Resultados Digby Sensors Inc en el tablero de control del simulador Capsim

The design and scope of the Wellcome project allowed for a unique insight into children’s early home literacy experiences, and consequently the analyses presented in this chapter constitute the most in-depth description of the early HLE of children at family-risk of dyslexia to date. A number of key points emerge from these analyses.

166 First, meaning-focused literacy interactions (here defined as exposure to storybooks) are not related to code-focused interactions (here defined as direct instruction of orthographic forms) in FR or TD families. This factor structure was invariant across groups in the current sample, with the exception that teaching of letters was partially explained by exposure to storybooks in the FR group only. This suggests that, among families with a history of reading difficulties, parents who read more stories with their children also teach them about letters more frequently. Martini and Sénéchal (2012) reported that many parents use storybook reading as a vehicle for pointing out letters and words, so it may be that this practice was more common in FR families in the current sample. However, overall, the factor structure presented in Section 3.1.4 is broadly consistent with Sénéchal and LeFevre’s (2002) Home Literacy Model, in that storybook exposure and direct instruction of letters and words emerge as discrete components of the HLE.

Second, a common stepwise pattern (TD > FR-only > FR-SLI) was observed in several of the HLE and SES variables. Group differences were not statistically significant in the individual interview items relating to storybook exposure, but emerged more clearly in the checklist measures. As mentioned above, this could reflect the greater objectivity of the checklists, which were designed with the aim of controlling for social desirability bias. Alternatively, FR families may engage in storybook reading interactions as frequently as TD families, but the range of reading materials employed may be more limited, or parents with dyslexia may have difficulty retaining information about book titles and authors. Overall, however, these results suggest that FR children experience somewhat less exposure to

167 storybooks in the preschool years than their TD peers, and that FR children who are language-impaired are least exposed to children’s literature. While the frequency of direct literacy instruction in the home was equivalent across groups, a gender effect was observed, such that parents were more likely to report teaching girls about letters and words than boys. This effect held in both the FR and TD groups. It may be that parents view preschool girls as better able to concentrate during didactic interactions than boys. Alternatively, this gender difference could reflect parental perceptions that girls are more interested in reading than boys at this young age.

Third, there is some evidence that FR children are somewhat less interested in storybooks than TD children as early as 4 years old. It is unsurprising that self- reports of enjoyment of reading on the part of parents was lower in the FR group than the TD group, and this finding was supported by the significant group difference in scores on the Adult Author Checklist. However, parental ratings of

children’s enjoyment of books were also lower in the FR group. It is noteworthy

that the correlation between the storybook exposure and child interest factors in the baseline CFA model for the FR group was markedly higher than in the TD group model. This indicates that greater variability in children’s and adults’ interest in books in FR families is reflected in the amount of storybook exposure that these children experience in the home.

The TD>FR-only>FR-SLI pattern was apparent in all SES indicators, suggesting that environmental risk factors are more prevalent in children at developmental risk of reading difficulties. In all groups, SES was positively correlated with storybook exposure, although no clear relationship emerged between

168 SES and direct instruction of letters and words, nor children’s interest in books. This pattern is convergent with a substantial literature suggesting that the effects of SES on reading development are mediated by proximal environmental systems, including the HLE (Phillips & Lonigan, 2005).

There was no clear indication that either the number of children in the home or the birth order of the child was related to HLE experiences. One exception was that later-born FR children encountered less direct instruction of literacy in the home. Single-parent family status, on the other hand, was weakly negatively correlated with HLE and SES indicators. The issue of whether single-parent family status confers an environmental risk of reading difficulties in its own right, or whether the association is largely explained by socio-economic factors is unresolved (Ricciuti, 1999) and this issue is not explored further in the current thesis.

Finally, the qualitative analysis of parents’ comments about their values and beliefs concerning literacy development revealed a number of interesting themes. Shared storybook reading is a universally valued activity, while more diversity of opinion exists on the value of teaching letters and words in the home. Although inferences drawn from this analysis must be tentative, it was notable that a number of parents in the FR group referred to a heightened awareness of their child’s elevated risk of reading difficulties. This awareness often co-occurred with an expressed belief that literacy instruction should begin early in the home, or conversely with a reluctance to engage in code-related activities with their children for fear of ‘doing it wrong’. These exploratory data suggest multiple, complex

169 pathways through which parental belief systems may influence literacy-related behaviours in the home.

171

Chapter 4: The Home Literacy Environment as a Predictor