Measuring Situated Literacy Activity

Abstract

This report presents the results of the development of a methodological approach to provide empirical evidence that family literacy programs "work." The assessment techniques were developed within the action research project Literacy for Life (LFL) that the authors designed and delivered for 12 months, working collaboratively with three different cohorts of immigrant and refugee families in western Canada. The goal was to develop valid and reliable measures and analyses to measure the impact on literacy skill and knowledge in a particular version of a literacy program that incorporated real-world literacy activities into instruction for lowEnglish-literate adults and their prekindergarten children, ages 3 to 5. The authors offer this approach to assessment as a promising way to measure the impact of socially situated literacy activity that requires taking the social context of literacy activity into account. They offer this work not as the answer to the challenge of documenting the value of working with families and literacy, but as one way to think about focusing curriculum and assessment within programs that validate the real lives of the participants and build bridges between those lives and literacy work within family literacy programming.

Literasi Baca Tulis Dan Inovasi Kurikulum Bahasa

“…Kurikulum literasi sering diterapkan di sekolah untuk mewujudkan konstruk literasi antitesis sebagai keterampilan "otonom" (Purcell-Gates et al, 2012). Maksudnya, literasi diasumsikan sebagai satu set keterampilan yang netral, dekontekstual yang dapat diterapkan secara universal (Street, 2003).…”

The Entoptic Field Camera as Metaphor-Driven Research-through-Design with AI Technologies

“…that technologies shape the 'legibility' of the world, this method draws on how people develop specific literacies [5] through engagement within situated, socio-cultural settings. The importance of such "real-life literacies" [87] are key with regards to AI technologies, where AI literacy is an ongoing topic of importance in democratic citizenship and education. AI literacy is usually meant as declarative knowledge and competencies of end-users (see e.g.…”

Examining Differential Effects of a Family Literacy Program on Language and Literacy Growth of English Language Learners With Varying Vocabularies

“…FLPs are grounded in the assumption that parents play an integral role in their children’s academic achievement and that children’s homes are a key context for supporting literacy and language development (Edwards & Turner, 2009). Although FLPs vary widely in program goals and features (e.g., parent training focused on school-based goals vs. authentic, home-based literacy events), learning contexts (home vs. at school), and family demographics (e.g., SES and language background), evidence documents positive effects of FLPs on parent/child home literacy practices (Brooks, Gorman, Harman, Hutchison, & Wilkin, 1996; Neuman & Gallagher, 1994; Paratore, 1993; Purcell-Gates et al, 2012; Rodríguez-Brown, 2004; Zhang, Pelletier, & Doyle, 2010). Moreover, evidence consistently demonstrates positive effects on children’s literacy outcomes (Anderson, Purcell-Gates, Jang, & Gagné, 2010; Brooks et al, 1996; Glynn, 1996; Hirst, Hannon, & Nutbrown, 2010; Jordan, Snow, & Porche, 2000; Páez, Bock, & Pizzo, 2011; Paratore et al, 2011; Rodríguez-Brown, 2004; Sénéchal & Young, 2008; van Steensel et al, 2011) and language outcomes (Anderson et al, 2010; Brooks et al, 1996; Jordan et al, 2000; Neuman & Gallagher, 1994; Páez et al, 2011; Paratore et al, 2011; Rodríguez-Brown, 2004; van Steensel et al, 2011; Zhang et al, 2010).…”

“…Those included in this analysis served participants from low-SES, immigrant families with limited oral English proficiency. For example, Purcell-Gates and her colleagues (Anderson et al, 2010; Purcell-Gates et al, 2012), examined effects of Literacy for Life (LFL) on 14 preschoolers’ literacy and language growth. Children were from families representing nine countries of origin and displayed a range of L2 proficiency (ranging from little to no receptive English, first languages were not reported).…”