Culturally Congruent Literacy Practices: Calca, Peru

Culturally Congruent Literacy Practices: Calca, Peru

Sabina Rak NeugebauerSabina_Neugebauer@mail.harvard.edu

I would like to acknowledge Elaine Mo and Rachel Currie Rubin who made this work possible and provided invaluable insights regarding administration and design for this project

Low Literacy Rates in Peru

Peruvian First and Second Graders

Below Grade Level

Rural

Urban

Calca

Context in Calca

Community Level

Bilingual Rural Indigenous

School Level

Public Primary Teacher/student ration 1/32 approximately Grades 1-6

Research Based Practices with Local Practices

Phase 1

-School/Community Observations 2006-2007

Phase 2

-Collaboration and Implementation of Read Aloud Program 2007-2009

Research Based Practices: Read Alouds

Linguistic Characteristics • Focus on Vocabulary Improves reading comprehension abilities

(Adams, 1990,Coyne, Simmons, Kame’enui, & Stoolmiller, 2004; McKeown & Beck, 2004)

• Vocabulary depth for ELLs (Silverman, 2007; August, Carlo, Dressler, and Snow, 2005)

Local Cultural Characteristics

• Oral nature of read alouds (Mello, 2001) • Active Participation (Cornell, 1993; Elley, 1989)• Communal Nature (Villegas, Rak Neugebauer & Venegas, 2007)• Narratives integrating background knowledge (Stahl & Nagy, 2006)

Rural Characteristics

• Semi circle format (Beck & McKeown, 2001; De Temple & Snow, 2003)• Redefining literacies (Laserna)

Methods

Field Notes 2006-2007

Observation protocol 2006-2007

Standardized comprehension and vocabulary measures

Researcher designed measure on content vocabulary

Teacher Interviews

Phase 1: Inside the Classroom: Pre-Intervention

MemorizationDictation

Independent Seating

Class room set up

Outside the Classroom

Phase One

Traditional Ceremonies and Daily Routines

CommunalApprenticeship model (cooking, working)

(Lave & Wenger, 1991)Circles (around the grave, around the

coach, sing alongs) Oral narratives (Incan Stories, Gossip,

Messengers) (Mello,2001; Zavale, 2001)

Program Design

• Three books in Spanish• Three books in Spanish• Read Aloud Pedagogy

2 teachers

29 students2 teachers

26 students

Drop outN=7

N=24N= 22

Experimental GroupControl Group

N=2

Student Baseline Characteristics

Program Features

1. Repeating interactive readings, focusing on a small number of words (Lane & Wright, 2007).

2. Monitoring the depth of students’ word knowl edge for the purposes of adaptable and respon sive instruction (Hickman, Pollard-Durodola, & Vaughn, 2004).

3. Repeating exposure to vocabulary for retention (Hickman et al., 2004).

4. Decontextualizing vocabulary for extension in multiple contexts (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002).

5. Conversing about vocabulary through text-to- self connections to improve comprehension, motivation, and learning (Sipe, 2000).

6. Practicing expression, tone, and gesture with vocabulary in context (Pemberton & Watkins, 1987). 7. Using the comprehension strategy of self-mon itoring when reading to improve vocabulary learning (Jongsma, 1999).

Read Aloud Text

Preliminary Findings

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

ChangeScore

Control

Experimental

Completers AnalysisEffect Size=2.91

Future Directions for the community

-Teacher training across grades-Children’s library with Read aloud books for all ages

-Parent-teacher collaboration with library-Tutoring partnership with local university

Before

After

Future Research Directions

• Rural/Urban Comparisons

• Longitudinal Progress

• Read Alouds and Bilingualism

Questions for Discussion

• Based on the Miller and Cardenal reading what will be some of the challenges for sustaining this intervention?

• Should the intervention be in Quechua?• What is the role of parents in all of this?

How does this intervention influence effect change parent-child relationships?

• What ecological factors played into the cardenal and miller article?

Book two of the InterventionMaria turns the pages and asks aloud about the fate of David, a friendly llama.

“¿Por qué David está buscando a su madre?” (Why is David looking for his mom?)

“Porque él no sabe dónde vive, quizás su madre esté en la casa” (Because he doesn’t know where he lives, maybe his mother is in the house), responds Yeferson.“

¿Él está buscando su casa o su hogar?” (He is looking for his house or hishome?) “¿Qué es hogar?” Martha asks, furrowing her brow.“Es una casa con una familia”, “es un lugar donde una familia vive”(“It is a house with a family” “it is a place where a family lives”) They all shout.“Claro, es un lugar donde vive una familia o con familia, un domicilio” (Sure, it is a place where a family lives or with a family, or a domicile.”)¿Y qué harían en la situación de David? (“What would you do if you were in

David’s situation?”)