Andréanne Gagné
Nathalie Bigras
Annie Charron2,4- 1Department of Teaching and Learning, Université Laval, Québec City, QC, Canada
- 2Equipe de Recherche Qualité des Contextes Éducatifs de la Petite Enfance, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada
- 3Department of Language Teaching, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada
- 4Department of Didactics, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada
Introduction: This research focuses on the influence of familial affective characteristics on family literacy practices and children’s reading abilities. Parenting stress and educational practices were two affective characteristics of interest. Parenting stress is defined as a state of psychological discomfort specifically associated with the education of a child whereas educational practices are defined as various means the parent uses to educate and socialize the child.
Methods: A sample of 154 grade 1 children allowed for a correlational analysis between parenting stress, educational practices, the frequency of family reading activities, the diversity of literacy material available and the type of child-parent exchange (alphabet-focus or story-focus). Regression analyses were conducted to develop a model predicting reading abilities.
Results: Three result outcomes are of interest for the field of reading development. First, our study establishes relations between educational practices and certain aspects of family literacy: diversity of supports, frequency of exchanges, and type of child-parent exchange and it suggests that parental engagement plays a significant role in various aspects related to at-home discussions about books. Second, our regression analysis highlights evidence that parenting stress is an explanatory factor directly linked to the child’s reading abilities. Therefore, our findings add reading abilities to the list of developmental aspects that is affected by parenting stress. Finally, the results show that, when parenting stress and educational practices are integrated in the predictive model, the story-focus exchanges remain predictive of reading abilities but not the alphabet-focus exchanges.
Discussion: Our findings confirm that the benefit of parent–child exchange on reading abilities is dependent of conditions of the family environment in which these activities occur. These findings also lead us to question the value of making alphabet-focus exchanges, the cornerstone of some literacy programs in family settings. Our findings call for caution when implementing such programs in family context. In fact, activities involving conversation about the meaning of a text or the links between the text and the child’s everyday reality represent the only activities, in our study, that had a beneficial effect on reading abilities while remaining permeable to parenting stress.
Introduction
The benefits of reading activities in the family environment for children’s development of language and writing skills are well known (Justice et al., 2005; Evans and Shaw, 2008; Anderson et al., 2018). However, the majority of studies of this topic have investigated social, demographic or cultural factors to define how, when, how often or in what language these family reading times are experienced (Justice and Ezell, 2000; Nichols, 2000; Justice and Pullen, 2003; Moody et al., 2020). Yet familial affective characteristics are indissociable from parent–child reading times. Therefore, we propose to examine the effect of familial affective characteristics, such as family stress and parental educational practices, on children’s reading abilities at the end of first grade, the nature and frequency of literacy activities organized in a household, as well as the diversity of literacy materials available at home.
Theoretical framework
It has long been recognized that a family environment that exposes children to written work is conducive to young children’s development of language, reading and writing (Justice and Ezell, 2000; Sénéchal and LeFevre, 2002, 2014). Among children’s different experiences with writing at home, shared reading times with parents present benefits related to the motivation to learn to read and emerging literacy skills (e.g., phonological consciousness and understanding alphabetical principles), as well as reading abilities (i.e., decoding and understanding) (Bus et al., 1995; De Jong and Leseman, 2001; Bennett et al., 2002).
At a young age, shared reading familiarizes children with the written word and its prerequisites, helps them understand how a book “works” (e.g., holding it and turning the pages), recognize letters, and develop phonological awareness (Mason and Allen, 1986; Snow and Ninio, 1986). Later, this practice contributes closely to reading performance (Scarborough and Dobrich, 1994; Bus et al., 1995; Mol and Bus, 2011). Moreover, the influence of shared reading extends beyond literacy or emergent literacy behaviors as it maintains a strong link to the oral modality of language (Frijters et al., 2000; Fletcher and Reese, 2005; Hutton et al., 2015; Niklas et al., 2015). Indeed, shared reading would stimulate oral language skills more than written language skills in child learners.
Another component of the home literacy practices is the quality of parent–child exchanges. The quality of exchanges can be defined as instructional or emotional quality (Cline and Edwards, 2013, 2017). An exchange with favorable instructional quality will include extratextual conversation when the parent guides the child to interrupt the reading and think about it, asking open-ended questions to incite discussion and reflection. On the other hand, reading during which the child remains passive is considered to be of lesser instructional quality. The emotional quality of an exchange resides in the presence of a myriad of parental behaviors, such as empathy, warmth and positive attitude (Van Ijzendoorn et al., 1987; Beaudoin, 2002; Boudreau et al., 2018). This tie between emotions and reading skills has been observed in young adults (Jiménez-Pérez et al., 2020) as well as in young children (Waters et al., 2019). The literature emphasizes that mothers have a crucial role in mediating positive emotions and their benefits to the child’s cognitive and language competence (Jiménez-Pérez et al., 2019), fostering the development of literacy abilities in all families where it is observed. On the other hand, the level of instructional quality varies according to socio-familial characteristics. Consequently, the benefits of talking about books for the development of reading abilities may differ from one family setting to another (Cline and Edwards, 2013). This distinction suggests that family characteristics (socio-demographic and cultural characteristics) can impact FLAs’ beneficial effects on reading abilities.
In addition, the nature of the emotional ties that the child has with the adult influences the benefits that the child will derive from shared reading times. For example, the quality of the attachment between parent and child is intimately linked to the quality of the exchanges during reading time (Bus and Van IJzendoorn, 1988). Emotions are more and more in the researchers’ sights. Strangely, even though they are involved in all learning, they have long been the great absentees of learning models in language didactics (Swain, 2013). Yet, it is natural to assume that a negative emotion (such as anxiety) may be associated with the absence of learning, and that a positive emotion (such as joy) may be linked to sustained engagement that promotes learning. This is precisely what Fredrickson and Losada (2013) stipulated in the expansion and construction theory.
In more detail, Fredrickson and Losada theorized the major role of positive short and long-term emotions in the learning process. Their theory, as well as other approaches emphasizing the importance of affectivity in learning (e.g., Arnold, 2006; Armand et al., 2013; Swain, 2013; Pramanik and Dhir, 2020), have been translated to education in several ways. Think of the work on the importance of student well-being in the reception classroom, the supportive role of affective relationships (closeness, friendship) within the classroom and their impact on learning (Rodríguez et al., 1996), the importance of affect and emotion in second language learning (Zuniga and Rueb, 2018), or the role of feelings in vocabulary learning (Tremblay, 2018). In fact, all evidence suggests that positive emotions, fostered by an open and caring climate, catalyze language learning in school and in home settings.
A series of publications by Sénéchal and LeFevre (2002, 2014) established the foundations of the Home Literacy Model (HLM), which made it possible to clarify the benefits of family literacy activities (FLAs). FLAs were then categorized into formal and informal activities. Formal literacy activities were defined as activities involving exchanges between the parent and child that explicitly present or teach about print (e.g., naming letters, recognizing words) (Bus, 2001), whereas informal literacy activities refer to exposure to print (letters, sounds of letters, etc.) without any formal teaching of letters or sounds. During informal literacy activities, exchanges between the parent and child mostly deal with the meaning of the text or linkages between the text and the child’s everyday life (Justice et al., 2006). As a result of research conducted on HLM, both formal and informal literacy activities were recognized as contributing significantly to the development of reading abilities (Sénéchal and LeFevre, 2002, 2014). Nonetheless, the preponderance of formal and informal FLAs remains uneven in family routines. A thorough examination of parent–child dialogs has revealed that the vast majority of parent–child exchanges when reading books are informal and that very few discussions of the formal aspects of literacy can be observed in natural, spontaneous contexts (Evans and Saint-Aubin, 2005; Price et al., 2009; Hindman et al., 2014).
Beyond the nature of exchanges, which can be formal or informal, the literacy experience inside a family unit varies according to the household literacy environment. For example, the supports provided in written forms (e.g., magnetic letters, picture books, books, digital tablets) and frequency of conversations related to literacy may differ greatly from one family to another (Grieshaber et al., 2012). A child who has limited supports in written form or negligible time to converse with parents will not experience the same diversification of FLAs as one who benefits from a rich family literacy environment with ample time to talk with parents (Crosnoe et al., 2010; Marcella et al., 2013; Provencher, 2014).
In this study, we were interested in investigating family characteristics, other than socio-demographic and cultural, that can affect the benefits of FLAs for children’s reading abilities. Parenting stress and educational practices were two affective characteristics of interest, especially in the pandemic context we have experienced in the past 2 years. Parenting stress is defined as a state of psychological discomfort specifically associated with the education of a child (Lacharité et al., 1992). The component of this stress that is related to the parent–child relationship (Abidin, 1995) has been identified as a predictor of the presence, quality and impact of FLAs (Deniz-Can and Ginsburg-Block, 2016), confirming past studies by Bus and Van IJzendoorn (1988) and with Bus and Van Ijzendoorn (1995) that also associated the quality of the parent–child bond with the quality of shared reading times. Other familial affective factors have also been linked to children’s reading abilities. One particularly interesting factor is educational practices, defined as various means the parent uses to educate and socialize the child (Hamel, 2001). Positive educational practices are generally observed in the parent’s engagement with the child, usage of positive educational practices and a sense of efficacy with discipline (Abidin, 1995). Favorable educational practices and a positive parenting style have been associated with higher-quality interactions during reading times and have resulted in enhanced positive effects on the child’s language development (Dexter and Stacks, 2014). These benefits have been observed consistently, in populations of different genders, ages and ethnic origins, and educational institutions (Dornbusch et al., 1987; Ferguson, 1987; Christenson et al., 1992).
Our study proposes a predictive model of FLAs’ on reading abilities that integrates parenting stress and educational practices. We posited that (1) the diversity of supports in written forms is independent of educational practices and parenting stress since it is closely linked to parents’ financial resources and education level. However, (2) parenting stress should have a negative effect on the frequency of parent–child literacy-related talk. We anticipated that (3) favorable educational practices and low parenting stress should both impact positively reading abilities. Moreover, since informal literacy activities are more conducive to diverse extratextual discussions and represent a larger percentage of exchanges than formal ones, we argued that (4) the influence of educational practices and parenting stress on reading abilities will be mostly explained by its impact on informal literacy activities.
Figure 1 illustrates these hypotheses concerning the anticipated links between familial affective characteristics (educational practices and parenting stress), the literacy environment (diversity and frequency), FLAs (formal and informal) and reading abilities. The hypothesis pertaining to these linkages, presumed to be more important, is illustrated by the width of the arrow connecting parenting stress, informal activities and reading abilities.
Figure 1. Hypotheses concerning the links between reading abilities, family literacy practices and socio-familial factors.
Materials and methods
Participants
Following the institutional ethical approval and the authorization granted by the Commission d’AcceÌs aÌ l’information, the research team acquired by way of the Reìgie de l’assurance maladie du Queìbec, a list of 4,575 children turning 7-year-olds between 1 October 2015 and 30 September 2016. The children were chosen randomly from the territories serviced by les Centres de santeì et de services sociaux de Montreìal, where more than 30% of children aged five or younger live below the poverty line. Letters were sent to 4,575 families, followed by telephone calls to close to 3,000 of the families we were able to trace. From those families contacted, 1,575 children met the selection criteria, which included their health (Apgar > 7, weight > 2500 grams at birth and minimum 37 weeks gestation) and their typical global development, notably their language development. Their mother tongue needed to be French. Of the 1,425 remaining families, 255 families who met the criteria agreed to participate and 796 refused. Participants signed a consent form explaining the purpose of the study, its risks, and benefits. The data presented in this article are drawn from the 154 children (82 girls, 72 boys) that were evaluated during their first year of elementary school. At the time of data collection, 75.9% of the families had an income above the low-income cut-off based on Statistics Canada’s criteria (Statistics Canada, 2011), 84.1% were two-parent families, and the majority of parents had a university degree (65.9% of mothers, 60.0% of fathers).
Data collection instruments
Formal literacy activities
To measure formal literacy activities, we used an adapted section of a questionnaire on parental literacy practices inspired by the work of Martini and Sénéchal (2012), which shows excellent internal validity (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91). The selected section contains six questions to which the parent is asked to provide answers on a scale of 1–5. These questions assess the frequency, on a scale of 1–5, of the mother showing her child (1) the names of letters, (2) the sounds of letters, (3) how to write letters, (4) how to write the child’s first name, (5) how to write words, and (6) how to read words.
Informal literacy activities
For the measurement of informal literacy activities, we used a list of titles and authors of children’s books published in French (Charron et al., 2020), adapted from Sénéchal and LeFevre (2002, 2014). This indirect measure proved to be a suitable indicator of informal literacy activities. First, parents were asked to indicate on the questionnaire how familiar they were with the titles of publications for children, from a list of 25 items, of which 17 were real titles and 8 were fictitious titles. Then, parents were given a list of 25 authors of children’s literature and asked to indicate which ones were known to them; similar to the list of titles, 17 were real authors and 8 were fictitious authors. The measure of informal literacy activities consisted of the sum of real titles and authors, minus fictitious titles and authors selected by the parent. A complete description of the adaptation protocol is described in Charron et al. (2020).
Diversity of supports
The diversity of supports was also measured by a parental questionnaire in which the parent was required to specify objects used during literacy activities, among 18 everyday life objects; for example, a pictorial, magnetic letters and a grocery list. This questionnaire was adapted from a sub-section of a questionnaire on parental literacy by Martini and Sénéchal (2012). In their work, these authors revealed that they also used the instrument to measure practices linked to formal literacy activities. In fact, any given material can naturally elicit a formal exchange instead of an informal one. For instance, the usage of magnetic letters can potentially lead to a formal exchange on the sound and form of letters. However, we decided to utilize the questionnaire as a measure of availability of different supports at home, rather than a measure of formal literacy activities because we thought it was important to maintain the distinction between concepts of diversity and formality. Where relevant, a collinearity of these two measures could be eventually considered by way of amendment to our statistical analysis. In any case, the diversity of supports was established by recording the number of supports marked on the questionnaire as being used by parents at home. The complete adaptation protocol is described in details in Charron et al. (2020).
Frequency of exchanges about literacy
For the purpose of measuring the frequency of parents-children exchanges about literacy, a list of six situations of typical exchange was presented to the parent (learn lullabies, discuss images in a book, name images in a book, ask the child to read simple words, point at words, and ask the child to trace or copy letters). This list was developed from scale 3 of a questionnaire developed by Martini and Sénéchal (2012). In its original English version, the scale was comprised of seven questions, including a question on the parent teaching letters, three questions on the parent teaching words, two questions related to exchanges on images in a book and one question on an activity unrelated to literacy, i.e., puzzles. This last question was eliminated because it did not directly pertain to literacy. As for the six questions left, the term “teach” was replaced by terms referring to exchanges, such as “speak with the child, discuss, etc.” Parent was to indicate, on a scale of 1–5, the frequency of activities performed with her child. Although the formal measure explicitly requested the parent to confirm the frequency at which she “shows” something to her child, separate items of exchanges frequency measurement were formulated in a less direct fashion. However, it is possible that the parent interpreted both questions in the same manner. During our statistical analysis, special attention was given to correlation between the measure of formal activities and measure of exchanges frequency.
Reading abilities
Children’s reading abilities were measured by means of the tests on reading words, decoding pseudo-words, and reading comprehension from the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 2nd edition (WIAT-II; Wechsler, 2005). In accordance with test protocols, an equivalency score was established for reading components. Regarding the use of this instrument, Wechsler (2005) reported excellent internal coherence coefficients (α > 0.90) and very good temporal stability coefficients (r > 0.80) for measured abilities.
Educational practices
Parental educational practices were evaluated based on a questionnaire of 42 questions (Poulin et al., 2006). This questionnaire measures three aspects of practices that benefit the child – parental engagement with the child, use of positive educational practices, and sense of efficacy with discipline – as well as three aspects of unfavorable practices and negative educational practices: inconsistent parental practices, use of hostile educational practices, and affective rejection. The Likert-type response scale (1 = not at all to 5 = absolutely) generated a mean score for favorable practices and a mean score for unfavorable practices. For this study, we used only a mean of scores on the three scales measuring favorable practices.
Parenting stress
To measure parenting stress, we used an abbreviated version of the Index de stress parental (Abidin, 1995; Bigras et al., 1996). The index is composed of 36 questions divided into two general categories of stressors: those linked to the child (distraction/hyperactivity, temper, acceptance by the parent, adaptation capacity, level of expectation) and those associated with the parent (sense of competency, attachment to the child, role restrictions, depression, spousal relationship, social isolation, physical health of the parent). A high score signifies that the stress experienced by the parent – the mother in this case – is high.
Data collection
Data were collected in two phases. First, during the month following the child’s seventh birthday, an evaluator visited the familial household to fill out questionnaires with the parents and control the handover sequence, which was identical for all children. The duration of home visits was approximately 120 min. In the second phase, between the months of April and June at the end of first grade, a research assistant assessed the child’s reading abilities with the WIAT-II (Wechsler, 2005) at the child’s residence.
Results
Prior to initiating any analysis, we ensured that our variables met the normality and uniformity criteria. Data were transformed for normality when necessary. Transforming data for normality is a regular procedure to allow parametric analyses requiring normality assumption such as regression analysis. Pituch and Stevens (2016) reports that as long as the sample size exeeds 50, transforming data for normality has no impact on validity. In addition, a correlational analysis (Table 1) was done to verify the multicollinearity of independent variables. Not surprisingly, the parenting stress and parental educational practices variables were found to be correlated (r = 0.503, p < 0.01). Indeed, we can easily imagine that the stress associated with parental responsibilities can lead to less favorable educational practices and vice versa. However, although there is a correlation, the correlation value is considered moderate (Larsen-Hall, 2010). Therefore, although they are linked to each other, the two variables remain distinct constructs that can be reflected separately in modeling.
Table 1. Correlation between independent variables.
Regression analyses were done to determine whether parenting stress and educational practices influenced the nature, frequency and diversity of material used during FLAs. According to the regression analyses conducted (Figure 2), favorable educational practices predicted formal literacy activities (R2 = 0.06, F(2,143) = 5.56, p < 0.05, β = 0.26, p < 0.001), the diversity of supports (R2 = 0.08, F(2,396) = 7.26, β = 0.25, p < 0.001), and the frequency of exchanges (R2 = 0.09, F(2,143) = 8.45, p < 0.01, β = 0.21, p < 0.001), whereas the parenting stress variable did not predict any aspects of at-home discussions of books. These results run counter to our hypotheses 1 and 2, which predicted that the diversity of supports available at home would not be linked to parenting stress or educational practices because they depended mainly on other socio-economic factors, such as family income. Instead, our findings show that it is the frequency of FLAs that is not linked to familial affective variables. Nevertheless, the diversity of supports available at home is linked to both a low level of parenting stress and favorable educational practices.
Figure 2. Explanatory model of reading abilities without familical affective characteristics. **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
A second series of regression analyses allowed us to verify whether educational practices and parenting stress predicted reading abilities through family literacy activities (hypothesis 3) and whether their effect on reading was mostly driven by informal or formal literacy activities (hypothesis 4). To test hypothesis 3, we conducted a regression analysis (Table 2) with a first set of independent variables composed of traditional measures of FLAs; namely formal activities, informal activities, diversity of supports, frequency of exchanges (Model 1). A second regression analysis was conducted (Model 2) with traditional measures of FLAs and familial affective variables (parenting stress and educational practices) as independent variables. Model 2 explains more of the reading variance (R2adj = 0.21, F(1,123) = 4.7, p < 0.01) than Model 1, (R2adj = 0.185, F(4,124) = 7.0, p < 0.05), thus confirming that reading abilities are partly predicted by educational practices and parenting stress.
Table 2. Multiple regression analyses for reading abilities.
As illustrated in Figure 3, the analyses conducted revealed different roles associated with parenting stress and educational practices. Parenting stress is directly linked to reading abilities whereas educational practices are indirectly linked to reading through their relations with the diversity of supports.
Figure 3. Explanatory model of reading abilities including familical affective characteristics. **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
It is relevant to mention that Models 1 and 2 differ as to the significance of formal literacy activities as a predictor of reading abilities. In the first model, three variables are predictive of reading: informal literacy activities, formal literacy activities, and diversity of supports. In Model 2, formal literacy activities no longer have significant predictive value regarding reading abilities.
Discussion
This study investigated the effect of familial affective characteristics on reading abilities. We hypothesized that reading abilities would be indirectly influenced by educational practices and parenting stress, and that this effect would be mediated by informal literacy activities due to their prevalence in parent–child exchanges about books. Instead, our findings showed that educational practices are indirectly linked to reading abilities through the diversity of literacy supports at home, whereas parenting stress is directly correlated with reading abilities.
The results of our study establish relations between educational practices and certain aspects of family literacy (diversity of supports, frequency of exchanges, and formal activities). These links have also been mentioned in a previous study of family characteristics and family literacy (Deniz-Can and Ginsburg-Block, 2016), in which participants originated in more challenging socio-economic environments with lower education levels than in our sample. In our study, the mothers’ education level was relatively high and homogenous, as were their ethnocultural origins. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that parental engagement plays a significant role in various aspects related to at-home discussions about books.
Furthermore, our regression analysis highlighted evidence that parenting stress is an explanatory factor directly linked to the child’s reading abilities. The largest explanatory variance of reading abilities stems from the model that integrates both FLAs and familial affective characteristics (Model 2). Our findings echo other results regarding parenting stress, particularly its component linked to the parent–child relationship and its influence on various aspects of the child’s development (Guajardo et al., 2009; Iruka et al., 2012). Our findings add reading abilities to the list of developmental aspects that may be affected by parenting stress. A remaining question, however, is whether this link can be explained mostly, or even exclusively, by the parent–child relationship component of parenting stress, as is the case for other developmental aspects.
The results of our study raise two important elements for further research and interventions in family literacy. On the one hand, they demonstrate the importance of integrating familial affective characteristics from the environment in which literacy activities take place when it comes to modeling predictors of reading abilities. In fact, a predictive model of reading abilities that does not include variables linked to familial affective factors may lead one to posit relations that no longer exist when family-related characteristics are considered. As shown by model 1 and like several other predictive models of reading abilities (LeFevre and Sénéchal, 2002), formal literacy activities are identified as a predictor of reading abilities. However, when model 2 integrates the familial affective characteristics in which literacy activities take place, formal activities’ predictive value declines and only informal literacy activities continue to predict reading abilities. We are not claiming to present an all-inclusive explanatory model of reading abilities. The R2 value indicates otherwise: close to 80% of the variance in reading abilities remains unexplained, even after the inclusion of parenting stress and educational practices as explanatory variables in the model. However, our findings confirm that the effect of FLAs on reading abilities is not independent of conditions of the family environment in which these activities occur.
Our findings also have implications for the implementation of family literacy intervention programs. In our study, informal literacy activities proved to be predictive of reading abilities, regardless of the prevailing familial affective characteristics. At first glance, this result seams counterintuitive. We incorrectly believed that the informal activities are less restrictive concerning written work and thus are more susceptible to variations between families (Curenton and Justice, 2008; Shahaeian et al., 2018). However, this is not what we found. In fact, the beneficial effects of formal literacy activities on reading abilities are more affected by familial affective characteristics than those informal activities. It is possible that the responsiveness of formal literacy activities to ethnocultural (Hindman et al., 2014) and socio-affective factors resides in the educational nature of the exchange (e.g., teaching letters, explicitly presenting the sounds of letters, etc.). It has been demonstrated that an exchange with a high degree of educational connotation will be more susceptible to family conditions than an extratextual exchange with a more personal connotation, such as informal literacy activities (Cline and Edwards, 2013). We made the same observations.
Moreover, these findings lead us to question the value of organizing formal literacy activities, the cornerstone of some literacy programs in family settings (Brown et al., 2019). Like Hindman et al. (2014), we question the “one size fits all” recommendations for family literacy programs. In fact, a significant number of studies and intervention programs adhere to a formal, explicit instructional approach toward families presenting vulnerabilities (Justice and Ezell, 2000; Hindin and Paratore, 2007). Our findings call for caution when implementing such programs. In fact, our results suggest instead that informal literacy activities, namely activities involving conversation about the meaning of a text or the links between the text and the child’s everyday reality, are potentially more beneficial in terms of effects on reading abilities than formal literacy activities where the parent adopts a teaching role or explicitly presents written codes. Furthermore, informal activities correspond to the “natural” role of a parent reading stories to a child (Bingham, 2007; Cline and Edwards, 2013) and represent the only activities, in our study, that had a beneficial effect on reading abilities while remaining permeable to familial affective characteristics.
Finally, another interesting observation, for which an in-depth analysis exceeds the scope of our study, concerns the ever-present influence of familial context on reading abilities at the end of first grade. In fact, after 2 years of schooling (kindergarten and first grade), during which considerable time is spent developing reading abilities and understanding written codes, school attendance does not seem to have diminished the influence of family context on reading abilities. Once again, this highlights the school’s enormous challenge of alleviating social inequalities, even in a largely favorable socio-economic context such as the one in which our study was conducted, where 73% of families came from privileged backgrounds.
Limitations
The correlations presented here are not causal and may equally be represented as two-directional. Moreover, our sample of 154 families included few vulnerable families and, in that sense, is not representative of the general population. As such, one of our conclusions concerned the varying nature of the predictive value of FLAs for reading abilities in relation to the family context. Consequently, it is important not to generalize this predictive model to the overall population.
Conclusion
The importance of our findings goes beyond the dissemination of a predictive model of reading abilities Essentially, our study makes two contributions. First, it confirms the influence of affective-family factors on reading abilities. Second, it reveals that formal literacy activities are more responsive to family context than informal literacy activities. Two familial affective characteristics (educational practices and parenting stress) were integrated into the predictive model. Other factors – social, familial or individual – may also influence FLAs’ impact on reading abilities in the same manner, substantially modifying their predictive value. More importantly, it would be surprising if the context in which literacy activities occur had variable effects on reading abilities in a family setting but not in a school environment. Based on these observations, we propose two areas for future research. First, it would be interesting to measure the effects of an intervention program in family literacy that includes family literacy components but also familial affective aspects, namely the parent–child relationship. It would also be worthwhile to measure whether the predictive value of literacy activities varies depending on affective characteristics in a school environment. Finally, we recommend that future studies examine certain aspects of socio-affective characteristics in the classroom, namely teaching practices and stress associated with the teacher-child relationship, as potential influences on the effects of literacy activities in schools.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Ethics Committee of Université du Québec à Montréal. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.
Funding
This research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Grant number 435-2012-1133).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Abidin, R. R. (1995). Parenting stress index. Charlottesville, VA: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Anderson, K. L., Atkinson, T. S., Swaggerty, E. A., and O’Brien, K. (2018). Examining relationships between home-based shared book reading practices and children’s language/literacy skills at kindergarten entry. Early Child Dev. Care 189, 2167–2182. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2018.1443921
Armand, F., Lory, M. P., and et Rousseau, C. (2013). Les histoires, ça montre les personnes dedans, les feelings. Pas possible si pas de théâtre. (Tahina) Ateliers d’expression théâtrale plurilingues en classe d’accueil. Lidil. Rev. linguist. Didactique Lang. 48, 37–55. doi: 10.4000/lidil.3311
Arnold, J. (2006). Comment les facteurs affectifs influencent-ils l’apprentissage d’une langue étrangère? Ela. Étud. Linguist. Appl. 4, 407–425.
Beaudoin, I. (2002). La qualité des interventions du parent supervisant la lecture de son enfant: Relation avec le niveau d’habileté en lecture de l’enfant [The quality of interventions of parents supervising their children’s reading: Correlation with the children’s reading ability]. PhD Thesis. Quebec City: Université Laval.
Bennett, K. K., Weigel, D. J., and Martin, S. S. (2002). Children’s acquisition of early literacy skills: Examining family contributions. Early Child. Res. Q. 17, 295–317. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(02)00166-7
Bigras, M., Lafrenière, P., and Abidin, R. R. (1996). Indice de stress parental: Manuel francophone en complément à l’édition américaine [Parenting stress index: French-language manual to complement the American edition]. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems Inc.
Bingham, G. E. (2007). Maternal literacy beliefs and the quality of mother-child book-reading interactions: Associations with children’s early literacy development. Early Educ. Dev. 18, 23–49. doi: 10.1080/10409280701274428
Boudreau, M., Beaudoin, I., and Mélançon, J. (2018). Implantation et évaluation d’un programme de formation sur la lecture interactive destiné à des parents d’enfants de maternelle 5 ans [Implementation and assessment of a training program on interactive reading for parents of children in 5-year-old kindergarten]. Lang. Lit. 20, 1–22. doi: 10.20360/langandlit29380
Brown, C. L., Schell, R., Denton, R., and Knode, E. (2019). Family literacy coaching: Partnering with parents for reading success. Sch. Comm. J. 29, 63–86. doi: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2017.01.007
Bus, A. G. (2001). “Joint caregiver-child storybook reading: A route to literacy development,” in Handbook of early literacy research, eds S. B. Newman and D. K. Dickinson (New York, NY: Guilford Press), 79–191.
Bus, A. G., and Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1988). Mother-child interactions, attachment, and emergent literacy: A cross-sectional study. Child Dev. 59, 1262–1272. doi: 10.2307/1130489
Bus, A. G., and Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Mothers reading to their 3-year-olds: The role of mother-child attachment security in becoming literate. Read. Res. Q. 30, 998–1015. doi: 10.2307/748207
Bus, A. G., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., and Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Rev. Educ. Res. 65, 1–21. doi: 10.3102/00346543065001001
Charron, A., Gagné, A., Bigras, N., and Lemire, J. (2020). Comment évaluer les pratiques de littératie familiale? Développement d’un questionnaire mesurant l’exposition parentale aux livres [How should we evaluate family literacy practices? Development of a questionnaire measuring parental exposure to books]. R. Int. Éduc. Fam. 47, 103–118. doi: 10.3917/rief.047.0103
Christenson, S. L., Rounds, T., and Gorney, D. (1992). Family factors and student achievement: An avenue to increase students’ success. Sch. Psychol. Q. 7, 178–206. doi: 10.1037/h0088259
Cline, K. D., and Edwards, C. P. (2013). The instructional and emotional quality of parent–child book reading and early head start children’s learning outcomes. Early Educ. Dev. 24, 1214–1231. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2012.697431
Cline, K. D., and Edwards, C. P. (2017). Parent–child book-reading styles, emotional quality, and changes in early head start children’s cognitive scores. Early Educ. Dev. 28, 41–58. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2016.1177392
Crosnoe, R., Leventhal, T., Wirth, R. J., Pierce, K. M., and Pianta, R. C. Nichd Early Child Care Research Network (2010). Family socioeconomic status and consistent environmental stimulation in early childhood. Child Dev. 81, 972–987. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01446.x
Curenton, S. M., and Justice, L. M. (2008). Children’s preliteracy skills: Influence of mother’s education and beliefs about shared-reading interactions. Early Educ. Dev. 19, 261–283. doi: 10.1080/10409280801963939
De Jong, P. F., and Leseman, P. P. (2001). Lasting effects of home literacy on reading achievement in school. J. Sch. Psychol. 39, 389–414. doi: 10.1016/S00224405(01)00080-2
Deniz-Can, D., and Ginsburg-Block, M. (2016). Parenting stress and home-based literacy interactions in low-income preschool families. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 46, 51–62. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2016.07.002
Dexter, C. A., and Stacks, A. M. (2014). A preliminary investigation of the relationship between parenting, parent-child shared reading practices, and child development in low-income families. J. Res. Child. Educ. 28, 394–410. doi: 10.1080/02568543.2014.913278
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., and Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Dev. 58, 1244–1237. doi: 10.2307/1130618
Evans, M. A., and Saint-Aubin, J. (2005). What children are looking at during shared storybook reading: Evidence from eye movement monitoring. Psychol. Sci. 16, 913–920. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01636.x
Evans, M. A., and Shaw, D. (2008). Home grown for reading: Parental contributions to young children’s emergent literacy and word recognition. Can. Psychol. 49, 89–95. doi: 10.1037/0708-5591.49.2.89
Fletcher, K. L., and Reese, E. (2005). Picture book reading with young children: A conceptual framework. Dev. Rev. 25, 64–103. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2004.08.009
Fredrickson, B. L., and Losada, M. F. (2013). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing”: Correction to Fredrickson and Losada (2005). Am. Psychol. 68:822. doi: 10.1037/a0034435
Frijters, J. C., Barron, R. W., and Brunello, M. (2000). Direct and mediated influences of home literacy and literacy interest on prereaders’ oral vocabulary and early written language skill. J. Educ. Psychol. 92, 466–477. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.466
Grieshaber, S., Shield, P., Luke, A., and Macdonald, S. (2012). Family literacy practices and home literacy resources: An Australian pilot study. J. Early Child. Lit. 12, 113–138. doi: 10.1177/1468798411416888
Guajardo, N. R., Snyder, G., and Petersen, R. (2009). Relationships among parenting practices, parental stress, child behaviour, and children’s social-cognitive development. Inf. Child Dev. 18, 37–60. doi: 10.1002/icd.578
Hamel, M. (2001). “Les relations parent-enfant et les pratiques éducatives des parents [Parent–child relations and parents’ educational practices],” in Les déterminants de la santé et du bien-être des enfants d’âge scolaire, eds M. Hamel, L. Blanchet, and C. Martin (Sainte-Foy, QC: Les Publications du Québec), 9–49.
Hindin, A., and Paratore, J. R. (2007). Supporting young children’s literacy learning through home-school partnerships: The effectiveness of a home repeated-reading intervention. J. Lit. Res. 39, 307–333. doi: 10.1080/10862960701613102
Hindman, A. H., Skibbe, L. E., and Foster, T. D. (2014). Exploring the variety of parental talk during shared book reading and its contributions to preschool language and literacy: Evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study-birth cohort. Read. Writ. 27, 287–313. doi: 10.1007/s11145-013-9445-4
Hutton, J. S., Horowitz-Kraus, T., Mendelsohn, A. L., DeWitt, T., and Holland, S. K. C-Mind Authorship Consortium (2015). Home reading environment and brain activation in preschool children listening to stories. Pediatrics 136, 466–478. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-0359
Iruka, I. U., LaForett, D. R., and Odom, E. C. (2012). Examining the validity of the family investment and stress models and relationship to children’s school readiness across five cultural groups. J. Fam. Psychol. 26, 359–370. doi: 10.1037/a0028290
Jiménez-Pérez, E., Alarcón, R., and De Vicente, M. I. (2019). Intervención lectora: Correlación entre la inteligencia emocional y la competencia lectora en el alumnado en bachillerato. Rev. Psicodid. 24, 24–30. doi: 10.1016/j.psicod.2018.10.001
Jiménez-Pérez, E., Barrientos-Báez, A., Caldevilla-Domínguez, D., and Gómez-Galán, J. (2020). Influence of mothers’ habits on reading skills and emotional intelligence of university students: Relationships in the social and educational context. Behav. Sci. 10:187. doi: 10.3390/bs10120187
Justice, L. M., and Ezell, H. K. (2000). Enhancing children’s print and word awareness through home-based parent intervention. Am. J. Speech Lang. Path. 9, 257–269. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360.0903.257
Justice, L. M., and Pullen, P. C. (2003). Promising interventions for promoting emergent literacy skills: Three evidence-based approaches. Top. Early Child. Spec. Educ. 23, 99–113. doi: 10.1177/02711214030230030101
Justice, L. M., Bowles, R. P., and Skibbe, L. E. (2006). Measuring preschool attainment of print concept knowledge: A study of typical and at-risk 3-to 5-year-old children using item response theory. Lang. Speech Hear. Serv. Sch. 37, 224–235. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2006/024)
Justice, L. M., Kaderavek, J., Bowles, R., and Grimm, K. (2005). Language impairment, parent–child shared reading, and phonological awareness: A feasibility study. Top. Early Child. Spec. Ed. 25, 143–156. doi: 10.1177/02711214050250030201
Lacharité, C., Éthier, L., and Piché, C. (1992). Le stress parental chez les mères d’enfants d’âge préscolaire: Validation et normes québécoises pour l’Inventaire de stress parental [Parenting stress in mothers of preschool children: Validation and Quebec norms for the Parenting Stress Inventory]. Santé Mentale QC 17, 183–203. doi: 10.7202/502077ar
Larsen-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research. New York, NY: Routledge.
LeFevre, J., and Sénéchal, M. (2002). Learning to read in a second language: Parent involvement still counts. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the international society for the study of behavioral development, Ottawa, ON.
Marcella, J., Howes, C., and Fuligni, A. S. (2013). Exploring cumulative risk and family literacy practices in low-income Latino families. Early Educ. Dev. 25, 36–55. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2013.780504
Martini, F., and Sénéchal, M. (2012). Learning literacy skills at home: Parent teaching, expectations, and child interest. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 44, 210–221. doi: 10.1037/a0026758
Mason, J., and Allen, J. B. (1986). A review of emergent literacy with implications for research and practice in reading. Rev. Res. Educ. 13, 3–47. doi: 10.3102/0091732X01300100
Mol, S. E., and Bus, A. G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychol. Bull. 137, 267–296. doi: 10.1037/a0021890
Moody, S. M., Matthews, S. D., and Eslami, Z. R. (2020). “Bridging the gap: The use of translanguaging in shared readings,” in Handbook of research on cultivating literacy in diverse and multilingual classrooms, eds G. Neokleous, A. Krulatz, and R. Farrelly (Hershey, PA: IGI Global), 555–576.
Nichols, S. (2000). Unsettling the bedtime story: Parents’ reports of home literacy practices. Contemp. Issue Early Child. 1, 315–328. doi: 10.2304/ciec.2000.1.3.7
Niklas, F., Tayler, C., and Schneider, W. (2015). Home-based literacy activities and children’s cognitive outcomes: A comparison between Australia and Germany. Int. J. Educ. Res. 71, 75–85. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2015.04.001
Pituch, K. A., and Stevens, J. P. (2016). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences: Analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS. New York, NY: Routledge.
Poulin, F., Capuano, F., Vitaro, F., and Verlaan, P. (2006). “La prévention des problèmes de comportement chez les filles en début de scolarisation; stratégie de dépistage et profil des filles identifiées [The prevention of behavioural problems in girls at the start of schooling: Screening strategy and profile of girls identified],” in Les conduites antisociales des filles: Comprendre pour mieux agir, eds P. Verlaan and M. Déry (Québec, QC: Presses de l’Université du Québec), 235–256.
Pramanik, A., and Dhir, S. (2020). “Student’s emotion: The Power of emotioneducation in school,” in Emotion and information processing, ed. S. N. Mohanty (Switzerland: Springer), 145–160.
Price, L. H., Van Kleeck, A., and Huberty, C. J. (2009). Talk during book sharing between parents and preschool children: A comparison between storybook and expository book conditions. Read. Res. Q. 44, 171–194. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.44.2.4
Provencher, J. (2014). Impliquer les parents dans le développement en lecture de leurs enfants, c’est gagnant [Getting parents involved in their children’s reading development is a winning move]! Qc. Fr. Available online at: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/72029ac (accessed August 17, 2022).
Rodríguez, J. I., Plax, T. G., and Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between teacher nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediator. Comm. Educ. 45, 293–305. doi: 10.1080/03634529609379059
Scarborough, H. S., and Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Dev. Rev. 14, 245–302. doi: 10.1006/drev.1994.1010
Sénéchal, M., and LeFevre, J.-A. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Dev. 73, 445–460. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00417
Sénéchal, M., and LeFevre, J.-A. (2014). Continuity and change in the home literacy environment as predictors of growth in vocabulary and reading. Child Dev. 85, 1552–1568. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12222
Shahaeian, A., Wang, C., Tucker-Drob, C., Geiger, V., Bus, A. G., and Harrison, L. J. (2018). Early shared reading, socioeconomic status, and children’s cognitive and school competencies: Six years of longitudinal evidence. Sci. Stud. Read. 22, 485–502. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2018.1482901
Snow, C. E., and Ninio, A. (1986). “The contracts of literacy: What children learn from learning to read books,” in Emergent literacy: Writing and reading, eds W. H. Teale and E. Schulzby (Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing), 116–138.
Swain, M. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Lang. Teach. 46, 195–207. doi: 10.1017/S0261444811000486
Tremblay, O. (2018). Pour l’amour des mots : Enseigner le vocabulaire en partant du cśur ! [For the love of words: Teaching vocabulary from the heart!]. Québec, QC: Blog post, Les Éditions passe-temps.
Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Van Der Veer, R., and Van Vliet-Visser, S. (1987). “Attachment three years later. Relationships between quality of mother-infant attachment and emotional/cognitive development in kindergarten,” in Advances in psychology, Vol. 44, eds L. W. C. Tavecchio and M. H. Van Ijzendoorn (Nirth-Holland: Elsevier), 185–224.
Waters, T. E., Camia, C., Facompré, C. R., and Fivush, R. (2019). A meta-analytic examination of maternal reminiscing style: Elaboration, gender, and children’s cognitive development. Psychol. Bull. 145, 1082–1102. doi: 10.1037/bul0000211
Zuniga, M., and Rueb, A. (2018). “Dans le flow : L’influence des tâches pédagogiques sur la qualité de l’expérience émotionnelle en classe de français langue seconde,” in Emotissage. Les émotions dans l’apprentissage des langues [Emoticization. Emotions in language learning], ed. F. Berdal-Masuy (Belgium: Presses universitaires de Louvain), 263–278.
Keywords: literacy, parenting stress, educational practices, family literacy practices, reading abilities, shared book reading, parent–child interaction
Citation: Gagné A, Bigras N, Charron A and Lemire J (2022) The integration of affective characteristics of the family environment for a more comprehensive explanatory model of reading abilities. Front. Educ. 7:1051261. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.1051261
Received: 22 September 2022; Accepted: 17 November 2022;
Published: 01 December 2022.
Edited by:
Elena Jiménez-Pérez, University of Malaga, SpainReviewed by:
Nieves Gutiérrez Ángel, University of Almería, SpainHui Helen Li, Wuhan University of Technology, China
Copyright © 2022 Gagné, Bigras, Charron and Lemire. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Andréanne Gagné, YW5kcmVhbm5lLmdhZ25lQGZzZS51bGF2YWwuY2E=