships with the larger community. Another question to be explored from a hermeneutic perspective is the meaning that the designation "homework" might have for families. It is not known, for example, whether the families who approached the storybooks as occasions for drill and repetition might have approached them differently had they simply been sent home for enjoyment. Finally, this study was limited to non-mainstream families. While there is some empirical evidence that some teachers are more likely to direct requests for help with schoolwork to non-mainstream parents (Epstein, 1986), additional research is needed to examine the types and amount of kindergarten homework experienced by families across socio-economic and ethnic groups, as well as to determine whether the variations in homework styles observed in this study exist in other groups. Recommendations for Theory Development This study has made tentative contributions to a theory of home-school linkages in relation to emergent literacy. There is a need 169 for continued theoretical attention to this area, with particular respect to family contributions to literacy and the impact of school-generated activities upon families as well as upon the child's emergent literacy. In addition, from the perspectives of human development and family ecology theory, this substantive theory needs to be expanded and placed within the context of families' relationships with their larger environments, and to address, for example, social factors which impact literacy through their influence upon families as well as upon schools. The theory might also be developed from a critical science perspective to address issues of inequity in access to literacy resources among various groups within society. Closure Using ethnographic research to develop substantive theory is an ongoing process. When the temptation to remain in the field, perpetually gathering just one more bit of data, is overcome, the possibility of new insights and new connections to be drawn from the data hovers, forever tantalizing, before the theorist. Eventually the demands of "real life” dictate that the process result in a product (Wolcott, 1990). Writing, or producing that product can be viewed as the creation of a "surface text" from the ”text” that exists within the mind of the researcher. According to Harste, Woodward, and Burke (1984), "...'texts' are those things which the mind creates in an effort to chunk the world of experience into meaningful and manageable units” (p. 170). The struggle to capture the text, or convey the meaning, that exists in one's mind seems destined to fall short, for written words can never capture the rich flux of experience in its entirety. The effort to communicate that meaning is further complicated by the notion that this “text” can be only a ”text potential” for the readers, who must actively construct their own texts in light of their own experiences and 170 meanings (Harste et al.). This text represents a writer's attempt to convey a particular slice of reality and the meaning that has been made of it at a particular point in time, in sufficient detail to allow readers to form their own judgments of that meaning. APPEND ICES APPENDIX A UCRIHS Approval of Initial Phase MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY mmmmmmm “NURSING. marrow 0488144"! mum sum quasar a: m um um ”um July 20. I990 me»: 90-299 Patricia F. Hearron 4579 S. Washington Dear Ms. Hearron: RE: “YOUNG CHILDREN'S USE OF SPOKEN AND WRITTEN LANGUAGE IN A KINDERGARTEN CLASSROOM IR” 90-299' The above prolect Is exempt from lull UCRIHS review. I have reviewed the proposed research protocol and find that the rights and welfare at human sub)ects appear to be protected. You have approval to conduct the research. YouareremindedthatUCRIHSapprovallsvalidloronecalendaryear. llyouplanto confinuehispropdbeyondomyempbasemakemeSbnsfaobtainingappropdme UCRIHS approval one month priortoJuly 20. l99l. Anychangesin procedreslnvolvinghumansublectsmustbereviewed byUCRIHSprior tolnitlationotthechange. UCRll-lSrrxistalsobenotifiedpromptlyolenyproblems (unexpected sideefiects. complaints. etc.) Involvinghumansub)ects duringthecourseof thework. Thankyouforbringlngthis projecttoowattention. lfwecanbeolanyfuturehelp, please do not hesitate to let us know. Si rely _ ’ ’ 0!! rec Kenneth . Marvin. Jr. Acting (Jo-Chair. UCRIHS KOM/sar cc: L Nelson V. Hildebrand H "I u as III/M Art-re queel Opponents lama-rm 171 APPENDIX B Consent Forms: Teacher Consent to Observer's Presence in Classroom I have read the preliminary proposal provided to me by Patricia Hearron on September 4, 1990 and understand the conditions noted therein, including the provisions for protecting my privacy as well as that of the families of children in my classroom. I hereby consent to allow Ms. Hearron's presence in my classroom as a participant observer one morning per week for the school year 1990-1991. I understand that I may withdraw from the project at any time without penalty. Signed: Consent to Interview As you know I have been observing the spoken and written language of children in your classroom since the beginning of this school year. I've also tape recorded some of the children as they completed your homework assignments with their families. As I've observed and worked in your classroom, we've had chances to talk informally about children and school in general. In order to be sure that I understand YOUR ideas about the ways children learn language and reading and writing, I'd like to spend an hour or so interviewing you a little more formally. I'd like to tape record the interview so that I can remember what is said. I will not use your name or identify the school in any published writing about my research. Your participation in the interview will be voluntary and you will be free to stop at any time or to decline to answer any question. Sincerely yours, Patricia F. Hearron I consent to participate in the interview described in the above letter, with the understanding that I may withdraw at any time without penalty. Signed Date 172 APPENDIX C Informational Letter to Parents Dear 1 I'd like to introduce myself to you. I am a graduate student at Michigan State University and, as part of my studies, I will be spending one morning/afternoon a week in your child's kindergarten classroom for the rest of this semester. I will be volunteering as an assistant to Mrs. and, at the same time, observing all the children to learn more about what children do at kindergarten. This research will provide teachers with information needed to improve their understanding of young children and to plan appropriate activities. I will not be testing or interviewing any children, but simply observing. I will use only the first names of children in any notes I might make, and if I speak or write about my observations at any time in the future, I will use made up names for the children and the school. I have been a preschool and kindergarten teacher in the past so I am used to spending time with children the same age as your child, and I believe the children will enjoy having an extra adult available to them one day a week. If you have any questions about my study, please call me at or stop by the school on Thursday mornings. I will look forward to getting to know your child this year, and I hope that I have a chance to get to know you a little better as well. Sincerely yours, Patricia F. Hearron 173 APPENDIX D Transcription Form for Fieldnotes Date: Weather: Location: Time---Arrival: Departure: Debrief: Transcribed: Present: Teacher [List of children by first names] Other: Narrative record of observation: 174 APPENDIX E Home Activities for January KINDERGARTEN RARENT/CHILD HOME ACTIVITIES FOR JANUARY To the parent: week I Week Ii Week III week Iv Help your child make a collage (an interesting arrange- ment of materials.) from materials around the home. Some ideas for materials are: scraps of cloth scraps of paper yarn pictures from old greeting cards pieces of ribbon, etc. Paste the collage on one side of a paper sack. Send the collage to school to be enjoyed by the group. Give your child a paper bag. Have your child collect two things that start with M, two things that start with T, two things that start with F and two things that start with H. The child brings the bag of Items to school to show the class. The items will be re- turned to you. Have your child look through magazines to find pic- tures that show I thing, 2 things, 3 things, h things, 5 things, 6 things, and 7 things. Paste these on a paper bag. Label each picture and how many objects. Example: I book. Have your child help you do some brainstorming. Write down all his/her answers to the following: How many ways can you use a tin can? 175 APPENDIX F UCRIHS Approval of Second Phase MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OfflCI 0' m moon '0' I'MAICH EAST um 0 MICHIGAN 0 4.8244046 AND DEAN Of “It GIAWA" scum February 27, 1991 Ms. Patricia F. Hearron 4579 S. Washington Rc: "Literacy in Nun-Mainstream Families: Home-School Interface in School-Originated Tasks" 33090-596 Dear Ms. Hearron: I as pleased to advise that because of the nature of the proposed research. it was eligible for expedited review. This process has been coepleted. the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected. and your project is therefore approved. You are reeinded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions'for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval prior to February 17. I992. Any changes in procedures involving huean subjects eust be reviewed by the UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS eust also be notified proeptly of any problees (unexpected side effects, coeplaints. etc.) involving huean subjects during the course at the work. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let us know. . Sincerely. 2 it) i)” David E. Wright, & Chair. UCRIHS DEW/deo cc: Dr. Linda Nelson Dr. Verna Hildebrand AMI I u as Allin-I‘ve A: line li‘gggl Onion-ed" Isnlolelme 1376 APPENDIX G Recruitment Letter/Consent Form February 14, 1991 Dear , As you know, for the past several months I have been helping Me. in your child's classroom. This work is part of my doctoral research at Michigan State University. In order to understand young children better, I need to learn about the ways they do things at home as well as at school. This research might give teachers more information about how to help children at school. I need families who are willing to tape record some of the activities that they do with their children at home. If you are willing to do this, I will lend you a cassette recorder and provide the necessary tapes. I will come to your home to explain the project and again to collect the tapes and listen to them with you to be sure that I understand them completely. I will ask that you make three or four half-hour tapes between now and the end of this school year. On the day that I come to review the last tape, I would like to interview you to find out your ideas about your child, the activities, and school. I would also like to tape that interview to help me remember what was said. The first three visits should last about one hour and the last visit including the interview should last about two hours. All visits will be scheduled at the time that is convenient for you. If we cannot complete the information I need at a single visit, I may ask to come back at a later time. As we review the tapes you may choose to remove any information that you do not want to appear on them. You may choose not to answer any question and to discontinue participating in the project at any time. I will protect your confidentiality by labeling the tapes with a made-up name and using that name in any notes. Your name or other identifying information will never be included when I write about my findings. If you agree to participate in this study, please fill out the attached sheet and return it to me by . I will call you to set up a day to visit. If you have questions, you can stop by the classroom to speak with me or call me at . Thanks very much for your help. Patricia F. Hearron I am the parent or guardian of . I consent to participate in the research as described above, with the understanding that my family may stop participating at any time without penalty. Signed Date Address Phone 177 APPENDIX H Communication Guides Telephone contact to schedule first visit Hello Ms. , this is Patricia Hearron. [We've met before in your son/daughter's kindergarten classroom.) Thank you for agreeing to take part in my study of kindergarten children's activities at home. I would like to set up a time to come to your home and explain what I will be asking you to do. I will bring a cassette recorder and a blank tape for you to use. I can come on or afternoon this/next week. Would either of those be convenient for you. Home visit to explain taping procedures Hello, I'm Patricia Hearron. I've brought the cassette recorder and a blank cassette. I'd like to take a few minutes to show you how to operate it and explain what I'd like you to do. [Demonstrate operation of cassette recorder.] Would you like to try it once? Now that you are familiar with the machine, I'd like to explain what I am asking you to do. Sometime this week, whenever [child's name] is working on one of the homework projects from kindergarten with you or someone else in the family, I'd like you to set the machine on record. Start the machine whenever you think the homework will be starting. Try not to pay attention to the machine from then on. Just let it run until the tape runs out. There is no need to do special "lessons” with your child or tell everyone in the house to be quiet while the tape is running. I'm simply interested in your family's normal routines for the homework that you have been sending in to school. I've marked the tape with your initials so that I can keep track of who made it, but your identity will be protected. I will call you in a week or so to see if you have recorded a tape yet. If you have and it is all right with you, I will set up a time to come by and collect it. When I come, I would like to listen to the tape with you to be sure that I understand everything on it. At that time, you can also decide if there is anything on the tape that you would rather have erased. I would like to collect four tapes like this from each family in the study between now and the end of the school year. Do you have any questions? If a problem comes up, please call me at . Home Visit to review and retrieve tape Let's listen to the tape together. From time to time I will make the tape pause so that I can ask you to explain something that I can't hear clearly or to tell me what was happening at that particular time. If you have information you want to add at any point, just tell me to stop the tape. If there is anything on the tape that you want me to erase because it is private information, I will do so while I am here. 178 APPENDIX I Tape Transcription Form Child's Code Name: Dates: Left tape Retrieved tape Reviewed with: Date Transcribed: KEY: [ ] descriptors: e.g. background sound; voice quality { } information provided during review of tape 7? unintelligible statements CAPS voice emphasis [Verbatim transcription of tape content] 179 APPENDIX J Interview Guide: Teacher How do children learn language? How do they learn to read? How do they learn to write? What is good language? What is a good reader? What is good writing? How can/should teachers help children with these things? How can/should parents help children with these things? 180 APPENDIX K Interview Guide: Parents 1. Do you think the tapes that we have made give a true picture of everyday life in your family? If not, in what way(s) are they different from normal life? 2. Tell me what you think about the activities that you are asked to do with your child. Are they important? enjoyable? helpful? easy to fit in your day? 3. Have you noticed your child doing things like reading and writing at home at other times? Examples? 4. How important do you think reading and writing are in your life? What kind of reading and writing do you do in a typical day? How important are these things in your child's life? Why? 5. How do children learn to talk about things and to read and write? 6. Can/should parents help children with these things? How can they? 7. What do you remember about your own school days? What did you enjoy or dislike about school? Did someone at home help you with school tasks? How did they do this? 8. Let's make a list of all the things in your house that might help a child learn about reading and writing. 9. Does someone read to your child? How often? When did this start? 10. How much television does your child watch? Do you watch with him/her? What are his/her favorite programs? [If patterns have appeared in the taped activities for a particular family, the researcher may ask for clarification or explanation: e.g., I notice that you gave your child lots of encouragement. Can you tell me more about that? Or, I notice that you seemed to be upset with ___ when you were doing . Can you tell me more about that?) 181 APPENDIX L A Parent's Use of Writing :3 WAn‘C the: my; “Id . . ' I 3 Q5 . *0 have qkwk’bre Ihert‘vs Ohe, To ”me 1+ koogg ”89d Tk’hfi J. CA!) from kph-trial 31*" 0075 H51? my CD‘7‘NVA ‘¥>'°CDA ’h Iii»! Bayes Dwd’c’" k A” (””4" I' 4 Ohm: thud: 4314/7 YA’CY W'th'm {:1 {ye "mere «r'o 19a Io AMP Them .0 P 3.5+. IV IV I» QM «4mm; 0- F “(£0 I'V y {fa . 035 GHOI' few" h o 61%”th hat? 591" hel9 BHA I“ IAN-I- 90mg firmttr‘ I he an" 182 T‘QOI\\ lukng 7 F ”u: I SI‘I'r-II‘OUAC', ,H‘é' ' Feli OO YIO‘I‘I'IIDS‘ .' 5h00;\ II MVIKC WW: F3“ ‘5}.L‘DLD» Ii. gfié : IDDH‘I" \thip {DY \(LBQS, WI‘flr-V’ ‘;\-\\Q\{ \xxfb W‘é Aka Lo 9% Dan 9 no WHAT jg [)0 H {IbQQI \I’ I III DOHI km MAI “5; ”to U l ”A .0 50:8” * ' Héch’r I +1 E4? Com 3 o+ 31mg» 183 LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Agar, H. H. (1980). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography. Orlando: Academic Press. Anderson, A. B. (1982). Literacy resources: How preschoolers intergct wirh wrrtten communication. California University, San Diego, Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 237 227) Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (1985). Becoming a nation of regdgrs: The repgrt of the commission on reading. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Bissex, G. (1980). Gnys at work: A child learps to read and write. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Blazer, B. (1986). "I want to talk to you about writing": Five-year-old children speak. In B. Schieffelin & P. Gilmore (Eds.), The gcgpisirion of literacy: Ethnogrgphic pgrspectives (pp. 75-109). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Braig, D. (1986). Six authors in search of an audience. In B. Schieffelin & P. Gilmore (Eds.), The acgpisition of literacy: Ethnographic perspectives (pp. 110-131). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology or human deveLopmgnt: firpgriments by nature and py dggigg. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bubolz, M. M., & Sontag, M. S. (in press). Human ecology theory. In P. Boss, W. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. Schum, & S. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of famil theories nd et ods: contextual a r ach. New York: Plenum. Chandler, J., Argyris, D., Barnes, W. S., Goodman, I. F., 8 Snow, C. E. (1986). Parents as teachers: Observations of low-income parents and children in a homework-like task. In B. Schieffelin & P. Gilmore (Eds.), The ac isition o 'te ° E r 'c ctives (pp. 171-187). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Clark, R. M. (1983). Famil life o oo o vement: Why poor black ghildrgn succggd or tail. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cochran-Smith, M. (1986). Reading to children: A model for understanding texts. In B. Schieffelin & P. Gilmore (Eds.), The acgpisition of literacy: Ethnographic pgrsppctives (pp. 35-54). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. DeVilliers, J. G., & DeVilliers, P. A. (1978). Lapguage acgpisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents' reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. The Elemeprgry §gpopl Jggrpgl, fig, 277-294. 184 Epstein, J. L., & Becker, H. J. (1982). Teachers' reported practices of parent involvement: Problems and possibilities. 19g Elemgntary Schop; gourngl, 8;, 103-113. Fine, G. A., & Sandstrom, K. L. (1988). Know n hildren: Part'ci ant obggrvation with minors. (Sage University Paper Series on Qualitative Research Methods, Vol. 15). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Freeman, E., & Sanders, T. R. (1989). Kindergarten children's emerging concepts of writing functions in the community. Early Childhood Regearch Quarterly, 4, 331-338. Friere, P. (1987). The importance of the act of reading. In P. Friere 8 D. Macedo, Literacy: Reading the word and the world (pp. 29-36). South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers. Gilmore, P. (1986). Sub-rosa literacy: Peers, play, and ownership in literacy acquisition. In B. Schieffelin and P. Gilmore (Eds.), Egg c sition of literac : thno r hi s ectives (pp. 155-168). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for gpalitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Goetz, J. P. & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography ang gpglitative design in educational research. San Diego: Academic Press. Harste, J. C., Woodward, V. A., & Burke, C. L. (1984). Language stories and literacy lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Heath, 8. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language in Sogigry, 11, 49-76. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Langpgge, life, and work in communities and clgggroomg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heath, 8. B. (1986). Separating ”things of the imagination” from life: Learning to read and write. In W. H. Teale and E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emerggnt literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 156-172). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Heath, S. B., Branscombe, A., 8 Thomas, C. (1986). The book as narrative prop in language acquisition. In B. Schieffelin and P. Gilmore (Eds.), The acgpisition of literacy: Ethnographic pgrspectives (pp 16-34). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Heath, S. B., with Thomas, C. (1984). The achievement of preschool literacy for mother and child. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, and F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy (pp. 51-72). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Jacob, E. (1982). Combining ethnographic and quantitative approaches: Suggestions and examples from a study in Puerto Rico. In P. Gilmore and E. Glatthorn (Eds.), hi dre n a d out of chool (pp. 124-147). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Kagan, S. L. (1987). Home-school linkages: History's legacies and the family support movement. In S. L. Kagan, D. R. Powell, B. Weissbourd, & E. F. Zigler (Eds.), America's family suppprt programs: Perspectives and prospects (pp. 161-181). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 185 King, M. L. (1989). Speech to writing: Children's growth in writing potential. In J. M. Mason (Ed.), geagihg hnd writing connections (pp. 7-30). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Kozol, J. (1985). iiiiterate Amgrigg. New York: New American Library. LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Revigw og Educatiphpl Bgsgargh, ggii, 31-59. Lewis, N. (Ed.) (1961). The new Roger's thesaurus in digtionary form. Garden City, NY: Garden City Books. Litwak, E., E Meyer, H. J., with Mickelson, C. E. (1974). School, family and neighborhood: The theory and practice of school-community rglations. New York: Columbia University Press. Mavrogenes, N. A. (1990, May). Helping parents help their children become literate. Youn Children, 4;, pp. 4-9. McCormick, C. E., & Mason, J. M. (1986). Intervention procedures for increasing preschool children's interest in and knowledge about writing. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent litgrhcv: reading (pp. 90-115). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. McDermott, R. P., Goldman, S. V., & Varenne, H. (1984). When school goes home: Some problems in the organization of homework. Teachers Michaels, 8., & Cazden, C. (1986). Teacher/child collaboration as oral preparation for literacy. In B. Schieffelin & P. Gilmore (Eds.), The acgpisition of literacy: Ethnogrhphic pgrspgchives (pp. 132-154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Miller, P. (1982). Am Wend and Bet : L arnin lan u e in South Baltimore. Austin: University of Texas Press. Miller, P., Nemoianu, A., & DeJong, J. (1986). Early reading at home: Its practice and. meaning in. a *working class community. In B. Schieffelin & P. Gilmore (Eds.), The gggpigiriph of literacy: perspectives (pp. 3-15). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Ninio, A. (1983). Joint picture book reading as a multiple vocabulary acquisition device. Qevelopmehhpi Egychgiogy, ig, 445-451. Ninio, A., & Bruner, J. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labelling. Journal of Child Langpage, g, 1-15. Powell, D. R. (1989). Families and early childhood programs. (Research Monographs of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, 3). Washington, DC: NAEYC. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Squire, J. R. (1989). Tracing the development of reading and writing: Introduction. In J. M. Mason (Ed.), R adin and writ n co ctions (pp. 1-6). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). s cs f tat v e earch: Grounded theory procedures and technigpeg. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 186 Sulzby, E. (1985). Children's emergent reading of favorite storybooks: A developmental etudy- B9éQi£Q_B§!§2££h_QEA££§£lYu 29. 458-481. Szwed, J. F. (1981). The ethnography of literacy. In M. F. Whiteman (Ed.), W iti : he natu develo e and teach 0 written 0 unicatio , i, (pp. 13-23). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. Taylor, D. (1983). F i t a : o h d e a nin to ead d yrirg. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Taylor, D. (1986). Creating family story: "Matthew! We're going to have a ride!” In W. H. Teale and E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent iitergcy: Writing and reading (pp. 139-155). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). ow u lite ate: earnin from_innerzsitx_famili_a- Portsmouth. NH: Heinemann. Teale, W. H. (1986). Home background and children's literacy development. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Em ent ite ac : Writing and reading (pp. 173-206). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1986). mer en literac : W it n nd reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Wells, G. (1986). The meanin makers: Ch dren earnin lan ua e and using language to learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Wolcott, EL. F. (1990). W it u l t t v a c : l tat ve research methodsl volume 2 . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 187 HICH RN T9 U . TE NIV WIN"! ll IWI 00 899 RARIES m? I m 312 3