Effects of a Dutch family literacy program: The role of implementation

It is hypothesized that variability found in the effects of family literacy programs results from differences in implementation by parents. In this study, the implementation and effects of a Dutch program were examined in a sample of 207 kindergarteners (mean age at pre-test: 64 months). No main intervention effects on children’s literacy development were found. The quality of implementation proved to be higher for high-SES and native Dutch (speaking) parents than for low-SES, ethnic-minority parents with other home languages. Parent SES, ethnic-minority status, and home language did not moderate the program effects on child language scores and the program failed to impact targeted parental attributes, namely, the home literacy environment and parent self-efficacy. Finally, children’s development proved unrelated to implementation variables. Our results stress the importance of delivery for adequate implementation

Writing proficiency level and writing development of low-achieving adolescents: the roles of linguistic knowledge, fluency, and metacognitive knowledge

In a longitudinal design, 51 low-achieving adolescents' development in writing proficiency from Grades 7 to 9 was measured. There were 25 native-Dutch and 26 language-minority students. In addition, the roles of (i) linguistic knowledge, (ii) metacognitive knowledge, and (iii) linguistic fluency in predicting both the level and development of writing proficiency were assessed. Low-achieving students improved in writing proficiency, the language-minority students more so than the native-Dutch students. Regarding the level of writing proficiency, individual differences between low-achieving adolescents could be accounted for by receptive vocabulary, grammatical knowledge, and speed of sentence verification, suggesting that these are important components in low-achieving adolescents' writing. Regarding development in writing proficiency, grammatical knowledge predicted variation between lowachieving students. Explanations and educational implications of these findings are discussed