402 the family backpack project: responding to dual ... · the family backpack project: responding...

Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 6, July 2013

Deborah Rowe and Jeanne Gilliam Fain

The Family Backpack Project:Responding to Dual-Language Texts

through Family Journals

In this article, we describe parent and child responses to a home book reading program aimed at providing prekindergarten students and their families access to dual language books and audio recordings in English and their home language. Our curricular decisions were grounded in social and cultural perspectives on literacy (Barton & Hamil-ton, 2000; Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993; Gee, 2003; Street, 1995) that highlight the cultural basis for reading and writing. Working from these per-spectives, we assumed that families’ interactions with their children around books would necessar-ily involve culturally based interactions, values, and beliefs. We viewed these family literacy practices as foundational for initiating preschoolers into literacy.

family–School Partnerships through home Book Reading ProgramsResearch shows that family–school partnerships have a positive impact on student learning (Bull, Brooking, & Campbell, 2008), and one of the most common ways preschool parents have been encour-aged to get involved at home is by reading to their child (Rodríguez-Brown, 2011). Some family–school reading programs have used a family train-ing approach to teach caregivers to use school-based read-aloud and discussion strategies at home (e.g., Jordan, Snow, & Porche, 2000; Mol, Bus, DeJong, & Smeets, 2008; Richgels & Wold, 1998). Though these studies show positive results when work-ing with middle class parents, other researchers working with culturally and linguistically diverse families have highlighted cultural conflicts that can occur when programs strive to teach families to mirror school-based reading and response styles

Read to your baby every day starting at six months of age. . . . Reading to your baby is one of the best ways to help her learn. (US Dept. of Education, Office of Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs, 2003)

Read aloud to your child every day and continue after your child learns to read. (International Reading Association, 2008)

If US educators were asked to provide a “Top 10 List” of recommendations to help parents support their preschooler’s learning and school

readiness, we expect that “Read to your child!” would be near the top. Storybook reading is one of the most widely recommended ways to help young children learn about literacy. Recommendations like those opening this article are featured prominently in materials produced for parents by both govern-mental agencies and professional organizations.

There is a strong foundation of research show-ing that reading aloud to children is positively related to language, vocabulary learning, and con-ceptual development for both first- and second-language learners, especially when adults also talk with children about what they are reading (e.g., Collins, 2005; Fletcher, Cross, Tanney, Schneider, & Finch, 2008; Sénéchal, Pagan, & Lever, 2008; Mol & Bus, 2011). Research also demonstrates that access to books in school and public libraries is an important predictor of students’ reading scores on the Nation’s report card (NAEP) (McQuillan, 1998; Krashen 2004). Students with greater access scored higher. However, access to appropriate children’s books can be a problem for some families when cost is a factor (Neuman, 2001) and especially when children’s home languages and cultures differ from that of school (Janes & Kermani, 2001).

July2013_LA.indd 402 6/5/13 8:51 AM

selson

Text Box

Copyright © 2013 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved.

deborah Rowe and Jeanne gilliam fain | Responding to Dual-Language Texts through Family Journals


language supports their learning of English (Wiley & deKlerk, 2010), and specifically that reading books at home in the child’s primary language can support learning of vocabulary and concepts when the books are later read aloud in English at school (Roberts, 2008). To this end, we invited families to read books in their primary language or Eng-lish and to respond through art and writing in a reader response journal (Fain & Horn, 2006). The invitation was left open-ended to allow families to respond in ways that reflected their own styles of interacting around books. Family response journals were one way to connect school language and lit-eracy practices to family interests and experiences. Teachers used family journals as a way of learning about children and their families.

Program Context, Sites, and Participants

The Family Backpack Project was developed as part of the Enhanced Language and Literacy Success (ELLS) program (Rowe & Dickinson, 2008)—a comprehensive language and literacy program funded by an Early Read-ing First grant from the US Department of Educa-tion. Classroom teachers implemented six theme-based units incorporat-ing storybook reading, play-based exploration, and literacy activities that were part of the Opening the World of Learning (OWL) curriculum (Schicke-danz & Dickinson, 2005). In addition, the ELLS program provided supports for emergent writing and English learners.

Supports for writing involved creating well-provisioned writing centers that were resupplied with paper, envelopes, markers, and other writing tools as needed. Coaches worked with teachers to create an inviting and well-organized writing area where children could access writing materi-als on open shelves. Teachers were provided with professional development and coaching related to implementing large-group interactive writing

(Compton-Lilly, 2009). They argue that family–school partnerships should respect and encourage home literacy practices, rather than attempt to teach families literacy practices specific to US schooling (Janes & Kermani, 2001).

A “funds of Knowledge” Approach to Supporting family Book Reading

Given the diverse language and cultural back-grounds of the children with whom we work, we in the Family Backpack Project adopted a “funds of knowledge” approach aimed at tapping families’ existing literacy practices as resources for bridging the gap between home and school (Compton-Lilly, Rogers, & Lewis, 2012; Moll, Saez, & Dworin, 2001.) The goal of a funds of knowledge approach is to alter views of working class or poor commu-nities by taking advantage of their strengths and resources (or funds of knowledge) (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2009).

A funds of knowledge perspective assumes that all children live in families where members are competent and have valuable knowledge formed through their life experiences (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2009). Teachers adopting a funds of knowledge perspective intentionally design ways to learn about students, their families, and their com-munities (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2009). Teach-ers may interview family members, make home vis-its, and invite children to write and talk about home experiences as part of school activities. In the Fam-ily Backpack Project, we anticipated that families would use their funds of knowledge as resources for engaging their children with stories and informa-tion books, and we expected family book responses to vary and to reflect the common goal of helping their children understand books in relation to famil-iar family and community activities.

With these ideas in mind, the Family Back-pack Project sent home books to support family book reading. When children spoke languages other than English at home, books were translated to create dual language books with the child’s home language as well as English. Research has consis-tently shown that development of children’s home

Responding to Dual-Language Texts through Family Journals

The goal of a funds of

knowledge approach is to

alter views of working class or

poor communities by taking

advantage of their strengths

and resources.

July2013_LA.indd 403 6/5/13 8:51 AM



and authentic writing as part of play-based learn-ing centers (e.g., blocks, art, and dramatic play). Program supports for English learners were designed to value and build connections to chil-dren’s home languages and cultures. Classroom libraries were supplemented with books reflecting the diverse experiences of students enrolled in the ELLS classrooms. Teachers worked with families and community members to include culturally rel-evant content and environmental print in both lan-guages spoken by the children. Additionally, teach-ers participated in professional development about best practices for English learners, such as using multisensory materials to introduce key words needed to comprehend texts.

Our goal in the Family Backpack Project was to provide opportunities for ELLS students and their families to read, talk about, and respond to books at home, in English and/or their primary lan-

guages. This article reports our initial experiences with the Family Backpack Project in 13 urban, pre-kindergarten classrooms at a public school serving low-income children. All 249 children enrolled in these classrooms participated in the Family Back-pack Project. Of the participants, 48% were African American, 35% were Latino, 8% were Middle East-ern, 7% European American, and 1% were African. All of the children identified as Latino, Middle Eastern, or African were English learners speaking Spanish, Arabic, Kurdish, or Somali at home.

Curricular Structures and materials

Working from research on family book reading, second-language learning, and emergent literacy, we identified nine guiding principles for designing the Family Backpack Project. As seen in Table 1, these principles shaped curricular structures and materials.

NoW ACT!

Selecting Books for Young Multilingual Learners and Their Families

Read the book several times, considering the following book-selection criteria:

• AudienceInterests:Thinkaboutyourstudentsandtheirfamilies.Selectbooksthatrelatetoandextend

children’s and families’ experiences. Consider the potential for family discussion.

• AudienceInvolvement:Selectbookswithvariedformatsthatengagefamilieswiththetext’slanguage.Include

predictable and rhythmic books that encourage shared reading and/or movement and gestures that match

the text.

• InternationalandGlobalPointofView:n Select books from established sources that have thoroughly reviewed international, global, and dual-

language texts. (See “For Inquisitive Minds” sidebar on p. 413 for suggestions.)n Reflect on the representation of characters. The depiction should honor multiple voices and ethnicities.

• Language:n Choose stories that possess imaginative and vivid language in the child’s home language and in English. n Check with a parent or community member regarding his/her perspective on the language used in the book

and for input on the translation.n Avoid books that are literally translated. Choose books that emphasize meaning in the translation.

• Illustrations:Choosebookswithvibrantillustrationsusingvariedillustrationtechniques.

• Length:Thinkaboutthestory’space.Judgewhetherthebookcanbecompletedinonesitting.

• OldFavorites&NewerBookSelections:Includefamiliarbooksthatchildrenhavereadatschoolsotheytake

the lead in family book reading. Select new titles to pique their interests.

July2013_LA.indd 404 6/5/13 8:51 AM



LogisticsFamily Backpacks were designed to complement the themed OWL units focusing on: a) wind and water, b) color, and c) shadows and reflections. As described in the following section, backpacks included two books—an OWL book and a supple-mentary book. (See Appendix A for a list of back-pack books). When the primary home language was English, families received books in English. For families speaking Arabic, Kurdish, Somali, or Span-ish at home, the books were translated to the child’s primary language, creating dual-language books with the original English texts and written transla-tions in the child’s primary language. Backpacks also included CD recordings of the book in English and, for English learners, in both English and the child’s primary language. Other materials included in each backpack were a CD player, a blank fam-ily response journal, pencil/pen, a translated parent invitation regarding the Family Backpack Project, and an inventory list to assist families in keeping track of the materials. Throughout the project, fami-lies received communications translated into their family’s primary language if a language other than English was spoken at home.

Before sending backpacks home, parents were introduced to the materials at a family meeting hosted at the child’s school. Families were invited to read, listen to, and discuss the books with their child and to respond in any way they desired in the blank journal. During these meetings, parents were shown several examples of family journal responses produced by multilingual families in another project (Rowe & Dickinson, 2008). These examples con-tained child and family drawings as well as writing in English and the families’ home languages. The invitations in the meeting and in a letter were pur-posefully open-ended, encouraging parents to cre-ate responses reflecting their family’s interpretation of the book. We invited them to use their home lan-guage or English to talk about the books and create journal responses.

Each classroom was supplied with 5 to 6 back-packs containing books matched to the home lan-guages spoken by students. Classroom teachers sent backpacks home with all ELL students on a rotating basis. Backpack distribution was timed to match the instructional units underway in the classroom, and each family had the opportunity to keep the backpack at home for one week during each of the

Table 1. Curricular structures for the Family Backpack Project

guiding Principles Curricular Structures & materials

Provide physical and linguistic access to books. Send home dual-language books with audio CDs in the child’s primary language and English.

Respect children’s primary language(s). Provide dual language books and CDs; extend invitations to write in English or the family’s primary language.

Value and use family funds of knowledge. Extend open invitations to read and respond in journals.

Preschoolers learn to read and write though participation in reading/writing events.

Emergent reading, drawing, and writing responses are invited and valued.

Book reading involves the extended family. All family members are invited to take part in reading and composing journal entries.

Meaning making is multimodal. Invite and value oral, dramatic, embodied, written, and graphic art responses.

Home reading can help children learn concepts and vocabulary needed in school instruction.

Select books related to unit themes that organize instruction. Select books children hear read aloud at school.

Children and families connect to texts with positive depictions of diversity, a global perspective, and culturally relevant topics.

Select supplementary books that represent family cultures; support families in composing texts from their own perspective.

Promote two-way sharing of texts. (School to home and home to school)

Core instructional books are sent home. Family journal entries are sent to school.

July2013_LA.indd 405 6/5/13 8:51 AM



Spanish, Somali, and Arabic were included, though Kurdish books were difficult to locate. International books were selected based upon recommendations from the International Board on Books for Young People (IBBY), the United States Board on Books for Young People (USBBY), Worlds of Words (WOW), and University of Arizona’s international collection of children’s and adolescent literature. (See sidebar for additional sources.) Reviews of children’s literature from Book Bird: Journal of International Children’s Literature, Language Arts, Reading Teacher, Journal of Children’s Literature, and the Amazon website were also used to inform book selection. Additionally, winners from Science Notable Trade Books, Social Studies Trade Books, Caldecott, Pura Belpré, and Coretta Scott King Awards were considered.

Despite our attempts to locate high-quality, cul-turally relevant texts available in English and chil-dren’s home languages, only a few titles were avail-able in two or more of the target languages, and no titles were available in all five of the languages spo-ken at school and in children’s homes. Because we wanted families to have access to print in English and their home language, we created dual language copies of all texts by affixing labels with Arabic, Spanish, Kurdish, or Somali translations on the book pages. Translators were selected based upon their translation expertise and experience as well as their knowledge of the community. We developed a translation checklist for translators to follow in constructing their translations. Translators read the picturebooks several times, concentrating on the key features of the story and keeping the audience of preschoolers and their families in mind. A con-textual and nonliteral translation was encouraged, and commonly known expressions used in the com-munity were incorporated instead of word-for-word translations.

Finally, to provide all families with another means of accessing the books, we created CDs with dual-language audio recordings of them. Transla-tors and/or ELLS team members read stories in their native language (English, Arabic, Kurdish, Span-ish, Somali) page by page into a digital recorder.

month-long instructional units. All ELL students took backpacks home three times between January and May.

Book Selection and TranslationIn selecting books for the backpacks, we chose one book from the OWL curriculum that the children would hear read aloud in English as part of class-room instruction. Read-alouds of children’s books were a central feature of the OWL curriculum, with core books being read three or four times during the unit. When choosing which of the OWL books to

include in the backpacks, we considered quality of story, overall appeal to families, and predictabil-ity. To expand the range of theme-related literature available in ELLS class-rooms, we also provided each classroom with

10–20 supplementary books for each unit. The sec-ond backpack title for each unit was selected from this list.

Supplementary books were selected based upon guidelines that included connection to the unit theme, cultural relevance, interest and qual-ity of illustrations, varied vocabulary, and global worldview (Wolf, Coats, Enciso, & Jenkins, 2010). In terms of cultural features, we selected books that showed insider knowledge of culture and that demonstrated a range of diverse perspectives within an ethnic group. In particular, books needed to avoid stereotypical and discriminatory images and expand understandings of local group practices. Books were also selected based upon inviting illus-trations that worked with the text to move the story forward. Informational books, conceptual books, and picturebooks with interesting and unique illus-tration formats were also considered. Readability, age-related themes, and rich content and vocabu-lary also played an important role in book selection. As a set, supplementary books were intended to promote a global worldview.

We gave preference to books that were avail-able in a second language. Dual-language texts in

Read-alouds of children’s books

were a central feature of the

OWL curriculum, with core

books being read three or four

times during the unit.

July2013_LA.indd 406 6/5/13 8:51 AM



Signals for page turning were inserted in the final audio performances to assist children and families in following along.

Studying family Responses to the Backpack Program

We gathered logistical information about families’ participation in the backpack program by examin-ing the materials logs that teachers used to inventory backpack contents when they were returned from homes. We tallied the number of times backpacks were taken home and returned, as well as the num-ber and kinds of materials that were lost or dam-aged. Information on family attitudes and ways of interacting with the books came from two sources. First, all 249 families received a one-page survey included in the last backpack of the year. We asked parents/guardians about the number of times books were read, their thoughts on books and translations, and information about the ways the families com-pleted the response journals. Second, we analyzed family journal entries for information about family book sharing and response. For the purposes of our analyses of family participation, a journal entry was defined as all pages a family composed in response to a single book.

To determine the overall frequency of partici-pation, length of responses, and number of books for which responses were created, we entered demographic information for each entry, including the child’s name, book title, number of pages, who composed the entry, and the languages and sign sys-tems used. In addition to these demographic analy-ses, we also used the constant comparative method (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) to develop categories describing the content of families’ entries. Looking carefully at family journals, we learned a good deal about the ways families read and responded to the backpack books at home.

In the sections that follow, we first describe fam-ily participation and attitudes toward the backpack program. Next, we discuss what surveys and jour-nals revealed about the ways families read books together. Finally, we discuss what we learned about the ways families composed journal responses, the interpretive work used to comprehend and respond

to books, and how their responses varied in relation to book characteristics.

family Participation in the Backpack ProgramEach child enrolled in an ELLS classroom took a family backpack home three times, for a total of 747 school to home “round trips.” An initial teacher concern was the possibility that backpack books, CD players, and journals would be lost or damaged as they traveled between school and home. To assist parents with the return of materials, each backpack included an illustrated inventory sheet listing all items to be returned in the backpack. While we were prepared to make replacements, the care with which families treated backpack materials exceeded the expectations of even the most optimistic members of our team. When mate-rials were inventoried, we found that all backpack sets had been returned in good condition, with only 2 power cords, 3 books, and 5 CDs missing or in need of replacement. As described in the next sec-tion, parents and children appreciated the opportunity to read and listen to books at home in English and their home languages, and took good care of the materials.

family Attitudes

About one-third (n= 79) of the ELLS families responded to our end-of-year survey. Though the response rate was low, responses provide some insights into families’ attitudes about the Family Backpack Project. Survey evaluations of the back-pack materials were overwhelmingly positive. The following comment was typical:

“Pienso que son libros muy buenos bien ilustrada para que los niños entiendan lo que estan leyendo, con per-sonajes muy interesantes, y vocabularios diferentes a lo que esta acostumbrados a escuchar en casa.” [I think the books are really good and well illustrated so that the children understand what they are reading, with very interesting characters and different vocabulary than they are used to hearing at home.]

While we were prepared to

make replacements, the care

with which families treated

backpack materials exceeded the

expectations of even the most

optimistic members of our team.

July2013_LA.indd 407 6/5/13 8:51 AM



Common themes in parent responses were the importance of family book reading as a learning opportunity for their child and as an enjoyable fam-ily activity.

Families who received dual-language books and CDs were especially positive about the oppor-tunity to share books in their home languages because it allowed their children to use and learn both languages. The following comments from two families were typical.

“Si, yo estoy contenta y agradecida con ustedes, porque yo no puedo leer ingles, y a mi hijo le gusta mucho que nosotros le leamos libros, y mi me gusta leerselo en Español.” [I am very happy with you and thankful because I can’t read English and my son really likes to read books and I can read them in Spanish.]

“Pues esta bien por que aprenden los 2 idomas.” [It’s good because they learn two languages.]

family Book-Reading Interactions

Families’ responses to survey questions and our analysis of their response journals provided infor-mation about family book-reading interactions. Survey results showed that many of the families read the books multiple times during the week that the family backpacks were in the home. Among the 79 respondents, 13% reported reading the family backpack books once, 52% read them twice, and 34% read them 3 or more times

Response journals also provided us with a glimpse of family members’ roles as they read the backpack books with their child. In some journal entries, parents took up the role of teacher, com-menting on the learning opportunities the books offered: “The book is great to help preschoolers with their counting. Also it teach them to care for animals in trouble.” Many parents also reported asking their children questions about the books; in some cases, they recorded comprehension ques-tions and their child’s responses in their journal.

Parents sometimes reported their own responses to the books alongside their child’s, providing mod-els of the kinds of meanings and perspectives adults brought to the text. The caption provided by one of Fernando’s family members at the top of his One Dark Night (Hutchins, 2001) entry (Figure 1) is a good example: “La bondad nos hace mas humanos.”

[Kindness makes us more human.] Fernando’s par-ents analyzed story events to identify kindness as a central theme of the story and to connect it to core values for human living. Parents also engaged as co-learners, especially in relation to the information book Chameleon, Chameleon. A number of family members wrote about their excitement and interest in the new information they learned about chame-leons and their habitats, providing prekindergar-ten students with opportunities to observe parents and siblings expressing a sense of wonder as they engaged with information books.

Some family journal entries described book-reading events that surpassed listening to or reading the text. An example comes from a family response to The Black Book of Colors (Cotin & Faria, 2006). In this book, raised, tactile images and Braille text are embossed in black on black pages, visually relieved only by lines of white English print:

The first thing that Jamil notice was there no colors. I told him to close his eyes and imagine the colors and to feel the page. He told me that the pictures all felt smooth and rough to him. We talked about the things in the book that stood out the most to him. He told me he really liked strawberries and the taste good to him. The grass was another one. He told me that he likes to play cook with it.

Overall, surveys and responses showed that many families not only read the books aloud, but also engaged in extended conversations about the char-acters, events, and information in the books.

Figure 1. Collaborative parent–child story interpretations

July2013_LA.indd 408 6/5/13 8:51 AM



family Response JournalsParticipation in the Journaling

Journal entries were also a source of informa-tion about the interpretive work and compos-ing processes of families as they responded to backpack books. Sixty-seven percent (n=164) of ELLS families completed at least one journal entry. Among families creating journal entries, the number of books to which they responded var-ied as follows: 29% (n=47) responded to 1 book, 26% (n=42) responded to 2 books, 15% (n=24) responded to 3 books, 16% (n=27) responded to 4 books, 8% (n=14) responded to 5 books, and 6% (n=10) responded to all 6 books. Overall, families responded to an average of 2.7 books—about one book each time they received the backpack. Fami-lies of second language learners who received dual-language books composed journal responses at a rate somewhat higher than the group as a whole, with 76% composing at least one journal entry. Altogether, families created a total of 441 journal entries.

While the majority of families of second lan-guage learners responded in English, some used their home language or created dual-language journal responses. For example, Ximena’s parents drew objects with different colors and wrote ques-tions in both Spanish and English. “Encuentra algo amarillo. Encuentra algo rojo. Find something yel-low. Find something red.” Through dual-language journal responses, parents extended the opportuni-ties provided by dual-language books to explore and compare how meanings were expressed in two languages.

Overall, 52% of entries were coauthored by the child with other family members, 14% were pro-duced by a family member alone, and 35% were authored by the child alone. Among signed entries, we found that parents were frequent participants, but that brothers, sisters, grandparents, aunts, and uncles sometimes wrote and drew about books with the child. As in previous studies (Fain , 2006), most families settled on a style for responding, and then applied it with some consistency. Some families interpreted the task as an invitation for their child

to be the primary artist and writer, and confined adult contributions to labeling children’s artwork. In other cases, older family members’ drawing and writing were featured prominently.

family Roles in Writing and drawing

Family response journals also provided insights about writing and drawing roles families offered their preschoolers at home and the extent to which they expected preschoolers to produce conven-tionally recognizable forms of writing and draw-ing. Given the young age of ELLS students, it is not surprising that more of the writing in the jour-nal entries was produced by adults than children. Adults often wrote paragraphs or even whole pages of text, as Cara’s parent did in the journal entry shown in Figure 2: “Cara really enjoyed the book Clap Your Hands. It was interactive. Cara felt she was playing a game and learning at the same time.”

As in Figure 2, when children wrote, they most often wrote their names, the book title, or a short label for their drawing. Writing assessments con-ducted in the classroom as part of the larger ELLS project showed that, as expected for this age group, children’s writing ranged from scribbles to invented

Figure 2. Parent’s narration of her child’s book responses

July2013_LA.indd 409 6/5/13 8:51 AM



spellings (i.e., using letters to stand for the first sounds of words.) However, when writing in the journals at home, most child writing was conven-tionally spelled, suggesting that they had collabo-rated with family members to produce conventional print. Though emergent writing was common at school, it appeared infrequently in the family jour-nals. Parents showed their orientation toward con-ventional writing by recording words related to the story that their child copied below. Other parents likely patterned their interactions on school-based exercises, using the journal as a space for asking their child to write alphabet letters or numbers in sequence.

Artwork was featured prominently in most entries. Like print, pictures were drawn only by the child, only by an adult, or were completed collab-oratively. Collaborative artwork, such as Fernan-do’s entry for One Dark Night (Hutchins, 2001; see Figure 1), where his parents drew the adult char-acters, while he drew the child and animal charac-ters, shows evidence of coordination between the child and family members in order to decide what each person would draw. Children’s artwork ranged from Fernando’s highly detailed drawing to entries like the one seen in Figure 3 where unconventional marks and shapes would not have been recogniz-able without the labels families provided.

Like the backpack picturebooks, many family journals included both print and drawings. These multimodal entries sometimes involved transmedia-tion (Siegel, 1995)—movement of content encoun-tered in one sign system (e.g., art, writing, or talk) to a new sign system. Children and their parents transferred information originally encountered in print to their drawings and vice versa.

Figure 4 reproduces a journal entry created by Nathan and his family in response to Dear Juno (Pak, 1999). The text of this story describes a child receiving a letter from his grandmother who lives far away in Seoul, South Korea. In their journal response, Nathan and his family created a two-col-umn chart using arrows to represent the exchange of letters between Juno and his grandmother. The erasures suggest that Nathan received a good deal of support and that his parent guided the form of

this entry. Nevertheless, entries of this type required parent and child to return to the book to review details presented in the print and illustrations. Mul-timodal text construction involving transmediation

Figure 3. Unconventional child art with parent labels

Figure 4. Expressing book interpretations through trans-mediation

July2013_LA.indd 410 6/5/13 8:51 AM



challenged authors to reconsider both the content and the form of their entry, as they selected ways of expressing meaning in the new sign system.

Overall, families used both writing and drawing to compose journal responses, and sometimes used transmediation to express book ideas in a new sign system. Most families wrote for their preschooler or supported the child in producing conventional print. At the same time, they accepted children’s scribbled drawings and frequently attached writ-ten labels to explain the child’s intentions. Invented letter-like forms and other emergent writing forms were infrequent, and appeared without adult labels to indicate children’s intended meanings.

family Approaches to Story Comprehension

Retelling StoriesFamily response journals also provided clues to the interpretive work occurring during book discus-sion and journaling. The most frequent types of entries were those in which families and children drew characters or objects central to the story or book topic. Figure 5, a response to Dear Juno (Pak, 1999), is typical in that it shows the main characters, Juno and his grandmother, as well as the letters they exchanged in the mail. Family entries also depicted complex scenes showing characters along with fea-tures of the setting crucial to comprehending story events. For example, Figure 6 depicts Jonathan, the protagonist of One Dark Night (Hutchins, 2001), holding a flashlight. The artwork also shows Jona-than’s house, and the rain and lightning that set the scene for the story’s central problem.

Overall, many families used journal entries to identify and unpack key information in books to support comprehension. Their summaries and state-ments about book themes often required inferential work that went well beyond literal comprehension.

Making Personal Connections to BooksFamilies also moved beyond literal retellings of texts when they made personal connections in the form of critical evaluations of the texts or book-to-life connections. Some offered general evaluation of

the books (e.g., “We liked this book”) while others recorded family members’ preferences for particu-lar parts of books. Though few critiques of books deeply analyzed the stories, when families adopted a critical stance, children had an opportunity to reflect on ways that books linked to their personal interests.

Figure 5. Drawings of story characters and objects

Figure 6. Drawing of a story scene with setting and char-acters in action

July2013_LA.indd 411 6/5/13 8:51 AM



Family members provided personal interpreta-tions ranging from a retelling of the story One Dark Night (Hutchins, 2001) from the perspective of a supporting character, to personal opinions about the animals depicted in the information book, Chame-leon, Chameleon (Cowley, 2005): “The gecko looks scary.” Some journal entries made explicit connec-tions between the stories and the family’s experi-ences outside of school, as in this entry for One Dark Night (Hutchins, 2001): “Khamari pointed out that the little boy sleeps with a stuffed monkey like his older brother.”

Another student, living far away from his grandmother, wished to exchange letters with her like the characters in Dear Juno: “Bernardo me comenta que quisiera que su grandma le mandara una carta igual que lado de Juno y que el le mandaria una carta a su grandma.” [Bernardo commented that he wished his grandma would send him a let-ter like the one Juno got, and that he could send a letter to his grandma.] Entries such as these showed that children and families talked about connections between the stories and their personal experiences, providing a natural opportunity for young readers to observe how family members made book-to-life connections to help them understand and extend what they read.

Responding to the differing Potentials of Children’s Books

Finally, we noticed that the six backpack books had different affordances for activity and response. For example, the books with family themes and char-acters were the most likely to generate connections to families’ home experiences. The two books with special kinds of illustrations were the most likely to generate multimodal responses that went beyond traditional two-dimensional depictions of objects and people. Figure 7 is an example of Almendra’s experimentation with the mirror image techniques used in Reflections (Jonas, 1987).

Another book, Clap Your Hands (Cauley, 1997), illustrating a child’s action song, was the only book for which parents reported children physically acting out the story as they read. Finally, for the three books that were familiar to chil-

dren from multiple read-alouds during classroom instruction, parents reported that their children enjoyed acting as expert readers. Overall, fami-lies’ written responses demonstrated that the books selected for the family backpacks had different potentials for action and response that were related to the nature of the genre, print, and illustrations, but also to social situations in which children had encountered them.

ConclusionsAs a framework for organizing what we have learned about supporting home–school book read-ing, we return to the program design principles listed in Table 1. First, when we provided families with access to books in English and their home lan-guages, many families took up the opportunity to read and talk with their children about the stories and to respond in family journals. This was as true for families of second language learners as for those whose first language was English. Some families who spoke languages other than English at home specifically commented in the response journals that the dual-language books and digital record-ings made it possible for them to read with their

Figure 7. Experimenting with mirror-image illustrations

July2013_LA.indd 412 6/5/13 8:51 AM



prekindergarten child, or that the books provided an opportunity for children to see and talk about their two languages.

Second, we view positive comments about receiving dual-language texts and some parents’ willingness to compose journal entries in their home languages as evidence that families of sec-ond language learners responded positively to our attempts to value their home languages. This is important both in terms of maintaining respectful home–school partnerships and because research shows that it is important for children to maintain and develop their home language while learning English at school (Wiley & de Klerk, 2010).

Third, we purposefully refrained from directly telling families how to respond to the texts. Instead, we offered open-ended invitations for families to

read books in their own ways and to produce any kind of journal entry that reflected their family’s interests and ways of interacting with their prekin-dergarten child. The variety in journal responses suggests that families drew on funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 2001) formed in family, community, and school experiences. Because families utilized their shared home experiences to interpret and respond to the backpack books, journaling provided opportunities to create their own culturally relevant texts and then to share them with teachers when journals were returned to school.

Fourth, we assumed that children’s active participation in book reading and journaling was important. Children independently or collabora-tively composed journal entries portraying key story elements, identified central facts, and wrote about

FoR INquISITIVE MINDS

Resources for Evaluating and Finding High-quality Books for Young Multilingual Learners and Their Families

Brooks,W.M.,&McNair,J.C.(2007).Embracing, evaluating, and examining African American children’s and

young adult literature. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Provides essential information on books written by and about African Americans and incorporates strategies

for using books in authentic ways in schools.

Gregory, E. (2008). Learning to read in a new language. London, England: SAGE. Presents a framework for learning to read in multiple languages. Offers information on including family and

others in community contexts as expert reading teachers.

Naidoo, J. (2010). Celebrating cuentos: Promoting Latino children’s literature and literacy in classrooms and

libraries. Santa Barbara,CA: Libraries Unlimited. Provides a brief overview of Latino children’s literature in the United States and includes a recommended

bibliography of children’s literature and related professional resources.

Lathey, G. (2010). The role of translators in children’s literature: Invisible storytellers. New York, NY: Routledge. Provides readers with insight into the role of translators in children’s literature.

International Board on Books for Young People (IBBY) Honour List. www.ibby.org Lists outstanding recently published books from writers, illustrators, and translators from IBBY member

countries.

Bookbird: A Journal of International Children’s Literature. http://www.ibby.org/index.php?id=1035 Examines children’s literary studies, awards, and resources.

Worlds of Words: International Collection of Children’s and Adolescent Literature. http://wowlit.org/ Highlights new global authors, reviews global literature, showcases examples of teachers writing about their

personal experiences using international literature in the classroom, and has a search engine for finding

international literature.

July2013_LA.indd 413 6/5/13 8:51 AM



book themes and connections to family life—all important comprehension activities. Book discus-sion was a necessary part of journaling when fam-ily members and children collaboratively composed different parts of a picture, or even when parents labeled children’s unconventional drawings.

Fifth, research (Bus & van IJzendoorn, 1995) has suggested that family book reading can have an emotional component, as well as a cognitive one. An important feature of family backpack events was reading with family members with whom the child had a significant emotional bond. Entries were composed by siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and the occasional neighborhood friend, demon-strating the child’s literate participation with wider social networks.

Sixth, we expected meaning making to be mul-timodal, and so invited families to use drawing as well as writing in the journals. Our participants combined art and writing in ways that reflected their views of the task and the capabilities of their prekindergarten child. Drawing was a central way caregivers and children represented their book responses. This was important because of the young age of our writers, and because images could be interpreted equally well across languages.

Our seventh and eighth guidelines shaped the ways we selected books for the family backpacks. We chose pairs of books with a common theme

(Short, Harste, & Burke, 1996). One book was selected from the books children heard read aloud at school and the second from supplementary texts that provided a more diverse treatment of the instructional theme. Family responses suggest that both approaches to book selection had merit for encouraging family book reading at home. Chil-dren enjoyed being experts on familiar books, and families enjoyed many of the supplementary books because of their interesting illustrations or cultur-ally relevant family themes. These data confirm that the book matters! Different genres and topics afford different opportunities for action, discussion, and response. Since families’ experiences, resources, and interests vary, variety is important, as are issues of cultural relevance, literary quality, and each book’s unique affordances for discussion, response, and activity. Including books from the classroom curriculum has the benefit of positioning prekinder-gartners as expert readers.

Finally, we designed the Family Backpack Project to promote two-way sharing of texts and literacy practices. By sending books home, we encouraged family interactions with a particular kind of schooled text—a children’s picturebook. At the same time, the journals gave families opportuni-ties to express and display their own interests, inter-actions, and literacy practices. While schools often send materials and assignments home, there are

FAMILY MESSAGE JouRNALS

ReadWriteThink.org has several resources on using Family Message Journals:

• Launching Family Message Journals: This lesson introduces Family Message Journals—a teacher-tested tool for

encouraging family involvement and supporting writing to reflect and to learn.

http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/lesson-plans/launching-family-message-journals-77.html

• Family Message Journals Teach Many Purposes for Writing: This lesson encourages children to explore

authentic reasons for writing by writing messages to family members in a family message journal.

http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/lesson-plans/family-message-journals-teach-82.html

• Persuasive Writing: What Can Writing in Family Message Journals Do for Students? This lesson engages

children in using writing to their families as a persuasive tool to get what they want and need.

http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/lesson-plans/persuasive-writing-what-writing-100.html

—Lisa Fink

www.readwritethink.org

July2013_LA.indd 414 6/5/13 8:51 AM



Compton-Lilly, C. (2009). Listening to families over time: Seven lessons learned about literacy in families. Language Arts, 86, 449–457.

Compton-Lilly, C., Rogers, R., & Lewis, T. (2012). Analyzing epistemological considerations related to diversity: An integrative critical literature review of family literacy scholarship. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 33–60.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Fain, J. G., & Horn, R. (2006). Family talk about language diversity and culture. Language Arts, 83, 310–320.

Fletcher, K. L., Cross, J. R., Tanney, A. L., Schneider, M., & Finch, W. H. (2008). Predicting language development in children at risk: The effects of quality and frequency of caregiver reading. Early Education and Development, 19(1), 89–111.

Gee, J. P. (2003). A sociocultural perspective on early literacy development. In S. B. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 30–42). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2009). Funds of knowledge. Theorizing practice in households, communities, and classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.

International Reading Association. (2008). Supporting your beginning reader. Newark, DE: Author.

Janes, H., & Kermani, H. (2001). Caregivers’ story reading to young children in family literacy programs: Pleasure or punishment? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 458–466.

Jordan, G. E., Snow, C. E., & Porche, M. V. (2000). Project EASE: The effect of a family literacy project on kindergarten students’ early literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 524–546.

Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from research (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

McQuillan, J. (1998.) The literacy crisis: False claims and real solutions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Mol, S. E., Bus, A. G., DeJong, M. T., & Smeets, D. J. H. (2008). Added value of dialogic parent–child book readings: A meta-analysis. Early Education and Development, 19, 7–26.

Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 267–296.

Moll, L. C., Saez, R., & Dworin, J. (2001). Exploring biliteracy: Two student case examples of writing as social practice. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 435–449.

fewer opportunities for families to send back mate-rials that reflect their own interests and interaction patterns. Family journals functioned as a way of bringing family funds of knowledge into the class-room to be used as a resource for learning.

Overall, we are encouraged by the positive responses of families to opportunities to read and journal about family backpack books. Providing families with books and audio recordings in English and their home languages gave all families equal opportunities to explore books together and encour-aged families to continue to support their pre-schoolers’ use and learning of their home language. As families made sense of the literature, they natu-rally shared their linguistic knowledge. The Family Backpack Project intentionally tapped the power of school and family partnerships to provide both entities with spaces for valuing bilingual voices. In settings like ours, public schools provide supports for learning English, but do not provide continuing bilingual/biliteracy education. Therefore, school support for programs that value parents’ roles as the primary teachers of their home language can help to send the message that a child’s home language is a valuable resource for learning in both languages.

ReferencesBarton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In

D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies. Reading and writing in context (pp. 7–15). London, England: Routledge.

Bloome, D., & Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 305–333.

Bull, A., Brooking, K., & Campbell, R. (2008). Successful home–school partnerships. New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/28415/28416.

Bus, A. G., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Mothers reading to their three-year-olds: The role of mother–child attachment security in becoming literate. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 998–1015.

Collins, M. F. (2005). ESL preschoolers’ English vocabulary acquisition from storybook reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 406–408.

July2013_LA.indd 415 6/5/13 8:51 AM



Wiley, T. G. & de Klerk, G. (2010). Common myths and stereotypes regarding literacy and language diversity in the multilingual United States. In M. Farr, L. Seloni, & J. Song (Eds.), Ethnolinguistic diversity and education: Language, literacy, and culture (pp. 23–43). New York, NY: Routledge.

Wolf, S., Coats, K., Enciso, P., & Jenkins, C. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of research on children’s and young adults’ literature. New York, NY: Routledge.

Children’s Literature CitedCauley, L. B. (1997). Clap your hands. New York, NY:

Putnam & Gossett.

Cottin, M., & Faria, R. (2006). The black book of colors. Toronto, Canada: Groundwood Books.

Cowley, J. (2005). Chameleon, chameleon. New York, NY: Scholastic.

Hutchins, H. (2001). One dark night. New York, NY: Puffin Books.

Jonas, A. (1987). Reflections. New York, NY: Greenwillow Books.

Pak, S. (1999). Dear Juno. New York, NY: Puffin Books.

Appendix A. Children’s books included in the family backpacks (For complete bibliographic information, see “Children’s Literature Cited.”)

Core Instructional Books Supplementary Books

oWL1 unit 3: Wind and Water

Hutchins, H. (2001). One Dark Night

Jonas, A. (1987). Reflections

oWL unit 4: The World of Colors

Pak, S. (1999). Dear Juno Cottin, M., & Faria, R. (2006). The Black Book of Colors

oWL unit 5: Shadows and Reflections

Cauley, L. B. (1997). Clap Your Hands

Cowley, J. (2005). Chameleon, Chameleon

1OWL = Opening the World of Learning (Schickedanz & Dickinson, 2005)

Neuman, S. B. (2001). Access to print in low-income and middle-income communities: An ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 8–26.

Richgels, D. J., & Wold, L. S. (1998). Literacy on the road: Backpacking partnerships between school and home. The Reading Teacher, 52, 18–29.

Roberts, T. A. (2008). Home storybook reading in primary or second language with preschool children: Evidence of equal effectiveness for second-language vocabulary acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 103–130.

Rodríguez-Brown, F. V. (2011). Family literacy: A current view of research on parents and children learning together. In M. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. IV, pp. 726–753). New York, NY: Routledge.

Rowe, D. W., & Dickinson, D. K. (2008). Enhanced language & literacy success. Nashville, TN: U. S. Department of Education. Abstract retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/earlyreading/awards .html.

Schickedanz, J. A., & Dickinson, D. K. (2005). Opening the world of learning: A comprehensive early literacy program. Parsippany, NJ: Pearson Early Learning.

Sénéchal, M., Pagan, S., & Lever, R. (2008). Relations among the frequency of shared reading and 4-year-old children’s vocabulary, morphological and syntax comprehension, and narrative skills. Early Education and Development, 19(1), 27–44.

Short, K. G., Harste, J. C., & Burke, C. L. (1996). Creating classroom for authors and inquirers (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Siegel, M. (1995). More than words: The generative power of transmediation for learning. Canadian Journal of Education, 20, 455–475.

Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy development, ethnography and education. London, England: Longman.

U. S. Department of Education, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, Educational Partnerships and Family Involvement Unit. (2003). Reading tips for parents. Washington, D.C.: Author.

deborah Wells Rowe is an associate professor in the Department of Teaching & Learning at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University. She can be reached at [email protected]. Jeanne gilliam fain is an assistant professor at Middle Tennessee State University.

She can be reached at [email protected].

Like Language Arts Journal on Facebook

July2013_LA.indd 416 6/5/13 8:51 AM

402 the family backpack project: responding to dual ... · the family backpack project: responding...

Documents