Chapter Five

Conclusion

Summary of Purpose and Lessons Learned

            As stated earlier, the main purpose of this project is to share with others what I learned through implementing a parent-training course on my own. Through an extensive literature review and explanation of the procedures used to come to the point of gathering data, the reader can now begin to see why reflective journal writing can be useful as a tool for gathering and synthesizing experiences into valuable lessons and learning tools. The thirteen lessons related in Chapter Four are certainly not the only points and lessons I walked away with as the author and teacher in this experience. However, these points, relevant to ideas such as program preparation, student needs, and curriculum guidelines, among others, are ones that will assist me, and all those who study and read about them, in future curriculum planning and program implementation.

Evaluation of Weaknesses and Strengths

The process of developing and implementing this course was anything but perfect. One of the strongest reasons, therefore, for maintaining a professional record of daily classroom observations and occurrences was to allow myself as a teacher to subsequently read and reread that record in order to produce evidence of strengths and weaknesses in the class. As I recorded daily impressions, I became aware of weaknesses that were surfacing in the curriculum and implementation procedures. I also noticed positive aspects emerge and delighted in recording those as well. Again, since the audience at that time was limited to myself, I was able to record the good and the bad after each session without worrying about what others would think.

In reviewing my journal entries, specific program weaknesses, as well as future ideas for improvement, come to mind. These observations are the kind I hope others will be able to either avoid or implement after reading through my final product. First, I feel that the lack of a specific needs assessment at the beginning made it more difficult to assess at what comprehension levels my students had arrived. In considering both Wave One and Wave Two, a wide range of L1 (Spanish) abilities were represented by my students. According to self-ratings some claimed they could read in Spanish well enough to survive, while a few others were on the other extreme, and could read at a college level. It took me longer to find out if they were happy doing what we were doing in each session, and if they felt it was benefiting them because they had not previously specifically expressed that they hoped to improve their reading skills. In considering the literature however, Auerbach (1990) and her colleagues make a strong case for participatory curriculum development that has students involved from the starting point of development, so the needs assessment is naturally built in. Auerbach disagrees with curriculum development that bases its programs on needs assessments given to teachers of elementary students whose parents are the programs’ potential participants. She further argues that creating programs based on needs assessments created and completed solely by teachers perpetuates programs being based on false assumptions. Yet, whether it happens after participants are already enrolled and committed to participating, or before classes begin, I am convinced that assessing the needs of participants is critical. California Department of Education Assessment specialists, Holt and Holt, state, “the purpose of a comprehensive needs assessment is to identify learners’ strengths and provide curriculum content that is useful and meaningful” (1995, p. 11). Experience has taught me that this aspect should not be overlooked.

            A second weakness I discovered was one the students were less aware of, and yet it was a significant weakness to me—the acknowledgement and support of their children’s classroom teachers and school principal. Although I had a letter of permission from the principal to carry out the class, I wish now that I would have been able to meet with him on a few occasions, as well as the kindergarten, first, and second grade teachers in the school. I did meet the sixth grade teacher in whose classroom I taught—briefly explaining a rough idea of what my class was about—but these encounters with her didn’t produce the support or acknowledgement with the faculty I would have desired. It seems that to her my class remained somewhat of an enigma, simply occupying space in her room after hours, and messing up the students’ desk arrangement. This underlying feeling of intrusion on my part hindered me slightly as a teacher. I believe it would greatly maximize the potential of this class if many school parties were involved on varying levels. For example, meeting with the librarian was very helpful and I would have liked to have had more contact with her—even invite her to attend a class one evening and meet with the students. More encounters of this nature would lead to a greater sense of support for both the teacher and the students. In order for learning to be maximized, I believe there is an unspoken sense of belonging the students must feel in their learning environment and among those they share it with.

Another aspect I would improve upon, if possible, was the amount of time I spent in the classroom with the students. Time constraints are a never-ending struggle whenever teaching and learning are occurring. When the time came for the Wave Two class to conclude in June, I felt like we had finally established something exciting and helpful. By this time, the students felt comfortable enough with one another to openly share their at-home literacy experiences they had between class sessions, to speak and read in English with more confidence, and to ask questions without any inhibitions.  More time together would have been extremely beneficial and possibly twice as effective as the initial few weeks. In the future I would like to include my curriculum on “teaching simple strategies for reading at home with children” as a workshop series within a larger program of family literacy workshops especially developed for the immigrant or refugee parent. With the opportunity to address various topics and concerns in other workshop series, our time constraints would become less of an issue. This could truly be a powerful asset to any personalized family literacy program.

            Other changes I would implement relate to the specific components we covered in our class time together and ongoing evaluation of the class itself—its curriculum and impact on the students. With more time allotted (and if the students expressed interest in doing so), I would put more emphasis on writing in addition to read-aloud strategies. Pointing out to students all of the writing they were already doing in their daily lives would be my springboard into activities and discussions—as well the challenge to go home and share simple writing experiences with their children. During the course of the class, students often copied words from the white board that classmates brought in to ask about, and they also wrote a few times on handouts and “quizzes” I distributed; explicit writing instruction was never included. For some students, especially in Wave One, copying words from the white board required intense concentration and time. Perhaps these needs, too, could begin to be met through another series of workshops within a larger, more encompassing family literacy program.

I decided before beginning these classes that my evaluation of their success would be through comparing the differences, if any, between pre and post surveys given to participants (see Appendix F and Appendix G for the survey, as well as a written summary of Wave Two survey data), as well as through reviewing any trends extracted from daily journal entries. Handel (1999) discusses a variety of evaluation procedures for a small-scale program, such as the Partnership for Family Reading she developed and carried out. She explains how she adopted another’s perspective on small program evaluation and focused on only a few key components, some of which overlap with my evaluation procedures—the needs analysis, accountability and documentation of what occurred, formative evaluation, and visible progress towards short-term objectives (1999, p. 131). Fagan expresses similar ideas and declares that evaluating the success of family literacy programs must take into account the content, format, and program participants (2001).

The exact degree of effectiveness of a program or class, however, is often difficult to measure. For example, measuring positive changes in parent/child relationships, improvements in parents’ self-esteem, and parents’ willingness and ability to become involved in their children’s education is tricky. Some evaluators will only accept results of formal tests such as the Test of Adult Basic Education or the general equivalency diploma test as solid evidence of success (Somerfield, 1995). Yet, gains of other types, captured only through observation, interviews, and reflection cannot be disregarded. Some experts would say that it is sufficient to have evidence of student satisfaction and use of the program. Yet in order to obtain this evidence, a formal plan for evaluation needs to be set in place before beginning instruction. This can be difficult, as Thomas and Fisher point out “because the field of family literacy is developing at a time when alternative perspectives on program evaluation are receiving increasing prominence, there is little consensus on the characteristic of effective evaluation practices for family literacy” (1997, p. 156). Though I am pleased with participants’ statements on Wave Two’s survey results and my documentation of the class’s daily events, I would also implement formative evaluation in addition to these evaluation procedures.

            As I mentioned before, the class’s strengths and positive aspects also became clearer through studying my journal entries. Many of these strengths are referred to in the list of thirteen lessons learned through developing and implementing this program mentioned at the beginning of Chapter Four. Yet, as its developer and teacher, I felt that the most impressive aspect of the class was simply being able to witness students’ daily successes. Students arriving eager to share their experience about a trip to the public library, or to tell the class about a book they had found and brought in, or anxious to discuss some English words they had found during their personal reading activities—these were moments when I knew it was all worth my time. 

Also key to the students’ experiences in both Wave One and Wave Two was my desire to adapt each class session in response to the previous class. In the beginning I had a tight agenda that I, as the teacher, wanted to strictly observe. Within days, however, I realized that being flexible with the content I wanted to share would better allow me to work with my students, instead of teach at them. Overall, this connection with the students helped me just as much, if not more than, the entire collective academic reading and researching I completed while preparing, teaching, and evaluating this class post-facto. In considering program implementation, all of the study, preparation, and set-up must be in place in order to make success even a remote possibility. Yet still, it is the day-to-day classroom interactions and exchanges that will impact students and encourage them to want to progress in their English language and literacy growth more than anything else.

Final Summary

Teaching is naturally a collaborative profession. Myriad ideas are constantly being shared, adapted, and assimilated into classes and programs worldwide. After completion of this experience of developing, finding a home for, and implementing this class, I knew the most valuable material I could contribute to the field would be the details about what I learned from the experience. Creating a venue and format in which to share this information became a challenge I was anxious to meet. Through the establishment of this website I hope to interest those who want to learn more about family literacy and ESL, and at the same time support teachers interested in developing programs valuable to LEP parents/caregivers in their communities.

As stated earlier, family literacy is a complex topic, with many definitions and methods of implementation. For the purposes of this project, family literacy encompasses learning that occurs within the homes of LEP families, amongst various generations, with formal school-like representations, as well as more informal daily interactive representations. Family literacy is captured in that moment when a caregiver sits by the side of a young child and they share a book together. Yet it also includes the moment that same caregiver retrieves the mail from the mailbox and reads the utility bill successfully, or even not so successfully. Although the first example is more typical when describing successful family literacy, to me both examples illustrate the principle. Even though the focus of this project was to practice reading strategies with LEP parents and caregivers while reading children’s literature, family literacy in its larger, encompassing nature became an element naturally intertwined in the entire development, implementation, and evaluation of this project.  Therefore, through its implementation, the fields of ESL and family literacy have met; the overlap and relationship that should exist between these two has become more evident to me. Thus, TESOL training, for those interested in family literacy, must become more complete and preparatory relative to family literacy issues before LEP learners can have their family literacy needs more fully met in formal classroom settings.

Many organizations and institutions have already established programs that meet the family literacy needs of LEP families. Some of these larger programs emphasize the need for a more complex, four-part program in order to best serve both adults and children in need of family literacy support. Although there is value in this model the NCFL prescribes, often the most innovative family literacy programs and ideas originate from small, sometimes school-based developers. Much like Paratore (2001), I learned that “special practices and programs can enhance parents’ understanding of the classroom and classroom literacies and, as well, can expand teachers’ understanding of families and family literacies” (p. 111). Teaching people when they are ready to be taught involves capturing sparks and moments of questioning, and taking advantage of students’ expressed interest at any given moment. Doing this effectively often means that prescribed, prepackaged curriculum is not the end-all, be-all answer its creators hope it to be. Teaching to the needs of the students, both those expressed by them, and those observed by the instructor, involves spontaneity within a basic routine.

A valid and worthwhile option for creating innovative family literacy programs includes using children’s literature and picture books in curriculum development. And yet many teachers and even some students still remain unconvinced that “children’s picture books are the sort of quality materials that can be an important part of the adult literacy curriculum” (Sharp, 1991, p. 219). The power that children’s literature can have with adult learners is increased when the literature used in class is the very stories their children have been exposed to in their classrooms at school. Creating scenarios in the classroom that support literacy activities in the home gives validity and strength to any small-scale family literacy class; children’s literature is powerful because it connects the classroom world to the family’s world at home, as well as connecting children to parents and parents to children.

The two main perspectives on family literacy programs, the deficit and anti-deficit approaches, naturally include different ideas about how to carry out these programs. Proponents of either side claim to have success with their personal stance, accompanied by stories and data to support those claims. These diverse stories and data prove that there is no one way to teach and support literacy practices in the home. However, programs that cater to LEP families and adults must take into account the communities in which curriculum will be implemented, what participants want and need, and how implementation will be unique to that specific community. When they fail to take into consideration each community’s respective circumstances, family literacy programs cannot truly claim to reach individuals and change lives in a lasting fashion.

The exact impact family literacy programs may have on families and individuals is nearly impossible to gauge. Yet, through keeping detailed, reflective journal entries of classroom experiences, measuring, evaluating and improving teaching experiences become more feasible. Through the data I gathered from daily journal entries, glimpses into the classroom experience, that otherwise would not have been available to me, became accessible. The practice of keeping a reflective journal reminds the teacher that process is more important than product. Using a journal as a tool to inquire about one’s teaching, and then to set goals, is a priceless practice. As I taught both Wave One and Wave Two, I learned, reformulated, and implemented ideas based on daily observations that are now available for others in Wave One and Wave Two journals (see Appendix D and Appendix E). Without these, the thirteen lessons I have organized and provided via the Internet would not exist. Certainly without this record I would still remember the overall power and general lessons learned during my experience. However, without the ability to go back to formal records—reading and comparing my specific experiences to ideas found in the literature—this program’s impact and lasting benefits for others and myself would be far less than what they now have the capacity to be.

By synthesizing this information into 13 simple lessons—including my own journal excerpts along with words from the literature—I hope to communicate to those interested in family literacy with LEP families that there are some essential things to know before creating and implementing programs. Not merely advice from a book, but lessons learned from one who implemented that advice into a real life experience—smoothing the path for others who wish to embark upon this same exciting journey of promoting family literacy.