The Difference a Course Can Make: Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Efficacy in Working with Families

This article was downloaded by: [University of York]On: 16 October 2014, At: 01:03Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

The Difference a Course Can Make:Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions ofEfficacy in Working with FamiliesEva M. Zygmunt-Fillwalk aa Ball State University , Muncie, Indiana, USAPublished online: 08 Mar 2007.

To cite this article: Eva M. Zygmunt-Fillwalk (2006) The Difference a Course Can Make: PreserviceTeachers’ Perceptions of Efficacy in Working with Families, Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducation, 27:4, 327-342, DOI: 10.1080/10901020600996026

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901020600996026

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10901020600996026

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901020600996026

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 27:327–342, 2006Copyright © National Association of Early Childhood Teacher EducatorsISSN: 1090-1027 print / 1745-5642 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10901020600996026

The Difference a Course Can Make:Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Efficacy in

Working with Families

EVA M. ZYGMUNT-FILLWALK

Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which preserviceteachers participating in a 16-week course in family and community relations wouldevidence a change in perception of the importance, feasibility, and level of preparationregarding family involvement strategies. A sample of 132 undergraduate preserviceteachers was examined to quantify potential change. Study methodology includedpre- and posttest administration of the Peabody Family Involvement Survey (Katz& Bauch, 1999) to both treatment (n=78) and control groups (n=54). Data wereanalyzed using paired sample tests to establish the significance of shift in ratings.Findings indicate significant growth overall in the treatment groups’ attitudes towardinvolving families, perceived feasibility in accomplishing these practices, and theirperception of their preparation for such work. Particularly noteworthy is the extentto which subjects’ impressions of feasibility of strategies changed as a result of theintervention. Research suggesting a relationship between perceived feasibility andactual implementation of family involvement practices supports the importance of thesefindings and the merit of focused study which builds preservice students’ knowledge,attitudes, skills, and repertoire of strategies from which to draw when working toinvolve families in children’s education.

Introduction

As schools in the 21st century face mounting levels of accountability, educators areincreasingly called upon to measure and document children’s success. In light ofsuch efforts, educational institutions are charged with an array of decisions regardingcurriculum, assessment, and the various means through which to augment children’slearning. While primary efforts focus on the school environment and improvingthe delivery, transmission, and retention of content, an often-neglected piece of thepedagogical puzzle is the extent to which we work to involve families in children’seducation. Documented as a principal predictor of academic success (Fan & Chen, 2001;Simon, 2001; Walberg, 1984), engaging families in multiple aspects of the educationalexperience surfaces as critical work for schools.

The benefits of family involvement in education are well documented. Childrenwhose families are involved in home/school partnerships evidence higher test scores,better attendance, higher rates of graduation, and more attendance at college. Additionally,

Received 2 May 2006; accepted 6 June 2006.Address correspondence to Eva M. Zygmunt-Fillwalk, Department of Elementary Education,

TC212C, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306. E-mail: [email protected]

327

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

1:03

16

Oct

ober

201

4

328 E. M. Zygmunt-Fillwalk

when active home/school collaboration exists, children enjoy better attitudes, motivation,and self-esteem. Children encounter fewer disciplinary problems, lower rates of high-risk behaviors, and improved communication with families and teachers (Carter, 2002;Dearing, McCartney, Weiss, Kreider, & Simpkins, 2004; Henderson & Berla, 1994;Jeynes, 2005; Sheldon & Epstein, 2001).

The benefits of involvement are not limited exclusively to children. Both families andschools have much to gain from the encouragement of such alliances. Research indicateshigher teacher morale and more job satisfaction when home/school collaboration is evident(Seeley, 1984). Parents involved in such partnerships experience more confidence in theirdecision-making abilities, more skill in accessing community resources, and more confi-dence helping children with schoolwork at home (Christie, 2005). Schools report betterperformance, more support from families, and better reputations in the community whenfamilies are actively involved (Cudeiro, Palumbo, Leight, & Nelsen, 2005; Henderson &Berla, 1994).

Considering the research presented above, one would imagine that preparing futureteachers to encourage family involvement would be a high priority. Surprisingly, there islittle evidence to support this assumption. Although a majority of states include standardsrelated to family involvement in their licensure requirements, these standards are ofteninadequately addressed in preservice training (Epstein, 2001; Harris & Jacobson, 2005).Beyond early childhood and special education, significant coursework related to familyinvolvement standards is frequently missing in the teacher education scope and sequence(Epstein, 2001; Hiatt-Michael, 2001).

An historic review of state teacher certification requirements revealed that a majorityof states neither encouraged nor required teacher preparation in family involvement(Shartrand, Weiss, Kreider, & Lopez, 1997). Insufficient progress toward remedyingthis situation is noted by the National Parent Teacher Association (2006), whichrecognizes that “undergraduate teacher training for effectively involving and includingparents/families in education is not widely offered by colleges and universities throughoutthe country.” Hiatt-Michael’s (2001) study of teacher education programs found thatof the 96 universities sampled, 13% indicated that family involvement issues were notincluded in any course, 23% reported that the school offered a course, but that it was notrequired for K–12 teacher education students, and 93% responded that parent involvementissues were woven into existing teacher education courses. Wright, Daniel, and Himel-reich (2000) reported that 89% of teacher educators surveyed suggested that preserviceteachers in their programs did not receive sufficient information about how to workwith families in ways that promoted effective communication between home and school.Similarly, Epstein, Sanders, and Clark’s (1999) study of 161 schools, colleges, and depart-ments of education found that although “at least one course and some coverage of topicson partnerships” were offered at most institutions, the curriculum was not adequate toeffectively prepare teachers to conduct practices and programs of school, family, andcommunity involvement (p. ix). These statistics inform Hiatt-Michael’s (2006) recom-mendation “that researchers and professional educators should team together to providea parent involvement component in all preservice teacher preparation programs” (p. 13).

The extent to which teachers believe in their ability to effectively involve familieshas been shown to have a direct impact on their success (Garcia, 2004; Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Brissie, 1987). It would follow that adequate preparation in thisarea would facilitate impressions of self-efficacy necessary for effective home/schoolcollaboration. Houston and Williamson’s (1990) survey of beginning elementary teachersrevealed that their preservice education provided little or no training in communicating

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

1:03

16

Oct

ober

201

4

Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Efficacy 329

or building relations with parents. McBride (1991) supported this finding, reporting thatpreservice teachers surveyed believed they had little preparation for implementing parentinvolvement strategies. Similarly, Tichenor (1998) found that preservice teachers partic-ipating in student teaching did not even feel “somewhat prepared” to implement parentinvolvement strategies. Wright et al. (2000) reported that 57% of teachers surveyedresponded that they did not receive sufficient information about how to work with familiesin their preparation programs. Hiatt-Michael (2001) found that many new teachers reported“that one of the missing elements in their teacher education programs was working withfamilies” (p. 1). While family involvement is directly linked to teacher beliefs, attitudes,and practices (Dauber & Epstein, 1993), there are many educators whose preparation hasleft them ill-equipped for such a challenge.

While the importance of family involvement to student success has been established,the literature suggests that many teachers do not embrace the notion of these partnerships.Menacker, Hurwitz, and Weldon (1988) found that less than half of inner-city teacherssurveyed believed in the importance of family involvement. Similarly, Dornbush andRitter (1988) found that teachers reported little contact with families of students, and didnot desire more contact. Data in this study revealed that a full 63% of teachers surveyedreported initiating contact with “almost none” or “few” parents.

Dauber and Epstein (1993) reported that the extent to which families are involvedin children’s education is directly linked to teacher practices encouraging such alliances.Furthermore, the attitudes teachers hold regarding family involvement inform the extentto which they attempt to implement family involvement programs (Swick & McKnight,1989). To this end, the ability to foster critical awareness of and positive attitudes towardsuch partnerships seems paramount.

While a lack of focus on the development of home/school partnerships is evident inmany teacher education programs, preparation that includes specific coursework in familyinvolvement has shown promising outcomes. Tichenor (1998) reported that preserviceteachers having taken a full course in family involvement evidenced more confidence intheir personal ability to utilize parent-involvement techniques, compared to a similar grouphaving been exposed to a mere class period on such topics. Morris and Taylor (1997)found that completing a course in family involvement enhanced students’ comfort andconfidence levels in working with parents. Similarly, Katz and Bauch (1999) found signif-icant increases in preservice teachers’ perception of preparation to work with familiesafter completing a course specifically designed to foster such competence. The presentstudy sought to confirm these findings, as well as to investigate the extent to whichstudent-assigned levels of importance, and of more consequence, feasibility of specificfamily involvement techniques would evolve through participation in such a course.

Methodology

Sample

In an effort to assess the impact of a 16-week, three-credit course in family and communityrelations on the attitudes and perceived efficacy of university preservice teachers, a sampleof 132 subjects from a midsized midwestern university were identified and agreed toparticipate in the study. The treatment group consisted of 78 subjects enrolled in the familyand community relations course during the 2004–2005 academic year. The subjects weresophomore (n=6), junior (n=17), and senior (n=55), traditional-age, undergraduatestudents receiving certification in either early childhood (n=15) or elementary education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

1:03

16

Oct

ober

201

4


(n=59) with some receiving dual certification in early childhood/elementary education(n=2) or elementary education/special education (n=2). Seven of the subjects weremale, and 71 were female. All subjects had the same professor, thus eliminating potentialvariation due to different teaching styles and subsequent effects on learning.

A control group of 54 subjects was also identified to assess the attitudes and perceivedefficacy of subjects at a similar juncture in the teacher education sequence, but who had nottaken the course in family and community relations. Control group subjects were senior(n=54), traditional-age, undergraduate students receiving certification in elementaryeducation (n=52) with some receiving dual certification in elementary education/specialeducation (n=1) and one receiving dual certification in early childhood/elementaryeducation (n=1). Ten subjects were male, and 44 subjects were female. All controlgroup students were enrolled in multiple sections of a senior-level practicum course thatprecedes student teaching.

Intervention

The course Family and Community Relations is required for all students seeking certi-fication in early childhood education (birth through age 8) and is often elected byelementary education majors as part of a concentration in kindergarten/primary teaching.The class explores the complex role of the teacher in establishing family partnershipsthat foster mutual trust and respect. Important and relevant family issues are discussed,along with appropriate strategies for promoting collaboration. A historical perspectiveon family involvement provides a context through which preservice teachers can exploreissues of the changing American family. The benefits of family involvement for children,families, and schools are a focus of the course; and the respective roles of teachers,families, and communities in contributing to positive student outcomes are thoroughlyaddressed. Above all, an ecological approach to family involvement frames the discussion,and informs the menu of strategies which are explored and practiced throughout thesemester. Integral to the course is a case study approach that affords students valuableopportunities for practical application of strategies. Role play, a documented meansthrough which to problem solve and gain confidence with various approaches to familyinvolvement (Shartrand et al., 1997) is a major instructional strategy used in thecourse.

Instrument/Procedure

At the beginning of the semester and prior to the delivery of any course content, alltreatment and control group subjects completed the Peabody Family Involvement InitiativeSurvey (PFIIS) (Katz & Bauch, 1999) to assess both their attitudes toward the importanceof family involvement and their perceived efficacy in implementing family involvementpractices in their future classrooms. At the completion of the semester, the survey wasagain administered, and an analysis of data was completed using paired sample tests toestablish the significance of shift in ratings. Both the pretest and posttest were administeredduring class sessions by an independent researcher.

Content of the PFIIS (Katz & Bauch, 1999) is well seated within NAEYC’s (2003)standards for programs preparing early childhood professionals. NAEYC’s emphasis on“knowing about and understanding family and community characteristics; supportingand empowering families and communities through respectful, reciprocal relationships;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

1:03

16

Oct

ober

201

4


and involving families in their children’s development and learning” (p. 32) lays thefoundation for assessing preservice teachers beliefs relative to these standards.

The PFIIS assesses attitudes toward nine categories of family involvement thatare consistent with Joyce Epstein’s nationally recognized and researched-based model(Epstein, Coates, Salinas, Sanders, & Simon, 1997). These categories include 1) intro-ductory home/school activities, 2) written communication with families, 3) phone commu-nication with families, 4) family involvement as volunteers, 5) family participation inmeetings for children with special needs; 6) home visits; 7) electronic communication withfamilies, 8) family participation in committee meeting and events, and 9) parent/teacherconferences. The PFIIS assesses not only the importance to which students assign suchpractices, but also the extent to which they believe such activities are feasible. Levels ofimportance and feasibility are measured with a 5-point Likert scale (1 being not importantand 5 being very important).

Three of the nine categories listed above request a response to two dimensions of theparticular component. Item 3 requests a response in levels of importance and feasibilityto phone communication for purposes of both positive and negative feedback. Item 8requests a response in levels of importance and feasibility to participating in committeemeetings/events with family members that are PTA/PTO or policy/governance related.Finally, item 9 requests a response in levels of importance and feasibility to both scheduledand unscheduled parent/teacher conferences. As three of the nine categories include twoseparate dimensions upon which to assign a ranking, there are thus 12 separate measuresof importance/feasibility.

The PFIIS also measures preservice teachers’ perceived level of preparation forimplementation of family involvement practices. Perceptions are indicated by students’choice of (1) very prepared, (2) need more training, or (3) no preparation, in responseto the question, “How well prepared are you from your coursework to implementsuch practices?” Levels of preparation correspond to the nine core categories of familyinvolvement, and not the subsections within categories. Thus, for levels of preparation,the survey measures perceptions of preparation in these nine core areas.

In development, the PFIIS was piloted with preservice teachers. These pilot testsand subsequent interviews following administration of the survey allowed for feedbackregarding content, as well as clarifications related to directions. Revisions were madebased on responses received during the pilot testing phase.

Results

Survey results from preservice teachers having taken the 16-week, three-credit course infamily and community relations (n=78) indicated significant growth overall in students’attitudes toward involving families, perceived feasibility of accomplishing these practices,and perception of preparation for such work.

Levels of Importance

On measures of importance of individual family involvement practices, preserviceteachers in the treatment group evidenced a significant change in level of assigned impor-tance in 7 of the 12 identified practices (Table 1). Specifically, a significant changein the importance of conducting introductory home/school activities (p= .002), usingthe phone as a vehicle for communicating positive feedback with families (p= .001),

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

1:03

16

Oct

ober

201

4


Table 1Levels of Importance (Treatment Group)

Means

Questions Text Pre Post t df p

1 I believe that introductoryhome/school activities areimportant.

4.85 4.99 3.23 77 .002

4 I believe communicating withfamilies through written formsof communication other thanreport cards is important.

4.91 4.95 0.83 77 .409

7 I believe communicating byphone to family membersis important for positivefeedback.

4.46 4.82 3.63 77 .001

8 I believe communicating by phoneto family members is importantfor negative feedback.

4.16 4.00 0.94 66 .351

12 I believe that family support ofschools by volunteering timeand resources for my classroomis important.

4.86 4.94 2.17 77 .033

15 I believe that participating inmeetings for students in myclass who have (or may have)special needs is important.

4.95 4.97 1.00 77 .320

18 I believe conducting home visitsfor students in my classroom isimportant.

3.24 3.82 5.45 77 <.001

21 I believe that communicating withfamilies through recordedmessages on voice mail orposted messages on a classroomWeb site is important.

4.24 4.64 3.82 75 <.001

24 I believe that teacher participatingwith family members on PTA /PTO is important.

4.65 4.93 4.35 73 <.001

25 I believe that teacher participatingwith family members ongoverning teams is important.

4.17 4.70 5.35 70 <.001

29 I believe that parent–teachercommunication via scheduledconferences is important.

4.99 4.95 1.14 76 .260

30 I believe that parent–teachercommunication via unscheduledconferences is important.

4.52 4.70 1.89 72 .063

1= strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=neutral; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

1:03

16

Oct

ober

201

4


involving families as volunteers (p= .033), conducting home visits (p < .001), communi-cating electronically with families (p < .001), and participating with families in PTA/PTOand on governing boards (p < .001) are noted.

Several items where significant change was not noted can be explained throughan examination of mean scores, which reveal that pretest scores already assigned sucha high level of importance to these areas that even with modest growth, significancecould not be achieved. Namely, scores rating the importance of communicating in writingwith families (m1 =4.89; m2 =4.96), participating in meetings for students with specialneeds (m1 =4.89; m2 =4.94), and conducting scheduled parent conferences (m1 =4.93;m2 =4.93) suggest a potential previous belief in the importance of more traditionalfamily involvement activities, with significant growth occurring on less conventional,more creative means through which to involve families. Lack of significant growth inassigning importance to conducting unscheduled conferences (m1 =4.52; m2 =4.70) isperhaps indicative of the spontaneous, less intentional aspect of this involvement strategy,and the subsequent lack of direct attention to this in course content. Finally, using phonecontact for negative feedback is the only measure upon which the group mean declinedfollowing participation in the course (m1 =4.16; m2 =4.00). Although the change is notstatistically significant, it is noteworthy in indicating students’ emerging understandingof alternative means through which to communicate with families.

Control group (n=54) responses reflect both similarities and differences whencompared to the treatment group. Data reveal that control group members show a signif-icant change regarding the importance they assign to family involvement practices inonly two (2) of the 12 identified components (Table 2). A reassignment in the belief inimportance of home visiting (p= .003) and encouraging family volunteerism (p= .011)suggests some potential interaction with these concepts in coursework.

Data from both the control and treatment group suggest that home visiting, althoughan area where a significant change transpired, is assigned notably less importance thanother strategies.

Levels of Feasibility

When we contrast the above findings relating to the importance of family involvementcomponents with measurement of perceived feasibility of implementation, treatment groupsubjects evidence significant change in their perception on 9 of the 12 identified practices(Table 3). This is noteworthy due to research suggesting a relationship between perceivedfeasibility and actual implementation of family involvement practices and subsequentsuccess (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1987).

There is a highly significant degree of change in subjects’ perceptions of feasi-bility related to introductory home school activities (p= .001), communication via phonefor purposes of positive feedback (p= .005), home visiting (p < .001), use of electroniccommunication (p < .001), participation with family members on PTA/PTO and ongoverning boards (p < .001), and communication through unscheduled parent conferences(p= .001).

Lack of significant change on items related to written communication through meansother than report cards (m1 =4.73; m2 =4.83), and participating in meetings for childrenwith special needs (m1 =4.71; m2 =4.74) can be potentially explained by students’relatively high degree of perceived feasibility prior to the course of these more traditionalinvolvement strategies. Lack of significant change in feasibility of communication by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

1:03

16

Oct

ober

201

4


Table 2Levels of Importance (Control Group)

Means


1 I believe that introductoryhome/school activities areimportant.

4.85 4.81 .53 53 .598

4 I believe communicating withfamilies through written formsof communication other thanreport cards is important.

4.89 4.96 1.66 53 .103

7 I believe communicating byphone to family membersis important for positivefeedback.

4.76 4.69 1.16 53 .252

8 I believe communicating by phoneto family members is importantfor negative feedback.

4.00 3.90 .55 49 .584

12 I believe that family support ofschools by volunteering timeand resources for my classroomis important.

4.57 4.76 2.63 53 .011

15 I believe that participating inmeetings for students in myclass who have (or may have)special needs is important.

4.89 4.94 1.14 53 .261

18 I believe conducting home visitsfor students in my classroom isimportant.

3.43 3.81 3.11 53 .003

21 I believe that communicating withfamilies through recordedmessages on voice mail orposted messages on a classroomWebsite is important.

4.17 4.35 1.56 53 .124

24 I believe that teacher participatingwith family members onPTA/PTO is important.

4.33 4.37 .41 53 .687

25 I believe that teacher participatingwith family members ongoverning teams is important.

4.00 4.06 .48 53 .635

29 I believe that parent–teachercommunication via scheduledconferences is important.

4.93 4.93 .00 53 1.000

30 I believe that parent–teachercommunication via unscheduledconferences is important.

4.37 4.44 .52 51 .604


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

1:03

16

Oct

ober

201

4


Table 3Levels of Feasibility (Treatment Group)

Means


2 I believe that introductoryhome/school activities arefeasible.

4.51 4.79 3.56 76 .001

5 I believe that communicating withfamilies through written formsof communication other thanreport cards is feasible.

4.73 4.83 1.58 77 .117

9 I believe communicating byphone to family members isfeasible for positivefeedback.

4.22 4.58 2.90 76 .005

10 I believe communicating byphone to family members isfeasible for negative feedback.

3.99 4.15 .93 67 .355

13 I believe that family support ofschools by volunteering timeand resources for my classroomis feasible.

4.53 4.74 2.18 77 .033

16 I believe that participating inmeetings for students in myclass who have (or may have)special needs is feasible.

4.71 4.74 .52 77 .605

19 I believe conducting home visitsfor students in my classroom isfeasible.

2.91 3.41 4.13 77 <.001

22 I believe that communicating withfamilies through recordedmessages on voice mail orposted messages on a classroomWebsite is feasible.

3.99 4.60 4.86 76 <.001

26 I believe that teacher participatingwith family members onPTA/PTO is feasible.

4.33 4.83 5.62 74 <.001

27 I believe that teacher participatingwith family members ongoverning teams is feasible.

3.99 4.57 5.15 71 <.001

31 I believe that parent–teachercommunication via scheduledconferences is feasible.

4.82 4.93 2.24 75 .028

32 I believe that parent–teachercommunication via unscheduledconferences is feasible.

3.91 4.39 3.64 73 .001


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

1:03

16

Oct

ober

201

4


phone for purposes of negative feedback (m1 =3.99; m2 =4.15) can be potentially under-stood within the context of the groups’ declining rating of importance of this strategy.

Feasibility measures indicate that the control group showed a significant change inthree (3) of the 12 component areas (Table 4). Written communication (p= .017), homevisiting (p= .001), and working with families on planning committees (p = .041) surfaceas areas where student perceptions have changed to indicate the perceived potential forthe implementation of such work.

Although change is again recognizable in both treatment and control groups regardingthe feasibility of home visiting, this area is still documented as considerably less feasiblethan other strategies. This is consistent with Katz & Bauch’s (1999) findings indicatinghome visiting as an area where, even following case study and role play, students exhibitthe least confidence.

Perceptions of Preparation

Finally, on perceived level of preparation to involve families in children’s education,treatment group responses indicate a highly significant change (p < .001) in all nine areasof family involvement defined by the PFIIS (Table 5). This degree of significance on a3-point scale reflects a preliminary perceived inadequacy of preservice students relatingto their preparation to work with families, and is indicative of the importance of thiscourse in remedying the underrepresentation of this content in other areas of the teacherpreparation sequence.

Control group subjects evidence significant change in seven of nine areas of familyinvolvement outlined by the PFIIS (Table 6). At first glance, we see little differencebetween this and the nine areas of the treatment group. The difference however, appearsto be qualitative, in that new content may have been experienced, thus contributing toa change in rating of preparation, but not to the degree that it changed students’ ratingof feasibility. Students are, in essence, reporting a level of preparation that is in conflictwith their perception of feasibility of implementation, suggesting a higher degree ofconfidence with content, perhaps, but less perceived efficacy in their ability to implementthe proposed practices. Examination of the course content with which control groupstudents interacted during the semester reveals exposure to family involvement theory.This knowledge base, without opportunity for practical application of actual strategiesmay contribute to these findings.

Both treatment and control group subjects again assign the lowest level of perceivedpreparation to the category of home visiting. As schools continue to document the effec-tiveness of home visits as a means through which to increase family involvement bothat home and school (Delisio, 2004), this area potentially merits increased attention in thepreservice teacher curriculum.

Discussion

Many professionals agree that it is the primary responsibility of the school to reach outto families in order to build effective partnerships to support children’s learning, and thatrequisite skills of new teachers include the ability to do so (INTASC, 2005; NAEYC,2005; NCATE, 2002). A body of research accentuates the central role of the teacher inestablishing such partnerships (Dauber & Epstein, 1993). Epstein (1986) concluded thatthe difference in whether families believed they should or could be involved is basedprimarily on what teachers do to encourage participation. Additionally, the attitudes and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

1:03

16

Oct

ober

201

4


Table 4Levels of Feasibility (Control Group)

Means


2 I believe that introductoryhome/school activities arefeasible.

4.47 4.53 .49 50 .627

5 I believe that communicating withfamilies through written formsof communication other thanreport cards is feasible.

4.67 4.85 2.47 53 .017

9 I believe communicating byphone to family members isfeasible for positive feedback.

4.37 4.48 .83 53 .410

10 I believe communicating byphone to family members isfeasible for negativefeedback.

3.99 3.96 11 46 .911

13 I believe that family support ofschools by volunteering timeand resources for my classroomis feasible.

4.33 4.43 .76 53 .451

16 I believe that participating inmeetings for students in myclass who have (or may have)special needs is feasible.

4.61 4.65 .33 53 .742

19 I believe conducting home visitsfor students in my classroom isfeasible.

3.01 3.52 3.39 53 .001

22 I believe that communicating withfamilies through recordedmessages on voice mail orposted messages on a classroomWeb site is feasible.

3.97 4.20 1.70 53 .096

26 I believe that teacher participatingwith family members onPTA/PTO is feasible.

4.01 4.19 .93 53 .359

27 I believe that teacher participatingwith family members ongoverning teams is feasible.

3.78 4.02 2.09 53 .041

31 I believe that parent–teachercommunication via scheduledconferences is feasible.

4.70 4.76 .60 53 .553

32 I believe that parent–teachercommunication via unscheduledconferences is feasible.

3.94 3.96 .13 52 .896


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

1:03

16

Oct

ober

201

4


Table 5Perceived Level of Preparation (Treatment Group)

Means


3 Introductory home/schoolactivities; e.g., open houses,introductory letters, homevisits.

2.18 1.08 19.51 77 <.001

6 Communication with familiesthrough written forms ofcommunication other thanreport cards: e.g., notes/logs.

2.01 1.01 14.65 77 <.001

11 Calling family members byphone with positive feedbackor regarding concerns.

2.17 1.35 9.28 76 <.001

14 Involving family members asvolunteers in your classroom.

1.97 1.08 12.46 77 <.001

17 Participating in a meeting withparents for a student in yourclass who has (or may have)special needs.

2.32 1.51 9.02 77 <.001

20 Conducting home visits. 2.60 1.76 9.72 76 <.00123 Communicating with families

through recorded messages onvoice mail or posted messageson classroom Website, e.g.,“Homework/lesson line”.

2.17 1.25 10.91 74 <.001

28 Participating in committeemeetings/events with familymembers: PTA/PTO orgoverning teams.

2.37 1.49 9.26 74 <.001

33 Conducting scheduled andunscheduled Parent/Teacherconferences.

2.07 1.08 13.84 75 <.001

1=very prepared; 2=need more training; 3=no preparation.

perceived confidence level of the teacher has been shown to highly inform the extentto which involvement strategies are even attempted (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Hooveret al., 1987; Swick & McKnight, 1989). While many teachers believe in the importanceof family involvement, most classroom practices do not support these beliefs (Epstein &Dauber, 1991). Findings of the current study, which expose a highly significant change inmeasures of feasibility, support the potential for actual implementation of such practices.

Epstein and Becker (1983) reported that in a study of 82 elementary schools, morethan 33% of parents had never attended a conference, 59% had never received a phonecall, and 96% had never experienced a home visit. A review of the findings in thepresent study indicates a shift in the confidence level of preservice teachers to initiate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

1:03

16

Oct

ober

201

4


Table 6Perceived Level of Preparation (Control Group)

Means


3 Introductory home/schoolactivities; e.g., open houses,introductory letters, homevisits.

2.17 1.83 4.11 53 <.001

6 Communication with familiesthrough written forms ofcommunication other thanreport cards: e.g., notes/logs.

1.91 1.62 3.37 53 .001

11 Calling family members byphone with positive feedbackor regarding concerns.

2.00 1.80 1.80 53 .078

14 Involving family members asvolunteers in your classroom.

1.99 1.51 4.05 52 <.001

17 Participating in a meeting withparents for a student in yourclass who has (or may have)special needs.

2.02 1.81 1.78 53 .080

20 Conducting home visits. 2.44 2.16 2.69 53 .01023 Communicating with families

through recorded messages onvoice mail or posted messageson classroom Website; e.g.,“Homework/lesson line”.

1.93 1.48 3.89 53 <.001

28 Participating in committeemeetings/events with familymembers: PTA/PTO orgoverning teams.

2.38 1.94 4.09 52 <.001

33 Conducting scheduled andunscheduled Parent/Teacherconferences.

1.94 1.71 2.46 53 .017

1=very prepared; 2=need more training; 3=no preparation.

these activities, thereby increasing two-way communication between home and school.A link between parents’ perception of their own ability to help their children and theextent to which the school actively communicates with them (Ames, 1993) is indicativeof the importance of this finding. Considering that children experience higher academicachievement when their parents are in frequent contact with the school (Henderson,1988), it follows that augmenting the extent to which preservice teachers feel a perceivedefficacy to increase the frequency of contacts with families in multiple and creative waysmay positively impact children’s educational outcomes.

Findings of the sample under investigation support the importance of such focusedstudy that builds preservice students’ knowledge, attitudes, skills, and repertoire of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

1:03

16

Oct

ober

201

4


strategies from which to draw when working to involve families. Coursework specific tocreating such alliances has the potential to influence the extent to which new teacherswill reach out to families and initiate partnerships that may ultimately increase studentlearning. These findings are optimistic in the extent to which preservice teachers’ attitudesand perceived self-efficacy to involve families changed as a result of participation in a16-week course. This is consistent with other findings supporting the effectiveness of aspecific course in encouraging such competence (Katz & Bauch, 1999; Morris & Taylor,1997). Real evidence of success, however, can best be measured by the degree to whichsuch practices are actually implemented, and meaningful family involvement is ultimatelyrealized. A companion study examining 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-year graduates of this programand their family involvement practices will yield data to support or refute the projectionthat preservice teacher preparation, by virtue of equipping students with the requisiteattitudes and confidence, has the potential to significantly influence teacher practices thatencourage family/school partnerships and ultimately support children’s success.

References

Ames, C. (1993). How school-to-home communications influence parent beliefs and perceptions.Equity and Choice, 9(3), 44–49.

Becker, H., & Epstein, J. (1982). Parent involvement: A survey of teacher practices. The ElementarySchool Journal, 83(2), 85–102.

Carter, S. (2002). The impact of parent/family involvement on student outcomes: An annotatedbibliography of research during the past decade. Eugene, OR: Consortium for AppropriateDispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE).

Christie, K. (2005). Stateline: Changing the nature of parent involvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9),645.

Cudeiro, A., Palumbo, J., Leight, J., & Nelsen, J. (2005). 6 schools that make a difference: With thesupport of focus on results, these six schools beat the odds by using common sense strategiesin a focused effort to improve student achievement. Leadership, 35(2), 18.

Dauber, S., & Epstein, (1993). Parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in inner-cityelementary schools and middle schools. In N. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a plural-istic society (pp. 53–71). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Dearing, E., McCartney, K., Weiss, H. B., Kreider, H., & Simpkins, S. (2004). The promotiveeffects of family education involvement for low-income children’s literacy. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 42(6), 445–460.

Delisio, E. R. (2004). Home visits forge school, family links. Education World. Retrieved April 3,2006, from http://www.education-world.com/a_admin/admin/admin342.shtml

Dornbush, S. M., & Ritter, P. L. (1988). Parents of high school students: A neglected resource.Educational Horizons, 66, 75–77.

Epstein, J. (1986). Parents’ reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. The ElementarySchool Journal, 86(3), 277–294.

Epstein, J. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improvingschools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Epstein, J., & Becker, H. L. (1983). Study of teacher practices of parent involvement: Results fromsurveys of teachers and parents. Baltimore, MD: Center for Social Organization of Schools,Johns Hopkins University.

Epstein, J. L., Coates, L., Salinas, K. C., Sanders, M. G., & Simon, B. S. (1997). School, family,and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvementin inner-city elementary and middle schools. The Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 289–305.

Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., & Clark, L. A. (1999). Preparing educators for school-family-community partnerships: Results of a national survey of colleges and universities. Baltimore,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

1:03

16

Oct

ober

201

4


MD: Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED429045)

Fan, S., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1–22.

Garcia, D. C. (2004). Exploring connections between the construct of teacher efficacy and familyinvolvement practices: Implications for urban teacher preparation. Urban Education, 39(3),290–315.

Harris, M., & Jacobson, A. (2005, April). Teacher candidate learning to engage diverse families.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,Montreal, Canada.

Henderson, A., & Berla, N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to studentachievement. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education.

Henderson, A. T. (1988). Parents are a school’s best friends. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(2), 148–153.Hiatt-Michael, D. (2001). Parent involvement in American public schools: A historical perspective,

1642–2000. In S. Redding & L. Thomas (Eds.), The community of the school (pp. 247–258).Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute.

Hiatt-Michael, D. (2006). Reflections and directions on research related to family- communityinvolvement in schooling. The School Community Journal, 16(1), 7–30.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissle, J. (1987). Parent involvement: Contributionsof teacher efficacy, school socioeconomic status, and other school characteristics. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 24, 417–435.

Houston, W. R., & Williamson, J. L. (1990). Perceptions of their preparation by 42 Texaselementary school teachers compared with their responses as student teachers. Houston, TX:Texas Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

INTASC, Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (2005). INTASC principles.Washington, DC: Author

Jeynes, W. (2005). Parental involvement and secondary school student educational outcomes: Ameta-analysis. The Evaluation Exchange, X(4), 6.

Katz, L., & Bauch, J. P. (1999). The Peabody Family Involvement Initiative: Preparingpreservice teachers for family / school collaboration. School Community Journal, 9,49–69.

McBride, B. (1991). Preservice teachers’ attitudes toward parental involvement. Teacher EducationQuarterly, 18(4), 57–67.

Menacker, J., Hurwitz, E., & Weldon, W. (1988). Parent-teacher cooperation in schools serving theurban poor. Clearing House, 62, 108–112.

Morris, V. G., & Taylor, S. I. (1997, March). Family involvement in education: The role ofteacher education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Chicago, IL.

NAEYC, National Association for the Education of Young Children (2003). Preparing earlychildhood professionals: NAEYC’s standards for programs. Washington, DC: Author.

NAEYC, National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2005). NAEYC earlychildhood program standards and accreditation criteria: The mark of quality in early childhoodeducation. Washington, DC: Author.

National Parent Teacher Association. (2006). Resolution: Teacher preparation for parent / familyinvolvement. Retrieved August 20, 2006, from http://www.pta.org/ archive_article_details_1141772635468.htm

NCATE, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2002). NCATE standards.Washington, DC: Author.

Seeley, D. (1984). Educational partnership and the dilemmas of school reform. Phi Delta Kappan,65, 383–388.

Shartrand, A., Weiss, H. B., Kreider, H. M., & Lopez, M. E. (1997). New skills for new schools:Preparing teachers in family involvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School ofEducation. Retrieved August 22, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NewSkills/

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

1:03

16

Oct

ober

201

4


Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2001). Improving student behavior and discipline with familyand community involvement. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of StudentsPlaced At Risk (CRESPAR), Johns Hopkins University.

Simon, B. S. (2001). Family involvement in high school: Predictors and effects. NASSP Bulletin,85(627), 8–19.

Swick, K., & McKnight, S. (1989). Characteristics of kindergarten teachers who promote parentinvolvement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4(1), 19–29.

Tichenor, M. S. (1998). Preservice teachers’ attitudes toward parent involvement: Implications forteacher education. Teacher Educator, 33, 248–259.

Walberg, H. (1984). Families as partners in educational productivity. Phi Delta Kappan, 65,397–400.

Wright, K., Daniel, T., & Himelreich, K. S. (2000). Preparation for building partnerships withfamilies: A survey of teachers, teacher educators, and school administrators. Cambridge, MA:Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved August 22, 2006, from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/fine/resources/research/wright.html

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

1:03

16

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

The Difference a Course Can Make: Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Efficacy in Working with Families