Impact of poverty on literacy opportunities
Poverty shapes children's access to literacy long before they enter a classroom. Find out how socioeconomic background affects reading habits and what schools and parents can do to help.
Kellett, M. (2009). Children as researchers: What we can learn from them about the impact of poverty on literacy opportunities? International Journal of Inclusive Educational Leadership, 13(4), 395-408. doi: 10.1080/10236240802106606.
Background
Research has shown that reading for pleasure is associated with increased literacy and that motivation is critical in getting children to read and in preparing them for education in general. Children from lower socioeconomic levels often do not read as much because they do not have the resources and role models that children from higher socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds have. As a result, they tend to have lower literacy skills and thus do less well in school.
Aims
The researchers were interested in finding out what could be done to bridge this gap associated with socioeconomic status.
Sample
Two UK schools with very different socioeconomic backgrounds were chosen for the study. The children were never made aware of this difference. In each school, a group of six 11-year-old student volunteers were chosen.
Method
In the first phase, the students were trained in research and introduced to the topic of literacy. They were then allowed to choose any area of literacy they liked and to work alone or with other students to research that area. In the second phase, the researchers analysed the students’ studies for the concerns that appeared there.
Findings
Some of the concerns were the same for both groups. One important one was that of ‘private practice’, i.e. the students’ expressed need to have time to practise reading or writing privately before being asked to do it publicly. There were other concerns that related to socioeconomic status (SES). In the high SES group, the students had lots of family support (in some cases, the felt too much). There were quiet areas for study and distractions such as younger siblings and television were carefully controlled. In the lower SES group, there was less family support (because the family did not know how to help), there were no quiet areas for study and thus there were lots of distractions.
Implications
The researchers suggested that there should be more opportunities for private practice (such as older students practising reading by reading to younger children), homework clubs for children who needed them most, training for parents and an emphasis on enjoyment and motivation issues.
Original article retrieved from Taylor & Francis Online.
