Weigel et al.

pathways to literacy

pathways to literacy:
connections between
family assets and preschool
childrens emergent
literacy skills
Daniel J. Weigel and Sally S. Martin
University of Nevada, Reno, USA

Kymberley K. Bennett
University of Missouri Kansas City, USA

A B S T R ACT

Using a developmental assets framework, we examined the influences

of family resources, routines, and stress on preschool-aged childrens
emerging literacy development. Data were collected from 85 children
as well as from their parents. Using path analysis, the results revealed that
the more regular the routines in the household, the more likely parents
were to engage their children in literacy enhancing activities, and in turn
the higher the childrens print knowledge and reading interest. This was the
case both initially and a year later. Results also showed that family resources
and stress contributed to aspects of literacy development, although not as
strongly as family routines. The findings suggest that interventions should
include efforts to promote supportive family contexts as an additional
means to enhance childrens literacy development.
K E Y W O R D S family assets, family resources, family routines, literacy
development, parenting stress, preschool children

As educational systems and government agencies continue to push for ways

to improve childrens literacy scores, researchers and educators have become
increasingly interested in understanding the role of the family in the development of preschool-aged childrens literacy development. The family is a

journal of early childhood research

The Author(s), 2010. Reprints and permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Vol 8(1) 522 [ISSN 1476-718X DOI: 10.1177/1476718X09345518]

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on March 29, 2015

journal of early childhood research 8(1)

pivotal context in which literacy is first encountered (Purcell-Gates, 1996), and

the family provides opportunities for young children to become familiar with
literacy materials, engage in literacy activities with others, explore literacy and
language behaviors, and observe the literacy activities of others (Bennett et al.,
2002; Burgess et al., 2002; Bus et al., 1995; DeBaryshe et al, 2000). Studies have
shown that childrens literacy skills are enhanced when parents engage them in
direct literacy and language enriching activities like joint book reading, playing
rhyming games, singing songs, and drawing (e.g. Burgess et al., 2002; Foster
et al., 2005; Raban and Nolan, 2005; Senechal et al., 1998; Weigel et al., 2005).
Beyond these more direct parentchild activities, some researchers have
become interested in the contributions of the broader family context to childrens
literacy development. This family context can be seen as comprising assets that
include how the family functions, how well it manages its resources, and how it
copes with the internal and external stresses that all families face. These family
assets may enable or inhibit childrens early literacy development.
With the critical role the family plays in the lives of preschool-aged children,
the purpose of this study was to more carefully examine the influences of family
assets on preschool-aged childrens literacy development. These influences
were studied over a one-year time span, which allowed for the examination of
concurrent and longitudinal associations between family assets and childrens
emerging literacy skills. Investigating the nature of the connection between
family assets and preschool-aged childrens literacy development may provide valuable information for educators and policy-makers wanting to improve the
early literacy skills of young children. The results may help practitioners decide
how to best direct services and resources to families with young children.

family influences on literacy and language development

The foundation for literacy is laid during the preschool years, and it is during
this time that young children develop the literacy and language abilities that will
help them be successful in school and in life (Morrow, 2001). This development,
however, does not occur in isolation; rather it takes place in a rich environment
of direct and indirect influences. Bronfenbrenners (1979) ecological theory has
been particularly useful in exploring contextual influences on childrens development. Ecological theory purports that children develop within a variety of
social contexts, and that a primary context is the family. The family context
includes interactions between the child, his or her parents, and any siblings and
other adults that are present in the home or family unit. Furthermore, the family
context can provide a supportive climate and structure that fosters healthy child
development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
In terms of literacy development, much research demonstrates that the home
serves as an important influence in the development of emergent literacy skills
6

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on March 29, 2015

Weigel et al. pathways to literacy

in young children. For example, parental efforts that directly engage children in
activities designed to foster literacy or language development, such as joint book
reading contribute to childrens emerging literacy and language skills (e.g. Burgess
et al., 2002; Bus et al., 1995; Lonigan and Whitehurst, 1998). The extent to which
parents read books with children, provide books and other print material in the
home, and engage children in learning opportunities contribute to childrens
literacy competence and set the stage for subsequent school success (Foster
et al., 2005). Likewise, parents in Baker and colleagues (1995) study reported
that their children enjoyed singing songs, chanting nursery rhymes, and playing
other rhyming games. Such parentchild activities added to childrens literacy
outcome scores. As Snow et al. (1998) argued, such interactive parentchild
activities help children develop the precursors of literacy.
Beyond the direct engagement in parentchild activities, Snow et al. (1991)
argued that the family context also can influence childrens literacy development.
They contended that the family context can function as an insulating device
against external stressors and pressures while still providing the time and attention deemed necessary for fostering the acquisition of literacy. Results from their
study of elementary school children showed that family context factors predicted
childrens writing skills and reading comprehension (Snow et al., 1991).
A developmental assets approach may help explain how supportive aspects of
the general family context can facilitate positive literacy development in young
children. Rather than the more common deficit-based approach, researchers and
professionals who work with children and youth have turned their attention to
strength-based models of child and youth development. The concept of strengths
or assets lies at the heart of the developmental asset framework. Developmental
assets are defined as a set of interrelated experiences, relationships, skills, and
values that enhance child outcomes (Benson et al., 1998; Scales and Leffert, 1999).
They are categorized as either internal, referring to attributes and qualities within
the child, or external, encompassing the various ecologies interacting with the
child (e.g. home). In terms of literacy development, such assets might include a
supportive family context that enables a rich home literacy environment, adults
valuing their roles in enhancing literacy development, and an abundance of early
literacy activities in the childs environment. In this way, a supportive family
context might be seen as providing developmental assets for young childrens
literacy development.

family assets
Research has identified several key family assets that are typically associated
with various aspects of childrens development: family resources, family routines,
and parenting stress (e.g. Barbarin et al., 2006; Churchill and Stoneman, 2004;
Farver et al., 2006; Snow et al., 1998).
7

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on March 29, 2015

journal of early childhood research 8(1)

family resources
Family resources can be seen as the financial, social, and emotional capital
families have available to meet their needs (Dunst and Leet, 1994). An extensive
literature on the impact of socioeconomic disadvantage on childrens literacy
and language development indicates that socioeconomic status is predictive of
childrens early literacy and language functioning (e.g. Entwisle and Alexander,
1996; Foster et al., 2005). McLoyd (1998), for example, surveyed the literature
on the impact of socioeconomic disadvantage on childrens development and
concluded that poverty status and SES are predictive of childrens early cognitive
and language functioning, academic achievement, social competence, and
emotional and behavioral adjustment. In their study of children enrolled in
public pre-kindergarten education programs, Barbarin et al. (2006) found that
the higher parents education and family income, and the lower perceived family
financial need, the better childrens literacy and numeracy skills.
Dunst and Leet (1994), however, argued that family resources go beyond
income and actually comprise a constellation of resources, including time, skills,
health, finances, and social resources. Families may have financial resources
but may still lack the time, skills or social support to effectively foster their childrens literacy and language growth. In fact, Dunst et al. (1988) found that many
middle income mothers were unable to invest the time and energy to engage
their children in developmentally stimulating activities because they were more
concerned about getting other family needs met, and were investing time and
energy toward this end. Therefore, childrens literacy development may be
influenced by growing up in families in which parents lack the time, skills, or
social resources to fully support their needs.
family routines
Family routines refer to the predictable, repetitive patternings that characterize day-to-day, week-to-week existence within a family unit (Churchill and
Stoneman, 2004). Furthermore, routines are observable, repetitive behaviors
which involve several family members and which occur with predictable
regularity in the ongoing life of families (Boyce et al., 1983: 198). Family routines
can be found in activities such as mealtime, bedtime, scheduling of activities,
communication, and personal time (Jensen et al., 1983). The presence of routines can provide children with a sense of stability, continuity, and predictability.
Such routines can buffer children from adverse circumstances and foster more
positive child outcomes (Churchill and Stoneman, 2004).
In terms of childrens literacy development, Serpell et al. (2002) found that
regular routines surrounding dinnertime conversations, reading aloud, and doing
homework were associated with childrens basic reading and comprehension
skills in kindergarten through third grade. Furthermore, they found that these
8

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on March 29, 2015

Weigel et al. pathways to literacy

routines were more powerful in predicting childrens literacy skills than were
family income and ethnicity. Hence, childrens literacy development may
be aided by the presence of regular routines within the family.
parenting stress
In addition to worries over family resources, parents can face issues of challenging child behavior and the strain of fulfilling parenting tasks (Crnic and
Greenberg, 1990). Such stressors can impact childrens development. For instance,
children tend to exhibit greater negativity when their parents are stressed (Crnic
et al., 2005), as well as insecure attachment and behavior problems (Crnic and
Low, 2002). Farver et al. (2006) found that preschool-aged childrens language
scores were negatively associated with mothers perceived parenting stress.
In discussing the relationships between parenting stress and childrens acquisition of literacy, Sonnenschein et al. (1996) wrote:
. . . the development of literacy occurs within a larger social context. When parental
psychological resources are depleted or when there is interpersonal rancor within the
family, literacy development may be compromised. Although we can encourage parents
to read to their children and take them to the library, they will probably be less likely
to do so in the presence of financial or interpersonal stresses. (p. 16)

When parents have too much stress they are likely unable to engage in the
types of behaviors and activities that strengthen childrens literacy and language
skills. Therefore, we might expect that the greater the parenting stress, the more
impeded childrens literacy development will be.

overview of the present study

The literature reviewed to this point, albeit limited, indicates that family
assets (i.e. family routines, family resources, and parenting stress) can have an
impact on various aspects of young childrens development. The nature of that
impact on childrens literacy development, however, is still in question. Specifically, in what ways are family routines, family resources, and parental stress
connected with preschool childrens literacy development? The present study
extends the literature in two important ways. First, it explores the separate and
joint influences of the family assets of more family routines, greater family
resources, and lower parental stress all within the same study. This will allow
us to investigate the separate and joint contributions of these family assets to
young childrens literacy development.
Second, and more importantly, the study proposes and tests one possible
mechanism through which the family assets might affect childrens literacy
development. Specifically, this study tested a model, illustrated in Figure 1, which
proposed how family assets might be connected with preschool-aged childrens
9

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on March 29, 2015

journal of early childhood research 8(1)

figure 1 conceptual model of the contributions of family assets to childrens literacy
development

literacy development. In the model, we argue that supportive family assets,

characterized by greater resources, regular routines, and lower parenting stress
allows parents to more regularly engage in interactive enriching activities with
their children, which in turn, increases childrens literacy abilities. Therefore,
family resources and family routines should have a positive, direct effect on
the frequency of parentchild literacy activities, while parenting stress should
have a negative effect on those activities. The frequency of parentchild literacy
activities, in turn, should have a positive effect on preschool-aged childrens
literacy outcomes. The findings may hold implications for those community
agencies and educators striving to offer programs and interventions aimed at
improving young childrens early literacy development.

method
participants
Participants consisted of 85 parents (80 mothers and five fathers) and children
(40 girls and 45 boys). The children were at least three years of age but not yet
in kindergarten. The average age of parents was 34.3 years (SD = 4.5 years) and
for children was 49.7 months (SD = 6.8 months). The majority of families was
Caucasian (92.8%), whereas 2.4 percent were of Hispanic decent, 2.4 percent
reported their ethnic background as other, 1.2 percent were Asian American
or Pacific Islander, and 1.2 percent were multi-ethnic or multi-racial. In terms
of educational achievement of parents, 7.1 percent had completed high school
or earned a GED; 35.7 percent had completed high school and some college;

10

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on March 29, 2015

Weigel et al. pathways to literacy

25 percent had completed a four-year college degree; and 32.1 percent had
completed a graduate degree. The median annual income reported by families in
the study was $60,000, which matched the median family income for all families
in the western United States in the year 2000. Thus, the sample was primarily
white, middle income and fairly well-educated.

procedures
Families were recruited through licensed child care centers in an urban city in
the western United States. Child care centers were randomly selected from a list
of all licensed facilities in the county in which the study was conducted. In order
to recruit parents from classrooms, teachers distributed flyers inviting families
to participate in the study. Unfortunately, this methodology did not allow us
to identify the number of parents volunteering for the study compared to the
total number of parents who received the flyer. Once direct contact was made
with parents who wished to participate in the study, initial data collection interviews were scheduled. Before completing the self-administered questionnaire,
researchers explained the goals (i.e. to investigate those factors at home that
influence childrens literacy and language development) and procedures of the
study to parents and had parents sign informed consent forms. At the same
time, researchers assessed childrens print knowledge and emergent writing
skills. Parents could observe the child assessments but were instructed not to
influence their childrens responses.
Most interviews were completed within one hour. Families were assured their
participation was completely voluntary and that all responses would be kept
strictly confidential. Families were paid $20 for their participation. Approximately
one year following the initial interview, researchers re-contacted parents and
assessments of childrens literacy skills were gathered again. Families were paid
an additional $20 for their participation in the second assessment.
A total of 123 families participated at the initial assessment but only 85 completed the follow-up assessment one year later. This study focused only on the
85 families completing both the initial and follow-up assessments. Families who
were not included in the follow-up assessment either could not be located or had
initially agreed to participate in the follow-up but had since decided against it.
A series of group comparisons were conducted to determine if the families who
participated in both the initial and follow-up assessments differed statistically
from families who did not (i.e. families who only participated in the initial
assessment). The t-test and chi-square comparisons revealed no statistically
significant differences on family characteristics or on child outcomes for those
families that participated in both data collection periods versus those families
who participated only in the initial assessment.

11

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on March 29, 2015

journal of early childhood research 8(1)

measures
Self-administered questionnaires were completed by parents and standardized
assessments were used to measure childrens literacy skills. Family asset and
parentchild literacy activity variables were collected at Time 1 only, while child
literacy measures were collected at Time 1 and Time 2. Means and standard
deviations are presented in Table 1.
family asset variables
Perceptions of family resources were assessed using the Dunst and Leet (1987)
Family Resource Scale (FRS). The FRS is a 30-item scale designed to assess the
adequacy of a number of family resources. Parents were asked to report the
adequacy of such basic necessities as Food for two meals a day and Heat for
your house or apartment as well as the adequacy of social resources (e.g. Time
to be with spouse or close friend and Someone to talk to) and the familys
ability to engage in entertainment activities (e.g. Toys for children and Travel/
vacation). Responses were made along a five-point scale (1 = not at all adequate
to 5 = almost always adequate). Possible scores on the FRS range from 30 to 150,
with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived family resources. In the
present study, the FRS had a reliability coefficient of .94.
Family routines were measured using the Family Routines Questionnaire
(FRQ; Boyce et al., 1983; Jensen et al., 1983). The FRQ is a 17-item scale that
measures engagement in a number of family practices, such as Family checks
in or out with each other when someone leaves or comes home and Family eats
at the same time at night. Responses are made along a four-point continuum
(1 = almost never to 4 = everyday). Scores on this scale can range from 17 to 68,
with higher values reflecting a higher number of reported routines within the
family. A reliability of .77 was obtained for the FRQ in the present study.
Parenting stress was measured with the Parenting Daily Hassles scale
(PDH; Crnic and Booth, 1991; Crnic and Greenberg, 1990). The PDH is a 20item scale that measures how often a number of minor hassles occur within the
family, such as Continually cleaning up messes of toys or food and The kids
are hard to manage in public (grocery store, shopping center, restaurant) along a
five-point scale (1 = never to 5 = constantly). Scores could range from 20 to 100,
with higher scores reflecting higher levels of perceived stress. The reliability of
the PDH in the present study was .84.
parentchild literacy activities
To assess the frequency of interactive parent-child literacy activities, parents were
asked how often they read aloud to children, the number of minutes children
were read to the previous day, the number of picture books in the home for
12

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on March 29, 2015

Weigel et al. pathways to literacy

childrens use, and how often parents visited the library with their children. In
addition, four items were added to gauge how often parents engaged in other,
non-book reading activities with children, including how often parents engaged
in reciting rhymes, telling stories, drawing pictures, and playing games with
children. Finally, parents were asked how old their children were when they
began reading together and how often children viewed educational televisions
programs such as Sesame Street. A composite variable was created by averaging
the standard scores of the items and all variables were scaled so that higher
z-scores represented more positive outcomes. The alpha for the composite
variable was .78.
child literacy outcomes
Three child literacy outcomes were assessed. Childrens print knowledge was
measured using the Childs Emergent Literacy Task (CELT; Abt Associates,
Inc., 1991), a 17-item measure. The CELT asks children to point to the front of a
book, indicate in which direction we read, point to a letter, point to a word, and
identify a period and its function within a sentence. Children were given 1 point if
they provided a correct answer and 0 points if they provided an incorrect answer.
Possible scores on this scale range from 0 to 17. Childrens emergent writing also
was measured using the CELT. Two questions comprised this measure; children
were asked to write their names (1 = no attempt to write their names to 5 = writing
their names correctly) and their ages (1 = no attempt to write their ages to 5 = writing
their ages correctly). Possible scores ranged from 2 to 10. Childrens reading interest
was measured by three parent-response questions: how often children looked
at books by themselves (1 = hardly ever to 5 = two or more times a day), how
often children asked to be read to or looked at books (1 = hardly ever to 5 = two
or more times a day), and how long will children looked at books by themselves
(1 = less than 5 minutes to 5 = 15 minutes or more). Possible scores on the child
interest scale could range from 3 to 15, with higher scores indicating greater child
interest in books and reading. The reliability for the scale was .68.

results
preliminary correlations
Initially, we computed correlations to explore the associations among the study
variables. Table 1 shows that the three family asset variables of family resources,
routines, and stress were interrelated. Specifically, the higher the perceived
resources, the more regular the reported family routines, meaning that those
parents reporting greater family resources also reported more regular routines
in the family. Higher parenting stress, however, was associated with lower
resources and routines. Apparently, stressed parents also had fewer resources
13

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on March 29, 2015

journal of early childhood research 8(1)

table 1 correlations, means, and standard deviations of variables in the path models
1

10

1. Family
resources
2. Family
.33**
routines
3. Parenting
.30** .37**
stress
4. Parent-child
.32** .52*** .25*
activities
5. Print
.15
.29**
.08
.26*
knowledge 1
6. Reading
.24*
.44*** .24*
.68*** .27*
interest 1
7. Emergent
.13
.12
.07
.20
.44*** .12
writing 1
8. Print
.11
.23*
.06
.31** .68*** .29** .49***
knowledge 2
9. Reading
.15
.40*** .31** .58*** .27*
.55*** .12
.29**
interest 2
10. Emergent
.05
.08
.07
.02
.26*
.05
.38*** .44*** .13
writing 2
Mean
113. 6 51.1
55.3
33.5
5.2
10.7
5.9
9.0
11.0 8.6
SD
12.3
6.4
8.5
4.1
2.8
1.9
2.7
3.2
1.9 2.1
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

and fewer routines in the household. Finally, the greater the reported resources
and routines, the more frequent the parentchild activities. In other words, parents were more likely to engage their children in literacy enriching activities
when they had greater resources in the family and more regular routines in the
household.
Examination of the correlations between the family assets and childrens literacy scores indicated that print knowledge at Time 2 was positively correlated
with family routines. Childs reading interest was positively correlated with family
resources at Time 1 and family routines at Times 1 and 2. Childs reading interest was negatively correlated with parenting stress at Times 1 and 2. Finally,
emergent writing was positively associated with family routines at Time 1.

tests of path models

The proposed relationships depicted in Figure 1 were examined using path
analysis, with separate path models computed for childrens print knowledge,
reading interest, and emergent writing at both Time 1 and Time 2. We used
the structural modeling computer program AMOS (version 4.0, Arbuckle and
Wothke, 1999) to conduct the path analyses. Structural equation modeling has
14

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on March 29, 2015

Weigel et al. pathways to literacy

the advantage of being able to estimate all of the predicted paths in each model
simultaneously, rather than running a series of separate regression equations,
as is required in traditional multiple regression techniques (Maruyama, 1998).
All of the path coefficients shown in the results are standardized.
We first computed the path models for Time 1. Figure 2 presents a composite
of the standardized path coefficients across all three models. The results indicate
that the greater the reported routines in the household, the more likely parents
were to engage their children in literacy enhancing activities. As a whole, the
three family asset variables accounted for 35 percent of the variance in parent
child activities. In other words, family routines, and to a lesser extent, family
resources and parental stress, appear to have some degree of impact on how
often parents and children engage in literacy enriching activities together.
Figure 2 also shows that the more often parents and children engaged in
literacy enhancing activities, the higher the childrens print knowledge and
reading interest. Together, the three family asset variables and parentchild
activities accounted for 8 percent of the variance in childrens print knowledge,
50 percent in reading interest, and 3 percent in emergent writing. Stated differently, family assets and parentchild engagement in literacy activities seem
to have the strongest connection with childrens reading interest, and to a lesser
extent, childrens print knowledge and emergent writing.

associations one year later

Next, we examined the path models for the Time 2 relationships specified
in Figure 1. Once again, separate models were tested for each child literacy
figure 2 composite results for test of the models predicting the contributions of family assets to
childrens literacy development

Note: Time 2 results are in parentheses. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

15

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on March 29, 2015

journal of early childhood research 8(1)

and language skill and Figure 2 presents a composite of the standardized path
estimates (in parentheses) for the three Time 2 models. As can be seen in the
figure, only family routines were directly associated with parentchild activities,
and parent-child activities were directly related to childrens reading interest at
Time 2. In other words, the greater the reported routines in the household, the
more likely parents were to engage their children in literacy enhancing activities,
and in turn the higher the childrens interest in reading one year later. All told,
39 percent of the variance in Time 2 reading interest was explained by the family
asset and parentchild activities variables, while accounting for 9 percent of the
variance in print knowledge and 1 percent for emergent writing. Thus, it appears
that the presence of routines in the family, in particular, is conducive of parents
and children engaging in literacy activities that enhance childrens interest in
reading even one year later.

tests of alternate models

Rather than seeing the influences of the family assets as mediated through
parentchild activities, we tested an alternate model in which family resources,
family routines, and parenting stress would have a direct effect on childrens
literacy skills. Results indicated that regularity of family routines was associated
with childrens Time 1 and Time 2 print knowledge and reading interest.
Specifically, the more regular the routines in the household, the greater the
childrens performance on the print knowledge task and their interest in reading.
No direct effects were found for family resources and parenting stress.
We also tested an alternate model in which we examined the models using
reported level of family income rather than perceived family resources.1 Results
were largely similar for family income and family resources and did not substantially affect the overall fit of the model as well as the associations found
among the other independent and dependent variables.

discussion
The purpose of this study was to more carefully examine the influences of family
assets on preschool-aged childrens emerging literacy development. We tested
a model in which the family assets of resources, routines, and stress directly
related to the occurrence of parentchild literacy activities in the home, which
in turn was associated with childrens print knowledge, interest in reading, and
emergent writing. The results confirmed that the more frequent the reported
routines in the household, the more likely parents were to engage their children
in literacy enhancing activities, and in turn the higher the childrens print
knowledge and reading interest. This was the case both initially and a year later.
16

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on March 29, 2015

Weigel et al. pathways to literacy

Further, the test of the model showed that family resources and stress were not
as strongly associated with the frequency of parentchild literacy activities or
with child outcomes.
Overall, the results suggest that the presence of family routines is the family
asset variable that was most strongly associated, both directly and indirectly, with
a number of childrens literacy outcomes. The value of routines in a family is
that they can provide a sense of consistency, stability, and predictability
(Churchill and Stoneman, 2004). Family routines likely provide a structure in
which parents and children can regularly engage in literacy enhancing activities.
In fact, engaging in parentchild literacy activities might be a specific routine in
many families, such as building regular times to read with children. Serpell et al.
(2002) found that regular routines surrounding reading aloud, doing homework,
and dinnertime conversations were associated with childrens basic reading
and comprehension skills in the early elementary school years. Likewise, the
presence of regular, consistent routines in families appears to be important to
the literacy development of preschool-aged children.
In addition, the results indicate that parents efforts to directly engage children
in literacy activities were associated with childrens increased print knowledge
and interest in reading. This finding is consistent with previous research
that shows that increases in parentchild activities designed to foster literacy
development, such as joint book reading, contribute to childrens emerging
literacy and language skills (e.g. Burgess et al., 2002). The extent to which parents
read books with children, provide books and other print materials in the home,
and engage children in learning opportunities contribute to childrens literacy
competence (Foster et al., 2005). Thus, the finding in the present study of the
positive association between parentchild activities and childrens literacy
development corresponds to the existing literature.
The findings for perceived family resources and parenting stress were
more mixed. On the one hand, perceived family resources were positively
correlated with parentchild activities and childrens Time 1 reading interest,
while parenting stress was negatively correlated with parentchild activities
and childrens reading interest at Time 1 and Time 2. These correlations are
in accordance with the expected associations seen in Figure 1. The perceived
level of family resources and parenting stress, however, were not significantly
associated with parentchild activities or childrens print knowledge, reading
interest, or emergent writing in the full models. When included with family
routines, the strength of the associations for family resources and stress are
attenuated. It might be that family resources and stress are important to childrens
literacy development but not as strongly as family routines. On the other hand,
family resources and parental stress may contribute to childrens early literacy
development but the measures used in this study may not have been adequate
to detect those contributions.
17

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on March 29, 2015

journal of early childhood research 8(1)

Overall, family context, especially the presence of regular routines in the family,
can be seen as an asset in childrens environment which can aid in the development of literacy skills. As an asset, the family context appears to enable the
engagement in literacy enhancing opportunities for young children, such as
becoming familiar with literacy materials, engaging in literacy activities with
others, exploring literacy and language behaviors, and observing the literacy
activities of others. Furthermore, Snow et al. (1991) contended that the family
can function as an insulating device against external stressors and pressures
while still providing the time and attention deemed necessary for fostering the
acquisition of literacy.

implications and limitations

The findings suggest a need for those who design and implement programs
aimed at strengthening young childrens literacy development to more carefully
consider the contributions of the overall family context. For example, our results
indicate that efforts to foster more regular routines in the family may lead to
enhanced childrens print knowledge and reading interest. Those educators or
policy-makers wanting to improve childrens literacy skills will not only want
to increase the frequency and quality of parentchild literacy activities, but
strengthen the general family context, as well. Interventions designed to improve
childrens literacy development may be more likely to have lasting impacts if
they include a focus on assets in the family context, such as fostering regular
routines, effective resource use, and positive stress management.
We cannot expect to drastically alter childrens literacy development, however,
simply by helping families establish routines, use resources, or manage stress. As
the results in the present study seem to indicate, family assets seem to operate
most effectively by enabling parents and children to regularly engage in literacy
enriching activities together. Therefore, a comprehensive approach including
parentchild activities, modeling of literacy behaviors by parents, and positive
parental beliefs (Burgess et al., 2002; Foster et al., 2005; Weigel et al., 2005), along
with supportive family assets, is needed to build strong literacy skills in preschool
children. Consistent with Bronfenbrenners (1979) ecological model, childrens
abilities are influenced by the many contexts of which they are a part, and many
other factors individual, family, community, and society at large contribute
to the development of literacy skills in preschool-aged children (e.g. Dickinson
and Tabors, 1991; Weigel et al., 2005). This study suggests that assets in the family
(e.g. regular routines, adequate resources, and reduced stress) are positive for
childrens literacy development, but those influences must be understood within
the context of the overall quality of childrens literacy environment.
The findings of the present study must be interpreted with caution in light of
several limitations. A first limitation is that the results are based on a relatively
18

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on March 29, 2015

Weigel et al. pathways to literacy

small sample of white, middle-income families and should be interpreted

cautiously. We do not know how well the findings generalize to a broader range
of ethnically diverse families and a wider range of incomes. Also, with a possible
range of 30 to 150, most families in the present study had a fairly high level of
perceived resources with a mean of 114. Participants also had relatively stable
routines, reporting mean scores of 51 within a possible range of 17 to 68. Similarly,
mean parenting stress scores were just over 55 with a possible range of 20 to 100.
How well these findings apply to other families that may have differing
levels of resources, routines, and stress, such as working-class, immigrant, or
multigenerational families, is a question for future research. These family assets
may vary more broadly in a more diverse sample.
In addition, only a restricted number of childrens literacy skills were examined.
To create a broader picture of ecological influences, future research should include
a wider range of measures, such as phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, word
decoding, concept of story, and so forth. Also, the study relied on self-report data
from parents. Their responses to the questionnaires may have been affected by
difficulties in recalling frequencies of behaviors and times of occurrences, social
desirability, and misunderstanding of researchers questions.

conclusion
The foundation for literacy skills is set during the preschool years, and it is during
this time that young children develop abilities that will help them be successful
(Morrow, 2001). The family plays an important role in the development of early
literacy skills. Although reading aloud with children is an important activity
for building early literacy skills and understanding in preschool age children
(Bus et al., 1995; Whitehurst et al., 1994), findings from this study suggest that
interventions also should include efforts to promote a supportive overall family
context as an additional means to enhance childrens literacy development.
Knowing how to best focus efforts targeting the enhancement of home literacy
environments may eventually help to create better interventions that will
produce lasting changes in childrens development.
acknowledgements
The study was supported by a grant from the Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station.
A version of this article was presented at the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX,
USA, November 2007.

note
1. Our original intent was to include both family income and perceived family
resources simultaneously in the model. But concern was raised over the strength
of correlation between family income and reported family resources (r = .60).

19

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on March 29, 2015

journal of early childhood research 8(1)

Furthermore, we tested preliminary models that included family income and
perceived family resources and the sign for resources was reversed from positive in
the correlations to negative, indicating a problem with multicolinearity.

references
Abt Associates, Inc. (1991) Even Start In-depth Study: Childs Emergent Literacy Task
Administration Manual. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
Arbuckle, J.L. and Wothke, W. (1999) Amos Users Guide: Version 4.0. Chicago, IL:
Smallwaters Corporation.
Baker, L., Serpell, R. and Sonnenschein, S. (1995) Opportunities for literacy and
learning in the homes of urban preschool-agers, in L.M. Morrow (ed.) Family
Literacy: Connections in Schools and Communities, pp. 23652. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Barbarin, O., Bryant, D., McCandies, T., Burchinal, M., Early, D., Clifford, R., Pianta,
R. and Howes, C. (2006) Children enrolled in public Pre-K: the relation of family
life, neighborhood quality, and socioeconomic resources to early competence.
American Journal of Orthopsychology 76: 26576.
Bennett, K.K., Weigel, D.J. and Martin, S.S. (2002) Childrens acquisition of early
literacy skills: examining family contributions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly
17: 295317.
Benson, P.L., Leffert, N., Scales, P.C. and Blyth, D.A. (1998) Beyond the village
rhetoric: creating healthy communities for children and adolescents. Applied
Developmental Science 2: 13859.
Boyce, W.T., Jensen, E.W., James, S.A. and Peacock, J.L. (1983) The Family Routines
Inventory: Theoretical Origins. Social Science & Medicine 17: 193200.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature
and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burgess, S.R., Hecht, S.A. and Lonigan, C.J. (2002) Relations of the Home Literacy
Environment (HLE) to the Development of Reading-related Abilities: A One-year
Longitudinal Study. Reading Research Quarterly 37: 40826.
Bus, A.G., van IJzendorn, M.H. 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: 121.
Churchill, S.L. and Stoneman, Z. (2004) Correlates of family routines in Head Start
families. Early Childhood Research & Practice 6. Available online at: [http://ecrp.uiuc.
edu/v6n1/churchill.html], accessed 30 June 2008.
Crnic, K.A. and Booth, C.K. (1991) Mothers and fathers perceptions of daily hassles of
parenting across early childhood. Journal of Marriage and the Family 53: 104250.
Crnic, K.A. and Greenberg, M.T. (1990) Minor parenting stresses with young children.
Child Development 61: 162837.
Crnic, K.A. and Low, C. (2002) Everyday stresses and parenting, in M. Bornstein
(ed.) Handbook of Parenting: Practical Issues in Parenting, 2nd edn, Vol. 5, pp. 24367.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crnic, K.A., Gaze, C. and Hoffman, C. (2005) Cumulative parenting stress across the
preschool period: relations to maternal parenting and child behavior at age 5. Infant
and Child Development 14: 11732.

20

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on March 29, 2015

Weigel et al. pathways to literacy

DeBaryshe, D.B., Binder, J.C. and Buell, M.J. (2000) Mothers implicit theories of early
literacy instruction: implications for childrens reading and writing. Early Child
Development and Care 160: 11931.
Dickinson, D.K. and Tabors, P. (1991) Early literacy: linkages between home, school,
and literacy achievement at age five. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 6:
3046.
Dunst, C.J. and Leet, H.E. (1987) Measuring the adequacy of resources in households
with young children. Child: Care, Health, and Development 13: 11125.
Dunst, C.J. and Leet, H.E. (1994) Measuring the adequacy of resources in
households with young children, in C.J. Dunst and C.M. Trivette (eds) Supporting
and Strengthening Families: Methods, Strategies, and Practices, Vol. 1, pp. 10514.
Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Dunst, C.J., Leet, H.E. and Trivette, C.M. (1988) Family resources, personal well-being,
and early intervention. Journal of Special Education 22: 10816.
Entwisle, D.R. and Alexander, K.L. (1996) Family type and childrens growth in reading
and math over the primary grades. Journal of Marriage and the Family 58: 34155.
Farver, J.M., Xu, Y., Eppe, S. and Lonigan, C.J. (2006) Home environments and young
Latino childrens school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21: 196212.
Foster, M.A., Lambert, R., Abbott-Shim, M., McCarty, F. and Franze, S. (2005) A model
of home learning environment and social risk factors in relation to childrens
emergent literacy and social outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 20: 1336.
Jensen, E.W., James, S.A., Boyce, W.T. and Harnett, S.A. (1983) The Family Routines
Inventory: development and validation. Social Science & Medicine 17: 20111.
Lonigan, C.J. and Whitehurst, G.J. (1998) Relative efficacy of parent and teacher
involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from lowincome backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 13: 26390.
Maruyama, G.M. (1998) Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
McLoyd, V.C. (1998) Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American
Psychologist 53: 185204.
Morrow, L.M. (2001) Literacy Development in the Early Years: Helping Children Read and
Write, 4th edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1996) Stories, coupons, and the TV Guide: relationships between
home literacy experiences and emergent literacy knowledge. Reading Research
Quarterly 31: 40628.
Raban, B. and Nolan, A. (2005) Reading practices experienced by preschool children in
areas of disadvantage. Journal of Early Childhood Research 3: 28998.
Scales, P.C. and Leffert, N. (1999) Developmental Assets: A Synthesis of the Scientific
Research on Adolescent Development. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.
Senechal, M., LeFevre, J., Thomas, E.M. and Daley, K.E. (1998) Differential effects of
home literacy experiences on the development of oral and written language. Reading
Research Quarterly 33: 96116.
Serpell, R., Sonnenschein, S., Baker, L. and Ganapathy, H. (2002) Intimate culture of
families in early socialization of literacy. Journal of Family Psychology 16: 391405.
Snow, C.E., Barnes, W.S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I.F. and Hemphill, L. (1991) Unfulfilled
Expectations: Home and School Influences on Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

21

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on March 29, 2015

journal of early childhood research 8(1)

Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S. and Griffin, P. (eds) (1998) Preventing Reading Difficulties
in Young Children: Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young
Children. Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children,
National Research Council. Available online at: [www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/
prdyc/], accessed 30 June 2008.
Sonnenschein, S., Brody, G. and Munsterman, K. (1996) The influence of family
beliefs and practices on childrens early reading development, in L. Baker,
P. Afflerbach, and D. Reinking (eds) Developing Engaged Readers in School and
Home Communities, pp. 320. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Weigel, D.J., Martin, S.S. and Bennett, K.K. (2005) Ecological influences of the home
and the child-care center on preschool-age childrens literacy development. Reading
Research Quarterly 40: 20433.
Whitehurst, G.J., Arnold, D.S., Epstein, J.N., Angell, A.L., Smith, M. and Fischel,
J.E. (1994) A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children
from low-income families. Developmental Psychology 30: 67989.

correspondence
Daniel J. Weigel, Professor, Human Development and Family Studies/Cooperative
Extension, University of Nevada, 5305 Mill Street, Reno, NV 89502, USA.
[email: dweigel@unr.nevada.edu]

22

Downloaded from ecr.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on March 29, 2015