vb960308.htm

Family Support of the Emergent Literacy of Children with Visual Impairments

C.J. Craig

Abstract: This study of the frequency and nature of parental support for the emergent literacy of 264 visually impaired children found differences in support based on the primary literacy medium and presence of additional disabilities. These differences were in the areas of literacy opportunities at home and parents' expectations of and priorities for their children's literacy development.

The process of emergent literacy has been said to encompass the period between birth and the time that children begin to engage in conventional reading and writing tasks (Sulzby & Teale, 1991). It has also been described as a series of happenings that produce gradual changes in the reading and writing development of young children (Smith, 1989).

Many components of emergent literacy for children with normal vision are believed to be applicable to children with visual impairments. Tompkins and McGee (1986) suggested that although children with visual impairments may experience delays in understanding concepts of written language, their overall pattern of development is the same as that of children with normal vision. Broad experiences to build understanding for stories; language skills, including word meanings; listening to stories read aloud; and scribbling are all believed to be equally important for helping children with visual impairments make the reading and writing connection (Stratton & Wright, 1991).

More recent research, however, has found that parents of children with specific types of disabilities may not consider literacy a priority for their children (Light & Smith, 1993; Marvin & Mirenda, 1993). In addition, it has been suggested that these parents may be less involved in their children's literacy development and may provide fewer opportunities for their children to engage in literacy activities at home.

Marvin and Mirenda (1993) investigated the extent to which access to literacy-related materials and activities at home and school was different for children enrolled in early childhood special education (ECSE) programs. Specifically, they examined whether parental involvement, such as reading aloud to their children and engaging in writing activities, differed from the ECSE group, children enrolled in Head Start, and children without disabilities who served as peer models. An analysis of the data from questionnaires completed by parents and teachers indicated that the three groups were comparable with respect to their access to literacy-related materials, such as books, records, and audiotapes, at home. However, significant differences were found among the three groups' use of libraries, interactions during shared reading experiences, and priorities for and expectations of their literacy development.

In Marvin and Mirenda's (1993) study, 7 percent of the children in ECSE programs were visually impaired. However, the study did not delineate the factors that influenced the home literacy experiences of these children. Thus, the purpose of the study reported in this article was to describe the nature and frequency of family support of emergent literacy practices specifically for children with visual impairments. The research questions that are addressed here were as follows:

1. To what extent does family support of emergent literacy practices differ on the basis of parents' expectations for their children's literacy media?
2. What impact does the presence of additional disabilities in their children have on parents' expectations of their children's literacy, priorities for development, and the nature of literacy opportunities?

Method

POPULATION AND SAMPLE

The population for this study was parents of children with visual impairments who were members of two national parent organizations. Five hundred parents were randomly selected from 1,500 parents who made up the Class A membership in the database of the National Association for Parents of the Visually Impaired (NAPVI). In addition, 300 parents were randomly selected from 1,300 members who were coded as parents in the database of the Parents of Blind Children, a division of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB).

Parents were included in the study if 1) they had children with visual impairments, from newborns to 8 year olds, and 2) they (or the primary care providers) believed that their children had the ability eventually to learn to read and write in either print or braille.

DATA COLLECTION

In line with a procedure described by Stewart and Shamdasani (1990), three focus groups, with a total of 15 parents of preschool-age children with visual impairments, attended a week-long assessment program (five families per week for three weeks) at a school for blind students in the South. Before each session, each parent was asked to fill out the initial version of the survey instrument and to make any comments about it in the margins. The items in this version were taken from the instrument used by Marvin and Mirenda (1993). The session then focused on the parents' thoughts about the instrument and involvement in their children's literacy development.

The final version of the instrument was six pages. It was constructed to provide for separate analysis of respondents who believed their children would be primarily print readers or primarily braille readers or would use both media (print and braille). Each section contained items that were designed to measure the availability of equipment and material for use at home, children's participation in reading and writing at home, children's awareness of reading and writing occurring in the home, and parents' expectation of and priorities for their children's literacy development.

Before the survey packets were disseminated, articles describing the research and the time lines for the study were published in the summer issue of Awareness, the NAPVI newsletter, and Future Reflections, NFB's publication for parents. Then survey packets were sent to the 800 potential respondents. Each packet contained the survey instrument, a cover letter, and a self-addressed stamped envelope. The cover letter reiterated the criteria for inclusion in the study that were first presented in the published articles and instructed the recipients to return the survey instruments blank if their children did not meet these criteria. Both the cover letter and the instrument included the toll free telephone number at the American Printing House for the Blind (APH) if the recipients needed assistance in filling out the survey or had any questions or concerns about the study.

DATA ANALYSIS

As was indicated, the survey instrument was constructed to provide for separate analyses of groups defined on the basis of literacy media. Thus, frequencies and percentages were calculated using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences to delineate the total number of respondents on variables pertaining to age, sex, socioeconomic status, and child and family characteristics. The means, frequency, and percentage of items that address literacy practices in each group were also calculated.

Two experimental variables were assigned in a 3 x 2 factorial analysis. The first variable, type of literacy media, consisted of print readers, braille readers, and print-braille readers. The second variable, other exceptionalities, consisted of children with additional disabilities and children without additional disabilities.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed as a post hoc analysis to compare each group on the basis of the means obtained from the Likert-type items that measured the frequency of literacy events per week. Finally, an a priori emerging coding system was used to analyze the narrative data gathered from the open-ended responses.

Results

Of the 800 survey instruments that were sent, 450 (56%) were returned. Of the 264 that were included in the analysis, 231 (87.5%) were completed by the children's mothers; 25 (9.5%) by the children's fathers; and 8 (3%) by individuals classified as "other." One hundred eighty-six of the surveys did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the analysis based on age and severity of the disability.

Although 104 (39.4%) of the respondents categorized themselves as homemakers, the respondents represented a wide range of occupations. With regard to their spouses' occupations, 60 (23%) of the respondents checked "professional" or "administrative/management." In addition, the majority of respondents indicated that they and their spouses had some form of higher education. Most of the respondents (115, or 44%) had children aged 6-8 years, and the fewest had children in the newborn to age 2 range (43, or 15%); 100 (38%) had children ages 3-5; 156 (59.1 %) of the children were boys and 108 (40.9%) were girls.

Table I presents information on the additional exceptionalities that respondents reported for 134 children (the respondents did not check any of the six disability categories for 130 children). Of these 134 cases, 73 respondents checked one exceptionality, 26 checked two exceptionalities, 22 checked three, 9 checked four, 3 checked five, and 1 checked all six.

Table 1

Note: Some respondents checked more than one category.

The majority of the children had various degrees of functional vision. Fifty-three percent of the respondents indicated that their children were able to locate objects visually at home, and 41.7 percent reported that their children showed an interest in pictures. Only 26.1 percent checked the category "My child has no vision."

The majority of the respondents (123, or 46.6%) indicated their children would be primarily braille readers, and 90 (34.1%) noted that their children would be primarily print readers. Information about functional vision was missing for 7 children. The print-braille group comprised only 44 (16.7%) of the 264 cases.

LITERACY EVENTS PER WEEK

The results of the factorial analysis of variance of items related to the frequency of literacy events per week yielded no significant main effects for the variable other exceptionalities and no significant interactions. However, except for family outings that build understanding for stories, main effects of literacy media were obtained for all items at the p< .05 level of significance.

Table 2 presents the means for the print, braille, and print-braille groups on the frequency of literacy events per week that were either facilitated by the family or occurred naturally in the home, as well as the probabilities generated from ANOVA. It shows that except for listening to audiotapes and records and ordering books on tape, the children in the print and print-braille groups engaged in more literacy events per week than did the children in

Table 2

Means and probabilities of the frequency of literacy events in the three groups (N=264).*

*1 = never, 2 = less than once a week, 3 = 1-2 times a week, 4 = 3-4 times a week, and 5 = more than 4 times a week.

the braille group. Regarding family outings, the three groups were comparable.

EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL

Table 3 lists the frequency, percentage, and types of optical devices provided to the 90 children in the print group for use at home. The respondents noted that 61 (67.8%) children in this group had received a clinical low vision evaluation and 64 (71.1%) children wore eyeglasses. Table 4 shows the frequency, percentage, and types of braille devices provided to the 123 children in the braille group for use at home. Table 2 provided an analysis of all three groups. Subsequent tables address only discrepancies between potential braille and print readers.

Table 3

Optical devices available to potential print

readers for use at home (N=90).

Discrepancies between the print and braille groups were found not only with respect to the amount of equipment and material in their chosen media, available for use at home, but in the opportunities to observe others using these materials at home. In fact, only 41 (33.3%) of the respondents for the braille group stated that they or other family members read braille.

Table 4

Braille devices available to potential braille readers for use at home (N=123).

Of the 90 respondents whose children were in the print group, only 10 (11.1%) reported that they labeled objects at home with large print. In contrast, 61 (49.6%) of the 123 respondents whose children were in the braille group indicated that they labeled objects in braille. Furthermore, 96 (78%) of the braille group noted that they had given their children special early-reading materials, such as shape books, touch books, or children's books in braille.

CHILDREN'S PARTICIPATION

Reading activities

Sixty-eight (75.6%) of the respondents in the print group, compared to 43 (35%) of those in the braille group, reported that their children choose books to read or to be read aloud. In addition, 59 (65.6%) of the respondents in the print group versus 64 (52%) of those in the braille group noted that their children ask questions or comment about books during reading. Also, 68 (75.6%) of the respondents in the print group said that their children point to pictures, but only 50 respondents (40.7%) in the braille group indicated that their children point to or examine pictures that can be felt. Finally, 45 (50%) of the respondents in the print group noted that their children retell stories or pretend to read using print, but 51 (41%) of those in the braille group reported that their children exhibited comparable behaviors using braille.

Writing activities

Whereas 65 (72.2%) of the respondents in the print group indicated that their children scribbled with pencils, felt-tip pens, and paint brushes, only 34 (27.6%) of those in the braille group checked "scribbles in braille using a braillewriter or slate and stylus just makes dots)." Furthermore, 16 (17.8%) of the respondents in the print group reported that their children tell stories for others to write down in print, but only 15 (12%) of those in the braille group said that their children engaged in comparable behaviors using braille. In addition, 40 (44.4%) of the respondents in the print group checked "copies letters or words in print," whereas 19 (15.4%) of those in the braille group noted that their children do so using braille.

AWARENESS BEHAVIORS

With respect to specific awareness behaviors, 74 (82%) of the respondents in the print group checked "watches as adults or siblings read or write," and 52 (42.3%) of those in the braille group checked "places hands on the braille material being read by adults or siblings." Moreover, 47 (52.2%) of the respondents in the print group but only 26 (21.1%) of those in the braille group revealed that their children ask what adults or siblings are doing during reading and writing activities. In addition, 45 (50%) of the respondents in the print group checked "attempts to imitate actions by writing or scribbling in print," while only 14 (11.4%) of those in the braille group indicated that their children did so using braille.

FAMILY PRIORITIES

Two separate analyses were conducted to determine the extent to which reading and writing is regarded as a priority in the homes of children with visual impairments and of children with visual impairments and additional exceptionalities. The highest priority for children with only visual impairments was learning to read and write, followed by learning self-help skills and communicating effectively. The number one goal for the group with additional disabilities was learning self-help skills, followed by communicating effectively and learning to read and write.

Discussion

Through the use of descriptive statistical procedures, the study attempted to isolate two variables associated with the frequency and nature of family support of emergent literacy practices for children with visual impairments: literacy medium and presence of additional exceptionalities. That the majority of respondents indicated that they or their spouses had received some level of higher education and held professional or administrative/managerial jobs may limit the generalizability of the findings.

With regard to the impact of reading media on family support of emergent literacy, a comparable number of respondents in the three groups (print, braille, and print-braille) indicated that they or other adults read to their children an average of three to four times a week. Given the importance of this activity for preparing children for reading, the results of the study have practical significance for efforts to understand how children with visual impairments emerge into literacy (Smith, 1989; Strickland & Morrow, 1989; Sulzby & Teale, 1991). Previous research has cited a high correlation between reading aloud and future success in reading. The fact the braille group is read to on average the same as the groups who use print is important knowledge in the field.

The finding that children in the braille group use libraries less frequently than did those in the other two groups is commensurate with the qualitative data obtained during the instrument construction phase of the study, when several parents commented that the library was "not a place for their children."

Koenig and Holbrook (1989) suggested that some children with visual impairments will continue to use both print and braille until their primary literacy medium emerges naturally. The analysis of the 44 children in the print-braille group yielded only one mean that was slightly higher than that for the 90 children in the print group on the number of times per week they were read to by siblings or other children living at home. Overall, however, the print-braille group participated in more literacy activities in the home than did children who used braille exclusively.

The children who used print are more likely to initiate shared reading experiences by choosing books to read or to be read aloud by adults or siblings. They were also more likely to point to pictures or to ask questions about the stories during reading and to retell stories in their own words.

In addition, children in the print group evidenced much more writing or pretend writing on a weekly basis, engaged in a much wider range of participatory behaviors in this area, and used a greater variety of materials (such as felttip pens, pencils, and paint brushes) than did children in the braille groups. In his discussion of a framework for literacy for individuals with visual impairments, Koenig (1992) stated that research is needed on whether scribbling is as important to prospective braille readers as it appears to be for prospective print readers. Futhermore, although on average more braille devices than optical devices were provided for use at home, the production of dots with a braillewriter or slate and stylus was not a frequent literacy activity of children in the braille group.

Children who are able to gain access to print and to benefit from a variety of visual materials may be more likely to engage in pretend writing spontaneously because they may have the visual ability to observe others at home engaging in some type of writing activity. Children who will be braille readers and who lack the visual ability to observe others may need to be systematically involved in these functional writing activities. Thus, a consideration of the importance of scribbling for prospective braille readers should be based not only on the frequency of the behavior, but on the context in which the behavior occurs.

Of more practical significance are the findings that the children in the braille group are less interested in reading and writing activities at home. Whereas over half the respondents in the print group indicated that their children asked what they were doing during writing activities, about one-fifth of the respondents in the braille group noted that their children exhibited this behavior.

With regard to the impact of additional disabilities on family support of emergent literacy, this study used one crucial criterion for inclusion that Marvin and Mirenda's (1993) study did not: the beliefs of parents or care providers that their children had the ability to learn to read or write in either print or braille. Many respondents who returned their surveys blank indicated that the severity of their children's disability would prevent the children from becoming literate in any medium. Thus, the absence of a main effect for additional exceptionalities could be attributed to the mild-to-moderate nature of the disability or disabilities checked by the respondents.

Quantitative and qualitative differences were found between the groups with and without additional exceptionalities with respect to parents' priorities for and expectations of their children's literacy development. Whereas learning to read and write was identified as the number one goal for the children without additional disabilities, this goal was ranked third (last) for the children with additional disabilities. Just over half the respondents in the additional disabilities group indicated that their children would master the media. Statements, such as "the sky is the limit" and "my child will go as far as any sighted child in reading," were pervasive among the group whose children had no additional disabilities. In contrast, the group whose children had additional disabilities more frequently stated the extent to which their children would learn to read and write well enough to perform functional tasks or provided responses concerning their expectations for literacy that were coded "undetermined." The results of this analysis provide some validation of Marvin and Mirenda's (1993) findings regarding parents' differential priorities and expectations for children, depending on their disabilities.

Conclusions

Tompkins and McGee (1986) suggested that children with visual impairments are more likely to approach reading instruction with fewer concepts of written language than are their peers with normal vision. The findings of this study provide some explication of this phenomenon.

Although parents of children with visual impairments may generally regard learning to read and write as a priority in their children's overall development, they may lack the resources and knowledge to facilitate this process. Clearly, there are two reasons why prospective braille readers are not on an equal footing with their sighted peers: their lack of exposure to the medium (the physical context) and their lack of understanding that reading and writing serve specific functions in this society (the functional context).

Finally, the findings suggest that early special education programs have the responsibility not only to provide equipment and material for use at home, but to teach parents and providers of care to involve the children systematically in the cultural, functional, and linguistic context of the reading and writing that was done at home. This study should be regarded as a preliminary step in a program of research to gain a better understanding of the factors that have an impact on the emergent literacy process of young children with visual impairments.

References

Koenig, A.J. (1992). A framework for understanding the literacy of individuals with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 86, 277-284.

Koenig, A.J. & Holbrook, M.C. (1989). Determining the reading medium for students with visual impairments: A diagnostic teaching approach.

Light, A. & Smith, A.K. (1993). Home literacy experiences of preschoolers who use AAC systems and of their nondisabled peers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 9, 10-25.

Marvin, C. & Mirenda, P. (1993). Home literacy experiences of preschoolers enrolled in Head Start and special education programs. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 351-367.

Smith, C.B. (1989). Emergent literacy: An environmental concept. Reading Teacher 42, 528.

Stewart, D.W. & Shamdasani, P.N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. In L. Bickman & D. Rog (Eds.), Applied social research methods series (pp. 7-153). Newberry Park, CA: Sage.

Stratton, J.M. & Wright, S. (1991). On the way to literacy: Early experiences for young visually impaired children. RE:view, 23, 55-63.

Strickland, D.S. & Morrow, L.M. (1989). Emerging literacy: Young children learn to read and write. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Sulzby, E. & Teale, W. (1991). Emergent literacy. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 2 (pp. 727-757). New York: Longman.

Tompkins, G.E. & McGee, L.M. (1986). Visually impaired and sighted children's emerging concepts about written language. In D. Yaden & S. Templeton (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness and beginning literacy (pp. 259-275). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Christopher J. Craig, Ed.D., assistant professor, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Southwest Missouri State University, 901 South National Avenue, Springfield, MO 65804-0095; E-mail: CJC88@f@NIC.SMSU.EDU.