How effective are family literacy programs? Results of a meta-analysis

Van Steensel, Roel, McElvany, Nele, Kurvers, Jeanne, & Herppich, Stephanie. (2011). How effective are family literacy programs? Results of a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 69-97.

This meta-analysis of 30 studies of family literacy programs concludes that there is a significant, but small, effect of such programs on young children’s literacy development. Family literacy programs were defined here as programs where parents were taught to engage in activities at home that were designed to further their young (preschool to primary age) children’s literacy development. The researchers further examined whether programs were code-based, comprehension-based, or both, and also attempted to determine if various program, sample, and study variables had a mediating effect.

As is nearly always the case with meta-analyses, the authors caution that the findings may be influenced by the quality of the research studies themselves; that is, the studies may not be adequately capturing the phenomena of interest and thus the results are either underestimated, overestimated, or the results are too mixed to be meaningful. Here, the authors believe a variable that may have mediated the results here was fidelity of implementation: that is, it probably made a difference how closely the program as parents implemented it at home matched the intentions of the program’s developers. Measures of program fidelity were included in only a few of the programs, and even those did not usually involve direct observation, which would be a good way to assess fidelity. Thus, methodological problems keep us from getting as good a view of the actual effects of the programs as we might have had otherwise. Still, the authors point out the need to consider the less than overwhelmingly positive findings in the context in which they occurred; in this case, the parents of the children came from homes labeled as “disadvantaged” (a deficit term I dislike but that is still used a lot in studies), and even the small positive effect could be seen as a definite accomplishment, though of course an effect of such small magnitude means that the family literacy intervention alone probably will not be enough to cause major increases in children’s literacy skills, and other interventions will also need to be provided.

This study was fairly businesslike and “dry”, as is often the case with meta-analyses, and the findings section is loaded with the typical statistical jargon that is also characteristic of such studies. I know all of this is necessary, but it does not make for an inspiring or interesting read! However, a couple of things did pique my interest. First, I appreciated the way the authors summarized the typical characteristics of the family literacy programs in the studies they included. That to me was the most interesting and useful part of the study, and I recommend that those interested in such programs look closely at pages 79-83. There may be good ideas for future studies to be unearthed in that section. I also was curious about the authors themselves, their relationships with one another, and how they came to work together on this meta-analysis. All four are from European institutions, and from two different countries. I’m curious about the untold story of how this study came to be and what the personal interest of each author was/is in this research.