Upload
kristina-taylor
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The influence of parental involvement practices on
student self-regulationJoan M. T. Walker
Long Island University
and
Christa L. Green, Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey & Howard M. Sandler
Vanderbilt University
This research was supported by OERI Grant # R305T010673, “The Social Context of Parental Involvement: A Path to Enhanced Achievement”
Parental involvement Student learning and development
• Across cultures, parenting practices are vehicles for child socialization– Families have similar goals (Cole, 1996; Maccoby, 1992;
Rogoff, 1990):
• Providing shelter, food, a safe environment • Teaching skills, attitudes, values needed for productive adult
life.
• Within context of education, parenting practices are important resources for children’s school success (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001)
Parental involvement in homework
• Provides a useful context in which to observe parental influence on child learning– Common valued activity generalizable across
U.S. families– Narrow-band activity accessible to empirical
examination
How are parents involved in homework?
• Simultaneous efforts to help the child arrange the environment, manage time; monitoring of attention, motivation, and emotional responses to homework (Xu & Corno, 1998)
• Two categories of involvement practices (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001):– General efforts to create a supportive context
• Establishing structures, providing oversight; reinforcing and encouraging
– Cognitive involvement in homework tasks• Explicit teaching, creating a ‘fit’ between homework tasks and
student skill level; helping child understand how skills relate to achievement
• 4 major mechanisms (Martinez-Pons, 1996)– Modeling, Encouragement, Facilitation, and Rewarding
What child outcomes do parent involvement practices influence?
Autonomy support (encouragement of independent problem-solving);
Structure (clear, consistent guidelines and expectations).
Mother-child relationship quality and involvement routines
Emotional and cognitive support
Self-regulation, school grades and achievement (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989).
Children’s beliefs that they were responsible for their success or failure (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989).
Self-regulation (e.g., planning before acting, working toward goals; Brody, Flor & Gibson, 1999)
Persistence at difficult learning tasks; Fewer ability attributions (Hokoda & Fincham, 1995)
Self-monitoring and metacognitive talk (Stright et al., 2001)
How does the relation between parent involvement and child self-regulation
operate?• Social Learning (Bandura, 1986): Internalization of
external activity– Children bring an external product (parent behavior) into the
internal plane (child behavior)
• Sociocultural (Rogoff, 1990): Appropriation from shared activity– Shared activities are transformed and used by individuals
according to their understanding and involvement
• Interaction with skilled adults assists children in internalizing important skills and understandings:– Adaptation to new situations, structuring of problem-solving
efforts, and assumption of responsibility for problem-solving.
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler (1995, 2005) Model of Parental Influence on Student
Outcomes
Modeling
Encouragement
Reinforcement
Instruction
Parental Involvement Mechanisms
Modeling
Encouragement
Reinforcement
Instruction
Strategy use Academic self-efficacy
Social self-efficacy
Intrinsic motivation
Student Self-Regulation
Child perceptions of
parent mechanisms
Mediator
Parental Involvement Mechanisms
Modeling
Encouragement
Reinforcement
Instruction
Our research questions
Across 2 studies we asked:
1. Are parental involvement mechanisms perceived differently by parents and children?• Examined parents’ self-reported practices and
children’s perceptions of those practices
2. Do involvement mechanisms appear to influence child self-regulation directly or indirectly?• Tested for mediation of parent involvement influence
via child’s perceptions of the parent’s practices
Expectations
1. Are parental involvement mechanisms perceived differently by parents and children? – Mechanisms will be perceived by parents and
children as independent but inter-related constructs– Parent self-reports and student perceptions will be
positively related at modest levels
2. Do involvement mechanisms appear to influence child self-regulation directly or indirectly?– Influence of mechanisms will be mediated by child
perceptions of the parent’s practices
Conditions for mediation
Parental Involvement Mechanisms
Student perceptions of involvement
mechanism
Student self-regulation
Parental Involvement Mechanism
Study 1: Participants and Procedures
• 6 elementary and 2 middle schools in public Metropolitan school system in mid-South of U.S.
• 421 dyads: one parent for each 4th-6th grade student (response rate = 33%)– 50% of students and 76% of parents were female– Majority of parents had some college, worked full-
time; average income $30K/year– 38% African-American, 37% White, 15% Hispanic,
6% Asian– 89% completed questionnaires in English; 11%
completed parallel Spanish questionnaires.
Parent MechanismsQuestionnaire assessing use of involvement mechanisms (based on Martinez-Pons, 1996; 28 items rated on a 6-point scale (1 = not at all true, 6 = completely true; = .93)
Modeling, 5 items ( = .80)
“We show this child that we like to learn new things.” Encouragement, 5 items ( = .83)
“We encourage this child to keep trying when things get difficult.”
Reinforcement, 5 items ( = .89)
“We show this child we like it when s/he explains what s/he thinks to the teacher.”
Instruction, 13 items ( = .87)
“We teach this child how to check his or her work.”
Student perceptionsQuestionnaire assessing student perceptions of the parent’s use of involvement mechanisms; 47 items rated on a 4-point scale (1 = not at all true for me, 4 = very true for me; = .92)
Preceded by stem, “The person in my family who usually helps me with my homework…”
Modeling, 14 items ( = .70)
“…likes to learn new things.” Encouragement, 5 items ( = .69)
“…encourages me to keep trying when I don’t feel like doing my schoolwork.”
Reinforcement, 13 items ( = .87)
“…shows me s/he likes it when I explain what I think to the teacher.”
Instruction, 15 items ( = .81)
“…teaches me how to check my homework as I go along.”
Student self-regulationSelf-report questionnaire; 19 items rated on a 4-point scale (1 = not at all true for me, 4 = very true for me; = .84)
Intrinsic motivation to learn (4 items, = .67; Stipek & Gralinski, 1996)
“I want to learn new things.”Strategy use (7 items, = .64; Stipek & Gralinski, 1996)
“I go back over things I don’t understand.”Academic self-efficacy (4 items, = .65; Roeser et al., 1996)
“I can do even the hardest homework if I try.” Social self-efficacy for relating to teachers (4 items,
= .65; Ryan & Patrick, 2001)
“I find it easy to go and talk with my teachers.”
Results1. Are parental involvement mechanisms
perceived differently by parents and children?
Factor analyses with promax rotationParents: 4 clear factors emerged • some overlap between instruction and reinforcement
Children: No clear factors
Correlations between parent reports and children’s perceptions of the parent’s behavior:Modeling, r = .14, p < .01Encouragement, r = .16, p < .01Reinforcement, r = .16, p < .01Instruction, r = .16, p < .01
Correlations among mechanisms
.70**.72**.61** Instruction
--.75**.70** Reinforcement
--.67** ModelingEncouragement
Modeling
Reinforcement
.74** .71**.76**Instruction
-- .61**.82**Reinforcement
--.59**ModelingEncouragement
Modeling
Reinforcement
Parent self-reported use of mechanisms
Child perceptions of parent mechanisms
Do involvement mechanisms influence self-regulation directly or indirectly?
Parental Involvement Mechanisms
Student perceptions of involvement mechanisms
= .21; t = 4.48, p < .000
= .59; t = 14.99, p < .000
Student self-regulation
Parental Involvement Mechanisms
Student perceptions of involvement mechanisms = .20; t = 4.23, p < .000 = .58, t = 14.56, p < .000
= .08; t = 1.98, p < .05
Study 1: Conclusions
1. Parents and children appear to experience the parent’s involvement as a complex, co-occurring set of mechanisms
• Parent and child reports are not interchangeable
2. Influence of parent involvement mechanisms appears to be mediated by children’s perceptions of the parent’s practices
Study 2: Participants and Procedures
• 5 elementary and 4 middle schools in public Metropolitan school system in mid-South of U.S.
• 358 dyads: one parent for each 4th-6th grade student (response rate = 22%)– Females: 48% of students and 83% of parents– Majority of parents had some college, 21% had a bachelor’s
degree; 37% worked full-time, 43% worked part-time; average income $30-40K/year
– 28% African-American, 57% White, 7% Hispanic, 4% Asian– 89% completed questionnaires in English; 11% completed
parallel Spanish questionnaires.
Study 2: Measures
• Scales modified based on Study 1 results– Balanced number of items per subscale; made
items more parallel
Parent use of involvement mechanisms ( = .97)
Student perceptions of mechanisms ( = .95)
Student self-regulation ( = .86)
Study 2: Results
1. Are involvement mechanisms perceived differently by parents and children?
Factor analyses with promax rotationParents: 4 clear factors emergedChildren: no discernable patterns emerged
Correlations between parent reports and children’s perceptions of the parent’s behavior:
Modeling, r = .22, p < .01Reinforcement, r = .16, p < .01Instruction, r = .17, p < .01Encouragement, r = .14, p < .01
Correlations among mechanisms
.55**.44**.50** Instruction
--.57**.59** Reinforcement
--.54** Modeling Modeling .47** --
Reinforcement .68** .52** --
Instruction .72** .56** .75**
Encouragement
Modeling
Reinforcement
Parent self-reported use of mechanisms
Child perceptions of parent mechanisms
Encouragement
Modeling
Reinforcement
.55**.44**.50** Instruction
--.57**.59** Reinforcement
--.54** Modeling
Parent self-reported use of mechanisms
.75** .56**.72**Instruction
-- .52**.68**Reinforcement
--.47**Modeling
Encouragement
Modeling
Reinforcement
Child perceptions of parent mechanisms
Study 2: Mediation
Parental Involvement Mechanisms
Student perceptions of involvement mechanisms = .12, t = 2.26, p < .05
= -.01, t = .30, p = .76
= .69, t = 17.54, p < .000
Student self-regulation
Parental Involvement Mechanisms
Student perceptions of involvement mechanisms
= .19, t = 3.65, p < .05
= .69, t = 17.84, p < .000
Conclusions and implications
• Parent and child perceptions of involvement mechanisms are substantially different.– Investigations of parental influence on child development and
learning should include child perceptions of parents’ practices (Steinberg et al., 1989).
• Parental involvement appears to be influential via children’s attention, perceptions and processes.– Suggests that child self-regulation develops through a process of
co-construction• Child invitations to involvement
– More investigations of children’s experiences during parental involvement activities (e.g., Xu, 2006)
Next steps
• Developmental trends in children’s ability to attend to, perceive, or process the parent’s actions– Child and family characteristics as moderators?
• Triangulation of methods– Parent and child interviews– Naturalistic observation of parent-child interactions– Structured observation plus prompted recall
• Multiple indicators of child performance– Teacher ratings, child achievement data