Presentation on theme: "Culturally Congruent Literacy Practices: Calca, Peru Sabina Rak Neugebauer I would like to acknowledge Elaine Mo and."— Presentation transcript:
Culturally Congruent Literacy Practices: Calca, Peru Sabina Rak Neugebauer 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
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 Phase 2 -Collaboration and Implementation of Read Aloud Program
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 Observation protocol Standardized comprehension and vocabulary measures Researcher designed measure on content vocabulary Teacher Interviews
Phase One Traditional Ceremonies and Daily Routines Communal Apprenticeship 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 Read Aloud Pedagogy 2 teachers 29 students 2 teachers 26 students Drop out N=7 N=24 N=22 Experimental Group Control 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 knowledge for the purposes of adaptable and responsive 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-monitoring when reading to improve vocabulary learning (Jongsma, 1999).
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 Intervention Maria 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 his home?) “¿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?”)