Article

Journal of Early Childhood

Literacy 0(0) 1–29

Family literacy in a ! The Author(s) 2018

Reprints and permissions:

low-income urban sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1468798418766604

community in the
journals.sagepub.com/home/ecl

Philippines
Rosarito Tatel-Suatengco and
Jennifer S Florida
Far Eastern University, Philippines

Abstract
The growth of literacy in the Philippines is attributed to the formalization of the edu-
cation system. Learning experiences from formal schooling and the home environmen-
tal influence, complement and reinforce the role of the teacher and the parent in
promoting literacy. Home literacy practices which are centred on parent-child inter-
action can promote literacy through the sharing of information. This study examines
home practices that are directly or indirectly associated with or promote family literacy.
Narratives and stories of participant families about their literacy practices were gath-
ered through naturalistic life-story interviews, observation and participation in selected
outside activities. Themes were drawn from the data collected, wherein interpretative
phenomenological analysis was applied in the analysis. Four themes were identified
which focus on language; home strength and activities; faith, values and aspirations;
and home and school connection. Languages used at home by the family serve as a
springboard for family literacy, which also supports classroom instructions. Household
chores and other home activities are used as a support to learn literacy concepts taught
in school, such as science concepts, survival skills, hygiene and childcare. Family
literacy practices are anchored in family values and aspirations that enable each family
to pursue and sustain their literacy practices. Storytelling and reading are practised at
home, which provides opportunities for teaching and learning among family members.
Each family in this study found ways to maximize their limited resources to support the
literacy of their children for better education. The findings suggest that the economic
condition of the family is not a deterrent to family literacy practices. Family literacy
practices depend upon the unique dynamics of each family, which are influenced by the
languages used at home, household activities, family values and aspirations. Literacy
practices are also related to teaching and learning activities at school.

Corresponding author:
Jennifer S Florida, Far Eastern University, Nicanor Reyes St., Quiapo, Manila 1008,
Philippines. Email: jennifersflorida@yahoo.com
2 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 0(0)

Keywords
Family literacy, home literacy practices, home literacy environment, low-income family

Introduction
Literacy studies have become diverse over the years. Originating from mother
to children learning practices, literacy is now a societal concern. Social and
academic perspectives have also contributed to the ongoing conversation on
literacy studies. One of the constant discussions in literacy studies is the role of
families in literacy development among children. Van Kleeck and Schuele
(2010) wrote historical perspectives on literacy in early childhood which show
how families played a role in children’s literacy development, which begins
with their literacy experiences at home initiated by their parents or other adult
members of the family. Regardless of the changing views on the role of
families for centuries, what remains constant is the continuing contri-butions of
families to childhood literacy (Van Kleeck and Schuele, 2010).
Despite the fact that the focus on literacy changes through time over, the
role of the family remains steadfast and consistent; families have always
been involved in children’s literacy development. It is families who have
been igniting the torch of substantial education for children (Van Kleeck
and Schuele, 2010). From the 1600s to the 1800s, making the child read and
be exposed to learning was the primary responsibility of families. This idea
was likewise shared by John Locke, a British philosopher, who argued that
reading instruction should begin at home at a very young age for a child. He
continued by arguing for exploring ways to effectively teach a child to read
and to learn sports which could make them happy (Axtell, 1968; Beatty,
1995). Historical accounts of literacy in colonial America and other parts of
the world show the same pattern (Van Kleeck and Schuele, 2010). In the
Philippines, arguably, the most popular and early manifestation of family
involvement in a child’s literacy was the story of Jose Rizal, the country’s
national hero. Rizal, in his account of his learning, honoured his mother as
his first teacher who read stories to him and taught to him to read and write .
Clearly, the significant contribution of families to promoting literacy among
children has been around for ages across cultures, social dynamics and eco-
nomic conditions. It resonates in the stories of so many people - both well-
known and ordinary.
For several decades since the First World War, the Philippines has been
aggressively promoting literacy among its citizens across geographic locations ,
Tatel-Suatengco and Florida 3

religious orientations and socio-economic profiles. Literacy is at work in the

Philippines from the highly urbanized Metro Manila to the most remote
town in far-flung provinces in Mindanao. As a result, the Philippines has
seen a 5% increase in literacy for the past 10 years from 92.3% in 2000 to
97.1% in 2010, of which Metro Manila has the highest registered literacy
rate of 99.7%, according to the National Statistics Office (Lazo, 2013).
The current literacy situation in the Philippines is undeniably a much
improved scenario compared with the 20% literacy rate recorded in the
coun-try prior to the First World War (Cristobal, 2015). The continuous and
sus-tained efforts of stakeholders from national to local levels have resulted
in a genuine improvement in literacy levels among the citizens.
Alba (2007) attributed the growth of literacy in the Philippines to the
formalization of the education system, which gives priority to literacy devel-
opment. Proof of this lies in the establishment of the Literacy Coordinating
Council (LCC) of the Philippines under the supervision of the Department of
Education (DepED). The Council provides yearly incentives and recognition to
institutions, families and individuals who make significant contributions to the
development and promotion of literacy, especially in marginalized com-
munities and economically challenged families and individuals. Best practices
in literacy, which help to alleviate poverty, provide livelihoods, address welfare
needs, promote freedom and make education facilities accessible are given the
National Literacy Award (NLA).
In past decades, the Department of Education has systematically initiated and
implemented literacy programmes through its schools, divisions and regional
offices. One of their programmes is the promotion of children’s reading skills
through the ‘Every Child A Reader’ programme, which requires all basic edu-
cation institutions in the country to address the reading problems of beginning
literacy learners, specifically from grades K to 3. Another programme is the
creation of a library hub, which also promotes reading by making age-appro-priate
reading materials available to students through their respective school libraries. In
the past five years, the Department of Education has taken the initiative and been at
the forefront of employing mother tongue-based multi-lingual education in schools
all over the country. This programme recognizes the contribution of the child’s first
language to his/her academic skills devel-opment. Because of this programme,
many literacy development projects are highlighted, like the development of small
and big books in two or three lan-guages, the making of dictionaries and glossaries
of literacy concepts in various languages, and storytelling in multiple languages.
Annual literacy projects like Book Week and National Reading Month are
constantly observed in schools.
4 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 0(0)

The Philippine government’s efforts to promote literacy are further

enhanced through the Republic Act 10122, an act strengthening the literacy
coordination council by amending the Republic Act 7165 or an act creating
LCC, passed in 2009. Under this law, LCC is represented by national agen-
cies and institutions that are directly involved in literacy development in the
country; it synchronizes literacy efforts by promoting multi-agency cooper-
ation and partnerships. Several local efforts to promote literacy have been
undertaken too by local government and non-government organizations.
Despite all the efforts that the government and non-government institutions
have been putting into literacy, it is still noticeable that these efforts are
less, if non-existent, in family literacy. This observation is included in the
Education for All 2000 Assessment report by the Philippines. In this report,
the EFA Philippine strategy is focused on promoting literacy among adults,
women and girls, as well as providing community literacy programmes and
putting in place alternative learning systems (ALS) for out of school youth
community members with low literacy. Steady and intensi-fied effort from
the government to promote family literacy is still much to be desired.

Even though the Philippine government has generally taken over the pri-
mary role of developing literacy amongst its citizens through various laws
(Hall, 2000), literacy programmes, innovative teaching methods and strate-
gies (Venezky, 1987), approaches to literacy education (Bredekamp, 1987;
Harden, 1984) learning practices (Anderson et al., 1985), research
(Dickinson and Newman, 2006), curricular development and compulsory
education (Van Kleeck and Schuele, 2010), families’ involvement in
promot-ing literacy at home remains significant and steadfast. Filipino
families, acting in unison and supportive of the government’s undertakings,
have created their own mechanisms that make literacy work regardless of
whether or not they receive any support from the government. These family
literacy practices of Filipino families are recognized in the academic
literature. As a matter of fact, research on emergent literacy has found its
way into practice with recom-mendations for the involvement of parents in
teaching their children more than reading, mirroring at home what the
children experience in their schools (Neuman et al., 2000). In this way, the
role of the home environment and appropriate practices for preschool
classrooms are now are often viewed as quite similar.
As family members go about their daily lives, a wide variety of literacy
practices are exhibited. A majority of these literacy practices are centred on
parent-child interaction which involves the sharing of information. Home
Tatel-Suatengco and Florida 5

literacy practices, such as parent help with reading, are better predictors of
academic success (Hewison and Tizard, 1980). Parents can provide
interesting reading materials in the home which can arouse curiosity and
encourage children to read. The habit of reading exposes children to wider
vocabulary. The meta-analysis conducted by Fan and Chen (2001) revealed
that parental involvement has a positive influence on students’ academic
achievement. Children with good parental modelling in reading performed
better in literacy behaviours.
Literacy was once defined as the ability to read and write (Blake and Hanley,
1995). Home literacy practices include parent involvement (Hannon, 1995) in
homework which promotes reading and writing. Other literacy practices
observed at home include: oral and visual practices; numeracy practices; read-
ing and writing practices; new technology practices; and leisure activities
(National Adult Literacy Agency, 2010). Oral and visual practices involve the
use of verbal and non-verbal messages. The new technology gadgets’ used for
communication such as mobile phones and computers can provide
opportunities for daily oral and visual practice. Moreover, sending messages
through the use of Internet via computer and mobile phones can promote
reading and writing activities. In addition to the latest technology, low-cost
activities like playing board games can promote the numerical knowledge of
young children (Ramani and Siegler, 2014). Numerical knowledge can also be
developed by allowing children to be involved in preparation of the house-hold
budget. Budgeting also promotes family values through financial deci-sions
that relate to a family’s goals (Day, 2010).
Family literacy sees learning as a lifelong process; it is anchored in people’s
own ecology, that defines their ethnicity, race and cultural heritage, among
others. This study examines home practices that are directly or indirectly
associated with or promote family literacy. This study makes the case for each
member’s participation in the family literacy paradigm. It also specifies the
literacy evident in each family. Moreover, this study presupposes that even
without the overt government and non-government efforts to promote family
literacy, it is still much evident in each family regardless of its socio-economic
standing. Each family, propelled by Filipino culture and the value ascribed to
education, creates its own literacy ecology.
This study is primarily anchored in the concept of family literacy by Taylor
(1983), Bronfrenbrenner’s family ecology (1989) and funds of knowledge by Moll
et al.(1992). Family literacy, according to Taylor (1983), points to the joint efforts
of parents, children, caregivers and community for learning. The overall goal is to
contribute to children’s academic and non-academic learning before
6 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 0(0)

and during school age by providing literacy-related and specific activities at

home and during interactions. It gains further support in the theories on ‘funds
of knowledge’ (Moll et al., 1992) and the family strength model (Carter, 2009).
Family literacy is the central anchor of this study via a family is a unit of
dynamics and structures that benefit literacy aspirations, especially for young
members of the family. Family literacy, as a theoretical foundation, sup-ports
understanding the actions and decisions of the family as a unit.
Bronfrenbrenner (1989) developed ecological systems theory which
explains the child’s development in a system of relationships within the
envir-onment. In this theory, the interaction of the family, community and
society with the child affects the development of the child. As the child
grows and matures, the interaction becomes more complex. The family
members within the immediate sphere of the child’s influence provide the
primary relation-ship. Schools and teachers perform a secondary role, is to
in supporting the primary relationship established by family members and
create a nurturing school environment.
Banking on Bronfrenbrenner’s idea of family dynamics through family
ecology, this study interpreted the systematic and well-thought out under-
taking of the family as a unit. This gives credence to the decisions taken
made by each family members in pushing forward literacy practices in the
house-hold. Older family members have a direct influence on the literacy
develop-ment of younger members.
With Funds of knowledge, there are resources available to the child at
home and these are used as springboard for literacy experiences at school.
These funds of knowledge ‘pertain to the social, economic, and productive
activities of people in a local region’ that have implications for classroom
use (Moll et al., 1992).

Research methodology
This study utilized a qualitative methodology, specifically a case study method.
Each family is considered to be a case. Qualitative research involves a multi-
faceted approach that investigates culture, society and behaviour through an
analysis of people’s words and actions (Hogan et al., 2009). The family’s life
history is narrated by the members themselves (Atkinson, 1998). This method
was utilized to gather evidence from narration and stories of participant
families about their literacy practices. As a research tool, naturalistic life story
interview are grounded in a person-centred view. Interpretative phe-
nomenological analysis (IPA) was conducted while examining the
Tatel-Suatengco and Florida 7

data gathered from the narration of family members focusing on literacy

practices.
An interview with a key informant was conducted to identify families in
the community that could be considered in this study. Kumar (1989)
mentions that an interview with a key informant is important in
understanding the attitudes of a target population. The Barangay Captain of
the community recommended families that might represent a portion of the
target popula-tion. There was a careful examination to determine whether
the selected sample frame fits the objectives of this study.
Purposive sampling was utilized to select families who are available and
willing to participate and have the ability to communicate their experiences
and opinions in an articulate, expressive and reflective manner (Palinkas et
al., 2015). Specifically, the typical case sampling type of the purposive
sampling technique was used, which focused on what is typical, normal
and/or aver-age. The key informant helped the researchers to identify
‘typical families’ in the community. Then, a purposeful random sample was
selected from the identified ‘typical families’. Patton (1990) emphasizes
that random selection is not designed with generalization in mind but to aid
the researchers in making choices about the selection.
The content of the informed consent document was discussed with the
families recommended by the Barangay Captain. Tagalog, which is the
lingua franca of the families, was the language used in the informed
consent. The document has two parts: an information sheet, and a certificate
of consent. The first part has an introduction, purpose of the research, type
of research inter-vention, participant selection, voluntary participation,
procedure, duration of the study, risks, benefits of the study, confidentiality,
plan for sharing the findings and the right to refuse or withdraw. A refusal
to participate or sign the informed consent is considered as an ‘‘exclusion
criterion’’ (Martı´nez-Mesa et al., 2016).
Family participants with the following characteristics were selected: the
family is an extended family with grandparents, parents and children living
together in one household; the combined monthly family income is below Php
20,000 (approx. USD 400), the grandparents or parents are migrants from the
provinces; and there are more than three children, aged two to eight years who
are either in a formal school, home-schooled or unschooled. Overall, there are
three families who met the criteria and signed the informed consent document.
They all reside in the same barangay in one of the densely populated cities of
Metro Manila in the Philippines. The city has 21 barangays and has a
population of 365,525 based on the 2015 National Census.
8 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 0(0)

The data gathering has three components: in-depth interviews,

observation and participation. In gathering data, life history narratives and
in-depth inter-views were applied (Atkinson, 1998). The intent was to
gather evidence from narration and stories of participant families and which
aspects of their life histories directly or indirectly relate to family literacy.
Each family was interviewed using the storytelling approach. Three in-
depth family interviews were conducted to elicit the literacy realities, truths
and perceptions of the families. In the first interview, the focus was on
family stories of literacy; the point of enquiry was the family’s educational
attainment and school experiences. The second interview is about the life
stories of individual members as they related to their respective personal
truths regard-ing their literacy experiences and aspirations. The third
interview dealt with the family members’ interests and practices that
support and promote literacy in the family.
Data collection was done from April to June 2016. Within this period, two
weeks were spent with each family for observation and interviews. Activities
related to literacy which were taking place inside the house were considered in
the observation. Researchers’ participation in outside activities, such as play-
ing, going to the market, and attending mass, were also noted in this study.
For the observation, the researchers spent one day observing the
activities of the family members, like when they are eating, cooking and
washing clothes, among others. The researchers also noted the literacy
materials pre-sent in the house. Document analysis was used to analyse the
documents in the household used for literacy purposes, such as print
materials (e.g. books, magazines, posters, flashcards, maps, posters), audio-
visual materials (e.g. music, movies, educational TV) and artefacts (e.g.
carpentry and kitchen tools, clothes, pots, furniture). The analysis focused
on the literacy content embedded in the sample documents.
Another component of data gathering is the participation wherein the
researchers spent one day with the families for their activities outside the
house (e.g. running errands, going to the market, going to church and
playing in the street, among others).
All observation, interviews and document analyses data have assigned
codes. A coding system, anchored in the research questions and objectives,
was designed specifically for this study. The codes assigned to data pertain
to ideas, concepts and themes that are reflective of family literacies and
other types of literacies, the contributions of family members to promote
family literacy, family members’ participation in literacy-related activities,
and inte-gration of family literacy and education.
Tatel-Suatengco and Florida 9

In analysing the data, IPA was applied wherein the transcribed data gathered
from in-depth interviews were framed and given exploratory comments. From
these comments, themes were identified and clustered. IPA provided the tool to
determine how family activities relate to literacy practices.

Results and discussion

The results and discussion bring us to the unified strength of families as a unit
that is united in its beliefs and approach to highlighting family literacy.
Families in urban poor communities have mitigated their vulnerability in
literacy by creating a home scenario that is beneficial to all family members.
This section shows that families’ intangible resources are used to achieve a
level of literacy that is significant enough to make the children rich in experi-
ence, despite the limited economic resources that they have at birth.
The themes drawn from the data reflect how families from a low-income
urban community in the Philippines, with limited resources at their disposal
and socially deprived, can utilize their family ecology composed mainly of
intangible resources – languages, values, family bonds and spirituality in
promoting family literacy in their respective homes.

Family literacy themes

There are four primary themes in this study: language is a springboard for
family literacy; home strengths and activities are the bedrock of family liter-
acy; faith, values, family life and aspirations are driving forces in promoting
family literacy; and the literacy experienced at home mirrors the literacy
taught and learned in school. Each primary theme has supporting themes
that provide details on how each primary theme is shown in each family.

Language is a springboard for family literacy

The use of local languages at home provides the children with conceptual
ground knowledge in different languages.

The knowledge of the local language of the family has become a springboard
for family literacy. They learn a grounding and conceptual knowledge in the
mother tongue of their parents. The children are able to maximize their
grandparents’ limited literacy through their constant exposure to the grand-
parents’ mother tongue. For example, the grandchildren learn about
10 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 0(0)

directions and responding to directions and the different kinds of fish by

using the grandparents’ mother tongue, as in the case of Family 1. The
grandparents’ regular use of their mother tongue becomes an enabler for the
grandchildren to learn more ground and conceptual knowledge. Notably, it
is only the grandparents who frequently use these languages.

Pagnas-uutos si tatay, sa Waray (Family 1).

(Every time Tatay [the grandfather] gave an instruction, he says it in Waray

1
[the first language of the grandparents and a local language]).

Nagtatagalog ako sa kanila. Tagalog kami dito sa bahay. Nagienles sila sa

iskol (Family 2).
2
(I speak to them in Tagalog. We speak Tagalog at home. They speak English
in school.)

Nagsasalita din [grandparents] sila ng Kinaray-a sa3 to the children. Tumira

din kami sa Antique (Family 3).

(They [grandparents] also speak Kinaray-a [to the children]. We also lived in
Antique4).

As argued by Purcell-Gates (2000) and Weigel et al. (2006), the exposure

of children to naturally occurring language and literacy activities in the
home environment provides the impetus for skills and concepts
development as well as attitudes and behaviours that could positively lead
to knowledge and inter-est in literacy, while Neuman and Dickinson (2001)
claimed that the chil-dren’s exposure to multiple languages provides a rich
oral language experience which is a key factor in early literacy acquisition.
The Hartas’ (2011) study on the impact of social backgrounds as regards
children’s literacy has provided quantitative information on the need to
strengthen the socio-economic factors of care providers – parents and grand-
parents – to augment children’s literacy development; however, in situations
where the children come from a family that is socially disadvantaged, having
multiple languages used and spoken at home become a linguistic support that
can lead to literacy support. This practice of using the mother tongue can
potentially outweigh the success of language learni ng that children might get at
school (Al Otaiba and Fuchs 2006; Wigfield and Asher, 1984).
Tatel-Suatengco and Florida 11

Languages for wider communication such as Filipino and English being used
for literacy support instructions.

The family prefers to provide the children with literacy instruction using
Filipino and English because these are the languages used in school. This is
evident while doing the children’s homework.

Madalas kami [grandparents give instruction to their children] papasulatin ng

kung ano ano, magsulat ka diyan ng ano sa English tapos ikokorek ang error
(Family 2).

(Most of the time we are asked to write anything in English, after that
someone will correct it for errors.)

Yung lola nila nagtuturo ng Inglis. Sisasabihin nya sa mga apo ko na inglisin
ninyo. Heto madalas dito ‘maginglis nga tayo’ (Family 2).

(Their grandmother teaches English to the grandchildren. She often reminds

her grandchildren to speak in English.)

This family literacy practice can be taken as an opportunity leading to the

language and literacy development of children (Brandt, 2001; DeBaryshe et
al., 2000). In this situation, the eldest and the one considered to be the most
educated member of the family [grandmother] becomes the initiator of
family literacy practices. The eldest member [grandmother] uses her experi-
ences to support her grandchildren’s literacy skills and development. The
credibility and authority that she has, being the eldest and most educated [a
retired elementary school teacher], has created an atmosphere on the whole
in which learning is given primary importance. The efforts provided by
other members of the family are geared towards the third generation’s
literacy development. This shows the strength of a family and school
connection in which the quality of literacy role models provided by
caregivers and the types of literacy and language activities in which
members of the family engage will lead to positive literacy and language
abilities development (Burgess et al., 2002).

Home strengths and activities are the bedrock of family literacy.

Household chores have become the family’s multi-layered venue for family literacy.
12 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 0(0)

Each family believes that every member of the unit has a responsibility to fulfill
for the family which is evident on the duty that they handle. Similarities in
delegating duties and responsibilities were observed among families. The first
generation [grandparents] are left at home to look after the grandchildren or take
them to school; the second generation is usually out of the house because they are
gainfully employed. They provide the income for the entire family; hence, they are
no longer required to participate in any household chores. If they do, they do so
voluntarily. For the third generation, the main responsibility in the household is to
study and do household chores that link to their learning.
The engagement of the third generation in doing household chores become
an opportunity for providing ground knowledge and skills and supporting
literacy and skills learned in school. The children learn about survival skills in
their context by doing assigned household chores. The type of household
chores allotted to each member is based on the child’s ability to follow,
understand directions or age. It is noticeable in all families that the children’s
participation in household chores starts at an early age [about four to five years
old]. The induction of the children into doing household chores at a very young
age is evidently a value that each family holds.
For Family 1, the household chores done by the third generation are
sweeping the floor, washing the dishes and clothes, setting the table,
making the bed, babysitting for a newborn member, feeding the baby and
doing errands, if asked.
For Family 2, washing the dishes, running errands, cleaning the house,
stalking books and washing clothes were part of their household chores.
For Family 3, washing clothes and dishes, and cleaning the house were
considered as their household chores.
Noticeably, the third generation takes pride in their ability to do
household chores without being told. It is an understanding in each
household that one is considered to be a good member of the family if one
handles one’s respon-sibilities earnestly.
Engaging in household chores become an opportunity for literacy devel-
opment, such as oral language, oral fluency, word study, word identification
and vocabulary. Doing the household chores can be considered as a
manifest-ation of a home learning environment. Research on home literacy
environ-ment (HLE) shows that there is a consensus that HLE is a key
factor that affects oral language skills such as vocabulary in both
monolingual (Burgess et al., 2002; Se´ne´chal and LeFevre, 2002) and
Spanish–English bilingual (Farver et al., 2006; Gonzalez and Uhing, 2008) populations
during the preschool-and early school-age years.
Tatel-Suatengco and Florida 13

The many concepts that the third generation learn from materials and
artifacts at home, coupled with their interaction with the first and second
generations as they do household chores, becomes a direct opportunity for
literacy development exposure and learning.
The third generation’s engagement in household activities can likewise
be considered as a way of strengthening their ground knowledge.
Interestingly, the practice of strengthening children’s ground knowledge at
home contrib-utes to literacy development, especially if the school practices
cultural model-ling in which instruction makes an explicit connection
between the children’s knowledge and experiences with the family with
content and literacy goals at school (Risko and Walker-Dalhouse, 2007).
Knowledge of household chores becomes an empowering tool for children
in a cultural modelling context practised in school (Gay, 2000).
Aside from the positive influence of doing household chores in literacy
development, it can also influence the third generation’s narrative abilities. Home
experiences such as doing household chores with caregivers may con-tribute
positively to the overall growth of narrative abilities of bilingual children.

Home activities are used as a support to learn the literacy concepts taught in
school such as science concepts, survival skills, hygiene and childcare.

The daily activities of the children like chores and play, introduced to them
by their grandparents, parents and aunts and uncles, mirror the concepts
taught and learned in school. In some cases, the first and second generations
used the children’s involvement in daily activities as a learning opportunity,
wherein they directly taught the children academic concepts that could be
drawn from engaging in home activities. Since the first and second
generations are involved in the third generation’s literacy in various means
and capacities, they are able to channel to what is learned in school into
what is experienced at home.
A case in point is Family 1 in which the aunt (second generation member
of the family) will involve the third generation in caring for an infant
cousin. According to the aunt, she taught her niece how to bottle-feed her
infant cousin:

Aunt: Dapat alam ang oras, para alam kung napapanis na the ang gatas.

(The child should know when the milk was prepared to determine its
expiration.)
14 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 0(0)

In this example, the concepts of time and word collocation, among others,
are subtly introduced to the third generation. It can provide ground
knowledge to the children learning these concepts and other that can be
honed from the experience of feeding a child.
In the case of Family 2, playtime is an opportunity for learning. They have
role-playing games wherein the players assume roles of characters in various
setting like grocery store, bank and school. When the children simulate events
in a grocery story, they take turns to play the parts of a buyer and a seller.
Another play simulates the events in a bank in which one acts as a depositor
and the other as the teller. They also do a simulation of events in a classroom.
Some act as students, while someone is assigned to be the teacher. They use
blackboard, chalk, eraser and stick as play materials. In these games, the lit-
eracy concepts learned [which are also taught in school] include money
counting, numbers and politeness, among others.

Faith, values, family life and aspirations are driving forces in promoting
family literacy.

Faith education, a common practice of families, has a tangible and intangible

impact om family literacy.

The religiosity and spirituality of each family, or at least some of the family
members, contribute to the religious and spiritual practices of the children.
Evidently, these practices are encouraged at home regardless of the older gen-
erations. Notably, this practice is used by the first and second generations as an
anchor in promoting education to the third generation. They want religiosity
and spirituality to play an important part in the academic lives of the children.
This probably explains why praying is part of the children’s preparation for
taking an exam; when there is difficulty in academic activities, the children
resort to praying, and when something is achieved in class, they also pray.
Usually, it is the female members of the first and second generations that
encourage, practice, and lead the children in prayer. They read and discuss
Bible stories and verses together. The Catholic participants say the rosary
together, go to church and attend religious activities at school and in the
community. In the homes of these families, religious images were present,
such as an image of Jesus Christ posted on the wall, a small altar with a
Bible, rosary and figurines of Jesus, the Saints and Mary.

Better education is the family’s primary aspiration.

Tatel-Suatengco and Florida 15

It is apparent that education has an instrumental value. The three families

believed that their economic condition will improve through better educa-tion.
The older generations, who are usually elementary and secondary school
graduates, think that the third generation should pursue tertiary education for
better employability in the Philippines and overseas. They also believed that
the younger members of the family will have better job opportunities and
chances of employment. Moreover the family thought that children should not
be distracted from their pursuit of a better life and learning. They see their
current economic situation as an offshoot of not having a better education;
henceforth, they encourage the younger members of the family to resist any
activities or temptations that could compromise their education.
In these families, the first and second generations have limited educational
attainment because of personal [marriage or cohabitation, childbirth] and
economic [limited or no funds for college education, had to provide financial
support to the family] reasons. Their intent for a better education becomes a
motivation to encourage the third generation to prioritize their schooling.
Narratives from the second generation in Family 2:

Father: Hangga’t kaya ko pa [sending children to school], kung papasa ako sa

5
medical [sa seaman]. Sabi ko nga eh pag di ka nag-aral magtesTESDA ka
[voca-tional course].

(As long as I can send them [children] to school, and if I pass the medical
exam)

(I can afford to send my child to school for as long as I can work as a

seafarer. If the child does not study well, he can take a vocational course.)

Mother: Niremind ko sya na mag-focus sa pag-aaral dahil nasa huli ang

pagsi-sisi. Magtapos kayo, mag-aral kayo ng mabuti

(I remind the children to focus on their studies, regret always comes at the
end. They should study well and finish their studies.)

Narratives from the second generation in Family 1:

Aunt: Mas masarap kapag nag-aral, may kaalaman sa mga komplikado na

pang akademiko o mga aralin na hindi makukuha lamang sa pang-araw araw
na buhay.
16 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 0(0)

(It feels good if you are able to finish school, you know about important and
complicated academic stuff or you know something which your experience in
life cannot teach you.)

The strong desire to finish their studies, evident in all families, shows how
education is valued even in a low-income urban poor community in the
Philippines. When asked about personal aspirations, family members across the
generations point to education, specifically completing tertiary education,
improved economic conditions and providing support to the family.
Family resources are generally spent on two things: children’s education
and daily sustenance. As observed, the second generation, as the working
members of the family, becomes the voice of reason and motivation for the
family. They use their experiences – family, work and personal, as
examples of what should and should not be done in life. The second
generation has managed to use their life histories and narratives to show
why education is important; moreover, they also use this to promote literacy
at home. It appears that these narratives are the overarching reason why
literacy is promoted and practiced in their homes.

Family involvement is evident in doing homework and other school related tasks.

Members of the family contribute to the children’s homework completion.

The elder members of the family give tutorials, help in searching for infor-
mation and completing projects, among others. They see these activities as
an opportunity to make the home an extension of the classroom environ-
ment. The second generation members, usually females, play an active role
in ensuring that the third generation are focused on their studies and help in
the children’s academic success. They discuss school problems and con-
cerns like checking grades and assignments, among others. They also moni-
tor their activities, like the frequency of Internet and social media use. Any
activity of the third generation that could compromise academic success is
shunned and prevented. Because of this, the children have supervised
access to Facebook and online gaming. They also contribute to completing
the learning resources available for the third generation’s education.
In the case of Family 2, the grandparent would ask for used books from relatives
for her grandchildren to read. This is to augment the learning mater-ials available at
home.
Tatel-Suatengco and Florida 17

6
Mother: Si mommy [grandmother] yung sa Taguig yung sa kapatid niya, hakot
niya yung mga libro. Hetong bakasyon na to babasahin mo ito [referring to the
child from the third generation]. Kaya kapag hindi nagbasa ang sama ng loob.

(My grandmother in Taguig, she brings books. During the school vacation,
they will read the books. They feel bad whenever they are not able to read.)

Another way the family contribute to literacy is by using recycled materials

for school projects. This explains why they prefer not to throw away any
materials that could potentially be used for school work and requirements.

Mother: Di ba ng dami naming basura, kasi no yan sa mga project. Kasi pag
nanghihingi ng project, mommy kailangan naming eto yung maghahanap ka,
ay hindi meron ako niyan. Kaya puno kami ng basura.

(We have a good deal of garbage because of their school projects. When they
need something for a school project, at least we have a stock. That is why we
have so much garbage.)

The literacy experienced at home mirrors the literacy taught and learned in
school.

The storytelling about the family’s narratives and experiences mirrors the
storytelling of fiction and nonfiction in school.

Each generation narrates the family history to the next generation – the
hard-ships, struggles, dreams, mistakes and perspectives. They make sure
that these stories can be used as lessons or motivation to become and do
better in life. Even though some of them tell their life narratives with regret
and sadness, the overall tone remains hopeful and positive.
The older generation use this opportunity to give life lessons to the
younger generation. They also discuss about their relationships and
education to the younger members of the family. Both are used as
opportunities for teaching and learning. Sparingly, they share about their
political views and connections with other members of the family. Yet, they
do not express strong political convictions.
This life narratives activity complements the storytelling experienced by
children in school, which focuses on storybooks about families, children’s
lives and daily experiences. Both have a common goal, which is to present
18 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 0(0)

unique experiences to the children. The complementing nature of storytelling at

home and in school appears to establish a connection of literacy experiences
with the children, regardless of the environment or context they are in. This
shows that literacy development can be a regular and a continuous process that
can be learned regardless of a child’s context and status in life.

The oral reading experience at home is similar to what they experience in school.

Essentially, the limited educational achievement of the first generation has not
prevented them from being involved in family literacy. Their contribution to
promoting family literacy is primarily in giving importance to education and
showing this through oral reading. As in the case of the three families, oral
reading is the families’ initial ticket to family literacy. The HLE and joint
parent–child book reading are considered to be the key factors in the chil-
dren’s language and literacy acquisition (Mascarenhas et al., 2016).
In Family 1, the grandmother often tells stories which are passed on to
the second generation, who in turn pass it on to the third generation.
Interestingly, oral reading is not just about telling and knowing stories; it is
about learning life’s lessons from these stories, as shown in the example
conversation below:

Aunt: [referring to the grandmother] Kay nanay ko talaga mahilig magkwento.

Kahit sa amin.

(Grandmother likes telling stories to all of us.)

Child 1: Wala na akong maalala.

(I cannot remember.)

Aunt: Kasi galing pa kami sa Antique noon, hindi na niya naaalala.

(We came from Antique at that time, she cannot remember anymore).

Child: Yung si auntie mga kinikwente niya sa akin na yung tatlong princesa,
tapos yung isang tao sinumpa siya maging ahas naging prinsipe na sinumpa
maging ahas ng isang mangkukulam.

(My aunt tells a story about three princesses and a prince. The witch cursed the
prince and transformed him into a snake.
Tatel-Suatengco and Florida 19

Aunt: Yung sa gamu-gamo.7 Anong natutunan mo dun?

(In the story about moths, what do you learn?)

Child: Makinig po sa magulang para hindi mapahamak.

(Listen to your parents’ advice to avoid trouble.)

Researcher: Ilang beses kayong nagkwentuhan.

(How many times did you talk to each other?)

Auntie: Pag hindi kayo busy o hindi kami pagod.

(If you’re not busy or we’re not tired.)

Researcher: Nay [referring to the grandmother] Ano po ang mga kwento nyo?

(What else did you talk about?)

Grandmother: Fairy tales, galing sa libro.

(Fairy tales from books.)

Auntie: Meron siya dati na kinukwento sa aking yung sirena sa English

naman yun.

(She told me a story about a mermaid [in English].)

8
Grandmother: Adarna. Ngayon, Cinderella. (Adarna. Now, Cinderella.)

Auntie: Ako na ang nagkwento ngyon kasi may anak na ako na 6 years old din.

(I am now the one who tells stories to the kids since I already have a 6-year
old child.)

From the stories she has read, the grandmother retells these stories to her
children [when they were younger] and to her grandchildren. The reading
habits of children can be linked with the home environment that promotes
home reading (Nutbrown et al., 2016).
Oral reading is a primary literacy development activity in schools. At home,
the families consider oral reading as a primary literacy activity as well which
20 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 0(0)

involves other members of the family. Having said this, it appears that oral
reading is a common family literacy practice that is continuously
experienced by children. Again, the mirroring of experiences in oral reading
provides a consistent literacy experience for the children.

Reading materials used at home are both conventional and non-conventional.

The limited resources of the families force them to utilize every available mater-ial
that can be used for reading. The kinds of materials available in their home,
although limited in quantity, are very broad and varied. There are conventional
reading materials like charts, storybooks, Bible, flashcards and school text-books.
For the three families, these reading materials are usually borrowed from or given
by neighbours and relatives, and supplied by the national gov-ernment for basic
education students. The aunt wants the children to maximize what they can get
from these reading materials by asking them to read.
Among the three families, it is Family 1 that uses unconventional reading
materials like tarpaulins (which also serves as a wall paper), flyers, torn
news-papers, printed political ads, snack and candy wrappers and yellow
pages, among others. They use these unconventional reading materials for
learning the alphabet, numbers and pre-reading activities.
This practice of print flooding is also commonly done in schools in
which the children are introduced to and given a number of texts to choose
from. The children have the option to read and browse through those texts
which appeal to them and which relate to them.

Reading is regularly promoted and observed in the family, there is a similar endeavour in schools.

It is evident that all three families attach much value to reading and its import-
ance in promoting literacy among the children. Each family has its own way of
promoting reading at home. The family condition and dynamics serve as
motivating factors in their approach to promoting reading at home.
In the case of Family 1, it is the second generation that encourages the
third generation to read by introducing conventional and non-conventional
reading texts to the children. The second generation promotes reading by
allowing them to read at the most convenient time. She also encourages the
third generation to borrow books from neighbours and the school library. The first
and second generations make sure that reading materials are available for the third
generation.
Tatel-Suatengco and Florida 21

Even though reading is no longer a regular practice of the first

generation, the second generation had witnessed how the first generation
did a lot of reading before, especially the grandmother. She often read
paperbacks or what are popularly called ‘pocketbooks’ in the Philippines.

Child 1: Minsan po sina mama [aunt], si lola bumibili ng mga story ng binibili sa
palengke na parang nasa mga kahon. Manipis lang siya, na ano libre.

(Sometimes my aunt and grandmother buy a storybook in a box in the

market. It’s thin and it’s free.)

Child 2: Minsan nagbabasa din ako sa school.

(Sometimes I read at school.)

Aunt: Nagbabasa sila ng mga libro sa iskwelahan. Pati na rin magazine at

komiks. Minsan, yung binabasa nila, pinababasa sa akin.

(They read books at school. Also, magazines and comics. Sometimes I also
read what they read.)

In the case of Family 2, the first generation provides the initial modelling
for reading. Both grandmother and grandfather are ardent readers and they
show it to their children and grandchildren. They encourage each family
member to do the same. Reading is a regular activity at home. Their home
is full of reading materials including Bible, newspapers, encyclopedias,
magazines and books about different subject areas. All used textbooks are
kept and read again. Their love of reading is propelled by their motivation
to learn. Hence, literacy is given high priority in this family.

Mother: [daughter of the grandfather] Sila ni daddy [grandfather] nag-aral ng

English. Si daddy [grandfather] nag-aral ng sarili.

(My daughter and her grandfather study English. Her grandfather does self-
study).

Aunt: [another daughter of the grandfather] Kahit Grade 3 ang tinapos ni

daddy nakakapagbasa siya. Einstein ang tawag naming sa kanya. Kahit
itanong mo sa mga tao, walang araw na hindi siya nagbabasa.
22 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 0(0)

(Even if the grandfather only finished up to Grade 3, he can read. He calls

himself Einstein. You ask other people, they will say that he reads every day.)

Father: [son-in-law of the grandfather] Nagbabasa siya ng Bible and newspaper.

(Grandfather reads the Bible and newspapers.)

Aunt: Si mommy palabasa din.

(Mommy also reads a lot.)

For the second generation, reading is considered to be an academic task.

This is because they are secondary school graduates and have reached
second year in tertiary education. Even though the children do not see them
reading on their own as much as the first generation, they read with their
children because they help them do their school assignments. In short, the
assignments of the third generation become a springboard for the reading of
the second generation. This participation as shadow teachers or tutors for
the third gen-eration provides them the opportunity to engage in reading.

Child: [grandchild] pag may assignment lang nagtatanong ako kay mommy.

(I only ask my Mom whenever we have an assignment.)

In the case of Family 3, it is the third generation who, show more interest in
reading. They often read stories that were introduced to them in school and
from watching television. The school is the primary place where the third
generation reads. Nevertheless, the first and second generations are very
sup-portive of this practice. They allow the children to read on their own
and sometimes discuss with the children what has been read. With their
limited resources, they still buy reading materials for the children. They
also read with them if there is homework. Below is a narrative of the
mother stating how well and how much her daughter is into reading:

Mother: Basta mga istorya ang binabasa niya, mga fairy tales at alamat.
Nagbabasa din siya [referring to the daughter] ng diyaryo at magazine sa
school. Nagpapabili din siya ng alamat. Sa palengke lang ako bumibili ng
alamat. Kung meron lang ako ng pera, gusto niya araw araw, gusto nya
Tatel-Suatengco and Florida 23

na paiba-iba ang binabasa. Pag gusto niya magbasa, paulit ulit niyang
binabasa ang istorya. Nag question and answer din kami pagkatapos niyang
magbasa.

(She likes to read fairy tales and folklore. She also reads newspapers and maga-
zines at school. She asks me to buy storybooks on folklore. These are available in
the market. If I have money, she wants me to buy these every day, she likes to
read different stories. If she likes what she is reading, she rereads them over and
over again. After she reads, we have question and answer.)

Dialogic reading is very much evident. The mother initiates dialogic reading
which is received positively by the younger generation. Dialogic reading is
a way to promote family literacy because it encourages active participation
from the child and caregiver in reading a book (Zevenbergen and
Whitehurst, 2003). Based on empirical data, dialogic reading promotes
emergent literacy skills and metalinguistic skills (Reese et al., 2010).
In the case of Family 3, the parent and the child did ‘questions and
answers’ which could be evidence of scaffolding and levelling of
understanding while strengthening the bond between mother and child (Bus
et al., 1995; Mol et al. 2009).
In the context of low-income families, their family literacy has been rede-
fined through the inclusion of family activities. They use this as a
springboard to draw out learning for the younger generation.
Family literacy is much observed at home if there is strong family
support from grandparents and parents to other elder members of the
family. The elder members’ personal concerns are set aside in favour of the
children’s education and well-being.
On the part of the children, their full cooperation is observed and
expected. The children show cooperation by giving priority to their
schoolwork and by being content with financial support from the family.
For example, they are not expected to complain if they wear hand-me-down
school uniforms, bags or shoes. They use recycled notebooks. Clearly,
family members know what the collective priority of their family is. The
cooperation shown by the chil-dren also proves that they learn by taking
part in literacy activities and ini-tiatives at home (Teale and Sulzby, 1986).
There are variations in family literacy practices among the three cases;
this could be attributed to the differences in educational background of the
older generation. Seemingly, the older generation with higher educational
24 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 0(0)

background has practices more complex than its counterpart. Nevertheless,

these families still share the same regard for education and the value they
give to it. The family literacy of these cases can be viewed as ‘authentic
literacy’ (Anderson et al., 2010) because it is focused on the everyday
experiences of each family.
Family literacy practices are bonded by the family’s adherence to
education. The appreciation and need for education are almost a
transgenerational mind-set. These allow the family to undertake activities
that directly or indirectly support the children’s learning. It is manifestated
that the children’s literacy development is influenced by different family
facets, and thereby requires cooperation among family members.
An ecological perspective views human development from a person-in-
environment context, emphasizing the principle that all growth and develop-
ment take place within the context of relationships (Bronfrenbrenner, 1986).
This framework is significant in understanding children’s literacy develop-
ment. The theory purports to describe the active role of family and school in
shaping children’s literacy trajectories. The findings of the study support this
theory that a myriad of intrafamilial and extrafamilial factors promote early
childhood literacy. The conjunction between the family system and the school
system can influence the learning experiences of the child.
Evidently, the dynamics manifested in each household are indications of
a pro-literacy family ecology. The family ecology has become an impetus
for family literacy practices which are now a union between formal and
ground knowledge. Each family member’s participation in their own
ecology is centred on interaction to realize a common educational goal. The
primary relationship provided by the older members of the family impacts
on the literacy exposure of the children and is congruent with the direction
provided by school and teachers. The decisions made by each member
within the ecology are a reiteration and realization of the common goal.
Each family recognizes and practices family literacy such as reading, print
use and visual literacy among others.
Clearly, even without the family literacy programme initiated by the
national government or local government, each family finds ways and
means to give the utmost education to younger members of the family.
They use personal and physical, tangible and intangible resources as a
spring-board for learning. Family ties is necessary to establish a viable
learning envir-onment at home. Through a strong relationship, each member of the
family becomes a vibrant participant of family literacy.
Tatel-Suatengco and Florida 25

Conclusion
Each family in this study found ways in which their limited socio-economic
resources could be tapped and maximized to support the third generation’s need
for a better education. However, it only starts with the first and second gener-
ations’ reflection and commitment to help the third generation become better
and accomplish more. All of this is done in the context of the need for a better
life and economic growth. The immediate tools they have related to language
and ground knowledge. The family strength approach (Carter et al., 2009)
acknow-ledges that the uniqueness of each family can be used to strengthen the
literacy development of children. This uniqueness can come in the form of
family rou-tines, strengths and resources which can provide natural and
meaningful oppor-tunities to promot language and literacy experiences.
The approach highlights creating opportunities, modelling reading and
language, interacting with their children and providing recognition as
impetus and reinforcement for meaningful opportunities which allow chil-
dren to engage in language and print positively and successfully.
Each family creates its own ecology that will best serve the interests of
its members, especially the younger generation. In the context of family
literacy practices in low-income communities, the focus is always on the
welfare of the younger generation. Family practices centre on the literacy
development of third generation family members (Bronfrenbrenner, 1986).
The family literacy practices exhibited by the three families in this study are
anchored in family values and aspirations. These are the two driving forces that
enable each family to pursue and sustain their literacy practices. The findings
suggest that the economic condition of the family is not a deterrent to family
literacy practices. Each family has ways and means to maximize the learning of
children in their homes. However, additional support in the form of print that
follows and structures literacy activities, to be given to each family, may
further contribute to children’s literacy development (Moll et al., 1992).
In this study, it is very evident also that family dynamics shown in family
values make a significant contribution to family literacy promotion in each
home. Because of this, any programme on family literacy has to account for
the values of integration and promotion.
Family literacy practices depend upon the unique dynamics of each of the
three families, which can be considered as their strengths. This mirrors the
family strengths model which emphasizes the application of Hannon’s (1995)
model that focuses on creating opportunities for learning, providing recog-
nition of the child’s achievement in developing reading skills, interacting with
26 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 0(0)

children around literacy activities, and providing a model of literacy.

Interestingly, the second generation usually makes up for the literacy
limita-tion of the first generation so they can fully support the literacy
development of the third generation.

Funding
This work was supported by Far Eastern University – Manila, Philippines through
the University Research Center (URC).

Notes
1. Waray is a native regional language of the Philippines. spoken in the provinces
of Samar, Northern Samara and Eastern Samar.
2. Filipino is the official name of Tagalog, the national language of the Philippines.
3. Kinaray-a is a language spoken mainly in Antique Province in the Philippines.
4. Antique is a province of the Philippines located in the region of Western Visayas.
5. TESDA or Technical Education and Skills Development Authority is a
government agency in the Philippines which is tasked with managing and
supervising technical education and skills development. It supervises technical
and vocational schools in the Philippines.
6. Taguig is a highly urbanized city located in the south-east of Metro Manila in
the Philippines.
7. The story about gamu-gamo or a moth is a popular anecdote of the Philippines’
national hero Jose Rizal.
8. Ibong Adarna is a 15th-century Filipino epic poem about an eponymous
magical bird.

References
Alba M (2007) Estimating literacy rate: A study relating literacy rate with combined
gross elementary and secondary schools enrolment rate. Available at: http://dirp4.
pids.gov.ph/ris/pjd/pidsjpd81-literacy.pdf (accessed 10 March 2018).
Al Otaiba SF and Fuchs D (2006) Who are the young children for whom best prac-
tices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal
of Learning Disabilities 39: 414–431.
Anderson RC, Hiebert EH, Scott JA, et al. (1985) Becoming a Nation of Readers.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Anderson J, Anderson A and Friedrich N (2010) Taking stock of family literacy: Some
contemporary perspectives. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 10: 33–53.
Atkinson, R (1998) Internet access, help desks and online study. In: OLA virtual
confer-ence, 16–27 March. Available at: www.ola.edu.au/virtcon/atkinson/paper.
htmhttp://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/asu/edtech/pubs/atkinson/ola-virtcon-atkin- son.html
(accessed 10 March 2018).
Tatel-Suatengco and Florida 27

Axtell JL (1968) The Educational Writings of John Locke. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Beatty B (1995) Preschool Education in America: The Culture of Young Children from the Colonial Era
to the Present. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Blake D and Hanley V (1995) Dictionary of Educational Terms. Aldershot: Arena. Brandt
D (2001) Literacy in American lives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bredekamp
S (1987) Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving
Children from Birth through Age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for
the Education of Young Children.
Bronfrenbrenner U (1989) Ecological system theory. In: Vasta R (ed.) Six Theories
Child Development Revised Formulations and Current Issues. Vol. 6,
Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.
Bronfrenbrenner U (1986) Ecology of the family as a context for human develop-
ment. Developmental Psychology 22: 723–742.
Burgess S, Hetch S and Lonigan C (2002) Relations of home literacy environment
(HLE) to development of reading-related abilities: A one-year longitudinal
study. Reading Research Quartly 4(4): 408–426.
Bus AG, van Ijzendoorn MH and Pellegrini A D (1995) Joint book reading makes
for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational
transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research 65(1): 1–21.
Carter D, Chard D and Pool J (2009) A family strengths approach to early language
and literacy development. Early Childhood Education Journal 36: 519–526.
Day PE (2010) Household Budget and Managing Debt. 2nd ed. Academy of Financial Literacy.
Available at: www.academyoffinancialliteracy.com/UsingahouseholdbudgetFinal.
pdf (accessed 12 March 2018).
DeBaryshe BD, Binder JC and Buell MJ (2000) Mothers’ implicit theories of early
literacy instruction: Implications for children’s reading and writing. Early Child
Development and Care 160: 119–131.
Department of Education (2017) DO 18, s. 2017 – Guidelines on the Utilization of
the 2017 Every Child a Reader Program Funds for the Early Language, Literacy,
and Numeracy Program: Professional Development Component. Available at:
www.deped.gov.ph/orders/do-18-s-2017 (accessed 12 March 2018).
Dickinson DK and Newman S (2006) Handbook of Early Literacy. Vol. 2, New York, NY:
Guilford.
Fan XT and Chen M (2001) Parental involvement in students? academic achievement:
A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review 1: 1–22.
Farver JAM, Xu Y, Eppe S, et al. (2006) Home environments and young Latino
children’s school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21: 196–212.
Gay G (2000) Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Gonzalez J and Uhing B (2008) Home literacy environments and young Hispanic children’s
English and Spanish oral language. Journal of Early Intervention 30: 116–139.
28 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 0(0)

Hall N (2000) Literacy, play, and authentic experience. In: Roskos K and Christie J
(eds) Play and Literacy in Early Childhood: Research from Multiple
Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 189–204.
Hannon P (1995) Literacy Home and School: Research and Practice in Teaching Literacy with Parents.
London: Falmer Press.
Harden E (1984) Maria Edgeworth. Boston, MA: Twayne.
Hartas D (2011) Families’ social backgrounds matter: Socio-economic factors,
home learning and young children’s language, literacy and social outcomes.
British Educational Research Journal 37(6): 893–914.
Hewison J and Tizard J (1980) Parental involvement and reading attainment.
British Journal of Educational Psychology 50: 209–215.
Hogan-Brun G, Mar-Molinero C and Stevenson P (2009) Testing regimes: Introducing
cross-national perspectives on language, integration and citizenship. In: Hogan-Brun
G, Mar-Molinero C and Stevenson P (eds) Discourses on Language and Integration: Critical
Perspectives on Language Testing Regimes in Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–12.
International Literacy Association (2015) Literacy in the Philippines: The Stories
Behind the Numbers. Available at: www.literacyworldwide.org/blog/literacy-
daily/2015/08/ 06/literacy-in-the-philippines-the-stories-behind-the-numbers
(accessed 12 March 2018).
Kumar K (1989) Conducting key informant interviews in developing countries. Available
at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNAAX226.PDF (accessed 10 March 2018).
Lazo KN (2013) PH literacy rate jumps by 5% in 10 years. The Manila Times, 30
December. Available at: www.manilatimes.net/ph-literacy-rate-jumps-by-5-in-
10-years/64167/ (accessed 12 March 2018).
Martı´nez-Mesa J, Gonza´lez-Chica DA, Duquia RD, et al. (2016) Sampling: How to select
participants in my research study? Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia 91(3): 326–330.
Mascarenhas Ss, Moorakonda R, Agarwal P, et al. (2016) Characteristics and
influence of home literacy environment in early childhood-centered literacy
orientation. Proceedings of Singapore Healthcare 26(2): 81–97.
Moll LC, Amanti C, Neff D, et al. (1992) Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using
a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice
31(2): 132–141.
Mol SE, Bus AG and de Jong MT (2009) Interactive Book Reading in Early
Education: A Tool to Stimulate Print Knowledge as Well as Oral Language.
Review of Educational Research 79(2): 979–1007.
National Adult Literacy Agency (2010) At Home with Literacy: A Study of Family Literacy
Practices. Available at: www.nala.ie/sites/default/files/publications/At%20home%
20with%20literacy%20-20a%20research%20study%20of%20family%20literacy%
20practices%202010_1.pdf (accessed 12 March 2018).
Neuman S, Copple C and Bredekamp S (2000) Learning to Read and Write:
Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children. Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Tatel-Suatengco and Florida 29

Neuman SB and Dickinson DK (eds) (2001) Handbook of Early Literacy Research. New York:
Guilford Press Publications.
Nutbrown C, Clough P, Levy R, et al. (2016) Families’ roles in children’s literacy
in the UK throughout the 20th century. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy
17(4): 551–569.
Palinkas L, Horwitz S, Green C, et al. (2015) Purposeful sampling for qualitative data
collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration
and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 42(5): 533–544.
Patton M (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Purcell-Gates V (2000) Family literacy. In: Kamil ML, Mosenthal PB, Pearson PD,
et al. (eds) Handbook of Reading Research. Vol. III, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, pp. 853–870.
Ramani GB and Siegler RS (2014) How informal learning activities can promote
children’s numerical knowledge. Oxford Handbooks Online. Available at:
www.psy. cmu.edu/ siegler/2014-early-RamSieg.pdf (accessed 12 March 2018).
Reese E, Sparks A and Leyva D (2010) A review of parent interventions for
preschool children’s language and emergent literacy. Journal of Early Childhood
Research 10(1): 97–117.
Risko V and Walker-Dalhouse D (2007) Tapping students’ cultural funds of know-
ledge to address the achievement gap. The Reading Teacher 61(1): 98–100.
Se´ne´chal M and LeFevre JA (2002) Parental involvement in the development of
children s reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development 73:
445– 460.
Taylor D (1983) Family Literacy: Young Children Learning to Read and Write. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Teale WH and Sulzby E (1986) Emergent Literacy: Writing and Reading. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex. Van Kleeck A and Schuele CM (2010) Historical perspectives on literacy in early
childhood. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 19: 341–355.
Venezky RL (1987) History of the American reading textbook. Elementary School
Journal 87: 247–265.
Weigel DJ, Martin SS and Bennett KK (2006) Contributions of the home literacy
environment to preschool-aged children’s emerging literacy and language skills.
Early Child Development and Care 176: 357–378.
Wigfield A and Asher SR (1984) Social and motivational influences on reading.
In: Pearson PD, Barr R, Kamil ML, et al. (eds) Handbook of Reading Research. Vol. 1,
White Plains, NY: Longman, pp. 423–452.
Zevenbergen AA and Whitehurst GJ (2003) Dialogic reading: A shared picture
book reading intervention for preschoolers. In: van Kleeck A, Stahl SA and
Bauer EB (eds) On Reading Books to Children: Parents and Teachers. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 177–200.