Learning to be literate : parental empowerment in early literacy interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable research has focused on the success of early intervention programs for \nchildren. However, minimal research has focused on the effect these programs have on \nthe parents of targeted children. Many current early intervention programs champion \nfamily-focused and inclusive programming, but few have evaluated parent participation \nin early interventions and fewer still have evaluated the impact of these programs on \nbeliefs and attitudes and parenting practices. Since parents will continue to play a key \nrole in their child's developmental course long after early intervention programs end, it is \nvital to examine whether these programs empower parents to take action to make changes \nin the lives of their children. \nThe goal of this study was to understand parental influences on the early development \nof literacy, and in particular how parental attitudes, beliefs and self efficacy impact parent \nand child engagement in early literacy intervention activities. \nA mixed method procedure using quantitative and qualitative strategies was \nemployed. A quasi-experimental research design was used. The research sample, sixty \nparents who were part of naturally occurring community interventions in at- risk \nneighbourhoods in a south-western Ontario city participated in the quantitative phase. \nLargely individuals whose home language was other than English, these participants were \ndivided amongst three early literacy intervention groups, a Prescriptive Interventionist \ntype group, a Participatory Empowering type group and a drop-in parent- child \nneighbourhood Control group. \nMeasures completed pre and post a six session literacy intervention, on all three literacy and evidence of change in parental empowerment. Parents in all three groups, on \naverage, held beliefs about early literacy that were positive and that were compatible with \ncurrent approaches to language development and emergent literacy. No significant \nchange in early literacy beliefs and attitudes for pre to post intervention was found. \nSimilarly, there was no significant difference between groups on empowerment scores, \nbut there was a significant change post intervention in one group's empowerment score. \nThere was a drop in the empowerment score for the Prescriptive Interventionist type \ngroup, suggesting a drop in empowerment level. \nThe qualitative aspect of this study involved six in-depth interviews completed with a \nsub-set of the sixty research participants. Four similar themes emerged across the groups: \nlearning takes place across time and place; participation is key; success is achieved by \ntaking small steps; and learning occurs in multiple ways. \nThe research findings have important implications for practitioners and policy makers \nwho target at risk populations with early intervention programming and wish to sustain \nparental empowerment. Study results show the value parents place on early learning and \npoint to the importance of including parents in the development and delivery of early \nintervention programs. \ngroups, were analyzed for evidence of change in parental attitudes and beliefs about early literacy and evidence of change in parental empowerment. Parents in all three groups, on \naverage, held beliefs about early literacy that were positive and that were compatible with \ncurrent approaches to language development and emergent literacy. No significant \nchange in early literacy beliefs and attitudes for pre to post intervention was found. \nSimilarly, there was no significant difference between groups on empowerment scores, \nbut there was a significant change post intervention in one group's empowerment score. \nThere was a drop in the empowerment score for the Prescriptive Interventionist type \ngroup, suggesting a drop in empowerment level. \nThe qualitative aspect of this study involved six in-depth interviews completed with a \nsub-set of the sixty research participants. Four similar themes emerged across the groups: \nlearning takes place across time and place; participation is key; success is achieved by \ntaking small steps; and learning occurs in multiple ways. \nThe research findings have important implications for practitioners and policy makers \nwho target at risk populations with early intervention programming and wish to sustain \nparental empowerment. Study results show the value parents place on early learning and \npoint to the importance of including parents in the development and delivery of early \nintervention programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".