18.1 Introduction
Schooling is not the same thing as learning.
In the past thirty years, following the widespread introduction of free primary education in lower- and middle-income countries, primary school enrollments skyrocketed (UNESCO, 2015). This increase in enrollment did not necessarily come with improvements in learning. Both small-scale and nationally representative reading assessments revealed that children in the early primary years still struggle with basic reading skills, despite several years of schooling (Reference Gove and CvelichGove & Cvelich, 2011). For example, cross-sectional data collected over ten years show ever-expanding primary enrollments accompanied by ever-declining average literacy skills for millions of Indian children (ASER, 2015). With these findings emerging across lower- and middle-income countries, the international education community has turned its attention from ensuring unfettered access to primary education toward addressing the learning crisis and actually improving student achievement (see Nag, Chapter 15 and Asfaha & Nag, Chapter 16 this volume). Nearly all of this attention focuses on the school. Indeed, despite the opening sentence (cited as the epigraph to this chapter) to the World Bank’s 2018 World Development Report, the 240-page report spends a mere 100 words reviewing evidence around the role of the home in primary-school-goers’ achievement (World Bank, 2018).
In this chapter, we report on the role of the home in children’s learning, even in extremely rural, impoverished areas of lower- and middle-income countries. We use both quantitative and qualitative data collected as part of a larger randomized control trial of a literacy intervention in eastern Africa (Reference Friedlander, Arshan, Zhou and GoldenbergFriedlander et al., 2019; Reference Friedlander and GoldenbergFriedlander & Goldenberg, 2016). First, we describe the Literacy Ecology (LE) theoretical framework. Second, we report survey, ethnographic, and child reading data from a rural district in Rwanda that illustrate connections between home and community literacy and children’s early reading achievement. We conclude by exploring future directions and implications of the findings for efforts in lower- and middle-income countries to improve children’s early literacy attainment.
18.2 Previous Research on Ecological Factors in Learning to Read
Funders have urged educators to devise interventions using research-based best practices to address the learning crisis. In response, over the past two decades educational researchers have rigorously evaluated revamped teacher training, new curricular materials, empowered school management committees, and other attempts to improve student outcomes (Reference Ganimian and MurnaneGanimian & Murnane, 2016; Reference McEwanMcEwan, 2015). These efforts have been based on documented or presumed linkages between school-based inputs such as teacher training on the one hand and student outcomes such as improved achievement on the other. Such linkages between home or community inputs and student learning outcomes are not nearly as prevalent in lower- and middle-income-country research literature. Several recent reviews and meta-analyses point out this conspicuous gap in the type of education interventions in the developing world: Very few seek to enlist home and community resources to improve children’s learning trajectories (Reference Cao, Ramesh, Menendez and DayaratnaCao et al., 2014).
The rarely documented efforts at researching the role of the family in children’s learning usually target the homes of children too young for primary school. In one review (Reference Nag, Vagh, Dulay and SnowlingNag et al., 2018) of 260 studies set in lower- and middle-income countries, published between 1990 and 2013, only 5 included attempts to improve children’s learning experiences at home, and none of these included primary-school-aged children. In another review of 223 education interventions in developing lower- and middle-income countries, the interventions explicitly occurred outside of and independent of the school. One strategy, improving parenting practices, was found to have a positive impact on child outcomes, especially for the youngest children. The other strategy, increased resources in students’ homes, superficially appears a good candidate for out-of-school supports to learning. However, the review states this strategy largely revolved around provision of computers and tablets and had little observable impact. Based on these reviews, it seems that holistic home interventions targeting the family and broader community have not been widely implemented, much less evaluated. One notable exception to this gap in the literature is the Literacy Boost program, created by the international nongovernmental organization Save the Children. Reports and articles published by Save the Children find significant links between children’s home environment and reading achievement (Reference Dowd, Friedlander and JonasonDowd et al., 2017).
Great variation exists in the literature on high-income countries that examines the role of the home and family in children’s learning. Differences in research methods, outcomes, and participant demographics make direct comparisons among studies difficult. Yet overall, most of the literature in high-income countries has reported generally positive relationships between the quality of children’s home experiences and their learning (Reference Barton and HamiltonBarton & Hamilton, 1998; Reference Evans, Shaw and BellEvans, Shaw, & Bell, 2000; Reference GoldenbergGoldenberg, 1987; Reference HeathHeath, 1983; Reference Leseman and de JongLeseman & de Jong, 1998; Reference ParkPark, 2008; Reference Purcell-GatesPurcell-Gates, 1996; Reference Snow, Burns and GriffinSnow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Taylor’s rhetorical question highlights why the positive relationship between the home and children’s literacy development is to be expected: The question emerges of whether we can seriously expect children who have never experienced or have limited experience of reading and writing as complex cultural activities to successfully learn to read and write from the narrowly defined pedagogical practices in our schools (Reference TaylorTaylor, 1983, p. 91).
Yet despite the wealth of research on the relationship between the home and children’s academic learning in high-income countries, and suggestive studies in lower- and middle-income countries (Reference Chansa-Kabali and WesterholmChansa-Kabali & Westerholm, 2014; Reference Dowd, Wiener and MabetiDowd, Wiener, & Mabeti, 2010; Reference FriedlanderFriedlander, 2013; Reference Kalia and ReeseKalia & Reese, 2009; Reference Nath, Guajardo and HossainNath, Guajardo, & Hossain, 2013; Reference WagnerWagner, 1993), researchers remain skeptical that a robust relationship even exists between children’s home experiences and their academic achievement in lower- and middle-income countries. For example, according to Cao et al., “in the developing world context, the link between household characteristics and reading outcomes is much less clear than in developed countries” (Reference Cao, Ramesh, Menendez and DayaratnaCao et al., 2014, p. 14). The absence of concerted efforts to improve children’s achievement-related learning opportunities in lower- and middle-income-country homes and communities reflects the doubts surrounding the significance of these influences for children’s school learning (Reference Kim, Boyle, Zuilkowski and NakamuraKim et al., 2016).
18.3 The Literacy Ecology Framework
We approach the subject of children’s home and community contexts from an ecological systems perspective (Reference BronfenbrennerBronfenbrenner, 1979). Ecological systems theory posits that an individual’s development is a function of reciprocal and interactive relationships among nested systems in which an individual is situated and the individual’s own psychological processes (Reference BronfenbrennerBronfenbrenner, 1979).
Readers may be familiar with the term “home literacy environment,” which has been defined as the availability of material resources, the press for academic achievement, the amount of shared book reading, the value placed on reading, and opportunities for verbal interaction (Reference Hess and HollowayHess & Holloway, 1984). Reformulating the definition of the home literacy environment using an ecological systems lens strengthens the conceptualization by accounting for the reciprocal interaction between the child and the nested ecosystems in which the child develops. This reciprocal interaction necessarily involves the intrinsic processes of children’s learning and development, which then helps account for the internal disposition (e.g., abilities, interest, motivation) of the individual child. These dispositions will mediate the home literacy environment and therefore should be accounted for in any analysis of the home context. In other words, child characteristics are part of the literacy ecology, not separate from it. Moreover, the very term “home literacy environment” limits the focus of inquiry to environmental contributions in the home. Particularly in rural lower- and middle-income country contexts, a child’s “home” may have a very different connotation than it does in high-income countries. That is to say, in a lower-income-country setting, the influence of the child’s neighbors and community may play a much larger and more influential role in the life of a child than in that of a child living in a high-income-country context.
Following this literacy ecology framework, reading development can be understood as dependent on three sets of factors: individual child characteristics, characteristics of the child’s home and community, and features of the child’s school. In this chapter, we focus on the first two sets of factors, individual child factors and home and community factors. For more on school-related factors, see Reference Friedlander, Arshan, Zhou and GoldenbergFriedlander et al. (2019).
18.4 Ecological Factors in Learning to Read: The Case of Rwanda
18.4.1 Design of the Study
In this section, we use quantitative data to understand relationships among children’s LE and their early (Primary 1) reading development in Rwanda. The data came from two sources: a reading skills assessment of Primary 1 students and LE surveys of the children’s caregivers. The qualitative data come from a series of weeklong ethnographies conducted by a Rwandan collaborator (Reference Tusiime, Friedlander and MalikTusiime, Friedlander, & Malik, 2014). We collected the data during September and October 2013.
We assessed students on a range of Kinyarwanda language and literacy skills using individually administered assessments. For our analysis, we use four of the subtests as outcome variables: (1) letter identification, (2) decoding, (3) reading, fluency, and (4) reading comprehension. All outcomes were continuous and measured as percentage correct, with the exception of fluency, which was measured as the number of words correctly read in one minute on a Primary 1-leveled passage. We selected these outcomes to represent a range of reading skills, from basic to more advanced.
Following the reading-skills data collection, we asked the caregivers of a subset of children to participate in an LE survey. The LE survey contained 113 items and covered a wide range of questions regarding the role and use of literacy in the home, both by the caregiver and the entire family. A total of 466 caregivers participated in the LE survey, and we matched caregiver responses with the reading-assessment data of their children using individual identifiers. In so doing, we were able to estimate the degree of association between the nonschool LE and children’s reading abilities.
18.4.2 The Five Factors of the Nonschool Literacy Ecology
Our first step in our analysis was identifying the factors of the literacy ecology. To do so, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis to identify potential underlying factors of the nonschool literacy ecology in rural Rwanda. For more on data reduction and factor loading, see Reference FriedlanderFriedlander (2015). Our analysis of the caregiver reported data yielded five factors: (1) literacy interactions at home (hereafter Literacy Interactions), (2) caregiver competency in literacy (Caregiver Competency), (3) reading materials, (4) religious reading activities (Religious Reading), and (5) child interest/engagement (Child Interest). The first four factors relate to the home and community, while the fifth factor relates to the individual child. Table 18.1 contains the factor names with brief descriptions.
Table 18.1 Variables loading onto each factor
| Factor name | Factor description |
|---|---|
| Literacy Interactions | The types and frequency of literacy interactions occurring at home as reported by the caregiver. |
| Caregiver Competency | Caregiver’s ability to read independently, as observed by the data collector and reported by the caregiver. |
| Reading Materials | The number of reading materials at home as reported by the caregiver. |
| Religious Reading | The religious-related activities occurring at home and materials found in the home, as reported by caregiver. |
| Child Interest | Child’s interest and engagement with literacy, as reported by the caregiver. |
Literacy Interactions includes variables related to the verbal and reading activities at home, and measures of family size and years of schooling. Caregiver Competency includes, among others, two observed variables on whether the responder could read and sign the informed consent form independently and whether the caregiver reported that he/she had learned to read from his/her teacher. Reading Materials is a straightforward grouping of variables that index the total amount of different types of reading and writing materials available at home, excluding religious print materials. This last set of materials loaded most highly onto the fourth factor, Religious Reading, and includes items that relate both to the respondents’ own use of literacy for religious purposes and whether the respondent engages the child with religious reading materials. The fifth factor, Child Interest, consists primarily of observations of the focus child’s interest in and habits around reading, as reported by the caregiver. Loading highly but negatively onto Interest is also a variable indicating that a caregiver reported not helping his/her child to learn.
18.4.3 Relation between Ecological Factors and Literacy Outcomes
In order to assess the relationship between children’s literacy ecologies and their reading skills, we fitted several multivariate regression models using the LE factors to predict child reading scores. Every regression controlled for the child’s sex, age, socioeconomic status, and whether the focus child reported repeating Primary 1. We clustered standard errors at the school level to account for students nested in schools.
The results in Table 18.2 indicate that, on average, when controlling for relevant background characteristics, Literacy Interactions and Child Interest most highly and consistently predicted reading achievement across all outcomes. Caregiver Competency also significantly predicted all outcomes except reading fluency. Neither Reading Materials nor Religious Reading predicted any reading outcomes.
Table 18.2 Multivariate regressions using LE factors to predict reading achievement (N=466)
| Factors | Letter identification | Decoding | Reading fluency | Reading comprehension |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β (SE) | β (SE) | β (SE) | β (SE) | |
| Literacy Interactions | 0.042** (0.013) | 0.024** (0.009) | 0.811* (0.353) | 0.025* (0.009) |
| Caregiver Competency | 0.041** (0.014) | 0.022* (0.010) | 0.663 (0.391) | 0.023* (0.011) |
| Reading Materials | 0.017 (0.011) | 0.018 (0.012) | 0.523 (0.399) | 0.016 (0.011) |
| Religious Reading | −0.011 (0.013) | −0.009 (.008) | −0.307 (0.395) | −0.014 (0.008) |
| Child Interest | 0.037* (0.014) | 0.024** (0.008) | 0.680* (0.311) | 0.024* (0.010) |
| R2-squared | 0.126 | 0.142 | 0.090 | .110 |
| Adjusted R2 | 0.109 | 0.125 | 0.073 | .092 |
Standard errors clustered at the school level in parentheses. β = beta coefficient. SE = Standard Error. All models control for gender, age, whether the child repeated Primary 1, and socioeconomic status. * p< .05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001
The findings from Table 18.2 support many of the findings in both the high-income and the lower- and middle-income-country research on the LE. Interactions demonstrated significant links to literacy learning in the same way as reported in studies on shared book reading (for example, Reference Bus, van IJzendoorn and PellegriniBus, van IJzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995), verbal interactions (Reference Hart and RisleyHart & Risley, 1995), and support for studying or help with homework (Reference Zevenbergen, Whitehurst and EpsteinZevenbergen et al., 1997). The findings concerning the Competency factor also concur with high-income country research findings (Reference NeumanNeuman, 1996). The Interest factor significantly predicted reading achievement in a manner similar to research carried out in high-income countries (Reference Baker and WigfieldBaker & Wigfield, 1999). Finally, the Materials factor did not significantly predict any of the outcomes, likely due to issues of collinearity.
18.5 Explanatory Mechanisms
To explore possible explanatory mechanisms for the findings presented above, we turn to qualitative data describing the literacy ecologies of two girls living in rural Rwanda. First we provide details on the two girls who were observed, the families of those girls, and the villages in which they lived. We then present the qualitative data on the factors of their respective literacy ecologies, highlighting instances that demonstrate the various significant relationships that we presented in the previous section.
A lecturer at the University of Rwanda – College of Education (referred to by his initials, MT) collected the qualitative data. He visited the homes of two students for one week each during the final months of 2013. We randomly selected two female students from the population of homes that participated in the LE survey and who had indicated they would be willing to participate in the observation. We refer to these two girls by the pseudonyms of Flora and Jolly. The observer followed the girls during their daily routines in the village. Observations occurred in November and December, following the end of the academic year in October. The two girls were observed by MT from approximately sunrise to sunset. He conducted planned interviews with participants and kept detailed notes on unplanned discussions and exchanges he had with the girls, family members, neighbors, community members, neighborhood youth, and local leaders. During the interviews and unplanned discussions, MT inquired about the interviewees’ perceptions of ways in which activities in the home and broader community may have related to literacy practices.
In order to triangulate data from home observations and interviews with family members, MT visited key places in the village outside of the participants’ homes thought to be representative of their nonschool LE outside the home. He collected data in spaces that each child frequented regularly, including the farmers’ market, the local church, each child’s school, trading centers, water-collection centers, the woods where children spent time, played, and gathered firewood, and the monthly village-wide communal work projects and meetings. We coded MT’s notes and observations using codes that corresponded to each factor. The coded notes were then compared to the significant associations resulting from the multivariate regression analyses.
18.5.1 Introducing Flora and Jolly
Flora lived on a steep, relatively isolated hillside with her parents, two younger brothers, an aunt, and a grandmother. Flora and her siblings spent most of the observation week performing chores under the supervision of her grandmother and aunt. Flora’s parents were at home rarely during the observations, as they were either tending their fields or in the market selling produce. Jolly lived in a planned settlement with her parents, six siblings, and a man who performed domestic duties. Jolly spent much of the observation time playing with friends and siblings. Jolly’s mother was home for many of the observations, but her father, who usually works as a primary school teacher, was away from home while marking examinations for the national primary school leavers’ exam.
Despite living in the same district in Rwanda, the two communities in which the girls lived were very different. Jolly’s village was located in a planned community, called an umudugudu. In the umudugudu, there are government-built low-cost homes for people to buy or be resettled in for free. Usually within the umudugudu or in close proximity to it there is a school (depending on the population size, it may be both a primary school and a secondary school), water, electricity, retail shops and other related infrastructure. This was the case for Jolly’s umudugudu. Jolly’s village appeared full of children playing and singing together or simply roaming the paths between houses. This was in sharp contrast to Flora’s village, which offered less opportunity for social interaction, as houses were isolated on hillsides. Jolly’s village also had two shops that sold a few basic items, which meant that Jolly and her family did not have the same long commute as Flora’s family did to access basic necessities. In comparison with Flora’s area, a large number of educated people resided in Jolly’s village. Jolly’s neighbor, for instance, had two sons who studied at university level, and Jolly’s own sisters had also completed university. The presence of these more educated individuals, in addition to the higher socioeconomic status of the village and the ease with which the umudugudu could be accessed, provided a seemingly better environment to support the education of young children.
18.5.2 Reading Skills of Flora and Jolly
Crucial for this chapter, Flora and Jolly also differed in another important aspect: their reading skills. When MT asked Flora to recite the Kinyarwanda alphabet, she was able to recite up to the letter “k” before mixing up the sequence of letters. He asked Flora if she would like to write something in his book. While she could write various letters and numbers, it was clear that she struggled with the alphabet and distinguishing between certain letters. Her writing sample is reproduced in Figure 18.1.
Figure 18.1 Flora’s writing sample
Jolly, on the other hand, was an extremely proficient reader and writer. She was the family scorekeeper when playing cards and could read simple sentences in Kinyarwanda. At one point, while MT conversed with Jolly’s mother, Jolly took MT’s notebook (see Figure 18.2) and wrote:
Uyu mugaboyaje hano arimoguhamagaraterefone. Arimokuvugana na mama. Yaje kurebakodukubagaga
This man who came here was talking on phone a few minutes ago, now he is talking with my mother. He came here to find out whether we are calm and disciplined.
Table 18.3 provides a snapshot of the two girls’ out-of-school literacy ecologies in the form of values for the variables that make up each literacy ecology factor.
Figure 18.2 Jolly writing in MT’s notebook
Table 18.3 Evidence of the five LE factors in the qualitative data
| Factor | Selected variables | Flora | Jolly |
|---|---|---|---|
| Literacy Interactions | Family size | 7 | 10 |
| N of family who can read and write | 1 | 8 | |
| N of family who read to child | 0 | ≥ 1 | |
| N of family who help child study | 0 | ≥ 1 | |
| N of family who talk to child | 0 | 10 | |
| Years of family schooling total | ~ 4 | 70 or more | |
| Years of schooling – average | ≤ 1 | ≥ 9 | |
| Caregiver Competency | Can read and write well | neither parent | both parents |
| Reading Materials | Books/writing materials | 0 | many |
| Religious Reading | Religious reading activities occur at home | no evidence | no evidence |
| Total N of religious texts at home | 2 | no evidence | |
| Child Interest | Child likes to read | no evidence | no evidence |
| Child asks what writing says | no | yes | |
| Child asks for parents to read to her | no | no | |
| Caregiver reports helping the child learn | no | yes | |
| Caregiver has seen child pretend to read | no evidence | yes |
18.5.3 Literacy Ecology Factors in the Lives of Flora and Jolly
18.5.3.1 Literacy Interactions
As reported in Table 18.2, the Literacy Interactions factor significantly predicted every reading outcome. One would therefore expect that MT would observe few or no reading interactions in the home of the struggling reader, Flora, but would observe many in the home of Jolly, the good reader. As expected, the qualitative data showed precisely this (see Table 18.3). But the differences in literacy interactions in the two girls’ homes extended more deeply into differences between the children’s home literacy ecologies.
Flora’s father stated that, due to a lack of resources, Flora had never seen him read. When asked what role parents play in their children’s learning, her father mentioned the importance of providing children with books and pens and sending them to school. At no point did anyone in Flora’s family mention reading to Flora or helping her to study as important actions in helping Flora to learn. Flora herself reported that during the school year, her considerable workload was identical to that when not in school, and there was little time for homework and no one at home to help her; her homework was usually completed with the help of friends on the way to school.
The absence of reading interactions clearly indexes a great deal more than the absence of children reading, being read to, and the presence of individuals with whom these interactions can and do occur – which are, to be sure, important influences in themselves. Absence of reading interactions also indicates familial attitudes and assumptions about the family’s role in children’s literacy development. The families demonstrate that they prioritize children’s education by incurring the opportunity costs of sending a child to school. However, Flora’s family did not see themselves as having a role in Flora’s children’s education beyond sending her to school. That is, the school, and education more broadly, are unfamiliar places, seen as being for people with skills that Flora’s parents do not possess. Hence, they do not feel empowered to make concerted efforts to improve Flora’s literacy and learning. This likely explains the depressed achievement we observed in literacy skills. The lack of emphasis on homework in the home is also likely to depress Flora’s achievement, particularly if she is already struggling with basic literacy skills.
During the week MT spent with Flora, he witnessed no spontaneous literacy interactions in the home. This includes both interactions involving the written word and verbal exchanges. The one literacy-related activity, when Flora wrote the letters and numbers shown in Picture 1, occurred only after MT asked Flora if she would like to write in his book. Even verbal exchanges between Flora and her elders were limited. One rainy morning, while the family waited inside for the rain to pass before starting to work, MT attempted to speak with Flora’s father. Each time MT did so, Flora’s father told all the children to leave the room. Even when MT assured her father that they could continue the conversations in the children’s presence, her father insisted,
Ntabgo ari umuco mwiza, abana ntibakagombye gusangira ibiganiro nabanti bakuru.
It’s not good manners, children should not be involved in the discussions with adults.
In this traditional family, not only did Flora experience very few literacy interactions; in addition, she lived in a microsystem that explicitly limited children’s opportunities for meaningful verbal interactions with adults. This in itself is likely to have unfavorable consequences for cognitive and academic development over and above the consequences of minimal literacy interactions. Jolly’s home, on the other hand, was relatively full of Literacy Interactions. Jolly’s mother informed MT that during school terms, her children have specific time set aside for homework and reading, and that she even kept her children awake to study late into the evening. Jolly’s parents also encouraged Jolly to spend time reading, even when it meant that Jolly’s chores would be neglected. In one instance, Jolly’s mother volunteered to shine the pile of shoes that Jolly was shining, so that Jolly could spend time reading instead. At another point, when Jolly realized that her father would soon be home after a long time away, Jolly started sorting books in the family home, informing MT that she was planning to start reading when her father returned. The main literacy interaction that MT directly observed was card-playing, which necessitated keeping score on a piece of paper. Despite the limited nature of this literacy interaction, the activity was infused with opportunities for verbal interaction. During a conversation with MT, Jolly’s mother said:
Nkunda gukina amacarita n’abana bangye. Bituma ntagira irungu cyangwa ngo njye kunywa cyangwa ngo ndyame kunywa. Bituma nasabaana nabana bangye nkamenye nibibazo bafite mumashuri nkabasha kubagir anama.
I love playing cards with my children. I don’t get bored and go to the local bar to drink or even sleep during the day. It is also an opportunity to bond with my children and know the details about their educational problems and provide help.
The observer never heard Jolly’s parents express the belief that children should not be involved in discussions with adults. To the contrary, as this last quote indicates, Jolly’s mother relished and sought out opportunities for this type of engagement with her children. Moreover, Jolly’s parents placed a great deal of value on literacy activities and interactions, as demonstrated in their encouragement, and even directives, for Jolly to spend time reading.
In summary, the differences between Jolly and Flora’s families in the frequency of literacy interactions was stark enough, but the contrast extended to the very ecosystems that supported – or failed to support – those interactions. The priority assigned to literacy by the adults, the corresponding prioritization of children’s time, the opportunities for adult–child interactions, all held in place by material conditions and parents’ stated values and priorities, created strikingly different literacy ecologies for the two girls. These contrasts help us understand not only that Literacy Interactions indexed a deeper constellation of factors in each child’s home literacy ecologies but also why it robustly predicted each of the four reading measures administered to children.
18.5.3.2 Caregiver Competency
The quantitative results on Caregiver Competency suggest that children with better reading skills have caregivers with greater literacy competency. Therefore one would expect a significant difference between the caregivers of Flora and Jolly in terms of Caregiver Competency. Over the course of the week, MT did not observe great competency in literacy on the part of Flora’s caregivers. In terms of raw numbers, Table 18.3 indicates that MT found no evidence of any literacy Caregiver Competency in Flora’s parents. Flora’s mother cited a lack of books as the greatest challenge to reading, but then added the following, indicating that what she doesn’t know prevents her from actively supporting her daughter’s literacy development:
Biga ibintu ntazi. Ntabwo nzi igifaransa n’icyongereza.
They study some things that I don’t know. I don’t know French and English.
When MT suggested that her help in Kinyarwanda would benefit Flora, she responded:
Yego nzabikora ariko hashize igihe kirekire narataye ishuri. Hari amagambo amwe n’amwe angora gusoma.
Yes, I will but it has been long since I dropped out of school. There are some words that are difficult for me to read.
In addition to very limited literacy skills, Flora’s mother revealed a lack of confidence in her ability to do anything that would support, in any way, Flora’s reading and writing skills. Similarly, Flora’s father did not demonstrate a high degree of Caregiver Competency in literacy. He mentioned to MT that Flora had never seen him read anything. Considering that he dropped out of school in Primary 2, it was not clear whether this lack of reading was a consequence of no materials to read or a lack of proficiency in reading. No matter the cause, it was clear that Flora’s caregivers did not possess strong competency in reading nor dispositions that would lead them to encourage or support Flora’s literacy development.
Jolly’s father ranked highly on the Caregiver Competency factor, particularly when compared to Flora’s parents. Jolly’s father was a teacher and required that his children learn to read from young ages. The primary evidence of his Caregiver Competency stems from his profession as a teacher. In addition to the literacy activities required of a teacher, he also served on the national examination board, marking national exams for students around the country. This provided further evidence of his literacy competency. From the data collected, it was more difficult to assess the Caregiver Competency of Jolly’s mother. The existing data certainly place her higher than Flora’s parents, as she served on a sector administrative committee. She also read and signed the consent forms provided. However, even if Jolly’s mother lacked a high level of literacy competency, her repeated statements concerning her commitment to the education of her children and the high levels of education achieved by her other children as well as her siblings (many of whom completed tertiary education) likely balance out any lack of Caregiver Competency on Jolly’s mother’s part.
Similar to Literacy Interactions, qualitative evidence on Caregiver Competency reveals the profound differences between the two girls’ home literacy ecologies that help explain the differences in children’s reading abilities. Flora’s parents did not display any overt competency in reading, nor did they reveal attitudes and behaviors that would support and encourage their daughter’s literacy growth. Flora’s mother cited her own lack of knowledge and skills and seemed to doubt that she had any capacity to help Flora with what she was learning in school, even through encouragement or support. Jolly’s parents, in contrast, both ranked highly on the Caregiver Competency factor, but also showed positive attitudes about their own abilities to play a meaningful role in their children’s learning. Jolly’s mother came across as a more assured person who felt that she had something important to contribute to Jolly’s education, whereas statements from Flora’s mother betray a passivity and resignation that are unlikely to benefit Flora’s education.
18.5.3.3 Reading Materials
In contrast to the Literacy Interactions and Caregiver Competency factors, Reading Materials (an index of the number of different types of reading and writing materials present in the home), did not significantly relate to reading achievement in the multivariate regressions. Yet there was a large difference between Jolly’s and Flora’s print environments. How does one explain the lack of significant association between materials and children’s reading in the quantitative data, while the two case studies demonstrated a great contrast in reading materials?
Taking both the quantitative and qualitative data into account suggests the following: It is not that materials do not matter; they do. Reading Materials are indeed necessary. But they are not a sufficient condition for the sorts of Literacy Interactions that influence children’s reading achievement. Most of the Literacy Interactions observed in Jolly’s home would not have been possible without the presence of abundant materials. At the same time, because of the strong and statistically significant association between Reading Materials and Literacy Interactions (r=0.35) the absence of a significant association between materials and achievement is almost certainly the result of collinearityFootnote 1. That is, Literacy Interactions are correlated with Reading Materials and account for more variance. But it would be wrong to conclude that Reading Materials is not a meaningful factor in the out-of-school LE. The contrast between the Reading Materials in Jolly and Flora’s homes, the use of those materials in the Literacy Interactions observed in Jolly’s home, and the absence of both materials and interactions in Flora’s home suggest materials are indeed important nonschool influences on children’s reading growth.
By any standard, the print environment in Flora’s home was poor. Flora only had access to one piece of writing: her school notebook (see Figure 18.3). Flora’s exercise book was only produced when MT asked Flora whether she had any books. When he asked to see it, Flora and her brother spent five to ten minutes looking for the book, finally locating it sandwiched between two sacks of grain. It was clear the exercise book was only used for school. Over the course of the weeklong observation, besides Flora’s notebook, MT only observed two other distinct print materials in Flora’s family’s possession: a small Bible, and a sheet of paper with a prayer written on it that was kept by Flora’s aunt.
Figure 18.3 Flora holding her exercise book
Jolly, on the other hand, lived in an extremely print-rich environment (see Figure 18.4). In Jolly’s home, MT found a large stack of books: textbooks, teacher’s guides, and even photocopies of books. Jolly’s father brought these materials home from school for his children to use. Her father also regularly brought home chalk, and created a smooth surface close to the ground on the side of the family home to allow children to practice their writing. As the family lived in an umudugudu and shops were close by, there were also manufactured products with print on them. MT even found print in an unlikely place: old school notebooks were found in the family’s pit latrine. Whether these last materials were actually read is difficult to determine, but their presence in the most unlikely of places demonstrated the degree to which Jolly was surrounded by print. Indeed, the print was so abundant that MT witnessed Jolly tearing a piece of paper from her older sister’s notebook to clean her shoes. By comparison, Flora’s one notebook, in which she wrote her math notes in the front, Kinyarwanda notes in the back, and English notes in the middle, was a treasured item, covered with paper salvaged from an old cement bag to protect it from the elements during her long walk to school.
Figure 18.4 A stack of books in Jolly’s house
In summary, the qualitative evidence regarding Reading Materials helps to understand the quantitative finding of no association, net other factors, between Reading Materials and reading achievement. The qualitative data show a dramatic difference in the amount of print materials in the home of Jolly, a skilled beginning reader, in contrast to the home of Flora, a struggling reader. This contrast suggests a “necessary but not sufficient” relationship between materials and reading achievement: Materials are necessary; indeed most of the interactions MT observed could not have occurred without literacy materials. But the interactions are what directly link to improved reading outcomes. Once interactions are entered into the regression models, materials appear to drop away as predictors of reading outcomes. But it would be a mistake to conclude they do not matter. They do – but only if used for literacy interactions.
18.5.3.4 Religious Reading
The Religious Reading factor, like Reading Materials, did not demonstrate significant associations with reading achievement, when controlling for other factors, in the quantitative data. The ethnographic data suggests one reason why not – there was little variability and few religious reading activities occurring in the homes. This finding was corroborated by the statistical sample, which revealed very infrequent religious reading and no association with any measure of child literacy. Thus, the explanation for lack of association between Religious Reading and child literacy is in contrast to the explanation for lack of association between Reading Materials and child literacy. The presence of Reading Materials was strikingly different in the two girls’ homes, but its association with reading outcomes was statistically masked by Literacy Interactions. The presence of Religious Reading in the two homes – and among the sample as a whole – was close to nil.
MT observed very few religious reading activities in either of the homes or villages. MT accompanied Flora’s family to Sunday services at the parish church. Flora’s aunt brought a small Bible with her, one of only two Bibles that MT saw among the roughly 300-person congregation. A few minutes into the service, the majority of children went outside to play, and did not witness the aforementioned Bible passage being read aloud. During the service, individuals came to the altar and read selected Bible passages. However, the congregation was never asked to read along while the passages were read aloud. There was no other evidence of literacy activities during the church service. Jolly’s family did not attend church services on the week of the observation. In Jolly’s home, MT did not observe any religious-related reading activities, nor religious texts in the home.
In summary, the Religious Reading factor showed no links with reading achievement, neither in the qualitative nor quantitative data. The most likely explanation is that Religious Reading appears to happen very infrequently, and even when it does occur, children are only indirectly exposed to activities that involve Religious Reading materials.
18.5.3.5 Child Interest
The Child Interest factor significantly predicted all reading outcomes in the quantitative analysis. The home ethnographies of the two girls found the same association between interest and reading achievement. During the week MT spent with Flora, MT witnessed no acts and had no discussions with Flora that would indicate that she had any interest in reading, or motivation to read. The only variable that loaded onto this factor and for which evidence existed in Flora’s LE was reports by the caregiver that he/she did not help the child to learn. Discussions with Flora’s parents indicated that they did not see a role for themselves in Flora’s learning.
Although noticeably more than what Flora demonstrated, Jolly displayed only modest motivation to read or interest in reading. At times, Jolly’s mother urged Jolly to stop playing cards and to read a book instead. However, these urgings went unheeded by Jolly. Four separate incidents that relate to motivation stand out in the data as relating to Jolly’s Child Interest. The first was already reported during the description of the children’s reading skills. Jolly independently took MT’s notebook and wrote a sentence in it without being prompted. The second instance was Jolly asking MT about the meaning of the words “NIU Huskies” that were written on MT’s shirt. The third instance occurred when Jolly proudly asked MT to watch her write her name. The fourth and final instance occurred on the eve of her father’s return to the house after an extended period away from home while marking national exams. With her father’s impending arrival, Jolly started sorting the stack of papers and books in the living room, setting aside a pile for her to read either with or in the presence of her father. When MT asked Jolly what she was doing, she explained that she would want to read these books once her father returned home. In short, her interest and motivation in the activity was inspired not by an intrinsic drive or interest in reading itself. Rather, the knowledge of her father’s arrival spurred her into engaging with the materials. Limited as these displays of interest were, they were considerably more than was observed during observations at Flora’s home.
MT saw no evidence that Flora took interest in engaging in literacy activities. Thus, to the extent that participating in these activities helps promote literacy skills, Flora’s lack of self-motivated literacy engagement meant fewer opportunities for literacy development. Jolly’s interest and engagement in reading, although modest, provide some indication of the mechanisms through which Child Interest might be encouraged in the literacy ecology of the home. In Jolly’s home, the father had set up a very clear culture of reading, which encouraged and motivated Jolly to engage in and practice reading. The data are less clear regarding Jolly’s interest in reading engagement, or a broader literacy motivation on Jolly’s part that is intrinsic to Jolly herself. The qualitative data suggest that the routines and expectations in Jolly’s home – the literacy ecology microsystem – seemed to be what drove her interest and engagement in reading. That interest and engagement, although extrinsically fueled, are likely to have helped Jolly further develop her emerging literacy skills.
18.6 Conclusions and Discussion
This chapter has explored the home literacy ecology of early grade students in Rwanda. Using parent surveys, we identified five distinct factors of children’s literacy ecology: Literacy Interactions, Caregiver Competency, Reading Materials, Religious-Related Reading, and Child Interest. Using the LE factors to predict reading achievement, we found that the Literacy Interactions at home, Child Interest, and to a slightly lesser degree Caregiver Competency all significantly predicted children’s reading achievement, while Reading Materials and Religious-Related Reading bore no relationship to reading achievement.
The qualitative data illustrate the quantitative relationships we found. Flora, a struggling reader, lives in a household with few or no habitual literacy interactions. Her parents are functionally illiterate, and without any children’s books or role models, Flora does not demonstrate significant interest in literacy. On the other hand, Jolly, who is able to read and write in an age-appropriate manner, lives in a household with abundant, casual literacy interactions. Her parents both read, and she has access to reading materials. Jolly does seem slightly interested in reading, but her interest could be the result of extrinsic motivation to please her father.
Our findings largely agree with findings from the existing research on the home literacy ecology in both high-income countries and, to a lesser extent, low- and middle-income countries. The significant associations we found between the literacy-related characteristics of the home and reading achievement echo existing research, both qualitative and quantitative, that underlines the importance of the home in children’s learning development (Reference FriedlanderFriedlander, 2013; Reference HeathHeath, 1983; Reference Hess and HollowayHess & Holloway, 1984; Reference Sénéchal and LeFevreSénéchal & LeFevre, 2014; Reference Snow, Burns and GriffinSnow et al., 1998).
Our findings also provide evidence that support some of the relationships between individual children, the home, and children’s reading achievement that underlie the Literacy Ecology framework. The quantitative findings certainly suggest that children’s interest is directly related to their reading achievement, as do the factors of the home and community literacy ecology. As to the reciprocal nature, or the directionality of the relationship between the individual child and the factors of the home and community literacy ecology, we are unable to make any claims from our quantitative analysis.
Unlike other chapters in this volume, the data in this chapter cannot speak to specific neurocognitive constraints that may affect the Literacy Ecology or children’s reading development. That said, it is reasonable to expect that neurocognitive constraints could attenuate the relationships between the LE and reading development. For example, children with poor phonological sensitivities will have a more difficult time acquiring reading skills, even in a home with ample literacy interactions. The same is likely true for children with relatively weak short-term memories. Follow-up data collection not reported in this chapter showed that a large number of children made very poor progress in reading, to the point of being nonreaders after two years of schooling (Reference Friedlander and GoldenbergFriedlander & Goldenberg, 2016). To what extent nonschool literacy ecologies can be augmented and used to help children at risk for poor reading outcomes despite neurocognitive constraints is one of the many questions in need of addressing.
Another question that should be further explored is the role that religion currently plays, and could play, in children’s literacy development and the overall enrichment of the literacy ecology. This is important to explore as religion plays a much more central role in rural community life in lower- and middle-income countries, particularly those in Central and South America and in Africa. By and large, the religious organizations have clear hierarchies, with revered leaders and sophisticated communication systems. Moreover, religion is of paramount importance to large swathes of the population. Future research would do well to explore how educators and researchers could partner with religious organizations to help improve the literacy ecology in homes and communities.
The data in this study were collected in a small geographical area, one of Rwanda’s thirty districts. At this point, it is not possible to state categorically that these findings apply to the entirety of lower- and middle-income countries. But the findings do suggest that even in places that are impoverished, and do not have a great deal of access to print or a culture of reading, the nonschool literacy ecology plays a role in children’s reading development. The next step for research will be to test whether interventions aimed at improving the literacy ecology of the home and wider community lead to improvements in children’s learning. The qualitative data suggest some of the challenges interventions will face. The LE factors we found to be associated with one or more reading outcomes are actually indicators of much deeper, complex, and possibly hard-to-change material and cultural conditions that define children’s literacy ecologies outside of school. Thus, for example, reading interactions in the home could be increased, but doing so might require not just introducing more reading materials but also challenging basic beliefs some parents hold about the relative priority of school and household work or whether adult–child conversations are appropriate.
Long-term studies of intervention efficacy and sustainability are needed to justify investment outside the school. Investing in the nonschool LE will require working not simply with the education system, but also with a variety of institutions and actors to achieve lasting change. The upfront investment in doing so may be high. But over the long term, parents and family members stay relatively constant, while teachers and textbooks tend to have high attrition rates. Encouraging widespread literacy requires a cultural change as much as it requires changes in pedagogy and curricula. Investments in the family and community may trump all rate-of-return analyses, but research is needed to investigate this proposition.
For now, this research has important implications for educational improvement efforts across lower-income countries. Current efforts to address the learning crisis, for the most part, are still confined to the schools. But primary schools in lower-income countries are only open officially for a small percentage of the time a child is awake in a year (for example, Rwandan schools are only open for 15 percent of a child’s year). If schools, governments, donor agencies, and education-focused organizations are truly interested in helping all children learn to read, the most obvious implication is that efforts must expand beyond the school walls. Doing so has the potential to capitalize far more of the time available for children to learn. Failure to do so will likely lead to more lackluster results and a generation of school-attenders who cannot read as well as they must if they are to help propel large-scale development and economic and social progress in their countries. When education efforts fully expand outside of school, it will take much more than just the Ministry of Education to support learning and literacy. Coordinated partnerships between the Ministry of Education and Ministries of Health, Infrastructure, Social Affairs, Youth, Culture, and others will need to provide children with the support and scaffolding needed to learn.
The findings of this chapter lend credence to the idea that research performed in high-income countries has solid applications in lower- and middle-income-country research. But this does not mean all findings apply appropriately, nor that the research from high-income countries covers the ways literacy and learning can be supported. Our findings also call for an expansion in the way we think about learning institutions, the literacy ecology, and improving all children’s learning. The strong links between the nonschool LE and reading achievement call for more research into the home and community LE, and more programs that seek to address literacy improvement both inside and outside the school walls. The task for education systems, governments, and development partners is to use the entire spectrum of that research to achieve the goal of universal early-grades literacy and learning.
