Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The relationship between parental support for literacy, school attendance and the reading behaviors of.. Abramson, Sherry 1987

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1987_A8 A27.pdf [ 4.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0078284.json
JSON-LD: 1.0078284+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0078284.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0078284+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0078284+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0078284+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0078284 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0078284.txt
Citation
1.0078284.ris

Full Text

THE  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARENTAL SUPPORT FOR LITERACY, SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AND  THE  READING BEHAVIORS OF MUSQUEAM CHILDREN  by SHERRY ABRAMSON  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE  Department o f Language  We a c c e p t to  THE  this  thesis  the required  as  STUDIES Education  conforming  standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1987  ©  SHERRY ABRAMSON, 1 9 8 7  In  presenting  degree  this  at the  thesis in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  of  department publication  this or of  thesis for by  his  or  her  representatives.  Language E d u c a t i o n  for  an advanced  Library shall make it  agree that permission for extensive  It  this thesis for financial gain shall not  The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  DE-6(3/81)  that the  scholarly purposes may be  permission.  Department of  requirements  British Columbia, I agree  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  the  is  granted  by the  understood  that  be allowed without  head of copying  my or  my written  i i  ABSTRACT The writing and  present  study  behaviors  grade  o f Musqueam  behaviors  Indian  population.  school  years  profile  and s c h o o l  of reading  that  and w r i t i n g  and t h a t  variables,  the index  activities  during  there  urban these  was  there  and  unilingual behaviors during  Native  had  with  the pre-  explored.  would  behaviors  would  and  of reading  activities  attendance  was h y p o t h e s i z e d  reading  profile  The r e l a t i o n s h i p  reading  children i n kindergarten  existed within this  population  and  Indian  provision for literacy  It  t o examine  one t o see i f a s i m i l a r  writing  parental  attempted  b e no  similar  w i t h i n t h e Musqueam  b e no c o r r e l a t i o n  between the  of parental p r o v i s i o n f o r l i t e r a c y  the preschool  and w r i t i n g  years,  performance  total  school  absence  i n kindergarten  and  grade  one. Individual (Clay)  at kindergarten  reading of and  and w r i t i n g  letter  and grade  behaviors.  identification,  writing  Subtests and  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the Diagnostic  vocabulary  dictation  one y i e l d e d a d e s c r i p t i o n o f Subtests  concepts  about  were a d m i n i s t e r e d  including oral  reading  were added  questionnaire  was  knowledge  sight  i n both  words,  grades.  writing  d e v i a t i o n s and range o f  one and e x a m i n e d used  print,  of passages,  were c a l c u l a t e d f o r t h e D i a g n o s t i c and grade  measuring  level,  i n grade one.  Group means, s t a n d a r d  garten  Survey  Survey  subtests  for similarities.  to establish  an i n d e x  scores at kinderA  for parental  iii  provision obtained  for literacy from  The with  school  activities.  S c h o o l Absence correlational  for Literacy A c t i v i t i e s  was  P e a r s o n Product-Moment  explored  indicated that  Excluding  S u r v e y and  Literacy Activities significant  subtests  and  had  of Parent Suppport using  no  similar  profile  and  t h e s i g h t word s u b t e s t  t h e Index  of P a r e n t a l  were f o u n d t o be  of  reading  t h e Musqueam a t K,  Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n s between a l l s u b t e s t s  No  Survey  of the D i a g n o s t i c  and w r i t i n g b e h a v i o r s e x i s t e d w i t h i n  Diagnostic  was  analysis.  Results  population.  absence  records.  r e l a t i o n s h i p subtests  t h e Index  Total school  Pearson  of the  Provision for  significant  (p < . 0 5 ) .  c o r r e l a t i o n s were f o u n d between s u r v e y  total  school  absence.  iv  T A B L E OF  CONTENTS  Page ABSTRACT  i i  T A B L E OF CONTENTS LIST  OF T A B L E S  LIST  OF F I G U R E S  iv v i i viii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CHAPTER  ONE:  ix  THE  PROBLEM  1.1  INTRODUCTION  1  1.2  BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM  2  1.2.1 WEAKNESSES I N MEASUREMENT OF R E A D I N G I N NATIVE POPULATIONS 1.2.2 MEASURING R E A D I N G A B I L I T Y I N NON-NATIVE POPULATIONS  3  1.3  STATEMENT  5  1.4  P U R P O S E OF THE  1.5  QUESTIONS  8  1.6  HYPOTHESES  8  1.7  D E F I N I T I O N S OF TERMS  9  1.8  LIMITATIONS  C H A P T E R TWO:  4  OF THE PROBLEM STUDY  7  11  R E V I E W OF THE L I T E R A T U R E  2.1  INTRODUCTION  2.2  H I S T O R I C A L DEVELOPMENT  2.3  NEEDS A S S E S S M E N T S AND INDIAN POPULATIONS  14 OF  I N D I A N EDUCATION  READING ACHIEVEMENT  2.3.1 CANADIAN I N D I A N S 2.3.2 A M E R I C A N I N D I A N S 2.3.3 R E V I E W OF R E S E A R C H ON A S S E S S M E N T  14 IN 16 16 17 18  V  Page 2.4  2.5  2.6  2.7  SOCIO-CULTURAL VARIABLES LINKED TO READING ABILITY IN INDIAN POPULATIONS  19  2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.4.5  19 20 21 22 26  HEALTH PARENTING EDUCATION COMMUNICATIVE STYLE ORAL LANGUAGE COGNITION  SUMMARY OF RESEARCH ON READING IN NATIVE POPULATIONS  29  INFLUENCE OF THE HOME ON LEARNING TO READ IN SCHOOL (NON-NATIVE LITRATURE)  31  SUMMARY  34  CHAPTER THREE:  METHODOLOGY  3.1  OVERVIEW  36  3.2  SUBJECTS  36  3.3  INSTRUMENTATION  37  3.4  DATA COLLECTION  40  3.5  DATA ANALYSIS  42  CHAPTER FOUR: 4.1  4.2  RESULTS  HYPOTHESIS ONE  46  4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4  47 48 50 53  DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY SUBTEST SCORES RUNNING RECORD OF READING SUBTEST WRITING SAMPLE ANALYSIS SUMMARY  HYPOTHESIS TWO 4.2.1 SUMMARY OF SCORES FOR INDEX OF PARENTAL PROVISION FOR LITERACY A C T I V I T I E S 4.2.2 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS  4.3  4.4  4.5  54  -  54 55  HYPOTHESIS THREE  56  4.3.1 TOTAL SCHOOL ABSENCE 4.3.2 STATISTCAL ANALYSIS  56 57  ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM PARENT INTERVIEWS  58  SUMMARY OF RESULTS  60  vi  CHAPTER F I V E : 5.1  DISCUSSION AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  DISCUSSION  62  5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4  62 66 69  CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF METHODOLOGY COMPARISONS WITH NON-NATIVE RESEARCH COMPARISONS WITH CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH COMPARISON WITH STUDIES OF OTHER NATIVE POPULATIONS  71  5.2  CONCLUSIONS  74  5.3  RECOMMENDATIONS  75  BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A:  77 ADMINISTRATION AND  SCORING  PROCEDURES FOR SUBTESTS OF THE DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE USED TO INTERVIEW PRINCIPAL CAREGIVERS APPENDIX C: RAW SCORES FROM SUBTESTS OF THE DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY, INDEX OF PARENTAL PROVISION FOR LITERACY A C T I V I T I E S AND APPENDIX D:  VALUE AND  TOTAL SCHOOL ABSENCE  FREQUENCY  OF  89  104  SCORES  FROM DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY APPENDIX E : SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FROM PARENT INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE  82  106 OBTAINED 108  vii  L I S T OF  TABLES  Page TABLE I  TABLE I I  TABLE I I I TABLE IV TABLE V  TABLE VI  TABLE V I I  TABLE V I I I  TABLE IX  C o r r e l a t i o n s t o be C a l c u l a t e d t o A d d r e s s H y p o t h e s i s Two  44  C o r r e l a t i o n s t o be C a l c u l a t e d to Address H y p o t h e s i s Three  45  Mean, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n , Median, Range o f D i a g n o s t i c S u r v e y S u b t e s t s  47  S c o r e s from A s s e s s m e n t Samples  52  of  Writing  Mean, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n , Median and Range o f t h e Index o f P a r e n t a l P r o v i s i o n f o r L i t e r a c y A c t i v i t i e s During the P r e s c h o o l Y e a r s (IPAR)  54  P e a r s o n Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s between IPAR and S u b t e s t s o f the D i a g n o s t i c S u r v e y : One T a i l e d A n a l y s i s  55  Mean, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n , Median and Range o f t h e T o t a l S c h o o l Absence V a r i a b l e (TSA)  57  P e a r s o n Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s between TSA and S u b t e s t s o f the D i a g n o s t i c S u r v e y : One T a i l e d A n a l y s i s  57  Mean S c o r e s o f Musqueam P o p u l a t i o n as t h e y R e l a t e t o S t a n i n e P l a c e m e n t on D i a g n o s t i c S u r v e y i n C l a y (1968) S t u d y  67  viii  LIST  OF  FIGURES  Page FIGURE  FIGURE  1  2  Writing Subtest  Sample  from W r i t i n g  W r i t i n g Sample f o r C o n f u s i o n Analysis Categories  Analysis 51 of 64  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I s i n c e r e l y thank J o n S h a p i r o who p a t i e n t l y and c a r e f u l l y g u i d e d me t h r o u g h t h i s t h e s i s and my f a m i l y , Matthew, W i l l i a m and Reg, who a r e g l a d t o s e e me f i n i s h e d i t . I want t o a l s o thank C l a i r e S t a a b , L e e G u n d e r s o n , H a r o l d R a t s l a f f and B i l l W h i t e who f r e q u e n t l y p r o v i d e d c o n s t r u c t i v e f e e d b a c k , Margo H e w i t t , L i s a Duprey and Mary Anne K i n g who l i s t e n e d f o r l o n g h o u r s , my p a r e n t s , who p r o v i d e d u n c o n d i t i o n a l s u p p o r t and b a b y s i t t i n g t h r o u g h o u t , Nancy P a l m e r who t y p e d my d r a f t s w i t h o u t c r i t i c i s m and t h e many f r i e n d s who s u p p o r t e d me when I needed i t .  C H A P T E R ONE THE PROBLEM 1.1  INTRODUCTION More  research  than  ever  on N a t i v e  Indian  will  need,  such  as N a t i v e  well  as t h e r e g u l a r  the  need  increasingly  the  In  a small  every  study  body  involving  educational  recognized  doing in  i n school  school  scores best  The examine  group  existing background  have  1984).  children  A  students,  examines  small  on e l e m e n t a r y - a g e d  students.  reading  for interpreting  reading  attainment  p r e d i c t o r of later 1980), tests  attainment  Street  of research  several  influenced reading  reading often  has  may  achievement  achievement  do n o t p r o v i d e  f o r Indian  1976; Burnaby  factors that  Although  decade  i s available that  Though  administered  body  the past  as  m e a s u r e o f how w e l l a c h i l d i s  and T i z a r d  1 9 6 7 ; Bank  achievement.  level.  government  recognized  as t h e b a s i s  and t h e b e s t  measure of r e a d i n g  (Hawthorne  might  were used  issues  1986).  elementary  as t h e best  (Hewison  from  focuses  political  of Indian  c h i l d r e n (More  studies  the  Over  and e d u c a t o r s  of research  Indian children  and s e l f  has been  1984; Anderson  scores  been  unique  claims  education  achievement child's  with  Today's  demands o f l i f e .  of Indian  of these  f o r i n f o r m a t i o n and  education.  to land  by p a r e n t s  education  portion  rights  1984; More  Only  i s a need  as a d u l t s , t o d e a l  for better  (Burnaby  there  children  1984; More  has a l s o n e g l e c t e d influence  1984). to  reading  s t u d i e s proposed achievement,  the  factors that  no s t u d i e s  could  2  be  found  that  examined  literacy  or  school  learning  to  read  The in  a  two-phase  measures,  and  relationship  that  the  reading  1.2  one  parental  writing  BACKGROUND TO  years  school.  an  attempt  on  populations  i n North  America  writing  in primary  Mickelson and  and  Oliver  Jenness from  a  few  the  has  studies  Simpson-Tyson 1985;  of  tended have  to  achievement  the  performance, of  the  had  was  with  measured.  Native to  have  there  reading  been  are  Downing,  The  pass given  that  and  findings Indian  through  with  their  school.  account  problems  Ollila  Boloz  compared  to  or  (Galloway  1986).  as  reading  reading  1983;  basic  ability.  on  Dehyle  scores, they  Indian  focus  examined  conclusion  p r o g r e s s i v e l y as  explanations  measurement  1978;  Anderson  reading  the  one  1972;  children's  lower  children in  activities  attendance  Graham  point  this  literacy  grade  issues  administered  Second,  B u r c h f i e l d 1968;  lag  these  Indian  children  Hoffman  several  of  Indian  studies  While  for  education  these  classmates,  address  school-aged  1973;  1984;  children  individually  school to  for  PROBLEM  research  only  to  analysed.  support or  support  Indian  behaviors  were  Though  achievement,  using  attainment  THE  on  in  writing  grade  parental  have  First,  and  preschool  and  was  model.  kindergarten  during  write  study  reading  effect  attendance  and  present  the  for  regarding  3  1.2.1  WEAKNESSES I N MEASUREMENT POPULATIONS All  group  studies  reviewed  administered  variables  that  measures.  There  examined  reading  may  have  OF R E A D I N G  achievement  affected  are four  weak  areas  extensive  needs  achievement  i n Native  populations  state  that  individually Street  Indian  administered  1976; Burnaby  1984).  with  required  to display the extent  Scollon  is  reading  children  information  n o t germane  are often  child's  tests.  actual  attainment  reading  but rather  knowledge  for  lower  studies  of reading  i n an o n e - t o - o n e  reading  have  on  academic  better  on  1 9 6 7 ; Bank  children  a r e not  they a r e  knowledge  (Scollon  u n f a m i l i a r with used often  on  may  well  developed, i n many  n o t be or  performance  the  standardized  tapped  performance  better  measuring  overall on a  specific  Native  children  may  display  using  familiar  reading  setting.  v a r i a b l e s have achievement  focused  tests  their  their  many  though  These  i n an u n f a m i l i a r c o n t e x t .  Third,  much  experiences  skill  materials  formats  base,  to the s p e c i f i c  achievement  Indian  these  and t h e U n i t e d  i n which  of their  of question/answer  Their  reading an  Indian  types  tests.  Native  on  research.  (Hawthorne  situations  hypothesized  conducted  perform  on  1981) .  Second, formal  group  Many  familiar  and  formal  in this  i n Canada  measures  and  performance  assessments  children  NATIVE  performance  tests  lesser  First,  States  reading  IN  been  hypothesized  i n Native  on e x a m i n i n g  to  populations  account  b u t few  one v a r i a b l e and a n a l y s i n g  4  its  relationship  Variables attitude  that  with  have  reading  been  hypothesized  towards schooling before  schooling  1973),  poor  school  attendance  middle  ear i n f e c t i o n s  (Hawthorne  education  ( M a y f i e l d 1981),  (Galloway  1968; S i m p s o n - T y s o n  and  S c o l l o n 1981; More  explored reading not  explored  no p u b l i s h e d  t o i n c l u d e norms  norming  MEASURING During  READING  development  1984) and a m i s -  school.  home, e s p e c i a l l y  been  with have  to generalize to a l l  Indian  achievement  populations  of Indian  or a  children i n their  1987). ABILITY  I N NON-NATIVE  pre-school  correlated with  Parental  link  factors  literacy  POPULATIONS  experiences  and w r i t e have  extensively i n non-Native populations.  has i n d i c a t e d t h a t  (Scollon  f a c t o r s has  a causal  of reading  f o r Native  of  f o r parent  Moreover, these  t h e same p e r i o d , e a r l y  significantly in  to attribute  tests  prevalence  t h e home a n d s c h o o l  i n f l u e n c e on l e a r n i n g t o r e a d  examined ture  (More  need  None o f t h e s e  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample  population  and O l i v e r  i n language  e x t e n s i v e l y enough  Finally,  sufficient  their  1984).  populations.  appear  1.2.2  between  Indian  impoverished  1967),  1978; N e l s o n  achievement i n school.  been  Native  1979),  weakness  e x t e n s i v e l y enough  1984),  parental  (Downing, O l l i l a  (McShane  i n learning styles  include  (Kirkness  environment  match  achievement i n school.  support  bookreading,  literacy  reading  for literacy has been  been  This  litera-  experiences  and w r i t i n g  are  attainment  activities  identified  and  as  i n the being  5  one  of the s i g n i f i c a n t  v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t i n g progress i n  school. One o f t h e most t h o r o u g h s t u d i e s e x a m i n i n g i n f l u e n c e on l e a r n i n g t o r e a d and  (1979).  Wells  influenced preschool support  i n s c h o o l was c o n d u c t e d by Moon  Significant  reading child's  attainment  f a c t o r s f o u n d t o have i n s c h o o l a t age s e v e n were t h e  k n o w l e d g e o f b o o k s and l i t e r a c y ,  for literacy  activities  (1980)  parental  i n t h e home and t h e q u a l i t y  of p a r e n t - c h i l d v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n Tizard  parental  found t h a t reading  i n t h e home.  H e w i s o n and  a c h i e v e m e n t a t a g e 7 was  most s t r o n g l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e mother regularly Kuerbitz  listened (1979),  t o the c h i l d  investigating  read.  S i m i l a r l y , Walker and  the e f f e c t of reading  s c h o o l e r s on r e a d i n g a c h i e v e m e n t i n s c h o o l , f o u n d c h i l d r e n who had been r e a d on  reading  on  literacy  1984; T e a l e 1.3  i n school.  f o r the p o s i t i v e  development  that  t o r e g u l a r l y a t home s c o r e d  achievement t e s t s  have f o u n d s u p p o r t  t o pre-  Many o t h e r  higher  studies  i n f l u e n c e s of bookreading  ( H o l d a w a y 1979; B i s s e x 1980; C l a r k  1984 ) .  STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM A t t e m p t s t o examine I n d i a n c h i l d r e n ' s e d u c a t i o n  focused  on e x a m i n i n g  administered identified  tests.  reading Current  achievement scores  from  have group  n e e d s a s s e s s m e n t s have  t h i s p r o c e d u r e a s an i n e f f e c t i v e way o f m e a s u r i n g  Indian c h i l d r e n ' s reading 1984; A n d e r s o n 1986).  behaviors  ( H a w t h o r n e 1967; B u r n a b y  I f t h i s method o f a s s e s s m e n t i s n o t  6  appropriate, measures may  then  based  reveal  on m a t e r i a l s  a more i n - d e p t h  know a b o u t  reading  Researchers hypothesized  the  the  this  variable to also populations.  variations child  their  study  cal  and l i n g u i s t i c school.  information  in  reading  factors that  1981).  One  Though  would  learning  Scollon  rural,  with  Parental also  support play  learning  for literacy  a significant  and w r i t i n g a t t a i n m e n t  (1981)  Indian  reading  i n school.  noted their  children,  to relate to  varying  problems  urban,  expect  comparing  t o understand  in  and w r i t e i n  information  have w i t h  c h i l d r e n have w i t h  attainment  t o read  bilingual  populations  has  intuitively  when  At  activities in  and S c o l l o n  adequate  backgrounds  affect  populations  for literacy  influence  Indian  may  have  i n school.  i t d i d not provide  homes may  children  children's  few s t u d i e s  Specifically,  Indian  school.  Indian  other  with  have  i n f l u e n c e on r e a d i n g  d i d not provide  problems  Native  However,  support  schoolaged,  the  in  affect Indian  i n orientations to literacy with  Indian  achievement  on n o n - N a t i v e  parental  (Moon a n d W e l l s  Indian  o f what  and w r i t i n g measures  research  that  may  background  home h a s a s i g n i f i c a n t  school  own  reading  tests.  on r e a d i n g  time  indicated  knowledge  examining  on e x a m i n i n g  same  assessment  and w r i t i n g .  on t h e s e  performance  administered  the children are familiar  variables that  performance focused  individually  geographi-  and w r i t i n g  adequate  unilingual English t o read  and  activities role  write i n urban  in influencing  7  1.4  PURPOSE For  scored  OF THE  twenty  below  acceptable It  was  information  that  Indian was  This  teachers these  children  performance  has not been (Anderson  d i d not  about  to understand  children  generally  administered  and s t u d e n t s  knew  have  group  measures  children  needed  Musqueam  Indian  on v a r i o u s  tests.  to parents,  what  weaknesses  Musqueam  age-mates  reading  suspected  reflect  write  years  their  standardized  STUDY  adequately  reading.  More  the strengths  had w i t h  1986).  and  l e a r n i n g to read  and  i n school. The  purpose  proposed was  Musqueam  study  t o examine  Indian  had t h r e e the reading  children  on  a battery  to  see i f s i m i l a r  purposes.  through  of i n d i v i d u a l l y profiles  The  first  and w r i t i n g b e h a v i o r s  kindergarten  administered  and grade  literacy  of reading  and w r i t i n g  to obtain  information  of one  measures behaviors  existed. The school to  second  literacy  explore  reading  some  was  (see def.) experiences  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  and w r i t i n g  as s c h o o l  Musqueam  children  attendance grades  was  absence (Anderson  had w i t h be  these  had  on  pre-  homes a n d with  and g r a d e one.  had o f t e n 1986),  reading  examined.  i n Musqueam  experiences  i n kindergarten  Finally,  school these  purpose  been  the  a problem  with  relationship  and w r i t i n g a t t a i n m e n t  in  8  1.5  QUESTIONS The  1.  study  I s there  examined a similar  behaviors there  2.  within  unique  trends  To what  measures extent  of reading  grade  What  one  That  i s ,are  performance  on a v a r i e t y and grade  of  one?  support f o r l i t e r a c y  i n the preschool  performance  writing  and w r i t i n g  children  i s parental  and  population.  i n kindergarten  years related  o f Musqueam  children  to reading  and  i n kindergarten  one?  i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p  reading  and w r i t i n g  within  between  attainment  t h e Musqueam  school  a t t e n d a n c e and  i n kindergarten  and  grade  population?  HYPOTHESES The  derived  research from  There  hypotheses  the research  will  performance  2.  t h e Musqueam  literacy  and  1.  of reading  Indian  writing  1.6  profile  questions:  shown by Musqueam  activities  3.  the following  o f Musqueam  one w i t h i n  There  will  children  be no s i g n i f i c a n t  provision  Musqueam  homes d u r i n g  attainment  profile  t h e Musqueam  parental  i n their  null  form  were  questions.  be no s i m i l a r  grade  stated  of reading  writing  i n kindergarten  and  population. correlation  for literacy  activities  the preschool  i n kindergarten  and  and grade  between i n the  y e a r s and one.  reading  9  3.  There  will  be  attendance grade 1.7  and  used  1.  Musqueam  in this  through  the  assumed  t o be  Literacy:  and  in kindergarten  clarify  the  t e r m s as  by  aged  the  Department  reservation will  of  be  Education  considered  the  Gee  supporting  significant  adult/adults will  caregiver  (1986) d e f i n e s  p r a c t i c e s or speech  literacy making  Preschool  will  sense  ways of  and  be  literacy  writing.  defined  around  using  as  i n the  reading  as  be  child's  In  and  being  language this  ways o f  Years:  This  were a v a i l a b l e i n the  attempting the  experience  to  caregiver read  adult with  observed  and  in a  child.  set  and  using  of  making  study  the language  to  during  home,  b.  child c.  reading  the or  the  encompass  materials  the  w r i t e , and  engaged their  to which  a  writing.  meant  and  the  extent  was  a.  writing  the  term  following:  which  to  descent.  present  i n both  which  they  c h i l d r e n whose  Parental Provision for Literacy A c t i v i t i e s  to  and  years.  discourse  4.  Musqueam  Musqueam  preschool  will  A l l school  i s financed  The  term  school  study.  Parent:  sense  between  TERMS  Indian:  education  3.  attainment  f o l l o w i n g statements  of  correlation  one.  were  be  significant  reading  D E F I N I T I O N S OF The  2.  no  for the  reading extent  either extent  writing  the  to  Interrater  reliability:  calculated  f o r the scores  mental  levels  level in  A).  the three  Judgemental o p i n i o n s ,  of score  given  0-4)  (Huntley  may  from  interfere  1986).  a h i t i f they  each with  Consequently,  fell  i n t o the (score  level. attainment:  of  study,  this  accuracy  Survey  Topic-centered center  Thematic through  was  obtained  Diagnostic  Reading  (Michaels  (Clay  on a s i n g l e ,  t o be t h e o v e r a l l  l e v e l of  of the  1985). S t o r i e s are t i g h t l y clearly  identifiable  is characteristically  progression  organized topic.  achieved  of i n f o r m a t i o n ,  d e s c r i p t i o n of a s i n g l e event  providing a  or o b j e c t  1 9 8 1 , p. 4 2 8 ) .  Topic-Associated point  f o r the purpose  on e a c h o f t h e s u b t e s t s  Stories:  a linear  attainment,  considered  development  focussed  Stories:  With  this  of the c h i l d r e n ' s s t o r i e s  from a s e r i e s o f s u b a n e c d o t e s . course  that  variation  ( s c o r e o f 5 - 6 ) or n o n - s a t i s f a c t o r y  Reading  the  d i f f e r e n c e i n grade  samples o f w r i t i n g c o l l e c t e d  satisfactory  and  develop-  message q u a l i t y and  are p o s s i b l e confusions  choice  was  i n t h e w r i t i n g sample a n a l y s i s ( s e e  r e s p o n s e s were c o n s i d e r e d  of  to determine  o f e x p e r t i s e o f t h e s c o r i n g a d u l t s , and  student the  given  of language,  directionality Appendix  Interrater r e l i a b i l i t y  s o r t of d i s c o u r s e , need t o be  Topic  c o n t r i b u t i o n s are perceived  inferred  associating  by t e a c h e r s  dis-  t o be  11  disorganized themselves (Michaels  1.8  perceive  although  children  o r g a n i z a t i o n , cohesion  and  focus  1981) .  LIMITATIONS  1. of  and u n f o c u s s e d ,  The  study  was  urban Native  performance for  confined  children  living  on c r i t e r i o n  literacy  t o s u b j e c t s drawn on one  reserve.  m e a s u r e s and t h e i r  a c t i v i t i e s may  n o t be  from  typical  one  band  Their  parental of other  support urban  populations. 2.  Sample  all by  size  was  small  Musqueam c h i l d r e n  Information  during  years  interview-questionnaire This  type  accurate  t o the degree  previous  years  person  was  1979). tion,  willing  a request  format  that  four  The years  information  so f e l t  as h o n e s t l y  identified  administered  that  a retrospective  i n kindergarten.  and t o t h e d e g r e e them  honestly  of only  being  known  (Borg  research  and  was  s e v e r a l Musqueam  a d u l t s might  as they  that the  i n t h e Musqueam  ethnographic had  activities  s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s of the four  to express  researcher  using  had t h e l i m i t a t i o n  accurate  to pursue  as  for literacy  obtained  As p r i v a c y i s h i g h l y v a l u e d  pursued. for  was  of s e l f - r e p o r t i n g  were  but included  Co-ordinator.  on p a r e n t a l s u p p o r t  the preschool  13)  presently i n kindergarten  t h e Musqueam E d u c a t i o n  3.  (approximately  could  be w i l l i n g  remember i t .  Gall  populanot families to  offer  12  4. one  Some c h i l d r e n h a d so  that  spanned 5.  two  Two  reading  and  code  would given.  depended  on  writing levels.  responses  was  examiner I n The  required  (see Appendix  helped  i n assessing  experience  (one-half  hour  per  reliability  subtest analysis  grade  may  dependent  using  this  student)  on  Running t o use  A).  could  or  grade  have  not  was  researcher  ( s e e C h a p t e r T h r e e , p.  to interpret  Record  of  a category  Interrater  instrument  to score  coefficient  judgement  the r e l i a b i l i t y  However, the r e s e a r c h e r  suitable  rater  of c h i l d r e n i n each  the examiner  have  either kindergarten  years.  subtests  Subtest, to  t h e age  repeated  find who  of  error  responses  a person the  the subtest.  An  c a l c u l a t e d f o r the  38).  of  reliability  had  judgement,  Reading  with  time intersecond  the W r i t i n g  Sample  This and will  chapter  has  presented  research questions to review  historical  the and  be  literature sociological  a  statement  examined.  related  to  The this  perspective.  of  the  problem  following problem  chapt  from  an  14  CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1  INTRODUCTION The  present  literature  chapter  considered  Studies examining historic will  o f f e r s a review  w i t h i n t h e framework o f t h i s  reading  and w r i t i n g  perspective w i l l  be c o n s i d e r e d  from g e n e r a t i o n  w e l l as a t s c h o o l  around l i t e r a c y (Olson  1984).  under f o u r m a j o r h e a d i n g s , education,  2.2  t o read  i n school  The r e v i e w  of s o c i a l i z a -  i n t h e home, as  i s organized  development of I n d i a n achievement i n Indian  variables linked  t o reading  and i n f l u e n c e o f t h e home on  i n non-Indian  populations.  HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF INDIAN EDUCATION In the e a r l y seventeenth  century,  i n C a n a d a , Roman  Catholic missionaries established schools (Kirkness 1985). learned their  However u n t i l  Native  t i o n of o r a l t o l d over  f o r Indians  1 8 5 0 most I n d i a n c h i l d r e n  language from a d u l t s i n t h e i r  K n o w l e d g e was p r i n c i p a l l y  their  p a s s e d down  a process  n e e d s a s s e s s m e n t and r e a d i n g  i n Indian populations  learning  order  activities  historical  populations, socio-cultural ability  That i s , l i t e r a c y  t o be p a r t o f a s o c i a l through  study.  from a c u l t u r a l -  be r e v i e w e d .  to generation  tion, particularly  of r e l a t e d  t r a n s m i t t e d through  story t e l l i n g .  Children listened  community.  a rich  tradi-  to stories  s e v e r a l p r e s e n t a t i o n s so t h e y were a b l e t o a b s o r b  teachings. From 1 8 5 0 - 1 9 4 9 r e l i g i o u s  jointly  assumed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  o r d e r s and t h e g o v e r n m e n t f o r the education  of Indian  15  children.  C h i l d r e n were  from  reserves.  their  Native  language  English.  This  was s o l e l y  children  ment  level  returned  children  have  schools about  children  were  operated of parents  a school  1984).  system  first  until  support  another  transition  customs w h i l e achievement  that  with  wanting  to attend  t o send  children  education  their  i n residential have  negative  this  issue  their  children  to attend  their  equivalent  children  type  (Kirkness  of school  Many p a r e n t s or retain t o read  their  i n varying  schools  to regain  feelings  recognition of  operated  Whichever  schools.  presently i n  band  i s pertinent.  trying  allowed  o r go t o p u b l i c  has avoided  want  1986).  issue  level  Native  children  Many p a r e n t s  support  parents  between  had t h e  Indian  Some p a r e n t s  (Anderson  achieve-  i n Canada,  ways.  schools  a reading  i nt h e  c u l t u r e and a r e d e a l i n g w i t h  Other  i n school  closed  Native  1985).  culture  they  schools  h a d some o f t h e i r  (Kirkness  and w r i t e i n  to their  continued  Today,  majority  away  their  and n o t h a v i n g  central  1984).  band  reached  three  schools  attend  t o read  After ten years  home h a v i n g t o grade  t o speak  considering their  1984).  to residential  either  school  difficult  Some f a m i l i e s  (Kirkness  forbidden  schools  1986).  (Williams  1960's  The  were  t o l e a r n customs  schools.  to residential  instructed  (Kirkness  1949 Indian  In public  was v e r y  equivalent  opportunity community  They  and were  oral  most  sent  public they  are i n a  traditional and w r i t e a t an  t o the contemporary  mainstream  16  culture. ranging  This from  children reading  and tion  avoiding  to stay with  In  transition  the United  underachieved education  with  school  children daily States,  orders  of Indian  contact  home f r o m  their  religious  has p r e c i p i t a t e d  the school  and h e l p i n g  in a similar  Likewise  i n the school  has a l s o v a r i e d  (Bank  with  controlled Indian  homework.  1976;  the educa-  c h i l d r e n have  and p a r e n t a l  Street  to actively  way, t h e g o v e r n m e n t  most  system  behaviors  and a l l o w i n g  1986)  (Anderson  have h i s t o r i c a l l y  students.  parental  support f o r  Rosier  and Holm  1980 ) . More diversity  research  i s needed  that  exist  activities  may  a n d how t h i s  t o examine  i n parental affects  read  and w r i t e i n k i n d e r g a r t e n  2.3  NEEDS A S S E S S M E N T S AND INDIAN POPULATIONS  2.3.1  support  Indian  of the  for literacy  children learning to  and grade one.  READING ACHIEVEMENT  IN  CANADIAN INDIANS At  present,  students has  the extent  finish  less grade  been p r i m a r i l y  skills As issue.  needed  twenty  twelve.  attributed  f o r formal  per cent  This  Approximately  one h u n d r e d  communities,  determine  what  adolescents in British  effects  school  Indian  dropout of  rate  literacy  ( M a y f i e l d 1985).  education  the Hawthorne  Indian  high  of Canadian  t o lack of mastery  e a r l y a s 1967  twenty-five Indian  than  report  addressed  non-Indian  from  hundred  three n o n - i d e n t i f i e d  Columbia,  public school  and one  t h e same  were  interviewed to  had on t h e e d u c a t i o n  of  17  the of  Native Indian  this  poor  such  as  the  at  then  at  and  needs of  reading  and  studies  writing  as  i s that  they  long  students.  the Bank  school to  of  Native  skills  years.  support  (Daybreak Parent  paper  goal.  and  as  was  individually  States  of  a  on  1980;  One  need  to  limitation  reading  pencil  being  outlining  the  as  reading  inappropriate for  needed  that  measured  administered  A  of  main  Indian  Since  then  instruments.  Project  needs assessment  Americans  adults  was  (1976). from  students  to on  1983; 1986).  Mayfield  H o w e v e r , no  and  improve the  preschool 1984;  the  communities the  early  s e v e r a l programs have been i n the  by  hundred  twenty-six  focusing  examining  conducted  Five  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n was  development  Preschool  Education  a major  Education  American  literacy Star  that  e l i m i n a t e d as  (Burnaby  a l l focused  criticized  young N a t i v e  interviewed.  literacy  be  on  INDIANS  Street College  sixty-two were  on  United  education  placed  recommended  identified  a major  More r e s e a r c h  behaviors AMERICAN  students  A l l have  tests  the  also  cent  factors  expectations  tests  1984).  achievement  In  He  per  attributed  socio-cultural  paper  Indian  administered  2.3.2  Hawthorne  s e v e r a l s t u d i e s have been c o n d u c t e d  group  reading  eighty  reading.  by  Indian  to  school.  pencil  More  measured  g r a d e one.  d i f f e r e n c e s between  1984;  these  approximately  i n school  home a n d  educational  improve of  and  assessing  Since  time  repeated  administered  Kirkness  that  performance  health  means o f  the  At  children  child  group  child.  created  years  Pueblo  Infant-  programs  could  18  be  found  Indians  2.3.3  that  examined  during  REVIEW All  reading  both  RESEARCH  ON  studies  reviewed  reported  and w r i t i n g  skills  consistently  scored  ten  t o widen  as they  achievement  average, seven  studies  reviewed  reading The  studies on  tests  intent  by e x a m i n i n g  for this  Jenness  (1984)  work  approach  that  language  varied  reading  was  that when  grade  based Navajo they  due t o a b i l i t y  in integrated schools.  through  This  the grades  (1986)  examined  c h i l d r e n over  the past  level.  on t h e  By  and f i v e group  grade  months.  Yet  administered  as i n a p p r o p r i a t e  t o improve  strengths measures  Navajo  have  measures  populations. was  was  children  c h i l d r e n were,  criticized  study  Indian  Anderson  t o one y e a r  i n Indian  observed  discovered  written  their  administered  Support  kindergarten  1976).  p e r s i s t e d i n using  of t h i s  individually  They  below  long  behaviors  pass  grades,  gap had widened  standardized of  months  On  i n a l l Native  o f Musqueam  In the primary  seven  this  Street  scores  years.  t o improve the  classmates  has continued  years.  all  their norms  reading  school  children.  tests,  national  1967; Bank  a need  of Indian  and below  (Hawthorne  speaking  ASSESSMENT  achievement below  English  and e a r l y  OF  reading  gap  unilingual  the preschool  standardized  schools  urban  found  on  as w e l l  as  of reading  on an e m e r g e n t  behaviors.  school. English  Boloz  and  integrated  literacy  c h i l d r e n had s t r o n g  t o speak  weaknesses  i n one s t u d y .  c h i l d r e n i n an  entered  previous  model.  concepts  Their  quality  and m a t u r i t y  of of and  19  knowledge  of  letter  were  to  write  able  pursuit. they  and  Children  had  acquired  sounds, they  were at  but were  able  home  a l l Navajo  to  to  actively use  begin  the to  children felt involved  knowledge  read  and  in  this  of  write  they  literacy in  school.  2.4  SOCIO-CULTURAL VARIABLES INDIAN POPULATIONS In  the  prevalent Indian  this  research  reviewed,  Indian  populations  in  populations,  lowering  reading  were  scores  section will  parenting  LINKED  be  than  ABILITY  factors,  in contemporary  to  Indian  organized  education,  READING  socio-cultural  proposed in  TO  have  an  under  communicative  the  non-  oral  on  Literature in  headings  style,  more  influence  populations.  IN  of  health,  language  and  cognition.  2.4.1  HEALTH Mayfield  skills  to  a  (1985)  attributed  combination  of  economic  factors.  that  has  a f f e c t e d Indian  been  their  disease  high  Native  general  to  reviewed  the  social,  most  of  prevalent  otitis  media  of  academic  educational  children's reading  occur  studies  found at  population,  children.  health,  development  health  and  problems  performance  or  middle  has  ear  1979).  c h i l d r e n and  estimated  of  incidence  (McShane  McShane  One  slow  Estimates  the  they  on  urban  that  while  rate  of  were  ranged  50%  more  from  and  ear  rural  infections  among  prevalent  20%  to  American  70%.  were  children in in  Indian  the  20  A variety middle  ear i n f e c t i o n s .  delayed visual  speech  reading  Other lesser  health  syndrome  factors  performance develop  Indian  auditory-  a u d i t o r y s e q u e n t i a l memory spelling  skills  (Katz  as b e i n g  associated  1979). suggested  i n Indian  operated  mately  children  were  with  fetal  start.  ninety  used.  i n such This  an a t t e m p t  to  by M a y f i e l d  based  ranging  program  (1981). from  Approxi-  birth  developmental  t o age  program.  and p r a c t i s e s s a n c t i o n e d  Information format  infant  i n t h e C o w i c h a n V a l l e y on  children  i n a home  lower  developed  as " T a l k  way y o u w i l l  t o your  by  by t h e e l d e r s baby  n o t be a s t r a n g e r  from t h e  t o your  (p. 3 0 2 ) .  Results content  reserves  on f a m i l y t e a c h i n g s  was p r e s e n t e d  h a v e made  about  programs.  I s l a n d was c o n d u c t e d  e l d e r s were  concerned  evaluation of a Native  on f i v e  participated  child."  skills  education  one h u n d r e d  Materials  communities  on a c a d e m i c  parenting  Vancouver  very  delayed  been  and h e a l t h c o n d i t i o n s due t o p o v e r t y  A longitudinal  band  have  to  PARENTING EDUCATION Several  four  related  1980) .  (Burnaby  that  acquisition,  d i s o r d e r , and poor  academic performance  alcohol  2.4.2  delayed  1 9 7 8 ; McShane  Zinkus  have been  Correlates identified  and language  integration,  ability, 1978;  of learning d i f f i c u l t i e s  from parent  interviews, anecdotal  a n a l y s i s of l o g books  and f o l l o w - u p  reports,  referrals  showed  21  that  children  who  were  i n the  program  months had  the  fewest  questionable  ratings  the  Denver  Developmental  were  on  s u r p r i s e d at  T h e r e was father, teach it.  an  reading child  Parents'  increased. American  later  2.4.3  was  so  results  for  style  of  had  learn. the  begun  school  for their found  to  to  do  children  in several  Cowichan program took  activities  as  to  place  they  was  to  assess  affected  STYLE focused  and  Native  i n Fort  research and  children  said  depended  on  this  Native  cultural has  on  they  children  individual  developed  human e x p e r i e n c e  the  developed  and  skills  and  to  and seek  once  and  l e a r n i n g to From  n o t i o n of Northern  a bush  respect  C h i l d r e n were e n c o u r a g e d  Scollon  Alaska.  modern c o n s c i o u s n e s s . to have  differences in  a f f e c t e d academic  in school.  C h i p e w a y , A l b e r t a and  consciousness were  how  children  (1981) observed  ethnographic  tion.  the  Parents  shown by  parents  norm  achievement.  communicative  that  child  examination  literacy  Some s t u d i e s h a v e  write  being  Test.  were a b l e  w a i t i n g f o r the  are  follow-up  COMMUNICATIVE  Scollon  i n the  eighteen  acceptable  Screening  m o r e common a n d than  than  below  children  Unfortunately  no  support  performance  and  educational expectations  programs.  school  interest  rather  Similar  discontinued parental  much t h e i r  increased  book  their  how  more  and  their bush Native  consciousness  non-verbal out  read  regula-  knowledge  acquired  not  of  to display  22  their  knowledge  dominance  publicly  i n relation  was n o t a c e n t r a l child.  knowledge. conflict  This  with  prevalent  between  display seldom  verbally  i n reading  a r e f r e q u e n t l y used  (Anderson  2.4.4  LANGUAGE  During  the past  children  exchange  However, these  ORAL  studies  that  t h a t have  i n class  and t h e e f f e c t  verifying style  i si n  interaction  For example, sound o f  bush  More  consciousness  Native populations.  research urban  i n the classroom  Musqueam  children  i n the classroom children  there  became r e t i c e n t  have  language  deficits  readily  during the  i n the intermediate  on o r a l  these  a d u l t and  one c l a s s r o o m s .  traditional  two d e c a d e s  focused  regulation  communicative  i s the beginning  i n urban  ethnographic  participate  of  i n school.  i n grade  t o examine  i n oral  years.  verbally  "What  1986) revealed  participated primary  like,  to learning from  a s a means  Native  instruction  'dog'"?  Results  used  of  t h a t y o u know w h a t I  regulated teacher-child  questions  orientations  " s h o w me  traditional  i s needed  i n a position  feature of interaction  display  research  were  Verbal  were  to their  they  audience.  For example,  know" q u e s t i o n s  unless  have  to  grades.  been s e v e r a l deficits had on  i n Native reading  achievement. The  same h y p o t h e s i s  was p o p u l a r  i n the 1960's.  American  children  Bereiter  and Englemann  (1966),  i n studying  I t s main  black  proponents,  postulated that black  children  23  had  an i n a d e q u a t e  ability  t o produce  and comprehend  standard  English. There were First, to  two g l a r i n g  s t u d i e s on s m a l l  be o v e r g e n e r a l i z e d  Secondly,  language  to  weaknesses English  and r e a d i n g  i n language  Island.  Twenty-eight  Teachers  observed  administered  subtests.  An i t e m  on l o w e r  to generalize  oral  Their  populations. to isolate  sample  c h i l d r e n i n grades  language  only Test  i n formal  language  i n school-aged  i n a small  community  unilingual population  four  and seven  on V a n c o u v e r  c h i l d r e n were  i n the classroom  Native. and  to a l l children i n a  analysis of reading  scorers  powerful  i n Native  out of s i x t y - f o u r  oral  format.  language  (1968) a t t e m p t e d  the Gates Reading  setting.  oral  i n examining  children.  of a l l sixty-four  interview  situation i n  The t e n d e n c y  development  school  the social  was t h e m o s t  attainment  Indian  this  and t o t e s t  and G a l l o w a y  one e l e m e n t a r y  conducted  that  place  i s also prevalent  speaking,  consisted  group  he f o u n d  populations  Phillion  children.  language p r o f i c i e n c y i n black  of verbal behavior.  proficiency  in  oral  t h e i n t e r v i e w took  situations  American  interview  populations  a l l Native  c h i l d r e n tended  (1972) r e p u d i a t e d  examining  determinant  of black  research.  i n formal  In  which  i n this  samples were c o l l e c t e d  Labov  American  populations  to a l l black  situations. h i s study  weaknesses  i n vocabulary  test  e r r o r s was  and comprehension  24  Galloway language mental lower  concept  performance  variety  to  of  Data language  and  due  gathered led to  the  c o m b i n e and  c h i l d r e n had  to  their  researchers to  a  lack  of  1986),  print  a  less  (Wells  classroom  interpretation  spoke  concluded  inadequate  limited  have  environ-  interpreted  experience lack  of  with  prior  experience  observations that  of  Native use  r e c o m b i n e w o r d s and  to  knowledge a  oral  c h i l d r e n were  of  conjunctions.  Native  formal  with  connecting Noting  i n "hurried" phrases,  that  this  1986).  t o make e f f e c t i v e  p r e p o s i t i o n s and  children often  Galloway  due  t e x t or  from  ability  as  Indian  (Anderson  f u n c t i o n s of  such  Native  as  comprehend  in their  words  Other  situations  necessary  that  development  experience.  testing  weak  inferred  Phillion  c h i l d r e n were transform  that  unable  statements  to into  questions. Teachers was  minimal  assumption students' be  about was  ment  Galloway of  talk  of  of  are  often  any  system  to  data  procedures.  isolate  They  observed  to  experiences. to  weaknesses  gathering  should  based  would  i n the  their visited  seem  home  to  as  to  teachers  As  well,  there  not  language  mentioned.  i n language  have  home  talk  categorize oral was  i n the  when t h e y  This  talk  reticent  Interrater reliability  m a n d a t e was in school,  1968).  assessing  children's school  mention  organized  way  people  observations. their  and  verbal communication  teacher/researchers.  invalid  Indian  that  observations  homes as  their  no  (Phillion on  a highly  Native  commented  involved  If  developmore  25  Simpson-Tyson of  oral  She  E n g l i s h used  found  that  interview and  (1978) by  these  setting.  They  word  responses  content  than  was  syntactical 798).  (p.  children  Programs  include early  children  "at  identified designed  to enhance  achieving  if  the  that  of  years  none o f speaking  these scores  these  effect  these or  Indian  that  districts  of  reading  programs on  the  omissions  word  "to  of  books  reading  in British  1985;  be" be  Columbia  of  research  Indian  year.  Those  achievement  program  childen tests  grades urban  but  conducted not  in  conducted  It is interesting  either  populations.  t o be  so  skills.  shown t h a t  needs  continues. are  Native  readiness  has  for  1986).  More  skill-oriented  reading  early  one  picture  i n t e r v e n t i o n programs Hoffman  s t u d i e s examined  Native  controlled  frequency  with  kindergarten  programs  i n the  in a  a f f e c t e d by  identification  their  children.  improved.  1984;  in their  longitudinal  positive  most  school  of  higher  More  less  received a concentrated  Documentation  one.  risk"  a high  recommended  language  (Nelson  Cheyenne  verbal  difficulty  language  early  Northern  quality  C h i l d r e n f r e q u e n t l y had  several school  instituting  q u a n t i t y and  were not  were  expected.  oral  Presently  Native  and  s t r u c t u r e and  until  the  spoke w i t h  Simpson-Tyson  withheld  are  Crow and  children  two  in  examined  both.  unilingual  are grade to  see  to  note  i n the  pre-  Moreover,  English  26  2.4.5  COGNITION Another  read  area  and  v a r i a b l e found  write  It  was  as  each  different  was  study  Downing, unilingual  subjects tricts  were  of  functions are  of  reading  system.  Native  when  with  fact  that  language  Native  observe  reading  and  were  subtests  administered.  Literacy,  so  writing of  the  in a  do lack  which  are  assumed  i n each  matched  their  in  case,  a  with  hypothesis  two  state do  not  school  they in  A l l dis-  were  Literacy  of  first  understand  know w h a t  of  by  the  to  in  this  cognitive were  come  from  a  have  less  chance  Reading titled  the  writing  Assumptions  preschool  based  culture to  years.  Readiness  Orientation  Behavior,  the  actions  concepts  be  phase  cognitive  coded  would  their  the  not  the  children  Canadian  Subtests  Understanding  and  Indian  tradition  this  fifty-nine  entered  kindergarten.  written  in  cognitive clarity.  children  were  no  Five  children  perform  entered  test of  writing,  children  and,  children  classes  reading  and  to  spoken  they  that of  to  Columbia.  specifically  supposed  to  theory  British  learning  studies  (1973) u s e d  Indian  kindergarten  skill  More  of  the  the  with  examined.  children  on  compare  i t s focus  Oliver  speaking  from  elements  on  and  hypothesized  confusion.  state  was  based  l e a r n i n g the  they  population  in northern  They  to  in  Ollila  associated  development.  difficult  non-Indian  reading  be  differed  English  fifty-seven about  cognitive  somewhat  Native  to  Technical  Test to Language  27  of  Literacy,  Knowledge, children group  Visual  and  were  required  Downing,  Ollila  tively  They  compared  with  Downing, assessment the  a l l , kindergarten  to  to  sixty-four  and  with  They  studies  to  assess  administered  tests.  as  factors  familiarity  which  the  test  Another  with was  f o r poor  style.  In  of  that  reading  and  used  there  was  no  individual Though that the  may task  mention  children  from  two results  children  writing  of  and  the  reading  the  expedient  influence test  show  than  limitation  could  have  scores  mismatch teachers  method  context  gone by  been i n v e s t i g a t e d .  group of such  in  unobserved.  researchers  has  between and  on  performance  f o r m a l i t y of  achievement  studies,  has  matched  cognitive processes  i t i s an  administered  by  when  same  Similar  Native  every  populations.  reading  several  methods  Indian  about  the  population  districts.  concluded  a  cogni-  literacy  children  cognitive variable identified  account  tional  again  school  on  were  repeated  Native  kindergarten  Columbia  in  children  children  children  (1975)  sixty-two  non-Native  Indian  towards  Oliver  mainstream  assessment,  Native  orientation  and  cognitive confusion  trying  that  that  non-Indian  Ollila  more  of  found  than  items  test.  populations.  reported.  both  Oliver  lower  were  In  pencil  non-Native  British  comparative  respond and  their  measure  same  different  in  Letter-name  In  summarized  confused  Recognition,  Phonemes.  paper  significantly  measure.  with  Initial  administered  scored  Letter  been  to  learning  instruc-  learning  styles  28  More learning  (1986) styles  of  olds  in  south  seem  to  indicate  strength results  central  suggest in  McShane Wechsler  He  score  (McShane, The  p.  Native  related  to  assess  other  holistic more  show  a  and  year  findings  relative  processing.  emphasis  ten  on  These  sight  word  a  studies for  that  Children  had  used  (WISC)  the  to  measure  consistent verbal-performance  Indian  population  points  examined.  below  the  discrep-  The  average  performance  score  continuum  s c a l e s on  IQ  discrepancies  tests  have  c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s such  dependence.  traditional  and  Field  Indian  been as  independence  c u l t u r e s and  has  holistic  styles. interpreting  the  tremendous  range  c o g n i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s between  addressed  (Karlbach  Indian  Present  children  performance  with  the  account  Columbia.  cognitive style  children,  For  Scale  eighteen  and  associated  In  seven  examining  instruction.  independence/field  learning  in progress  non-Native  simultaneous/successive verbal  been  study  9).  between  field  for  reviewed  found  was  or  need  (1979)  and  Native  reading  i n every  verbal  that  the  a  British  Intelligence  cognition.  on  Native  i n simultaneous  approaches  ancy  reported  the  question  1986).  historical  people  instance,  as  of  Do  these  Native  Indian  with  their  populations  tasks and  validity  present are  used  needs  of  to  take the  day  in a  to  non-Native  approaches  l e a r n i n g environment  compared  many  ecological  of  be  into  Native  environment? transition  29  from  traditional  retained  a  to mainstream  learning style  c u l t u r e and  based  on  may  have  not  traditional  ways  of  interacting. More learning  (1984) styles  inconclusive groups field  and  regarding  independent may  associated 2.5  tions  with  than  each  Native  on  reading  indicated that  with  lesser  have  included negative  impoverished  performance  infections,  age  development,  between  logical First, focus Native might to  need  review  has  t o be  was  children bring have  support  IN NATIVE  research  Indian t o be  approach  POPULATIONS  in Native  Indian  been  achievement  tests.  towards  education,  shifted  on  style  instruction  of  and  to l i t e r a c y  strengths.  tasks  to alter Second,  in  langu-  mismatch  methodostudy.  model. on  I f the  the  in school,  their  middle  methods.  i n the present  to concentrate  These  school,  weakness  a deficit  popula-  associated  raised several important  based  more  conflicting  school, prevalence  reading  was  subsample.  READING  considered  was  These  i n communicative  u s e f u l knowledge these  Indian  before  of  the s o c i a l i z a t i o n  reading  and  also  research  of research  of  parental attitude  mismatch  problems most  dependent.  for parent  learning style  The  on  evidence  appeared  many v a r i a b l e s h a v e  environment  ear  The  cognitive  independence  subsamples  field  R E S E A R C H ON  review  has  However,  examined  Indians.  the f i e l d  l i e i n the nature  SUMMARY OF This  (1984)  among C a n a d i a n  as a whole.  results  Karlbach  teachers  teaching  a l lstudies  strengths  methods  reviewed  30 used  t h e mean as t h e measure o f c e n t r a l  populations markedly  examined were o f t e n  skewed, t h e median  Third,  individually  should  have been i n c l u d e d  Indian not  sufficiently  urban or r u r a l , reserve  populations unilingual  reading  p e r f o r m a n c e on  measures.  concentrated  I n some i n s t a n c e s  unilingual  children.  and d i s t r i b u t i o n s  measures o f a s s e s s m e n t  administered  described  on a d i f f e r e n t Indian  t o a s c e r t a i n whether or b i l i n g u a l ,  performance of Indian  students  and  have h y p o t h e s i z e d  socio-cultural  for  this  actually  sampled  d e t e r m i n e what e f f e c t reading review years  on r e a d i n g  the poorer  achievement  they  have on t h e i r  might  f a c t o r s during school  i n the present  be  found  population to  i n school.  has f a c i l i t a t e d  t o be i s o l a t e d  tests  d i f f e r e n c e s to account  parent  t h a t have i n f l u e n c e d l a t e r  variables  o r non-  study.  one N a t i v e  examining  non-Native populations  were  t o compare  However no s t u d i e s c o u l d  and w r i t i n g p e r f o r m a n c e of research  were  f i n d i n g s t o t h e Musqueam u r b a n  In c o n c l u s i o n , many s t u d i e s have a s s e s s e d  that  they  or r e s e r v e  E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n i n the present  perforamance.  Native  populations  T h i s a l s o made i t d i f f i c u l t  or t o r e l a t e  As  have a l s o been c a l c u l a t e d .  t o compare  s t u d i e s reviewed  population.  should  administered  g r o u p and i n d i v i d u a l l y All  small  tendency.  child's  The f o l l o w i n g the preschool  achievement i n the choosing study.  of  31  2.6  INFLUENCE OF THE HOME ON LEARNING TO READ IN SCHOOL (NON-NATIVE LITERATURE) One  o f the  parental  thorough  by Moon and  Bristol  examined  a sample p o p u l a t i o n c h i l d r e n from  recordings  previous  interaction  collection  language  for  tude towards Teacher and  home.  and t h e i r  own i n t e r e s t  when t h e  and  child  Indices  index  A t age f i v e , from  (collected  w e l l as the  Pearson Product  Test  Clay's tests  from  and p a r e n t a l a parent  ability,  interview.  a t t i t u d e to reading  from c h e c k l i s t s .  o f Word  atti-  and  Children  Comprehension  Test  Recognition.  c o r r e l a t i o n s were c a l c u l a t e d between  on a l l i n d i c e s . that  from  school.  Neale Accuracy  Carver  A pre-  of P a r e n t a l P r o v i s i o n o f Resources  were d e r i v e d  the  concerning  i nliteracy.  learning, parental teaching literacy  of mother-child  was d e r i v e d  entered  the  as part of  Letter Identification  assessments of reading  indicated  school c l a s s e s .  were u s e d .  were examined  Parents  home a t t i t u d e were o b t a i n e d  scores  different  samples  they  o f one h u n d r e d and  were i n t e r v i e w e d  were a d m i n i s t e r e d as  out  i n the  age s e v e n  literacy  context of  the q u a l i t y  (1977) C o n c e p t s o f P r i n t  At  eighteen  knowledge o f l i t e r a c y  administered  the  p r o j e c t ) t o determine  child's  school  examining  i n s c h o o l was  Within  o f twenty  and t r a n s c r i p t s  two y e a r s '  Bristol  their  (1979).  Wells  S e v e r a l methods o f d a t a  the  scale studies  L o n g i t u d i n a l Language Development Program,  twenty-eight  tape  small  i n f l u e n c e on l e a r n i n g t o r e a d  conducted the  most  Though  sample s i z e  c h i l d r e n ' s reading  test  was s m a l l ,  scores  the  results  a t age s e v e n  32  correlated and  provision  child's to  h i g h l y with  be  of  parental  resources  preschool  for  knowledge  intercorrelated  with  literacy  of  books  parental  related  h i g h l y with  assessments  seven.  The  of  and (P  child <  quality  was  similar  (1980). eight  They  was  mother  related  to  school.  to  learning.  and  factors  and  to,  The  literacy  reading  was  found  also  ability  cor-  to  age  interaction  between  the  the  reading  ability  child's  story-time  found had  Bissex 1984;  to  to  Teale Heath's  (1979) on  parent  development  Otto  and  seven  or  the  not  to  the  reading  effect  success  obtain  information  kindergarten.  .01).  1982;  about  Children  other  i n f l u e n c e s book 1979;  on  the  reading  1983;  who  studies  Holdaway  Mccormick  middle  Question-  higher  Many  of  in  thirty-six  Michigan.  (Chomsky  Sulzby  age  Midland,  (p <  Tizard  read.  significantly  positive  at  investigated  to  scored  and  whether  c o n s i s t e d of  to  prior  Hewison  with  begining  from  tests  the  has  1979; Clark  1984 ) . (1980)  evidence  i t may  by  achievement  child  parents  daily  for  literacy  presented  children  Achievement  1980;  reading  population  experiences  read  conducted  the  Kuerbitz  sent  support  on  heard  sample one  were  Stanford  that  pre-schoolers  The  been  was  strongly correlated  and  grade  naires  found  regularly  reading  class  study  most  Walker  home  verbal  of  in, attitudes  .01). A  had  also  interest  also  ethnographic that  begin  as with  study  learning varying  to  of  three  read  cultural  communities  begins  in  the  orientations.  33  Heath  examined  class  community, R o a d v i l l e ,  and  literacy  i n homes o f m i d d l e  these communities. amount and degrees  use  degrees  She  beyond t o which  in Trackton, a black  a white  class  of p r i n t  t o which  extended  events  t e a c h e r s who  found  i n t h e homes.  t h e c o n t e n t and the event  itself.  children  reading  use w h i c h instruction  Teale preschool  (1986), literacy  used  a wide  literacy  success  events  and  to l i t e r a c y  Indian  varying  learned  varying  explanations.  a set of p a t t e r n s of for participating  in  B l a c k and  range  twenty-four  Mexican  American  i n both q u a n t i t y  i n t h e home b u t  d i d not  and  report  on  quality later  in school.  Scollon tion  found  e x p e r i e n c e s i n the homes o f  children. of  found  ethnographic techniques to study  of A n g l o ,  found  i n the  dialogue in school.  low-income f a m i l i e s He  to  o f book r e a d i n g were  f o r "why"  s e r v e d as t h e b a s i s  close  also  F u r t h e r she  were a s k e d  community,  differences  She  habits  class  lived  substantial  From t h e s e e x p e r i e n c e s c h i l d r e n language  working  working  Scollon  (1981) f o u n d  when i n f o r m a l l y  p o p u l a t i o n s (see s e c t i o n  acquisition  of l i t e r a c y  in their  varitions  comparing 2.4.3, p. own  traditional 21)  white  in orienta-  with  middle  Native  the class  child. These parental reading provided reading  studies  support  for literacy  achievement support and  provided support  in school.  f o r the e x a m i n a t i o n  i n the home and As  well,  i t s affect  Heath's  f o r a more i n - d e p t h e x a m i n a t i o n  writing  b e h a v i o r s of I n d i a n  children.  study of  the  of on  34  2.7  SUMMARY The  research  populations that  was  focused  research  f o r m a n c e on All  reading  divided into  on  that  probing  that  isolated  reading  i n Indian  affect  generally  Indian  underachievement  achievement  reading  reading  in reading test  context.  scores  reading  has  In  the  populations, home was  w r i t i n g on  reading found  and  and  improving  s e c t i o n on  variables write  to account context test  out of  of  for this  scores  from  Slowly  from  reading  individually g r a d e one  reading  research  and  in reading  for l i t e r a c y  to play a s i g n i f i c a n t  w r i t i n g attainment  t h a t examined  and  literacy  documenting in a  wider  administered  might p r o v i d e writing  use-  behaviors  years.  p a r e n t a l support  found  isolating read  per-  populations.  improve  tests.  to branch  lesser  and  t o e x a m i n i n g what I n d i a n c h i l d r e n  for  school  as  examination  ful  the  viewed  begun  to the  and  the  achievement  kindergarten  throughout  need t o  Research  Within  measures d u r i n g information  to the  was  reading  Perhaps a s h i f t  know a b o u t  achievement  i n Indian  c r e a t i n g hypotheses  in school.  group a d m i n i s t e r e d research  tests  c h i l d r e n l e a r n i n g to on  review  reading  Indian  research  v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d with  populations.  focused  literature  main s e c t i o n s —  needs a s s e s s m e n t s and  needs a s s e s s m e n t s p o i n t e d  skills  be  two  i n elementary-age  this  role  in school.  issue-in  an  i n non-Native activities in No  urban  in  the  affecting research Indian  could  35  population.  The p r e s e n t  study  examined p a r e n t a l  literacy  activities  variable  a f f e c t e d l e a r n i n g t o read  support f o r  i n Musqueam homes and e x p l o r e d and w r i t e  how  i n school.  this  36  CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 3.1  OVERVIEW The  First,  purpose of  reading  were t o be if  and  this  through  between t o be  school  experiences  attendance at  school  m i d - g r a d e was  t o be  v a r i a b l e s have w i t h kindergarten 3.2  from  on  and  profiles  g r a d e one existed.  p a r e n t a l support  i n Musqueam homes.  the  beginning  calculated. reading  g r a d e one  o f Musqueam c h i l d r e n  kindergarten  obtained  and was  problems.  The  of  see  Second,  for  pre-  Third,  kindergarten  relationship  to  these  w r i t i n g attainment t o be  to  in  explored.  SUBJECTS The  s u b j e c t s were a l l t h e  attending tion or  and  t o examine t h r e e  individual  i n f o r m a t i o n was literacy  was  w r i t i n g behaviors  examined  similarities  study  kindergarten  Co-ordinator.  as  identified  Subjects  a p r i v a t e Catholic school  six  males and  1985  they  years Six  ranged  females,  i n age  s i x months w i t h  from  A principal  by  attended  the  Musqueam  either  were i d e n t i f i e d . four  years of  a year  nine  five during  Educa-  a public  i n Vancouver. T h i r t e e n  a mean age  c h i l d r e n were r e p e a t i n g  g r a d e one. also  seven  Musqueam I n d i a n c h i l d r e n  On  school  children,  September  1,  months t o s i x  years  seven  months.  kindergarten  and  parent  or  c a r e g i v e r of  each c h i l d  on  Musqueam I n d i a n  Reserve i n  was  identified. All  subjects  Vancouver,  B.C.  lived  and  the  spoke o n l y  English.  The  socio-economic  37  status class two  of t h e i r status  parent  3.3  families varied  with  children  or e x t e n d e d  living  family  lower  t o upper  in either  homes  single  middle parent,  1987).  (Point  INSTRUMENTATION The  Diagnostic  examine c h i l d r e n ' s kindergarten  children. risk  instrument  read  Errors  each  reading  (90-95%  a text  subtest  chosen  requires  from  rate  (96-100%  or cues t h a t  are analysed  procedures are  sample  (see Appendix  so t h a t t h e  accuracy),  (80-89%  instruc-  accuracy)  the c h i l d  u t i l i z e s at  by c a l c u l a t i n g an e r r o r  and s e i f - c o r r e c t i o n r a t e .  f o r m u l a e were used  a child  classroom  observational  a c c u r a c y ) and d i f f i c u l t  of text  The  s i x subtests.  b e h a v i o r s on each  Reading behaviors  level  t o measure c h i l d r e n a t  of s c h o o l i n g .  of Reading  a t an e a s y  assess-  behaviors of  and s e l f - c o r r e c t i o n s a r e a n a l y s e d  has r e a d  accuracy  the f o l l o w i n g  A s e t of standard  A).  level.  designed  familiar texts  referenced  and w r i t i n g  a r e a s a f t e r one y e a r  several  to record  tional  and w r i t i n g a t t a i n m e n t i n  t o measure r e a d i n g  includes  used  child  reading  Running Record  materials.  1 9 8 5 ) which was c h o s e n t o  (Clay  I t was i n i t i a l l y  i n these  The  Survey  and g r a d e one i s a c r i t e r i o n  ment d e s i g n e d  to  from  for calculation.  The f o l l o w i n g  rate,  38  Error  Errors  Rate  Total Accuracy  =  Words Read  1  Errors  100 Total  Self-correction  100  X  Words Read  Errors +  Rate  100  X  1  Self-corrections  self-corrections  The  Letter Identification  give  the  name o f a l e t t e r ,  that  letter,  score  and  from one  assessment.  a sound  a word b e g i n n i n g  of  these  C o n c e p t s About P r i n t  letters  and  words, use  A total  score  child  to read  words.  time  language  level,  directional i s given  of p r i n t ,  from  frequency  factory.  three  the  sight  words s c o r e  level these  of w r i t i n g .  a l l the  Using  Test  for  A  total  for concepts  as  book o r i e n t a t i o n ,  list  of concepts  word  point.  level  and  of  The  etc.  appear-  fifteen Writing  A score  o f 5-6  In t h e  A score on  the  three  a  understanding  of  of  1 to  level  i s considered  test  of  satis-  requires a child  i n ten minutes. Dictation  from  of t r a i t s ,  c a t e g o r i e s based  of W r i t i n g V o c a b u l a r y  point.  list  is calculated.  words he/she can  one  sound.  to  d i f f e r e n c e s between  a checklist  message q u a l i t y  principles  The  that  samples of w r i t i n g c o l l e c t e d  periods.  i n each o f  development  i s acceptable  measures such  Each c o r r e c t word s c o r e s one  different  write  with  child  Ready t o Read S i g h t Words r e q u i r e s a  a high  Sample a n a l y s e s  6  that  of p u n c t u a t i o n ,  is calculated  i n A p p e n d i x A.  r e q u i r e s the  categories is calculated  awareness of d i r e c t i o n a l i t y  ing  subtest  to  A l l correct the  child  is  39  required  to w r i t e  sentences. point.  Each  Each  Appendix  scoring  two  simple  dictated  a total  raw  subtest  and  score  except  the  Writing  A f o r a f u r t h e r d e s c r i p t i o n of  instrument  a wide  allows  for familiar  assessment. .95,  was  range o f  High  chosen  reading  reading  one  for  the  Sample.  subtests  and  1979;  Day  the  strong  Day  and  on  ually  administered  Native  Information during  researcher.  and  view S c h e d u l e  years  was  were d e r i v e d  the  1979),  reading  the  individ-  most  writing  appro-  attainment. activ-  through  developed  by  a the  from  three  instruments.  Environment  Index  (HLEI)  and  Bristol (Moon and  culturally  (Day  Considering  this  obtained  Home O b s e r v a t i o n  Bradley from  Two)  .76  from  subtests  1980).  t o be and  for  varying the  and  parental provision for l i t e r a c y  ment R e s e a r c h Program might p r o v i d e  deemed  interview questionnaire  the  chosen  group a d m i n i s t e r e d  (see C h a p t e r  Home-Literacy  1985),  Johns  t o measure r e a d i n g  Questions  T h e s e were t h e  (Caldwell  1979;  measure was  on  t o be  coefficients  Perkins  the p r e s c h o o l  semi-structured  w r i t i n g behaviors  f o r s e v e r a l of  populations  instrument  (Shapiro  and  disregard for using  tests  f o r e v a l u a t i o n because i t  materials  reliability  have been r e p o r t e d  and  ities  has  of Reading  covers  priate  or  procedures.  This  to  one  c o r r e c t phoneme d i s p l a y e d r e c e i v e s  subtest  Running Record See  either  the  of  the  Environment  Bristol  Parent  L o n g i t u d i n a l Language Wells  relevant  1979).  information  InterDevelop-  Questions  that  were added.  40  For  example, p a r e n t s  oral  story t e l l i n g The  twelve  activities  their  Seventy-eight  concerning during  t o which  questions  years  questions  one h u n d r e d and questions  respondent  a standard  frequency  obtained Parent  c o u l d be s t a n d a r d i z e d  Interview  Questionnaire  literacy  format  of a c t i v i t i e s .  as f a r as I can remember, for several questions  probing  i n f o r m a t i o n on  than  day,  once a month  was p r e s e n t e d  so t h a t  to deal  For  n e a r l y every  about once a week, about once a month, l e s s never,  embedded  were open ended  R e s p o n d e n t s were g i v e n involving  and were  example, a c a r d c o n t a i n i n g t h e f o r m a t ,  and  tapped  to d i s g u i s e the purpose of  Twelve q u e s t i o n s  questions  to the  the i n f o r m a t i o n  for scoring.  A copy o f t h e  i s i n c l u d e d i n Appendix  B.  R e s p o n s e s were c o d e d on a L i k e r t - t y p e s c a l e r a n g i n g 1 t o 5. ities  a total The 3.4  An Index o f P a r e n t a l P r o v i s i o n f o r L i t e r a c y  during  the p r e s c h o o l  score  total  from  score  used  children.  of these  t o o b t a i n more d e t a i l e d  practices.  they  parental provision for literacy  the p r e s c h o o l  the remaining  interview.  with  the extent  interview questionnaire contained  information  the  i n teaching  questions.  amongst  were a s k e d  literacy  years  was o b t a i n e d  questions  f o r the index  was  by  from  Activ-  calculating  i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  100.  DATA COLLECTION The  visiting  researcher  became  familiar  t h e Language Summer S c h o o l  Reserve during  t h e summer p r e c e e d i n g  with  a l l s u b j e c t s by  a t t h e Musqueam kindergarten  Indian  and  visited  41  their  school  c l a s s e s s e v e r a l times  during  September  through  November. The  s e q u e n c e of  Kindergarten: garten  and  October with  the  collection  principal  researcher  Home-school Worker  p r a c t i s e d the  to  viewed  at  was  home or  format.  for  school  From t h i s  literacy  kinder-  interview and  using  data,  activities  each  an  the  Musqueam and  have  c a r e g i v e r was a  inter-  semi-structured  index  during  In  questionnaire  r e c e i v e c o r r e c t i v e feedback In December  in their  follows:  attended  Co-ordinator  performance c l a r i f i e d .  support  as  c a r e g i v e r were i d e n t i f i e d .  Musqueam E d u c a t i o n  interview  was  A l l Musqueam c h i l d r e n who  their  the  data  the  of  parental  preschool  years  calculated. Next, t h e  About ary,  Print,  subtests, Letter Identification,  Ready t o Read  of C l a y ' s  administered Reading  and  Writing  not  Approximately the  complete  individually  kindergarten  subtest  reading  the  individually  given  beyond  in school.  eleven  to the  subtests  following subtests  used  sight  scores  purposes.  months a f t e r  b a t t e r y of C l a y ' s  the  pre-  Diagnostic  same s u b j e c t s during  were u s e d :  of  in  a few  Raw  f o r comparison  administered  In a d d i t i o n t o t h e  Vocabul-  D i c t a t i o n , Running Record  i n a w r i t i n g program  assessment  g r a d e one.  (1985) were  as c h i l d r e n were not  Grade one:  S u r v e y was  The  Writing  Sample s u b t e s t s were not  were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each  vious  Survey  t o each c h i l d .  kindergarten words and  Diagnostic  S i g h t Words and  Concepts  Dictation,  in  42  Running  Record  of  were c a l c u l a t e d well  as  from  the  sub-test  quality  and  ability  was  days absent one  included  using  was  in this  with  3.5  the  DATA  were  The  level,  based  absences  repeating  message  on  a  list  so  during that  a year  to  would  p.  10)  of  school  March  the  the  of  reli-  number  kindergarten  recorded  Writing  definitions,  a total  as  was  Interrater  One,  records,  Only  behaviors  Reading.  category.  scores  in kindergarten  language  of  Raw  two  time  of years  frame  be  commensur-  null  hypotheses  subjects.  ANALYSIS organized  i n Chapter  would  be  no  One.  similar  ance w i t h i n  the  grade  To  one.  raw  scores  the  Diagnostic  were  the  address first  profile  of  the  address  this  calculated Survey  reading  Musqueam  and  during  hypothesis, f o r each  administered standard  subtest,  i n g r a d e one.  three  hypothesis  Musqueam p o p u l a t i o n  f o r each  administered  to The  mean, m e d i a n ,  calculated  within  of  for  beginning  study  reading  Chapter  school  subjects  posed  A  (see  non-repeating  D a t a was  one.  i n each  the  used  directionality  calculated.  absences of  ate  of  of  Record  analysed  0.80  from  W r i t i n g Sample.  same s u b t e s t s  Running  was  r =  and  A profile  traits  Finally,  of  the  awareness  developmental  grade  on  Dictation.  recorded Sample  Reading  as The  population.  was  that  writing  where  d e v i a t i o n and  range  of  for  and  appropriate,  on  subtests  in kindergarten  as  perform-  kindergarten  student  well  there  and  range the  scores  of grade  was  total  survey  were  examined  43  Particular tion  of tests,  performance t r a i t s particularly  Sample, were l i s t e d  reading  and w r i t i n g b e h a v i o r s  icant  second  hypothesis  correlation  literacy  and examined  was t h a t  and g r a d e o n e .  1.  score  literacy  responses  o f R e a d i n g and  for similarities in  t h e Musqueam p o p u l a t i o n . there  would  i n t h e home and r e a d i n g  kindergarten  for  within  administra-  be no  signif-  between p a r e n t a l p r o v i s i o n f o r p r e - s c h o o l  activities  A total  during  the Running Record  Writing  The  noted  Data were a n a l y s e d  indicating  activities  to literacy  attainment  an i n d e x  questions  as f o l l o w s :  of p a r e n t a l  was c a l c u l a t e d from  in  support  the a p p r o p r i a t e  on t h e p a r e n t  interview  questionnaire. 2.  T o t a l raw s c o r e s  Diagnostic  Survey  were o b t a i n e d  administered  excluding  the Running Record  subtests.  As w e l l , a t o t a l  survey 3.  Using  index the  administered  calculated  the  tailed p <  of Reading score  survey  of parent  from  each  and W r i t i n g  Sample  was c a l c u l a t e d f o r t h e  subtest  Pearson product  subtest  and t h e s c o r e activities  score  f o r the  during  moment c o r r e l a t i o n s were  of the D i a g n o s t i c  Survey  I.  In  as w e l l as  i n g r a d e one were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e  provision for literacy  a n a l y s i s was used w i t h  .05 .  of the  and g r a d e one,  between each v a r i a b l e i n d i c a t e d i n T a b l e  words, each  total  index  i n kindergarten  of parental p r o v i s i o n f o r l i t e r a c y years,  subtest  i n g r a d e one.  raw s c o r e s  preschool  other  f o r each  a level  activities.  A one  of s i g n i f i c a n c e of  TABLE I : Correlations  Diagnostic  t o be  Survey  C a l c u l a t e d to Address Hypothesis  Parental Provision for L i t e r a c y A c t i v i t i e s During P r e s c h o o l Years  Subtests  Kindergarten: Letter Identification C o n c e p t s About P r i n t Ready t o Read S i g h t Words Writing Vocabulary  X X X X  Grade One: Letter Identification C o n c e p t s About P r i n t Ready t o Read S i g h t Words Writing Vocabulary Dictation T o t a l Score of Survey  X X X X X X  The  third  significant reading  correlation  attainment  to address 1.  Raw  this  scores  Diagnostic  the  subtests.  As  2.  one  was  that  in kindergarten the  were o b t a i n e d  Running Record well,  from  a total  calculated.  of  and  no  absence  g r a d e one.  f o l l o w i n g data from each  and  were  and  order  analysed. the grade  Writing  calculated  and  In  subtest of  in kindergarten  s c o r e was  i n grade  beginning  school  of Reading  r e p r e s e n t i n g the the  t h e r e would be  between t o t a l  hypothesis  administered  A score  absent  was  Survey a d m i n i s t e r e d  excluding  survey  hypothesis  Two  one  Sample  for  the  one. total  number  kindergarten  of  school  t o March o f  days grade  45  3. score  U s i n g raw  scores  i n g r a d e one  product  and  from each the s c o r e  moment c o r r e l a t i o n s  variable  listed  the D i a g n o s t i c g r a d e one  the t o t a l  for school  S u r v e y as w e l l  between  In o t h e r words, each as t h e t o t a l  with the s c h o o l  survey  absence,  were c a l c u l a t e d  i n Table I I .  were c o r r e l a t e d  subtest,  Pearson each  subtest  survey score for absence  score.  TABLE I I Correlations  Diagnostic  t o be C a l c u l a t e d  Survey S u b t e s t s  to Address Hypothesis Three  School  Absence  Kindergarten: Letter Identification C o n c e p t s About P r i n t Ready t o Read S i g h t Words Writing Vocabulary  X X X X  Grade One: Letter Identification C o n c e p t s About P r i n t Ready t o Read S i g h t Words Writing Vocabulary Dictation T o t a l Score of Survey  X X X X X X  of  46  CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS The  a n a l y s i s of data  in this  study  address  the n u l l  hypotheses presented  present  additional  information obtained  views.  Raw  f o r each  scores  each data  source,  Provision  f o r Preschool  i n Chapter  One and t o  from p a r e n t  of the t h i r t e e n  inter-  subjects  from  D i a g n o s t i c S u r v e y , Index o f P a r e n t a l  Absence a r e c o n t a i n e d  4.1  was o r g a n i z e d t o  Literacy  Activities  i n Appendix  and T o t a l  School  C.  HYPOTHESIS ONE There w i l l  be no s i m i l a r  profile  p e r f o r m a n c e o f Musqueam c h i l d r e n  of reading  and w r i t i n g  i n kindergarten  and g r a d e  one. To the  address  this  hypothesis,  from  r e l e v a n t s u b t e s t s were  t h e mean, median, s t a n d a r d each s u b t e s t .  error  Second,  reading  stories  included  addressed.  recorded  of Reading found  Finally,  from  subtest  were  i n samples o f Fourth, a  and w r i t i n g b e h a v i o r s  S u r v e y was p r e s e n t e d . was  which  behaviors  were a n a l y s e d .  summary o f a n a l y s i s o f r e a d i n g  the h y p o t h e s i s  a summary o f  d e v i a t i o n and r a n g e o f t h e s c o r e s  Third, writing similarities  children's daily  Diagnostic  First,  reported  a n a l y s i s on t h e R u n n i n g R e c o r d  examined. the  from e a c h s u b t e s t o f  D i a g n o s t i c S u r v e y were r e p o r t e d .  scores  on  data  from t h e  the relevance of  47  4.1.1  DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY SUBTEST SCORES A summary of s c o r e s  administered  from a l l D i a g n o s t i c  i n kindergarten  and grade  Running Record of Reading and W r i t i n g Table  subtests  one e x c l u d i n g  the  Sample are d i s p l a y e d  in  III.  TABLE Mean, Standard D e v i a t i o n , s u b t e s t s (N=13)  III  Median, Range of D i a g n o s t i c  Total Possible Score Letter Letter  (K) (1)  Identification Identification  C o n c e p t s About C o n c e p t s About  Print Print  (K) (1)  S i g h t Words (K) S i g h t Words (1) Writing Vocabulary Writing Vocabulary Dictation  Data  of scores  39 .00 52 .00  1- 53 2- 54  24 24  9 .85 15 . 77  4 .79 5 .15  9 .00 17 .00  3- 19 8- 24  15 15  1 .92 7 . 69  3 .57 5 .74  1 .00 10 .00  0- 13 0- 15  6 .00 24 . 46  7 .97 12 .94  4 .00 24 .00  0- 29 1- 56  29 . 92  14 .21  27 .00  0- 37  i n Appendix  a wide r a n g e o f  n e c e s s i t a t i n g a f u r t h e r examination (frequency  D).  of scores  I fa similar  on each  profile  p e r f o r m a n c e was i n t e r p r e t e d by n o t i n g within  a limited  a similar  range then  profile  sample p o p u l a t i o n  Range  19 .43 16 .79  from T a b l e I I I i n d i c a t e d  tion  Standard D e v i a t i o n Median  Mean 33 . 00 43 . 92  37  subtest  Survey  54 54  (K) (1)  (1)  each  not  Survey  the n u l l  of reading  scores  of d i s t r i b u -  subtest  of reading a cluster hypothesis  displayed  and w r i t i n g of scores that  there i s  and w r i t i n g b e h a v i o r s  would have t o be a c c e p t e d .  on  i n the  48  4.1.2  RUNNING RECORD OF Each c h i l d  was  READING  given  100-200 words i n l e n g t h ) level  o f m a t e r i a l was Results  thirteen  are  the  a p i c t u r e had  might be  utilized  Each  of  these  38).  Two  One  of  in  this  child  knew t h a t p r i n t  t o the  p i c t u r e but  been g i v e n  below  could  s e v e r a l cues  t o d e t e r m i n e what  c h i l d r e n has  of  thirteen  beginning  decoding  be  level  tended  utilized  great  word even focusing  the  word  s i n c e been p l a c e d  in a  or  rereading  read  not  that might  a phrase  a passage. on  bank of  though  participated  Three,  s i g h t words strategies  t o p r e d i c t meaning The  "sounding the  pre-  (see Chapter  aware t h a t o t h e r  blending  she  rate  a restricted  to concentrate  third out"  child  at  everything  sounds i n t o  an  in a reading  this and  appropriate  program  s i g h t words.  c h i l d r e n were r e a d i n g  instructional  level.  at a r a t e of at  accuracy  t o be  to read  c h i l d r e n could  difficulty  on  Four  look  materials.  non-readers  c o l o r s and  having  c h i l d r e n had  were j u s t  might  to  as  appropriate  T h r e e out  h i s name.  relating  m a t e r i a l s at a 90%  errors  classroom  follows:  read  in trying  The  from  class.  s u c h as  had  as  (varying  orally.  from  five  word a f t e r  T h r e e more out  and  could  a meaning  the  p.  chosen  names o f  identify  primer  read  summarized  Each c h i l d  recognized  special  to  passages  c h i l d r e n were c o n s i d e r e d  context.  be.  three  SUBTEST  the  first  m i d - g r a d e one  A l l were a b l e 1:4  or  letter  better.  to s e l f A l l four  passages at  correct  an  their  c h i l d r e n tended  of a word, t o d e t e r m i n e  i t s sound  49  and  t o then  passage. word to  t r y to predict  Several  in their  times c h i l d r e n  lexicon  to r e c a l l  i d e n t i f y t h e word.  Shoemaker  word. the  sight  child  a child  He knew t h e / l /  Children  had l e a r n e d  "surprise,"  the sight  sound  but c o u l d  word  tended  that  t o check  could  t h e word  t o t r y and u t i l i z e F o r example, a reading  she knew i t was a She  i t s correct  read m a t e r i a l s  a t an i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l .  long  didn't  meaning  i n the  They  t o f o c u s on p r e d i c t i n g  tended  identify  several  unknown w o r d s .  a strong  cues t o read  They a l s o  bank o f s i g h t  words  words on t h e F r y G r a d e One S i g h t three c h i l d r e n third  child  had a s e l f tended  In  correction  subtest.  passages.  tried  decoding  words and  knew 92-95 o f t h e 100  Word L i s t ) .  Two o f t h e  correction  rate  o f 1:4 o r b e t t e r .  to constantly  look  for adult  rate  to s e l f  correct  recognierrors.  was 1:13.  summary, no s i m i l a r  Musqueam c h i l d r e n  their  were  meaning when t r y i n g t o  (each  and was u n s u r e o f h e r a b i l i t y self  above a g r a d e two  Two o f t h e s e c h i l d r e n  employing  Her  and t h e  " s o m e t h i n g " so when  comfortable  tion  trying  context.  level  The  i n the  not read the  i t was " s o m e t h i n g " .  the text  Three c h i l d r e n  had  i n The E l v e s  knew i n a new c o n t e x t .  " s " word so she g u e s s e d  new  and g o t f r u s t r a t e d  was n o t f a m i l i a r w i t h  she l a t e r e x p l a i n e d  choose t o reread  i t s context  d i d n o t have t h e c o r r e c t  at t h i s stage also  words t h e y  from  For i n s t a n c e ,  (Ladybird),  "leather".  t h e word  was f o u n d  profile  of reading  behaviors of  on t h e R u n n i n g R e c o r d  of Reading  50  4.1.3  WRITING SAMPLE ANALYSIS Three  classroom  samples over  obtained.  i t e m s used  A s c o r e o f 5-6  Figure gave it  me  and  and  were  and  1.  The  candy."  text  o f two  i t was  satisfactory of a w r i t i n g  given  a successful  pattern  is listed  of  and  sample  composition using because  s p a c e s between  language, A.  i n each c a t e g o r y .  a 5 f o r language  principles  of the  i n Appendix  s e n t e n c e s , a 6 f o r message  a 5 for directional  directional  levels  were  level,  A list  s h o u l d r e a d "I went t o my  I t was  i n the  f o r language  features.  directionality  i s considered  written  weeks i n g r a d e one  rated  directional  example o f a n a l y s i s  consisted  because  samples  stories  to determine developmental  message q u a l i t y  An  three consecutive  These  message q u a l i t y  of c h i l d r e n ' s  appears i n  nanny's. level  because  quality this  i t had  words.  She  criteria the  correct  52  Results in  Table  from  the w r i t i n g a n a l y s i s s u b t e s t  are displayed  IV.  TABLE IV Scores  Subject  from A s s e s s m e n t o f W r i t i n g  Language L e v e l  Samples  Message Q u a l i t y  Directional Principles  01  4,5,4  5,4,5  5,5,5  02  5,4,4  4,5,5  5,5,5  03  5,4,5  4,5,4  5,5,5  04  2,4,2  5,3,5  4,4,4  05  5,5,5  6,6,5  5,5,5  06  2,4,1  3,4,1  2,4,2  07  4,4,3  6,6,3  5,5,4  08  4,3,5  5,6,5  5,5,6  09  1,1,1  1,1,1  1,1,1  10  5,5,5  5,5,5  5,5,5  11  4,4,4  5,5,5  5,4,5  12  4,4,5  5,6,6  5,5,6  13  1,1,1  3,3,3  4,4,4  53  Seven o u t o f t h i r t e e n higher  i n the language  is,  they punctuated  out  of t h i r t e e n  the  message q u a l i t y  own  ideas.  of  used c o r r e c t  note  level  a story  children  o f two or more s e n t e n c e s .  scored  category.  at a l e v e l That  5 or That Nine  of 5 or h i g h e r i n  i s , they  recorded  children'scored  their  at a  level  on t h e d i r e c t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e c a t e g o r y .  They  d i r e c t i o n a l patterns  a l l children  felt  meaning as t h e y  read  Consistent  the reading  i n t h e i r w r i t i n g and  with  their  I t i s interesting to  their written s t o r i e s t o the results  message  conveyed  researcher.  t h e wide range o f w r i t i n g  supported  the n u l l  hypothesis  profile  of w r i t i n g  behavior  similar  at a l e v e l  of t h e i r w r i t i n g .  s p a c e s between t h e i r words.  that  scores  scored  category  Nine out of t h i r t e e n  5 or h i g h e r  included  children  that  t h e r e was no  i n t h e Musqueam  population.  4.1.4  SUMMARY An  e x a m i n a t i o n o f raw s c o r e s on t h e D i a g n o s t i c  subtests within  showed  that  t h e r e was a wide range o f p e r f o r m a n c e  t h e Musqueam p o p u l a t i o n  An accuracy similar An  analysis rate  of reading  indicated  profile analysis  of w r i t i n g  children  categories  on each  errors  that  of reading  s c o r e s on t h e l a n g u a g e principles  Survey  subtest.  on p a s s a g e s  Musqueam  children  read  a t a 90%  d i d not have a  behaviors  in oral  samples  indicated  a wide r a n g e o f  message q u a l i t y  and d i r e c t i o n a l  level,  i n d i c a t i n g that  had a s i m i l a r p r o f i l e  reading.  not a l l Musqueam  of w r i t i n g  behaviors.  54  Each c a t e g o r y null and  hypothesis  of a n a l y s i s supports  that  there  w r i t i n g behavior  4.2  i s no s i m i l a r  within  TWO  There w i l l  be no s i g n i f i c a n t  years  support  for literacy  and r e a d i n g To  address  attainment  this  profile  t h e Musqueam  HYPOTHESIS  parental  the acceptance  correlation  between  during  i n kindergarten a total  of reading  population.  activities  hypothesis  score  and g r a d e o n e . was c a l c u l a t e d  an Index o f P a r e n t a l  Activities.  N e x t , P e a r s o n product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n  scores  were c a l c u l a t e d between  from  i n Appendix the  null  C.  subtest Finally,  hypothesis  correlations 4.2.1  each  that  Support  the preschool  to e s t a b l i s h  ficients  there  forLiteracy  the p a r e n t a l  on t h e D i a g n o s t i c results  of the  index  Survey  were summarized  would be no  coef-  s c o r e and  displayed to  address  significant  between t h e s e v a r i a b l e s .  SUMMARY OF SCORES FOR INDEX OF PARENTAL PROVISION FOR LITERACY A C T I V I T I E S Scores  Literacy  tabulated  Activities  f o r t h e Index o f P a r e n t a l P r o v i s i o n f o r  a r e seen  i n Table  V.  TABLE V Mean, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n , Median and Range o f t h e Index o f P a r e n t a l P r o v i s i o n f o r L i t e r a c y A c t i v i t i e s During the P r e s c h o o l Y e a r s (IPAR)  Variable IPAR  Total Score 100  Mean 62 . 8 0  Standard Deviation 17 . 8 4  Median  Range  69.00  34-85  55  Consistent subtests, Parental Years  there  with  p e r f o r m a n c e on  i s a wide v a r i a t i o n  Provision  for  Literacy  the  Diagnostic  i n s c o r e s on  Activities  Survey  the  i n the  Index  of  Preschool  variable.  4.2.2  STATISTICAL T a b l e VI  correlations  ANALYSIS  displays  the  calculated  results  between  of  Pearson  IPAR and  Table  product-moment  survey  subtests.  VI  P e a r s o n P r o d u c t - Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s between IPAR and S u b t e s t s of the D i a g n o s t i c S u r v e y : One Tailed Analysis Index o f P a r e n t P r o v i s i o n for L i t e r a c y A c t i v i t i e s  SUBTEST  L e t t e r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n (K) L e t t e r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n (1) C o n c e p t s About P r i n t (K) C o n c e p t s About P r i n t (1) S i g h t Words (K) S i g h t Words (1) Writing Vocabulary (K) W r i t i n g V o c a b u l a r y (1) Dictation (1) * **  p < p <  .05 .001  W i t h one Parental of  the  the  exception,  Provision  Diagnostic  significant. garten.  .77** .58* .63* .76** .42 .55* .57* .53* .65*  These  population  The  for L i t e r a c y  one  exception need  small,  was  t o be  n=13,  between the  Activities  Survey a d m i n i s t e r e d  results was  correlations  and  to  words a t  interpreted  and  each  were f o u n d  sight  Index  with  of  subtest be kindercaution  most c o r r e l a t i o n s  were  as  56  .65.  below  It i s interesting  coefficients IPAR and  .75  of  Letter  or h i g h e r  findings  These that  years  findings will  support  and  i n g r a d e one.  This  between  and  finding  (Moon and  IPAR  and  is similar Wells  support be  no  a rejection  of  the  null  significant correlation  for l i t e r a c y a c t i v i t i e s during  reading  1979;  attainment  in kindergarten  between  the  and  hypothe-  preschool  grade  one.  HYPOTHESIS THREE There w i l l  school grade  be  no  a b s e n c e and  significant correlation  reading  attainment  between  in kindergarten  total and  one. To  school  address  t h i s hypothesis  days absent  was  moment c o r r e l a t i o n total the  were found  in kindergarten  i n non-Native populations  there  parental  4.3  .001)  correlation  1984 ) .  Teale  sis  (p <  Identification  C o n c e p t s About P r i n t to  to note t h a t  calculated.  results there  Survey  be  no  and  displayed  were summarized  would  representing  Next, P e a r s o n  c o e f f i c i e n t s were c a l c u l a t e d  s c h o o l absence score  Diagnostic  a t o t a l score  scores  from each  i n Appendix  to address  the  C.  product-  between  the  subtest  on  Finally,  n u l l hypothesis  significant correlation  between  that  these  variables. 4.3.1  TOTAL SCHOOL ABSENCE Total  school  absence  school  days absent  during  kindergarten  attendance  scores  (TSA)  was  from September, and  g r a d e one.  i s displayed  calculated 1985  by t o t a l l i n g  t o March 1 ,  A summary of  in Table  VII.  1987  school  57  TABLE V I I Mean, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n , Median and Range of School Absence V a r i a b l e (TSA) Standard Deviation  Mean  Var i a b l e TSA  27.85  Consistent  4.3.2  Median  17.29  Range  22.00  w i t h p e r f o r m a n c e on p r e v i o u s  were wide v a r i a t i o n s  the T o t a l  i n scores within  34-85.5  variables,  t h e Musqueam  there  population.  STATISTICAL ANALYSIS To  address hypothesis  three,  P e a r s o n product-moment  correlation  c o e f f i c i e n t s were c a l c u l a t e d  variables.  Results  a r e shown  i n Table  TABLE  between each o f t h e VIII.  VIII  P e a r s o n Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s between TSA and S u b t e s t s o f t h e D i a g n o s t i c S u r v e y : One T a i l e d Analysis  Subtest  TSA  L e t t e r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n (K) L e t t e r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n (1) C o n c e p t s About P r i n t (K) C o n c e p t s About P r i n t (1) S i g h t Words (K) S i g h t Words (1) W r i t i n g V o c a b u l a r y (K) W r i t i n g V o c a b u l a r y (1) D i c t a t i o n (1) * **  p p  ^ .05 C .001  level level  - .22 -.02 -.19 - .00 -.11 - . 20 - .06 -.36 -.34  58  No s i g n i f i c a n t a b s e n c e and a s p e c t s the  expected  correlations of reading  negative  there w i l l  attainment  ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Information  parent  school  b u t r e s u l t s were i n  an a c c e p t a n c e  be no s i g n i f i c a n t  a b s e n c e and r e a d i n g  4.4  attainment  between  direction.  These f i n d i n g s support that  were f o u n d  obtained  of hypothesis  correlation  between  FROM PARENT  from p r o b i n g  i n t e r v i e w were n o t r e p o r t e d  f i n d i n g s may p r o v i d e  school  i n k i n d e r g a r t e n and g r a d e one.  INTERVIEWS questions  i n the  i n the c a l c u l a t i o n  Index o f P a r e n t a l P r o v i s i o n f o r L i t e r a c y A c t i v i t i e s . these  three  of the However,  useful information for further  research. R e s p o n s e s were g r o u p e d materials provided of  the c h i l d  writing A list  i n t h e home, r e a d i n g  observed  events  by t h e p r i n c i p a l  i n which  of these  under t h e c a t e g o r i e s :  the c h i l d  activities  literacy  and w r i t i n g p r a c t i s e s c a r e g i v e r , r e a d i n g and  and c a r e g i v e r  under e a c h h e a d i n g  participated.  i s found i n  Appendix E. Literacy  Materials Provided  children  had books and d r a w i n g m a t e r i a l s a v a i l a b l e  their  homes.  i n t h e Home  Three c h i l d r e n  z i n e s and f o u r c h i l d r e n  A l l thirteen t o them i n  s u b s c r i b e d t o c h i l d r e n ' s maga-  had used c o m p u t e r s  in their  home.  R e a d i n g and W r i t i n g P r a c t i s e s O b s e r v e d by t h e P r i n c i p a l Caregiver before  Twelve c h i l d r e n  read  k i n d e r g a r t e n and e l e v e n  some l e t t e r s looked  of the alphabet  a t books on t h e i r  own.  59  Twelve p a r e n t s name b u t o n l y  responded  six children  went t o s c h o o l . children's in  eleven  their  own.  Literacy Eleven  their  Eight children  children  had r e p e a t e d  the C h i l d  children  had been  read  of the eleven  that  s e v e r a l a d u l t s and s i b l i n g s  Eight and an  mainly  than  their  roles  to recounting  sharing  traditions  chidren  were t o l d  of her  With  v a r i e d from  the Fraser  Another  own f a m i l y h i s t o r y . approach  was an  activity  the c h i l d .  were t o l d  five  oral  Four  of the e i g h t  teaching  history  customs children  them t h e  a l e s s o n to the  of the f a m i l y , to F o r example, two t h e o l d woman o f  you and p u t you i n a b a s k e t  a s t o r y o f why river.  to school.  activity.  the s t o r y of K u l k u l i t h , steal  went  mother o r f a t h e r t o l d  an o r a l  Participated  mothers and f a t h e r s b u t i n  away from home when you weren't  was t o l d  different  with  o f Musqueam p e o p l e .  t h e woods who would  child  they  bookreading  children  by an a d u l t .  s t o r i e s . 'Story  ventured  their  of the t h i r t e e n  a d u l t other  t o read  rhymes.  and C a r e g i v e r  shared  was n o t a r e g u l a r  traditions  child,  children,  with  nursery  to before  nine  this  subtest  had been a t t e m p t i n g  i n Which  cases  they  had been w r i t i n g some form o f messages o f  Eight children  read  their  name b e f o r e  low p e r f o r m a n c e on t h e W r i t i n g V o c a b u l a r y  With  two  their  recognized  may h e l p e x p l a i n Musqueam  Events  children  children  could write  T h i s event  kindergarten.  and  that  i f you  suppose t o .  One  t h e salmon spawned a t t h e head child  was t o l d  stories  T h e s e p r a c t i s e s may s u g g e s t  to sharing Native  about a  customs and t r a d i t i o n s  60  in  school.  Usually  narratives  from o t h e r  information Ten cases  c h i l d r e n are Indian  they  had  t a k e n books  Caregivers  with  c h i l d r e n and  their  children write  own  from  could  the  do  before.  preschool  remember  eleven  written not  contain  experience.  been t o a l i b r a r y  reserve. nine  published  bands w h i c h o f t e n  germane t o t h e i r  c h i l d r e n had  read  reading  caregivers  a message t h o u g h  In  most  library  l a b e l s on  remembered  this  on  was  not  the  things  helping a  frequent  activity. Two are  other  that  before  the  a l l c h i l d r e n attended  they  preschool wished  f i n d i n g s from  went  on  to s c h o o l .  the  their  would  that  either preschool  Eleven  reserve.  child  interview  Eleven complete  are or  pertinent daycare  c h i l d r e n attended out  of  thirteen  the  parents  some form o f p o s t  secondary  education. 4.5  SUMMARY OF Each n u l l  information  hypothesis  obtained  summary o f  the  Hypothesis  One:  Survey  RESULTS  there  population.  was  from p a r e n t  f i n d i n g s i s as On  was On  relevant  criterion  in  and  acceptance of similar  subtests  profile  null  of  Musqueam p o p u l a t i o n  hypothesis  reading at  the  of  was  scores  the  noted.  A  and  Diagnostic  with  the  subtests  also displayed  writing behaviors. the  additional  interviews  referenced  Survey, s u b j e c t s  and  follows.  a wide range o f  Diagnostic reading  addressed  These that  of  a wide  the variation  f i n d i n g s support  there  will  w r i t i n g behaviors  kindergarten  Musqueam  and  be  no  within  g r a d e one  an  the  level.  61  Hypothesis  Two:  An  examination  of  scores  from  Parental  P r o v i s i o n for L i t e r a c y A c t i v i t i e s  range of  r e s p o n s e s w i t h i n the  and  to Diagnostic  g r a d e one  subtest, support be  no  Survey  yielded significant  rejection  significant  literacy  of  the  activities  i n the  i n kindergarten  Hypothesis  T h r e e : . An  again  null  correlation  attainment  scores  subtest  scores  in  p <  .05.  hypothesis  These f i n d i n g s that  preschool and  years  grade  and  of T o t a l S c h o o l  i n d i c a t e d a wide v a r i a t i o n  correlation kindergarten  acceptance  and  thirteen  their  homes.  grade  w i t h i n the  they  went t o s c h o o l .  to s c h o o l .  the  before.  research  no  analysis Survey  results  significant  reading  from p a r e n t  books and  Eight  traditions  Musqueam  Diagnostic These  be  a b s e n c e and  Eleven  c u s t o m s and  further  .05.  attainment  at  by  an  i n t e r v i e w s was  write  c h i l d r e n had c h i l d r e n had adult.  Ten  be  discussed  their  been  name  read  been t o l d  areas  i n Chapter  before  to  before  oral  c h i l d r e n had  These f i n d i n g s generate  which w i l l  noted.  drawing m a t e r i a l s i n  six c h i l d r e n could  went  the  will  Absence  one.  c h i l d r e n had  they  library  there  information  Only  of  findings p <  between s c h o o l  Additional All  subtests  that  will  one.  v a r i a b l e and  the  there  reading  between t h i s  support  one  beween p a r e n t a l p r o v i s i o n f o r  examination  significant  this  c o r r e l a t i o n s i n a l l but  P e a r s o n product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n a l  no  However,  kindergarten  population.  yielded  of  i n d i c a t e d a wide  analysis relating  S i g h t Words i n k i n d e r g a r t e n the  Index  Musqueam p o p u l a t i o n .  P e a r s o n product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n variable  the  been  for Five.  to  62  CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1  DISCUSSION The  intent  of the p r e s e n t  a b o u t Musqueam I n d i a n through this  children  t o g r a d e one.  study  was  months d e l a y e d  The  in their  test  at the  four  months d e l a y these  only  end  on  o f g r a d e one. by  results  grade  school be  and  adapted The  in  i n the  early  to foster  study  needs t o be  need t o be Native studies  the  learning 5.1.1  to read.  Finally,  context  to read  of what  and  t h e r e was  most  t o one  1986).  before  Reading year  Consider-  more about they  entered  t e a c h i n g methods  could  the  study  methodology  examined. and  need  t o be used  examined in  Second, the f i n d i n g s  writing studies in need t o be  r e s e a r c h on results  need  this  young  non-  compared  with  children  t o be i n t e r p r e t e d  i s known about N a t i v e  children  write.  CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF The  four  when compared  to l e a r n  that  Third, results  from c r o s s - c u l t u r a l  learning within  First,  to reading  populations.  before  development.  critically  related  write  average of  widened  (Anderson  abilities  the p r e s e n t  several contexts.  more  Stanford Diagnostic  T h i s gap  g r a d e s so  their  f i n d i n g s of  the  important  Musqueam c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a c y  were an  achievement  seven  i t seemed  and  knowledge a v a i l a b l e  reading  normative populations  to learn  l e a r n i n g to read  t h a t Musqueam c h i l d r e n  with  ing  r e s e a r c h was  salient  METHODOLOGY  f e a t u r e of  a wide v a r i a t i o n  the p r e s e n t  o f p e r f o r m a n c e on  study  was  that  a l l variables  63  measured. R e s u l t s the  experimental  hand, t h i s  need  t o be  i n t e r p r e t e d with  p o p u l a t i o n was  number  represented  Musqueam c h i l d r e n  small  caution  (n=13).  On  because  the  the  entire  population  in kindergarten  at the  beginning  other  of of  the  study. High  standard  measured. small  d e v i a t i o n s were r e p o r t e d  These high  sample  wide r a n g e  (Kirk  1978).  i n s c o r e s on  sample p o p u l a t i o n and results. reading be all  On and  merely  the  product  children  confuse  hand  they  having  i n f l u e n c e d by  not  interpretation may  support  the  of  being  tend  Indian.  t o have t h e  a the  the  the  tenet  o f Musqueam c h i l d r e n  of t h e i r  do  by  a l l variables  e a c h v a r i a b l e measured w i t h i n  may  other  affected  They a l s o a r e  w r i t i n g attainment  the  Indian  writing  d e v i a t i o n s are  on  that  may  In o t h e r  not words,  same r e a d i n g  and  abilities.  Weaknesses i n t h e  use  of C l a y ' s D i a g n o s t i c Survey  were  as f o l l o w s . 1.  The  writing  categories listed  s a m p l e s were not  following  f o r example,  Figure  the  and  2,  she  language  level  it  was  not  in  the  list  sentences.  two  always c l e a r l y  i n the  text should  gave me  t o code d e v e l o p m e n t a l  this  " E l i z a b e t h found  When a s s e s s i n g  sample was  not  or more s e n t e n c e s  a simple  (5).  of c a t e g o r i e s f o r c o d i n g I t was  assigned  delineated.  a  of  The  sample o f w r i t i n g d i s p l a y e d i n  read,  a ladybug".  levels  5.  the  a  score  sentence  T h e r e was compound or  ladybug for (4),  and  no p r o v i s i o n complex  64  FIGURE  Writing  Sample  for Confusion  2  of A n a l y s i s  Categories  65  2.  The W r i t i n g  categories  Sample A n a l y s i s  f o r examining  subtest  d i d not i n c l u d e  s e n s e o f s t o r y or l e v e l s  o f emergent  writing. 3.  The s u r v e y  comparisons 4.  of r e s u l t s  Reading On  assess  was n o t normed on a l a r g e p o p u l a t i o n so t o be i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h  reading  hand,  i t was t h e b e s t  and w r i t i n g l e v e l s  format  of p a r e n t a l preschool  to obtain  years.  reports  As r e p o r t e d especially  In  this  practises  measure.  events  nected  format For  reported  the other  generated  reported  that  population  during the  do n o t  for literacy  years  may n o t be a  (1984),  frequency  that  was s p r e a d  over a con-  s e r v i c e d t h e home.  difficult  to obtain  using  of l i t e r a c y  and p a r t i c i p a n t s and was o f t e n  i s very  interview  index  One ( p . 11) t h e use  the p r e s c h o o l  institutions  of information  On  i n Chapter  M o r e o v e r , A n d e r s o n and S t o k e s  of a c t i v i t i e s  retrospect  activities  the frequency  techniques,  to s o c i a l  t o c a l c u l a t e an  information.  i n t h e home o f t h e i r  variety  using  a retrospective  i n a r e t r o s p e c t i v e context  i n t h e home d u r i n g  ethnographic  type  context,  i n using  information  provision for literacy  always produce a c c u r a t e  valid  setting  materials.  interview  self  measure a v a i l a b l e t o  i n one-to-one  T h e r e were s e v e r a l w e a k n e s s e s  of  caution.  c o m p r e h e n s i o n was n o t m e a s u r e d .  the other  familiar  need  This  through a  format.  hand,  important  information areas  obtained  using  this  t o examine more e x t e n s i v e l y .  example, a l l c h i l d r e n had books  i n t h e home.  Eleven out  66  of  thirteen  before had  c h i l d r e n had  they  had  an  went t o s c h o o l . adult orally  traditions.  Ten  children  attended  areas ogy  had  which  repeaters  repeating  Diagnostic  Survey  the  and  highest In  assessment  only  next  the  third  of  three  lowest  the the  had  and  before. Each o f  the  frequency  their  not  absence  the  obtained  aspects  of  development  i n the  Musqueam  was  was  second year  and  of  Because  done t o a s s e s s  reading  the  writing  c h i l d r e n who  survey  population  information  extensively  these  with  informal observation of  on  school  of  repeated  s u b t e s t s measured  three  repeaters  i n grade  useful in t h a t need  scored  i t was  not  the  determining t o be  examined  more  population.  Musqueam c h i l d r e n ' s r e a d i n g of a non-Native p o p u l a t i o n comparisons.  i n t e n t of attainment  in  weak-  COMPARISONS WITH NON-NATIVE RESEARCH Though  in  one.  c o n c l u s i o n , though each measure c o n t a i n e d  literacy  All  methodol-  i n g r a d e one.  on  remaining  nesses,  5.1.2  of  had  year  From an  results,  none o f  customs  place.  kindergarten  scored  the c h i l d r e n  more n a t u r a l i s t i c  s m a l l , a n a l y s i s was  i n g r a d e one.  g r a d e one  using  their  attainment  kindergarten  of  bookreading  been t o a l i b r a r y  weakness i n a s s e s s i n g  with  p o u l a t i o n was  effect  some N a t i v e  in kindergarten  absence counted the  took  the  half  some form of p r e s c h o o l .  examined  events  Finally, that  share  a more a c c u r a t e  these  i n shared  More than  c h i l d r e n had  needs t o be  t o get  participated  this  study  with  i t is interesting  the  to  compare  performance  t o n o t e some  67  If  t h e mean s c o r e s  compared study  with  stanine  i n age from  to score  each  calculated  5.0 t o 7.0 y e a r s ,  subtests are  from C l a y ' s Zealand  (1968)  children  Musqueam c h i l d r e n  i n kindergarten  given  4 t o 6 was c o n s i d e r e d  subtest  Survey  tend  range on a l l measures e x c e p t t h e  subtests  S i g h t Word s u b t e s t  stanine  Diagnostic  and E u r o p e a n New  w i t h i n an a v e r a g e  Writing Vocabulary the  levels  o f 320 u r b a n M a o r i  ranging  from  and c o m p a r a t i v e  i n kindergarten average). stanine  and g r a d e one and (a range o f  The mean s c o r e s on  levels  are l i s t e d  below.  TABLE IX Mean S c o r e s o f Musqueam P o p u l a t i o n as They R e l a t e t o S t a n i n e P l a c e m e n t on D i a g n o s t i c S u r v e y i n C l a y (1968) S t u d y  Diagnostic  Survey Subtest  Mean (n=13)  Stanine (Clay)  Letter  identification  (K)  33 .00  5  Letter  identification  (1)  43 .92  5  Concepts about  print  (K)  9 .85  4  Concepts about p r i n t  (1)  15 .77  6  Sight  Words (K)  1 .92  3  Sight  Words (1)  7 .69  5  6 .00  1  Writing Vocabulary  (K)  Writing Vocabulary  (1)  Dictation  (1)  24 .46  3  26 .70  4  68  Low  p e r f o r m a n c e on  kindergarten children  may  could  be  frequency  with  the  preschool  years  ascertain  how  Three  related  write  The  the  their  Writing Vocabulary to the  finding  name b e f o r e  to best  they  explored  than  Appendix C ) .  They have s i n c e been p l a c e d  Since  class  Clay's  subtest stanine  rest  c h i l d r e n are  large populations each  the  on  excluding levels.  of the  them  This  S i g h t Words i n K and  Writing Vocabulary  level  average  f o u r w i t h i n an  altered  was  assigned  assessing  Clay's  study  study.  She  oral  Letter Identification  a s i x i n s t e a d of  The  of  found  that  language d u r i n g  the  experimental  overall  p e r f o r m a n c e of  the  effectively  i n norm-  mean  compared  The  only  level  other  i n g r a d e one  score  with  i n g r a d e one  within  of to a  level  which  stanine  f a v o r a b l y with quality time  was  class  the  levels  Toohey's  of  (1987)  o f Musqueam c h i l d r e n ' s  i n g r a d e one  schools  A l l of  reported  the  stanine  d i d not  c l a s s e s of  deviate  from  (classes consisted  o n e - t h i r d Musqueam s t u d e n t s  non-Native c h i l d r e n ) .  (see  five.  normality  share  study  approximately  a  a l s o compares  present  one  range.  scored  included  tests,  the  to  in special classes.  (n=10) was  raised  during  in school.  subjects  o f t e n not  standardized  school.  took p l a c e  Musqueam p o p u l a t i o n  lower  on  to  in  six  i n more d e p t h  significantly  ing  went  e n r i c h w r i t i n g performance  c h i l d r e n i n the  special  that only  which w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s needs t o be  subtest  and  the the  of  two-thirds  Musqueam c h i l d r e n  sequentially oriented topic  except centered  69  or  literate  stories  non-sequentially  during  oriented  associated  with  discourse  share  (see  Chapter  time In  of  the  than  summary,  5.1.3  COMPARISONS WITH It  two  is  prominent  cultural  varied amined.  each small a  studies  (1980)  These class  lived  found  in black  population  p.  often during  10).  c h i l d r e n ' s performance  when  to  vary  more  compared  on  CROSS-CULTURAL  to  compare  examining  found  significantly  working  styles  to  the  on  within  this  subtests population  measure.  RESEARCH  present  literacy  findings  events  in  a  with cross-  context.  Heath  who  important  constrast stories  tends  populations  in  associated  One,  Survey  time  topic  Musqueam  Diagnostic  between  sharing  were  that  to  larger  tradition As community  a  size  population.  also  of  held  Musqueam has  working homes  noted  a  25  to  them  together  small  long in  present  On  literacy study's  one  a  white  hand  similiar  and  were had  she  within  communities  40,000,  but  ex-  teachers  other  members),  community  existence,  the  these  (Heath,  she  class  relatively  30  home  community,  middle  that  the  communities  class  of  approximately  is a  trends The  three  communities.  (approximately  which  generalizable  and  the  practises.in  p r a c t i s e s were  She  community  and  black  these  literacy  community. in  beween  community  close  literacy  were  part a  of  long  1982). part  would  of  expect  development  within  findings  not  do  a  large to  find  its  support  this  70  tenet.  This  the  other  has  been  last  had  hand,  be due t o t h e t y p e s  their  Chapter  Two,  upgraded  orientation p. 1 4 ) .  changes  t o t h e Musqueam  within  their  children's  now  performance  those of  found  Anglo,  Diego.  He  found each  wide  scores  the index  practises  than  population. and s o c i a l  and  other  and  literacy  development  variation  i n these  reflected  (Roberts study  in their  similar  i n San  practises that  to  practises  children  in literacy  i n the  cultural  influenced a wide  and  literacy variation in  for literacy  the preschool be t h a t  skills  literacy  aged  was  Musqueam  1987).  a r e more  examined  There  structures  These  has  many  of p a r e n t a l support  I t may  has  affected  i n t h e home  i n t h e home d u r i n g  ways ( s e e  but i n so d o i n g  and c o n c l u d e d  ethnicity.  which  have  preschool  variations  patterns  more  Musqueam  He  e t h n i c group  practises  activities  (1986).  with  children  schools  of l i v i n g .  i s also  i n school  and M e x i c a n  structural  on  This  the present  by T e a l e  Black  home w i t h i n social  from  ways  a wide  one  cultural  standards  community  exists  i n the  t o cope  grade  On  Musqueam  1967, t h e government  to parenting  community.  Findings  since  Musqueam  orientations there  of present  housing  traditional  that  o n how  to traditional  Also,  altered  so  support  o f change  schooling in residential  the reserve's  people's  little  Some p a r e n t s  of t h e i r  altered  with  used.  communities,  t o an e n o r m o u s amount  decades  changes.  part  o f measures  i n c o n t r a s t to Heath's  subjected  three  these  may  varying  years  i n the  cultural  w i t h i n Musqueam  homes  rather  71  than  being  Indian,  practises.  affected their  T h i s area  through ethnographic 5.1.4  choice  needs t o be research  literacy  more e x t e n s i v e l y examined  techniques.  COMPARISON WITH STUDIES OF  A.  of  OTHER NATIVE POPULATIONS  PRESCHOOL RESEARCH Finally  text  of  (1981) the  results  research study  i n Indian  o f Cowichan  preschool  study.  need  years  t o be  i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h i n the  populations.  Indians,  support  varied widely  Unfortunately  her  within  research  was  the  not  Mayfield's  reading  w r i t i n g attainment.  The  c o r r e l a t i o n s between  individual  present  study  preschool  except  or  t o be  lower  obtained  correlations IPAR and at B.  .77  f o r S i g h t Words a t K.  c a u t i o u s l y i n t e r p r e t e d due on  between  seven  IPAR and  C o n c e p t s About  and  .76  of n i n e  Print  later  found and  the  during  the  These f i n d i n g s  t o c o r r e l a t i o n s of  analyses.  i n G r a d e One  .65  However,  Letter Identification  respectively, p <  on  subtests  Provision for Literacy A c t i v i t i e s  need  to  for l i t e r a c y  Index o f P a r e n t years  during  population  continued  effect  significant  support  with  for literacy  examine t h e and  of p a r e n t a l  As  con-  were  at  K  and  significant  .001.  EARLY GRADE STUDIES Several  abilities literacy  s t u d i e s examining  have n o t e d backgrounds  Simpson-Tyson  1978).  that  Indian  Indian  the  reading  c h i l d r e n come from  (Downing, O l l i l a Yet  children's  and  Oliver  f i n d i n g s i n the  deprived  1975;  present  study  72  note  t h a t a l l Musqueam s u b j e c t s had  materials  i n the  to  before  they  it  may  to  book-reading  not  home and  that eleven  went t o s c h o o l .  be  d e p r i v a t i o n , but t h a t may  books and  be  writing  children  had  been  These f i n d i n g s suggest rather a d i f f e r e n t  experienced  read that  orientation  i n Musqueam  Indian  homes. For reading in  example,  s e v e r a l a d u l t s and  experiences  with  the  child.  siblings  shared  T h e s e p r a c t i s e s may  c o n t r a s t to a regular p a r e n t - c h i l d bookreading  often  experienced  (Bruner  1983;  Teale  1984;  Finally,  the  salient  present levels  study on  children.  analysis  of  reported  scores  the  findings in  and  Oliver  standard  Phillion  (1975)  children  seven.  s t u d i e s examined w r i t i n g b e h a v i o r s  and  deviations and  Gates  this  It is  s t u d i e s of  their  Reading  i n grades four on  and  Galloway  deviations in  S u r v e y but No  i n performance  other  include standard  examined  the  Musqueam p o p u l a t i o n .  from g r o u p a d m i n i s t e r e d  study  format  populations  a wide range  research.  high  be  1986).  f i n d i n g s with  (1978) d i d not  (1968) d i d and  Ninio  f e a t u r e of  Downing, O l l i l a  in reporting their  non-Native  Snow and  t h a t t h e r e was  t o compare t h e s e  Simpson-Tyson ranges  was  class  a l l measures w i t h i n t h e  difficult Native  i n middle  book-  and  any w r i t i n g  measure. C.  NATIVE LITERACY ORIENTATION Two  to  the  other  areas  f i n d i n g s of  of N a t i v e  the p r e s e n t  STUDIES  r e s e a r c h need study.  t o be  S c o l l o n and  related Scollon  73  (1981)  indicated  grounds Their have  play  are  in conflict  extent  cultural  of  needs  to  show  a  program  On  the  Sight  Word  average  on  (stanine tested the  3)  in  reading  at  but  of  that  survey the  having grade  1986)  subtest  More a  day  the  study  on  social to  classroom on  challenge  these  population  and  may  their  approaches  needs  studies reported  and  retain  the  writing  of  effect  behaviors  that a  fifth  word  processing  word  children in  versus  be  may  profit  approach. scored  kindergarten  stanine  should  children  Native  children  sight  Musqueam  Indian  that  in holistic  research  levels.  children  i n performance  administered  sight  behaviors.  more e x t e n s i v e l y .  emphasizes  to  holistic  reading  suggested  subtest  one.  these  on  back-  interacting,  interacting  strengths  results  of  Musqueam  Columbia  increased  grade  effects  (1984,  relative  by  reading  has  British  These  of  this  the  explored  More's  central  in  literacy  based  present  variation  which  ways  be  activities.  below  to  interaction  Finally,  children  wide  w r i t i n g measures  The  south  The  with  home  Native  literacy  and  traditional  in  to  that  i n groups,  and  school  conclude  interacting  events.  type  developing  ways  which  results.  to  in  non-verbal  tasks  reading  them  o r i e n t a t i o n s to  of  for  literacy  role  orientation  tradition  rules  in  led  different  cultural  cultural  crucial  research a  this  a  that  level done  phonics  when  comparing approach  to  74  5.2  CONCLUSIONS Though  t h e r e were s e v e r a l weaknesses  ments, the p r e s e n t For  example,  score  i n the  below t h e i r  achievement  study past  Indian  classmates  tests.  administered  revealed  Using  results  indicated  t h a t Musqueam I n d i a n  variation  i n reading  scored  w i t h i n an  when t e s t e d on  and  of w r i t i n g v o c a b u l a r y results  provide  individual teach  needs i n t o  They a l s o p r o v i d e administered in-depth writing  activities  because  f o r the  assessment  reading  during  Native  have t o be  orientations  and  i n f l u e n c e d by  a unique c u l t u r a l  years.  normative  measure study  t o g r a d e one i n these  in their  and  they of  yet  skills  knowledge  g r a d e one.  These  methodology t h a t  tools  Indian  reading  d i s p l a y e d a wide  range  use  to  programs  takes  that  are Native  Indian.  individually  that provide  more  c h i l d r e n ' s reading  and  performances.  significantly  may  of  c o n s i d e r a t i o n versus  i n f o r m a t i o n about  Finally,  sharing  children  for teaching  support  been known  the p r e s e n t  m a t e r i a l s except  together  reading  of  in kindergarten  support  a l l children  type  writing a b i l i t i e s  acceptable  familiar  had  findings.  group a d m i n i s t e r e d  a different  individually,  instru-  some i n t e r e s t i n g  children  on  i n the  writing abilities  a p a r e n t a l support  the p r e s c h o o l orientation  customs and adjusted  to these  were  years.  around  t o accommodate during  literacy  T h i s support  bookreading  traditions.  activities  for  Teaching  may  events  early  and  methodology  u n i q u e Musqueam the  have  Indian  school  75  5.3  RECOMMENDATIONS Based on t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e s t u d y ,  research 1. and  recommendations  As t h i s  relate  to e a r l i e r  Native  population,  study as  on an o t h e r  an urban  c a n be made.  i s the f i r s t  w r i t i n g behaviors  study  i n Canada e x a m i n i n g  ( i n kindergarten  experiences i t would  i n an u n i l i n g u a l  urban  population  reading  and g r a d e one) a s t h e y  be i n t e r e s t i n g  unilingual  Indian  the f o l l o w i n g  Indian  English  urban  to r e p l i c a t e the population  as w e l l  f o r whom E n g l i s h i s a s e c o n d  language. 2.  Furture  Stanford other  appropriate Survey  ment r e s u l t s  population  on t h e  a t t h e end o f g r a d e one or results  t o compare g r o u p v e r s u s  of reading  results  from t h e  individual  assess-  p e r f o r m a n c e w i t h i n one p o p u l a t i o n . Survey  i s used on a n o t h e r  Indian  i t would be u s e f u l t o add a measure o f r e a d i n g  comprehension a l s o would  test  t o compare  g r o u p measure w i t h  I f the Diagnostic  levels  may w i s h  D i a g n o s t i c Reading  Diagnostic  3.  researchers  and a measure o f emergent w r i t i n g l e v e l s .  be h e l p f u l  f o r measuring  t o add c a t e g o r i e s t o c l a r i f y writing a b i l i t i e s  It  Clay's  on t h e W r i t i n g  Sample  Subtest. 4.  As m e n t i o n e d  activities  took p l a c e  retrospective try  and g a i n  study  earlier, could  interview access  the frequency n o t be v a l i d l y  format.  with  measured  Researchers  might  t o Musqueam homes t o do an  on s e v e r a l c h i l d r e n ' s p r e s c h o o l  which  literacy  literacy in a  wish t o  ethnographic activities  76  especially  bookreading and s h a r i n g of o r a l customs and  traditions  to c l a r i f y t h i s i s s u e of frequency of  literacy  events. 5.  Further research needs to be conducted at the Musqueam  preschool  to determine  participate  the extent to which c h i l d r e n  in l i t e r a c y a c t i v i t i e s  of reading and w r i t i n g a b i l i t i e s . reported that preschool  their  library.  that promote  development  For example,  ten  parents  c h i l d r e n took out books from the Again,  the frequency with which  this  event took p l a c e needs to be explored more e x t e n s i v e l y .  BIBLIOGRAPHY  A n d e r s o n , A. and S t o k e s , S. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . S o c i a l and i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e s on t h e d e v e l o p m e n t and p r a c t i c e o f l i t e r a c y . I n H. G o e l m a n , A. Oberg and F. S m i t h . ( E d s . ) , A w a k e n i n g To Literacy. London: Heinemann. A n d e r s o n , S. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Musqueam Band ( P r e - S c h o o l / E l e m e n t a r y ) E n g l i s h Language Enrichment P r o j e c t . V a n c o u v e r , B.C. D i s c u s s i o n paper s u b m i t t e d t o Vancouver S c h o o l Board. Bank S t r e e t C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , ( 1 9 7 6 ) . Young N a t i v e A m e r i c a n s and T h e i r F a m i l i e s : E d u c a t i o n a l Needs A s s e s s m e n t and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . New Y o r k : Bank S t r e e t C o l l e g e o f Education. B e r e i t e r , C. and E n g e l m a n n , S. ( 1 9 6 6 ) . Teaching Disa d v a n t a g e d C h i l d r e n i n t h e P r e s c h o o l . New Y o r k : P r e n t i c e Hall. B i s s e x , G. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . GNYS AT WRK. University Press.  Cambridge:  Harvard  B o l o z , S. and J e n n e s s , D. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . The s u n i s s h i n i n g i n my eyes: the Navajo c h i l d e n t e r s k i n d e r g a r t e n e x p e c t i n g t o w r i t e and he c a n . J o u r n a l of American I n d i a n E d u c a t i o n , (May):25-30.  B o r g , W. and G a l l , Y o r k : Longman.  M. ( 1 9 7 9 ) .  Bruner, J . ( 1 9 8 3 ) .  Educational Research.  Child's Talk.  B u r n a b y , B. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Native Children.  New Y o r k :  New  Norton.  L a n g u a g e s and T h e i r R o l e s i n E d u c a t i n g T o r o n t o : OISE P r e s s .  C a l d w e l l , B. and B r a d l e y , R.H. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . Home O b s e r v a t i o n f o r Measurement o f t h e E n v i r o n m e n t , (HOME). Conway: U n i v e r s i t y of Arkansas. C l a r k , M.M. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . L i t e r a c y a t home and a t s c h o o l : i n s i g h t s f r o m a s t u d y o f young f l u e n t r e a d e r s . I n H. G o e l m a n , A O b e r g and F. S m i t h ( E d s . ) , A w a k e n i n g t o L i t e r a c y . London: Heinemann. C l a y , M. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . Difficulties.  The E a r l y D e t e c t i o n o f R e a d i n g Hong Kong: Heinemann.  Cook, F. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Summary o f R e s e a r c h on N a t i v e E d u c a t i o n . V i c t o r i a : Workshop p r e s e n t e d a t F a l l P r i m a r y T e a c h e r s ' Conference.  78  Day, H.D. and Day, K.C. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . Item and F a c t o r A n a l y s i s o f t h e C o n c e p t s About P r i n t T e s t : P a t t e r n s i n t h e Sand. Unpublished paper. D e n t o n : T e x a s Woman's U n i v e r s i t y . Daybreak S t a r P r e s c h o o l ( 1 9 8 3 ) . O r g a n i z i n g and O p e r a t i n g an Indian Preschool. S e a t t l e : Daybreak S t a r P r e s s , ( E r i c Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 232 8 3 9 ) . . D e h y l e , D. ( 1 9 8 3 ) M e a s u r i n g s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e i n t h e c l a s s room: t e a c h e r c o m m u n i c a t i o n a b o u t t e s t s and t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f young N a v a j o s t u d e n t s . Peabody J o u r n a l o f Education 61:67-85. Department o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s and N o r t h e r n Development I n d i a n E d u c a t i o n P a p e r : Phase I . O t t a w a .  (1982).  Downing, J . , O l l i l a , L . and O l i v e r , P. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Cultural d i f f e r e n c e s i n c h i l d r e n ' s c o n c e p t s o f r e a d i n g and writing. B r i t i s h Journal of Educational Psychology 45:312-316.  G a l l o w a y , C , M i c k e l s o n , N. and B u r c h f i e l d , D. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . O r i e n t a t i o n P r e - s c h o o l and P r e - k i n d e r g a r t e n Summer Programme f o r I n d i a n C h i l d r e n . V i c t o r i a : U n i v e r s i t y of Victoria. Gee,  J . (1986). O r a l i t y and L i t e r a c y : from The Savage Mind t o Ways W i t h Words. Tesol Quarterly. (Dec.):719-745.  Graham, D.M. ( 1 9 7 2 ) . A c o m p a r i s o n between t h e I n d i a n and nonI n d i a n c h i l d r e n i n s o u t h e r n S a s k a t c h e w a n b a s e d on l i s t e n i n g comprehension, reading comprehension, a u d i t o r y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , and I.Q. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 7 2 - 2 3 8 0 4 , 894-A. Hawthorne, H.B. ( 1 9 6 7 ) . A Survey o f Contemporary Canada. I n d i a n A f f a i r s Branch II : 105-156 .  Indians of  H e a t h , S.B. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . The f u n c t i o n s and u s e s o f l i t e r a c y . J o u r n a l o f Communication 3 0 : 1 2 3 - 1 3 3 . H e a t h , S.B. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Q u e s t i o n i n g a t home and a t s c h o o l . I n G. S p i n d l e r ( E d . ) , Doing the Ethnography o f S c h o o l i n g . New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r d t and W i n s t o n . H e w i s o n , J . and T i z a r d , J . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . P a r e n t a l i n v o l v e m e n t and reading attainment. B r i t i s h Journal of Educational Psychology 50:209-215.  79  Hoffman, R. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . . S c h o o l E n g l i s h : A Development Program f o r C a r r i e r C h i l d r e n i n Burns L a k e . Burns L a k e : R e p o r t p r e s e n t e d t o B.C. S c h o o l D i s t r i c t # 5 5 . Holdaway, D. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . The F o u n d a t i o n s Ashton S c h o l a s t i c .  of L i t e r a c y .  Sydney:  Huntley, J . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . The judgment and p u b l i c measure o f v a l u e i n academic c o n t e x t s , J o u r n a l of G e n e r a l E d u c a t i o n 3 7 : 280-312 .  Johns, J . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . F i r s t graders' concepts Reading Research Q u a r t e r l y 1 5 : 5 2 9 - 5 5 0 . K i r k , R. Cole.  (1978).  Introductory  Statistics.  about  print.  Moneterey:  Brooks/  Kirkness, V.J. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Indian e d u c a t i o n : the s t a t e of the art. Paper p r e s e n t e d t o M e r r i t t S c h o o l D i s t r i c t , M e r r i t t , B.C. Kirkness, V . J . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . Indian Education: Future. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e I n d i a n Walpole I s l a n d Reserve, O n t a r i o .  P a s t , P r e s e n t and Heritage Conference,  L a b o v , W. ( 1 9 7 2 ) . The l o g i c o f n o n s t a n d a r d E n g l i s h . I n Language and L e a r n i n g C o u r s e Team. Language i n E d u c a t i o n . London: R o u t l e d g e and Kegan P a u l . McShane, D. and M i t c h e l l , J . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . Middle ear d i s e a s e , h e a r i n g l o s s and e d u c a t i o n a l p r o b l e m s o f A m e r i c a n I n d i a n children. J o u r n a l of American Indian E d u c a t i o n . 7 - 1 1 . M a y f i e l d , M. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . P a r e n t s , c h i l d r e n and r e a d i n g : h e l p i n g Canadian n a t i v e i n d i a n parents of p r e s c h o o l e r s . The Reading Teacher. 301-305. M i c h a e l s , S. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . "Sharing time": C h i l d r e n ' s n a r r a t i v e s t y l e s and d i f f e r e n t i a l a c c e s s t o l i t e r a c y . Language i n Society. 423-442. Mickelson, deficit  N. and G a l l o w a y , C. ( 1 9 6 9 ) . cumulative language among I n d i a n c h i l d r e n . Exceptional Children,  36:187-90 .  Moon, C. and W e l l s , G. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . The i n f l u e n c e o f t h e home on learning to read. J o u r n a l of Research i n Reading, 2 : 5 3 - 6 2 . More, A. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Okanagan-Nicola Indian Q u a l i t y of Education Study. P e n t i c t o n , B.C.: Okanagan I n d i a n L e a r n i n g Institute.  80  More, A. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . I n d i a n S t u d e n t s and T h e i r L e a r n i n g S t y l e s : R e s e a r c h R e s u l t s and C l a s s r o o m A p p l i c a t i o n s . Unpublished manuscript, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. More, A. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Q u a l i t y of Education of Native Indian S t u d e n t s i n Canada. In H. McCue ( E d . ) , S e l e c t e d P a p e r s from F i r s t M o k a k i t C o n f e r e n c e . Indian Education Research A s s o c i a t i o n , Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. More, A. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . P e r s o n a l communication. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia.  Vancouver:  National Indian Brotherhood (1973). Indian Control Education. Paper p r e s e n t e d t o A s s e m b l y o f F i r s t Ottawa.  of Indian Nations,  N e l s o n , C. and M e y e r h o f f , R. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Queen C h a r l o t t e , S k i d e g a t e s c r e e n i n g : an i n t e r v e n t i o n t o h e l p p r e p a r e a l l c h i l d r e n f o r success i n school. In S u c c e s s e s i n I n d i a n E d u c a t i o n , V i c t o r i a : B.C. M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n . O l s o n , D. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . "Seel Jumping!". Some o r a l l a n g u a g e antecedents of l i t e r a c y , i n H. Goelman, A. Oberg and F. Smith ( E d s . ) , Awakening t o L i t e r a c y . London: Heinemann. P h i l l i o n , W. and G a l l o w a y , C. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . Indian c h i l d r e n reading program.. J o u r n a l of Reading 12:553-602. P o i n t , R. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . P e r s o n a l communication. w o r k e r , Musqueam I n d i a n Band.  Former  and t h e  social  Pueblo Infant-Parent Education Project. (1986). Discussion p a p e r a v a i l a b l e from P u e b l o I n f a n t - P a r e n t Education P r o j e c t , B e r n a l i l l o , New M e x i c o . R o b e r t s , M. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . P e r s o n a l communication. Musqueam w o r k e r , Musqueam I n d i a n Band.  Home-school  R o s i e r , P. and Holm, W. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . The Rock P o i n t E x p e r i e n c e . A L o n g i t u d i n a l Study o f a Navajo S c h o o l Program. Washington, D . C : Center f o r A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s . S c o l l o n , R. and S c o l l o n , S.B.K. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Narrative Literacy and F a c e i n I n t e r e t h n i c C o m m u n i c a t i o n . Norwood, N . J . : A b l e x P u b l i s h i n g Company. Shapiro, J . (1985). The H o m e - L i t e r a c y E n v i r o n m e n t I n d e x . Unpublished paper. Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. S i m p s o n - T y s o n , A. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . Are N a t i v e American F i r s t Ready t o Read? The R e a d i n g T e a c h e r . 798-801.  Graders  81  Snow, C. and N i n i o , A. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . The c o n t r a c t s o f l i t e r a c y : what c h i l d r e n l e a r n from l e a r n i n g t o r e a d b o o k s . In W. T e a l e and E. S u l z b y ( E d s . ) , Emergent L i t e r a c y . Norwood: A b l e x P u b l i s h i n g Company. T e a l e , W. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . R e a d i n g t o young c h i l d r e n i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e for l i t e r a c y development. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg and F. Smith ( E d s . ) , Awakening t o L i t e r a c y . L o n d o n : Heinemann. T e a l e , W. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Home b a c k g r o u n d and young c h i l d r e n ' s l i t e r a c y development. In W. T e a l e and E. S u l z b y ( E d s . ) , Emergent L i t e r a c y . Norwood, N.J.: A b l e x P u b l i s h i n g Company. Toohey, K. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Paper p r e s e n t e d  Urban N a t i v e C h i l d r e n and S h a r i n g Time. t o T e a l Canada C o n f e r e n c e , V a n c o u v e r , B.C.  W a l k e r , G. and K u e r b i t z , I . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . as an a i d t o s u c c e s s f u l b e g i n n i n g Improvement 1 6 : 1 4 9 - 1 5 4 .  Reading to p r e s c h o o l e r s reading. Reading  W a l p o l e I s l a n d Band O f f i c e . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Program, W a l l a c e b u r g , O n t a r i o .  Parent  W e l l s , G.  (1985).  The  Meaning M a k e r s .  Child  Support  T o r o n t o : OISE  Press.  W i l l i a m s , L. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . H i s t o r y of n a t i v e e d u c a t i o n . Paper p r e s e n t e d t o Workshop on N a t i v e E d u c a t i o n , V a n c o u v e r S c h o o l Board Vancouver, B.C.  82  APPENDIX for 1.1  A:  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and S c o r e Procedures S u b t e s t s of the D i a g n o s t i c Survey (Clay  RUNNING RECORD OF  1986)  READING:  Each c h i l d i s g i v e n 3 p a s s a g e s ( v a r y i n g from 100-200 words i n l e n g t h ) t o r e a d o r a l l y . E v e r y t h i n g the c h i l d s a y s and does as he t r i e s t o r e a d t h e p a s s a g e i s recorded. C o n v e n t i o n s f o r r e c o r d i n g a r e as f o l l o w s : 1  E v e r y word r e a d check). e.g.  correctly BUI  2  A wrong r e s p o n s e  ChUd-. Text:  tries  ChUd.  (or  aUeep.  i s recorded  with  to read  the  text  under i t .  a word, a l l h i s t r i a l s  are  home. house  I f a c h i l d succeeds i n c o r r e c t i n g r e c o r d e d as a self-correction.  ChUd: Text:  a tick  hoime house  If a c h i l d recorded. Text:  ii  i s marked w i t h  we  whzn  a previous error  i t is  SC  were  I f no r e s p o n s e i s g i v e n t o a word, a dash i s r e c o r d e d . I n s e r t i o n of a word i s r e c o r d e d over a d a s h . I f t h e c h i l d b a u l k s , u n a b l e t o p r o c e e d b e c a u s e he i s aware he had made an e r r o r and c a n n o t c o r r e c t i t , or b e c a u s e he c a n n o t a t t e m p t the n e x t word, he i s t o l d t h e word, ( w r i t t e n T)  ChUd:  kome_  Text  house  An a p p e a l the c h i l d  f o r h e l p (A) from t h e c h i l d i s t u r n e d back t o f o r f u r t h e r e f f o r t b e f o r e u s i n g T as a b o v e .  ChUd:  --  Text:  house —  A  hete T  I f a c h i l d g e t s i n t o a s t a t e o f c o n f u s i o n and n e c e s s a r y t o e x t r i c a t e him he i s t o l d t o " T r y and TTA i s r e c o r d e d .  it is that again"  83  9  10  R e p e t i t i o n i s not r e c o r d e d as R.  Ch^ld:  Heie_£i_the_homc.  Text:  Here  Credit  Text: Score: 2  i s the  as e r r o r  "R  s c o r e d as  the c h i l d  behavior  text  UJke-t e  Text:  were  with  we  i s recorded  with  follows: any  correct  or c o r r e c t e d words.  Errors:  penalty for t r i a l s  Cki_l^d:  is  SC_  f o r the b r e a d X X  T h e r e i s no correct.  and  house  D i r e c t i o n a l a t t a c k on the p r i n t e d arrows. L e f t to r i g h t L R  Responses are 1  counted  whzn  which  2  are e v e n t u a l l y  we^ e_ (SC) E r r o r s : 0 Self-correction:  1  Score: 3  I n s e r t i o n s add e r r o r s so t h a t a c h i l d t h a n t h e r e a r e words i n a l i n e .  can  Chl^^d:  T_kz_t_went_too  t,__too t t oo t  Text: Score:  The X  sighed X X  little X  engine X  have more  Errors: X  4  The c h i l d c a n n o t r e c e i v e a minus s c o r e f o r a p a g e . l o w e s t page s c o r e i s 0 .  5  Omissions. If a line c o u n t e d as an e r r o r .  or  sentence  errors  i s omitted  each  The word i s  I f a page i s o m i t t e d ( p e r h a p s b e c a u s e two pages were t u r n e d t o g e t h e r ) t h e y a r e not c o u n t e d as e r r o r s . Note t h a t , i n t h i s c a s e , t h e number o f words on t h a t page must be d e d u c t e d from t h e R u n n i n g Words t o t a l b e f o r e calculation. 6  Repeated e r r o r s . I f t h e c h i l d makes an e r r o r ( e . g . ' r u n ' f o r 'ran') and t h e n s u b s t i t u t e s t h i s word r e p e a t e d l y , i t c o u n t s as an e r r o r e v e r y t i m e ; but s u b s t i t u t i o n o f a p r o p e r name ( e . g . 'Mary' f o r ' M o l l y ' ) i s c o u n t e d o n l y t h e f i r s t time.  5  84  7  M u l t i p l e e r r o r s and s e l f - c o r r e c t i o n s . I f a c h i l d makes two or more e r r o r s ( e . g . r e a d s a p h r a s e w r o n g l y ) each word i s an e r r o r . I f he t h e n c o r r e c t s a l l t h e s e e r r o r s each c o r r e c t e d word i s a s e l f - c o r r e c t i o n .  8  B r o k e n words. Where a word i s p r o n o u n c e d as two words ( e . g . a/way) even when t h i s i s backed up by p o i n t i n g as i f i t were two words, t h i s i s r e g a r d e d as an e r r o r o f p r o n u n c i a t i o n n o t as a r e a d i n g e r r o r u n l e s s what i s s a i d i s matched t o a d i f f e r e n t word. Such t h i n g s as ' p i t c h e r ' f o r ' p i c t u r e ' and 'gonna' f o r ' g o i n g t o ' a r e c o u n t e d as correct.  9  Inventions defeat the system. When t h e young c h i l d i s c r e a t i v e l y p r o d u c i n g h i s own v e r s i o n o f t h e s t o r y t h e s c o r i n g s y s t e m f i n a l l y b r e a k s down and t h e judgement ' i n v e n t i n g ' i s r e c o r d e d f o r t h a t page, s t o r y o r book.  10  'Try that again'. When t h e c h i l d i s i n a t a n g l e t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n , which does n o t i n v o l v e t e a c h i n g , c a n be given. I t c o u n t s as one e r r o r and o n l y t h e s e c o n d a t t e m p t i s scored.  11  Fewest e r r o r s . I f t h e r e a r e a l t e r n a t e ways o f s c o r i n g r e s p o n s e s a g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e i s t o c h o o s e t h e method t h a t g i v e s t h e f e w e s t p o s s i b l e e r r o r s as i n B below. A  Chi^td: Text: Score:  We_wen £ _j£o;t_£  Ch^f^d:  0Je_wen^  Text: Score:  You X  e_b  You went t o t h e shop f o r t h e b r e a d X X X X  Errors: 6  l£I_*ke_b *ead  went t o t h e shop f o r t h e b r e a d X X X  Errors: 4  85  2.1  LETTER  IDENTIFICATION  A  K  P  W  B  H  O  J  U  C  Y  L  Q  M  D  N  E  G  a  f  y  n  X  1  V  T  P  w  o  j  u  1  q  m  R  x  a  i  g  v (Clay  1985)  86  2.2  ADMINISTRATION FOR  LETTER  IDENTIFICATION  The c h i l d ' i s a s k e d t o r e c a l l the name o f t h e l e t t e r , the sound t h e l e t t e r makes, and a word t h a t s t a r t s l i k e t h a t sound from t h e c h a r t i n s e c t i o n 2.1. Each a t t e m p t i s recorded. Any one o f t h e t h r e e c r i t e r i a can be used t o mark a r e s p o n s e c o r r e c t . S u b - t o t a l s f o r each k i n d o f r e s p o n s e , a l p h a b e t i c , s o u n d , or word b e g i n n i n g s i m i l a r l y are n o t e d t o t r y and d e t e r m i n e t h e c h i l d ' s p r e f e r r e d mode of i d e n t i f y i n g l e t t e r s , the l e t t e r s a c h i l d c o n f u s e s and unknown l e t t e r s .  3.1  CONCEPTS ABOUT PRINT TEST  (SAND)  C h i l d r e n a r e a s k e d q u s t i o n s about a book (SAND or STONES) and a r e r e q u i r e d t o r e s p o n d v e r b a l l y or by a c t i o n . A list of t h e c o n c e p t s examined a r e as f o l l o w s . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  F r o n t o f book. P r i n t (not p i c t u r e ) . P o i n t s t o p l e f t a t 'I took . . .' ( S a n d ) ; 'I walked . . .' (Stones). Moves f i n g e r l e f t t o r i g h t on any l i n e . Moves f i n g e r from t h e r i g h t - h a n d end o f a h i g h e r l i n e t o t h e l e f t - h a n d end o f t h e next lower l i n e , or moves down the page. Word by word m a t c h i n g . Both c o n c e p t s must be c o r r e c t , but may be d e m o n s t r a t e d on the whole t e x t or on a l i n e , word or l e t t e r . V e r b a l e x p l a n a t i o n , or p o i n t i n g t o t o p o f page, or t u r n i n g t h e book a r o u n d and p o i n t i n g a p p r o p r i a t e l y . S c o r e f o r b e g i n n i n g w i t h 'The' and moving r i g h t t o l e f t a c r o s s t h e lower l i n e and t h e n the upper l i n e , OR, t u r n i n g t h e book a r o u n d and moving l e f t t o r i g h t i n t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l movement p a t t e r n . Any e x p l a n a t i o n which i m p l i e s t h a t l i n e o r d e r i s a l t e r e d . S a y s or shows t h a t a l e f t page p r e c e d e s a r i g h t p a g e . N o t i c e s a t l e a s t one change o f word o r d e r . N o t i c e s a t l e a s t one change i n l e t t e r o r d e r . N o t i c e s a t l e a s t one change i n l e t t e r o r d e r . Says ' Q u e s t i o n mark', or A q u e s t i o n ' , or 'Asks something'. Says ' F u l l s t o p ' , ' P e r i o d ' , or ' I t t e l l s you when you've s a i d enough' or ' I t ' s the end'. Says 'A l i t t l e s t o p ' , or 'A r e s t ' , or 'A comma'. Says ' T h a t ' s someone t a l k i n g ' , ' T a l k i n g ' , 'Speech marks', ' P r i n t ' (from computers). L o c a t e s two c a p i t a l and lower c a s e p a i r s . P o i n t s c o r r e c t l y t o b o t h was and no. L o c a t e s one l e t t e r and two l e t t e r s on r e q u e s t . L o c a t e s one word and two words on r e q u e s t . L o c a t e s b o t h a f i r s t and a l a s t l e t t e r . L o c a t e s one c a p i t a l l e t t e r . 1  87  4.1 READY TO READ SIGHT WORDS Children  are required  to read  t h e words b e l o w .  I Mother are here me shouted am with car children help not too meet away If necessary, c h i l d r e n are allowed before beginning to read the l i s t . counted i n s c o r i n g . 5.1 WRITING  t o p r a c t i s e one word T h a t word i s not  SAMPLE  Three samples of c h i l d r e n ' s s t o r i e s a r e c o l l e c t e d over t h r e e c o n s e c u t i v e weeks and a r e r a t e d u s i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g scoring conventions. LANGUAGE L E V E L : The number o f t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l o r g a n i z a t i o n used by t h e c h i l d i s r e c o r d e d : 1 Alphabetic ( l e t t e r s only) 2 Word (any r e c o g n i z a b l e word) 3 Word g r o u p (any two-word p h r a s e ) 4 S e n t e n c e (any s i m p l e s e n t e n c e ) 5 P u n c t u a t e d s t o r y ( o f two o r more s e n t e n c e s ) 6 P a r a g r a p h e d s t o r y (two themes)  of l i n g u i s t i c  MESSAGE QUALITY: The number below b e s t r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e c h i l d ' s sample i s r e c o r d e d . 1 He has a c o n c e p t o f s i g n s ( u s e s l e t t e r s , i n v e n t s l e t t e r s , uses p u n c t u a t i o n ) . 2 He has a c o n c e p t t h a t a message i s c o n v e y e d . 3 A message i s c o p i e d . 4 R e p e t i t i v e use o f s e n t e n c e p a t t e r n s l i k e "Here i s a . . . " 5 A t t e m p t s t o r e c o r d own i d e a s . 6 Successful composition.  88  DIRECTIONAL PRINCIPLES: The number o f the h i g h e s t r a t i n g f o r w h i c h t h e r e i s no e r r o r i n the sample o f the c h i l d ' s w r i t i n g is recorded. 1 No e v i d e n c e o f d i r e c t i o n a l knowledge. 2 P a r t o f the d i r e c t i o n a l p a t t e r n i s known: E i t h e r s t a r t top l e f t or move l e f t t o r i g h t or r e t u r n down l e f t . 3 R e v e r s a l o f the d i r e c t i o n a l p a t t e r n ( r i g h t t o l e f t and r e t u r n down r i g h t ) . 4 Correct d i r e c t i o n a l pattern. 5 C o r r e c t d i r e c t i o n a l p a t t e r n and s p a c e s between words. 6 E x t e n s i v e t e x t w i t h o u t any d i f f i c u l t i e s o f a r r a n g e m e n t and s p a c i n g of t e x t .  6.1  WRITING VOCABULARY C h i l d r e n a r e r e q u i r e d t o w r i t e a l l the words t h e y can f o r ten minutes. S e v e r a l p r o m p t i n g b e h a v i o r s can be used s u c h a s , "Do you know how t o w r i t e i s ? to? or I ? " ; "Do you know how t o w r i t e any c h i l d r e n ' s names?" Each word c o m p l e t e d a c c u r a t e l y i s marked c o r r e c t . Words w r i t t e n i n m i r r o r image a r e r e c o r d e d as c o r r e c t i f t h e y a r e i n c o r r e c t sequence.  7.1  DICTATION C h i l d r e n are slowly while  read a s t o r y . The s t o r y i s t h e n r e p e a t e d the c h i l d w r i t e s i t . The s t o r y used was,  I HAVE A BIG SCHOOL.  DOG  AT  HOME  Examiners are r e q u i r e d child's version. Each point. The s t o r y used I 1  h a v e 2 3 4  To 17 18  d a y 19 20  h i m 31 23  33  a 5  GOING TO  TAKE HIM  t o r e c o r d the t e x t below t h e sound (phoneme) i s r e c o r d e d as i s s c o r e d as f o l l o w s .  b i g 6 7 8 am 21 22  t o  TODAY I'M  d o g 9 10 23  11  a t 12 13  g o i n g 24 25 25 26  s c h o o l . 34 35 36 37  TO  one  h o m e , 14 15 16 t o 28  t a k e 29 30  89  APPENDIX B Questionnaire  Used to  Interview Principal Section  S.C. University  of  Caregivers  A  Abramson British  Columbia  Vancouver  PARENTAL INTERVIEW  Name o f  child:  Address:  School:  B.D.  Date of  Interview:  Age:  Total  years  Possible Score:  Section  A -  77  Section  B -  23  months  Most o f did  in  these questions w i l l the  two y e a r s o r so b e f o r e  w o u l d h e l p me a l o t and i f me.  you are not  All  be a b o u t t h i n g s  the  if  that  h e / s h e went t o  school.  It  y o u c o u l d answer as a c c u r a t e l y as you can  sure or c a n ' t  information  remember s o m e t h i n g , p l e a s e  y o u g i v e me w i l l  be t r e a t e d  tell  very  confidentially.  Q.l  Does  l i v e with  brothers  or  s i s t e r s or r e l a t i v e s  any  i n y o u r house? No Yes  If  yes:  Call  you t e l l  me t h e i r  s e x o r name and a g e s :  NAME  Q.2  (i)  AGE IN YEARS  Did Pre-school CODE  ever attend before No,  he/she started  a Daycare or  school?  neither  Yes,  Preschool  1,0*  Yes,  Daycare  1,0*  91 10 Q.l(ii)  F o r how many y e a r s Pre-school  and/or  did Daycare  CODE  school?  Preschool  Less  than 1 y e a r  Daycare  a  a  One y e a r  b  b  Two y e a r s  c  c  More t h a n two y e a r s  d  d  If (iii)  attend a  yes:  Can y o u t e l l IF  it  me how many d a y s a week h e / s h e  attended?  was d i f f e r e n t when h e / s h e was d i f f e r e n t  me a b o u t  ages,  tell  this.  CODE (or  Total  number  total  1/2  of  days)  Preschool  days per  week  Daycare  When h e / s h e was 1 When h e / s h e was 2 When h e / s h e was 3  1-5*  When h e / s h e was 4  1-5*  When h e / s h e was 5  Q.3  Young c h i l d r e n I'd  play with a l l  l i k e you to  used to  sorts  think about  play with,  home  (or  things  that  possibly  at  during  school.  On t h e c a r d y o u c a n s e e d i f f e r e n t  question  about  or  how much c e r t a i n  so b e f o r e  toys  As I r e a d o u t my l i s t  answer you t h i n k  On c a r d t o  two y e a r s  toys  Daycare)  played with.  the  at  the  of  is  the  right  be h a n d e d t o Nearly every  mother: day  as I c a n  answers  t o my  me  t h a n o n c e a month as f a r  started  please t e l l  one.  remember  or  he/she  were  A b o u t o n c e a month  Never,  Preschool  and games  A b o u t o n c e a week  Less  and games.  the  92  Read l i s t  and c i r c l e  How much d i d i)  ii)  iii)  iv)  v)  responses: Mearly ev.day  he/she:-  Play with building l i k e Lego?  Once week  Once mth.  Less once mth.  Never  toys 4  3  2  1  0  4  3  2  ]  0  Draw w i t h p e n c i l s , c h a l k s , crayons or f e l t pens?  4  3  2  1  0  Play with a bike tricycle?  4  3  2  ]  0  4  3  2  1  0  4  3  2  Play with soft teddy?  toys  like  or  Make t h i n g s f r o m s c r a p m a t e r i a l s , wood, c a r d ,  etc.  0  Look a t  vi i)  P l a y w i t h t o y s t h a t make a n o i s e l i k e humming t o p s , drums?  4  3  2  0  Write or pretend to w r i t e with pencils, crayons, f e l t pens o r c h a l k ?  4  3  2  0  P l a y w i t h toy trains?  4  3  2  4  3  2  4  3  2  4  3  2  4  3  2  4  3  2  1  0  P l a y w i t h toy s o l d i e r s or toy animals?  4  3  2  1  0  xvi)  Tell  4  3  2  1  0  xvii)  Play with other children o u t s i d e w i t h no a d u l t organizing play?  4  3  2  1  0  ix)  comics?  !  vi)  vi i i)  cars  Look a t  xi)  Do j i g - s a w s o r of puzzles?  other  xi i)  P l a y on s w i n g s  or a  xi i i)  P l a y games l i k e ' s n a k e s l a d d e r s ' or others like this?  XV)  Listen read?  books?  to  stories  1- 4 *  1- 4 *  or  x)  xiv)  1- 4 *  1  !  0 0  1- 4 *  kinds  slide?  1  !  0 0  and 0  being  stories?  1- 4 *  1- 4 *  PROBE 1 (iii)  Drawing Can y o u t e l l  me a n y t h i n g  h e / s h e used t o  draw a  lot?  94  PROBE 2  (a)  L i s t e n to  Can y o u t e l l  stories  me who u s e d t o  CODE ( e v e r y t h i n g  read to  him/her?  applicable) mother father brother/si ster  (Prompt Anyone  (b)  if  other(s)  necessary)  specify  else)  Did he/she l i k e  being read  to?  Yes No  (c)  was  When i)  d i d he l i s t e n  did the  adult  (a)  Story  Can y o u t e l l  in  reading  activity?  r e a d i n g ask q u e s t i o n s a b o u t  h e / s h e was r e a d i n g  PROBE 3  the  to  me who u s e d t o  tell  him/her  stories?  applicable)  father brother/si ster if  necessary)  other(s)  Anyone e l s e )  (b)  Were t h e r e  any s t o r i e s  while  1-0*  mother  (Prompt  story  ?  telling  CODE ( e v e r y t h i n g  book,  quietly?  d i d he p a r t i c i p a t e ii)  being read a f a v o r i t e  specify  t h a t were t o l d  regularly?  95  Q.4  Can y o u t e l l had b e f o r e  me w h i c h  of  these  h e / s h e went t o  things  school?  Check Tricycle Teddy  or  bicycle  bear  Blackboard  1,0*  B u c k e t and s h o v e l Books  1,0*  Crayons, If  pencils  books c h e c k e d ,  or  felt  pens  1,0*  ask:  A b o u t how many b o o k s d i d  have a s h i s / h e r More than  20  5-20 Less than  Q.5  Young c h i l d r e n  ask t h e i r  Sometimes they  ask q u e s t i o n s  for of  help with things these things  before,  about  these kinds  of  they  parents  many d i f f e r e n t  about  things.  are doing.  and I w a n t y o u t o  5  Sometimes they  I am g o i n g  tell  things.  to mention  On c a r d t o be h a n d e d t o  a  few  me, f r o m t h e c a r d we u s e d  how o f t e n questions.  ask  asked If  you c a n ' t  remember,  please t e l l  mother: Nearly every  day  A b o u t o n c e a week About once a  month  Less than once a Never,  as f a r  month  as I can  remember  me.  own?  96  Read l i s t  and c i r c l e  How much d i d  (i)  (ii)  (iii)  (iv)  responses:  he/she:-  How t h i n g s 1 i k e c a r , worked?  Once mth.  4  3  2  ]  0  or 4  3  2  ]  0  F o r h e l p w i t h games puzzles?  or 4  3  2  be  4  3  2  4  3  2  !  0  4  3  2  !  0  1  0  1  0  1  You t o  fix  broken  (vi)  What w o r d s  meant?  (vii)  You t o d r a w t h i n g s o r messages f o r h i m / h e r ?  4  • 3  2  How t o w r i t e  4  3  2  Q 5  following Probe 1  (ii)  on b o x e s o r  for  responses in  Words on b o x / i n me a b o u t in  (viii)  Can y o u t e l l write  0  the  3/4  cells  0  1  ]  t o any  of the  questions:  Can y o u t e l l  Probe 2  toys?  words?  Probe as f o l l o w s  words?  1  read  (v)  (viii)  Never  Once week  T.V.,  What w o r d s on b o x e s i n books were?  For s t o r i e s to to him/her?  Less once mth.  Nearly ev.day  books  any o c c a s i o n s when h e / s h e a s k e d a b o u t  words  books?  Write  words  me a b o u t a n y o c c a s i o n s when h e / s h e a s k e d how  to  1  97  Q.6  Can y o u t e l l of  me i f  had been t o  these places before  he/she started  any  school?  A swimming p o o l  Yes No  The m o v i e s  Yes No  A library  at  or a public  the  preschool  library?  Yes  1-0*  No  A zoo  Yes No  If  (ii)  yes to  library,  When h e / s h e w e n t t o  ask:  a library  CODE  who w e r e b o o k s For c h i l d Other  for?  him/herself?  child(ren)  Father (Prompt,  if  necessary  Mother  Anyone e l s e ? )  (iii)  If  (a)  - books borrowed  How o f t e n was CODE  Other  for  child  (specify)  ask: taken  More t h a n  to  a  library?  o n c e a week  4*  A b o u t o n c e a week  3*  E v e r y 2 - 3 weeks  2*  L e s s than e v e y r 2 - 3 weeks  1*  C a n n o t remember  0*  98  Q.7  I would  l i k e you to  c o u l d do b e f o r e  tell  me w h i c h  he/she started  of  these  things  school:  Could he/she:  CHECK YES  (i)  Zipper  (ii)  Recognize h i s / h e r  (iii)  Ride a bike?  (iv)  Write  (v)  Read any w o r d s  (vi)  Tell  (vi i )  C o u n t up t o  (viii)  Write  (ix)  S w i n g by h i m s e l f / h e r s e l f ?  (x)  Tell  (xi)  Write  If  yes to  questions  his/her  his/her  you the  own j a c k e t ? own name i f  (except  names o f  was p r i n t e d ?  1,0*  1,0* own name)?  any l e t t e r s  1,0* like  a,b,c?  1,0*  ten?  or  f r o m own name?  recite  a message t o  (ii),  it  own name?  any words a p a r t  a story  .  (iv),  5 nursery  1,0*  rhymes?  1,0*  someone?  (v),  (vi),  1,0*  (viii),  or  (x),  ask the  appropriate  below:  How do y o u t h i n k  learned  self  parent  Taught by: s i b l i n g other speci fy  1  3  3  3  1  3  3  3  Read some w o r d s ?  1  3  3  3  Write  1  3  3  3  To r e c o g n i z e h i s / h e r To w r i t e  his/her  own name?  own name?  some w o r d s ?  Some l e t t e r s o f t h e a l p h a b e t ? T e l l s t o r i e s or r e c i t e 5 n u r s e r y rhymes  1  3  3  3  1  3  3  3  To w r i t e a m e s s a g e t o  1  3  3  3  someone?  99  Q.8  Is  there  before  anything  else  he/she started  used to school  that you think  I w o u l d be  do interested  in?  Q.9  What do y o u c o n s i d e r a s a s u c c e s s f u l e d u c a t i o n l e v e l  for  your  child? completion of  grade 7  a  completion of  g r a d e 12  b  completion of  further  Other  Thank y o u f o r y o u r  help.  training  following  high school?  c  100  SECTION B Total  Child's  Name:  Child's  Sex: M  Birthdate: Language(s) (in  Older c h i l d r e n  DIRECTIONS:  1.  P o s s i b l e S c o r e 23  order  of  of  the  Home:  frequency  (1)  of  use)  (2)  (age a n d s e x ) :  PLEASE RESPOND TO EACH ITEM BY PLACING A CHECK ( ON APPROPRIATE L I N E OR L I N E S .  Approximately Adult  how many b o o k s do y o u h a v e i n y o u r  Books  ) MARK  home?  0 - 2 3 - 1 0 1 1 - 2 5 26 -  50  o v e r 50 Children's  Books  0 - 2 3 -  10  11 - 25 26 - 50 over 2.  Approximately  how many m a g a z i n e s a r e p u r c h a s e d o r  on a m o n t h l y b a s i s i n y o u r Adult  50  magazines  subscribed  home? 0 1 2 3 over  C h i l d r e n ' s magazines  3  0  0*  1  1*  2  2*  3  3*  over 3  4*  to  101  Which o f  the  following  reference-type  b o o k s a r e i n y o u r home?  Dictionary Atlas Encyclopedia "How T o " B o o k s ( c o o k b o o k s , home r e p a i r ,  etc.)  W h i c h b e s t d e s c r i b e s how o f t e n y o u r c h i l d m i g h t s e e reference-type  books (see p r e v i o u s q u e s t i o n )  b e i n g used i n  your  home? Never Rarely Sometimes Often Daily Please indicate  how o f t e n y o u r c h i l d o b s e r v e h i s / h e r  r e d i n g on a w e e k l y  parents  basis.  Never 1 -  2 times  3 - 4  times  5 - 6  times  Daily Please indicate weekly  how o f t e n y o u r c h i l d  i s read t o ,  at  home, on a  basis.  Never  0*  1 -  2 times  1*  3 - 4  times  2*  5 - 6  times  3*  Daily  4*  A t w h a t age d i d y o u b e g i n r e a d i n g t o y o u r  child?  4+ y e a r s  0*  3 - 4  years  1*  2 - 3  years  2*  1 - 2 years  3*  0 -1 y e a r  4*  102  9.  Does y o u r c h i l d t r y  to  read?  YES  NO  If you checked y e s , p l e a s e respond to the next statement. Check the statement or statements which d e s c r i b e your c h i l d ' s attempts to read. Pretends to read storybooks R e c o g n i z e s a few words i n books Reads s i g n s , l a b e l s , e t c . ( c e r e a l l a b e l s , s u p e r m a r k e t names e t c . )  box  Reads h i s / h e r own s t o r y b o o k s  10.  Does y o u r c h i l d  1,0*  r e c e i v e books as g i f t s  for  holidays or  birthdays?  Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always  11.  Which o f the u s e d by y o u r  following child?  Typewriter Paper or  types of m a t e r i a l s  or computer  pencils  (play  real)  home and  1,0*  (something to w r i t e w i t h )  B l a c k b o a r d and c h a l k  (feltboard)  C o l o u r i n g book and c r a y o n s o r to colour with 12.  or  are in your  How o f t e n d o e s y o u r c h i l d weekly b a s i s ?  something  observe h i s / h e r  p a r e n t s w r i t i n g on a  Never 1 -  2 times  5 - 6  times  Daily  13.  Does y o u r  child  try  to  print,  write and/or  draw?  If you checked y e s p l e a s e respond to the next the i t e m w h i c h b e s t d e s c r i b e d what y o u r c h i l d  statement. does.  T e l l s a s t o r y about a p i c t u r e he/she drew, p a i n t e d or c o l o u r e d S c r i b b l e s i n t r y i n g to w r i t e a message W r i t e s l e t t e r s t h a t mean s o m e t h i n g t o h i m / h e r P u t s l e t t e r s t o g e t h e r t o make w o r d s a n d / o r tries  t o w r i t e messages  YES  NO Check  1* 1* _1* 1*  103  14.  Which o f the s e e n by y o u r  following child?  Letters of  types of  the a l p h a b e t  Manipulative letters  (wallpaper  (magnetic  System o f mesages ( b u l l e t i n r e f r i g e r a t o r door) Lists 15.  print  (shopping, words,  in your  home a r e a b l e t o  be  or c h a r t s )  letters  or blocks)  board,  etc.)  What t y p e s o f w r i t i n g do y o u do t h a t y o u c h i l d do?  i s a b l e to ^ e e you  Paying b i l l s , record keeping, e t c . Making l i s t s , w r i t i n g r e c i p e s , e t c . K e e p i n g a d i a r y , w r i t i n g s t o r i e s , poems, e t c . Writing l e t t e r s , messages, e t c . 16.  How f r e q u e n t l y do y o u o r a n o t h e r member o f y o u r w r i t e / p r i n t w i t h y o u r c h i l d on a w e e k l y b a s i s ?  family  Never  0*  1 -  2 times  1*  3 - 4  times  2*  5 - 6  times  3*  Daily  4*  17.  On a v e r a g e , how many h o u r s a day d o e s y o u r i s read t o , or w r i t e s / d r a w s , c o l o u r s ?  c h i l d look  18.  On a v e r a g e , how many h o u r s a day d o e s y o u r c h i l d games?  19.  On a v e r a g e , how many h o u r s a day d o e s y o u r c h i l d w a t c h a n d p l a y v i d e o / c o m p u t e r games?  play  a t books  or  quiet  television  T.V. V i d e o / C o m p u t e r Games  20.  On a v e r a g e , how many h o u r s a day d o e s y o u r c h i l d p l a y a c t i v e l y ( t h i n g s o t h e r t h a n q u i e t o r v i d e o games l i k e s p o r t s , t a g , j u m p i n g rope, etc.)?  THANK YOU FOR YOUR P A R T I C I P A T I O N .  104  APPENDIX C Raw S c o r e s from S u b t e s t s o f t h e D i a g n o s t i c S u r v e y , Index of P a r e n t a l P r o v i s i o n f o r L i t e r a c y A c t i v i t i e s and T o t a l S c h o o l Absence Codes f o r I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f  the  Scores  Raw S c o r e s f o r each S u b j e c t on s u b t e s t s of t h e D i a g n o s t i c S u r v e y a t k i n d e r g a r t e n and g r a d e one, as w e l l as the t o t a l s c h o o l a b s e n c e and i n d e x of p a r e n t a l s u p p o r t f o r p r e s c h o o l l i t e r a c y a c t i v i t i e s are d i s p l a y e d i n Table I. Each c a t e g o r y w i l l have an a b b r e v i a t e d code as f o l l o w s :  number and  age  of study.  SUB:  Subject  at b e g i n n i n g  TPOS:  Total  LIDK:  Letter  Identification,  kindergarten.  LID1:  Letter  Identification,  grade  CAPK:  C o n c e p t s about  Print,  kindergarten.  CAP1 :  C o n c e p t s about  Print,  grade  SWK :  Ready t o Read S i g h t Words,  SW1:  Ready t o Read S i g h t Words, g r a d e  WVK:  Writing Vocabulary,  kindergarten.  WV1:  Writing Vocabulary,  grade  DIC1:  Dictation,  TSA:  Total  School  IPAR:  Index  of P a r e n t a l S u p p o r t  TSSI :  Total  score  possible score.  grade  one. kindergarten • one.  one.  one.  Absence Sept. on  one.  (K) for  to  Mar. 1  (grade  1)  Literacy Activities.  D i a g n o s t i c Survey,  g r a d e 1.  105  3.1  Raw  Scores  TPOS 54  SUB. L I D K  54  24  24  15  15  LIDI  CAPK  CAPI  SWK  SWI  WVK  WVI  37  100  DICI TSA  IPAR  TSSI  01  46  52  8  17  1  4  1  10  11  52.5  83  94  02  35  52  9  17  1  6  4  24  27  18  75  126  03  23  48  9  13  0  10  5  37  15  30.5  47  123  04  1  34  3  14  0  2  0  5  5  59 .5  34  60  05  45  53  15  19  2  12  12  18  27  55.5  72  129  06  21  49  4  9  0  1  0  2  12  14  47  73  07  50  53  13  16  4  12  3  37  33  14  49  151  08  53  54  13  24  0  13  6  54  35  8  78  180  09  7  15  4  9  0  0  1  1  0  22  56  25  10  53  54  19  24  13  15  29  56  37  24  85  186  11  52  53  14  18  3  15  11  29  37  12.5  69  152  12  39  52  10  17  1  10  6  ;31  33  30  81  143  13  5  2  7  21 .5  40  11  8  0  0  0  1  0  106  APPENDIX Value  SUBTEST  LIDK  CAPK  VALUE  SWK  and Frequency o f S c o r e s D i a g n o s t i c Survey  FREQUENCY  1  1  5 7 21 23 35 39 45 46 50 52 53  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2  3  1 2  4 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 19  0 1 2 3 4  13  D:  SUBTEST  LID1  CAPl  1 1  2 1  2 1 1 1  6  3 1 1 1 1  SW1  from  VALUE  FREQUENCY  2 15 34 48 49 52 53 54  1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2  8  1  9 13 14 16 17 18 19 24  2 1 1 1 3 1 1 2  0 1 2  2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2  4 6  10 12 13 15  107  SUBTEST  WVK  DIC1  VALUE  0 1 3 4 5 6 11 12 29  0 5 11 12 15 27 33 35 37  FREQUENCY  3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1  2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2  SUBTEST  WV1  VALUE  1 2 5 10 18 24 29 31 37 54 56  FREQUENCY  2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1  108 APPENDIX F Summary o f I n f o r m a t i o n from P a r e n t I n t e r v i e w Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  Obtained  Mater I a Is Sub. P r o v i d e d A c t i v i t i e s Observed  M  B  DM TC  L LB  N  WN  01  X  X  X  X X X X  02  -  X  X  X X X  03  -  X X  -  04  -  X X  -  05  X  X  X  X  X  X  06  -  X X  -  X  -  X  07  -  X X  -  08  -  X X X  09  -  X  X X X X X X  12 13  X  X X X  10 II  X  -  X  X  R  Activities Participated  NR WM  B  S  NS  VL  RL  X 12  X X X + X X + X  X  X 12+  X  X 12+  X  X  X 12+  X  X 12+  -  X  -  X  -  X  -  X X X X  X  -  X  -  -  -  -  X  X  X  X+  X  -  X  X  -  -  -  X  X+  X  X+  X  X  X X X X  -  -  X  X+  X  X+  X  X X X X  X  -  X  X+  X  X+  X  X  X  X  X+  X  -  X X X X X X X X X X X X X X  X  P E  X  -  X  WMP  X X X X + X X + X -  X  Extra  X  X NR X  X 12+  X  X  X 12+  X  X  X  X 12+  X X X X + X X + X  X  X  X 12+  X  X  X 12+  X  X  X 12+  X  X+  X  X+  X  X X X X + X X + X+  X  X  X 12+  X+ = more than one a d u l t p a r t i c i p a t i n g In a c t i v i t y .  M a t e r i a l s P r o v i d e d In t h e Home  Activities  C h i l d r e n ' s magazine s u b s c r i p t i o n s - M Books - B Drawing M a t e r i a l s , c r a y o n s , c h a l k , b l a c k b o a r d - DM T y p e w r i t e r , Computer - TC  Participated  A c t i v i t i e s Observed by P r i n c i p a l  Caregiver  Look a t Books - LB Recognizing L e t t e r s o f alphabet - L R e c o g n i z i n g name In p r i n t - N W r i t i n g name - WN Reading on own - R R e c i t i n g n u r s e r y rhymes - NR W r i t i n g messages t o someone - WM  In which C h i l d & C a r e g i v e r  BookreadIng - B StorytelIIng - S N a t i v e S t o r y t e l I I n g - NS V i s i t s t o L i b r a r y - VL Reading l a b e l s on boxes, e t c . - RL W r i t i n g messages - WMP Extra P r e s c h o o l (daycare) a t t e n d a n c e - P Educational a s p i r a t i o n s - E  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 6 2
Russia 4 0
China 4 4
Canada 2 0
India 1 0
France 1 0
Germany 1 12
City Views Downloads
Ashburn 5 0
Saint Petersburg 4 0
Shenzhen 3 4
Unknown 2 16
Vancouver 1 0
Surrey 1 0
Sunnyvale 1 0
Mumbai 1 0
Beijing 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078284/manifest

Comment

Related Items