Why do parents decide to become involved in their children’s
education? An empirical test of the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler model
Christa L. GreenVanderbilt University
Joan M. T. WalkerLong Island University
Howard M. Sandler & Kathleen V. Hoover-DempseyVanderbilt University
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the Peabody Family-School Partnership Lab, the parents and schools that made this study possible and OERI/IES
(grant #R305TO10673-03).
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/family-school/
General Overview Part of a large scale, 3-year study based in two
major areas of theory and research. parents’ involvement in students’ education is
associated with improved achievement. social-cognitive theory and research
The full 3-year study was grounded in a theoretical model of the parental involvement process (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995, 1997).
For more information, please see our final report (available for free from our website) and visit a session immediately following this one: 10:35am to 12:05pm, Building: Moscone Center West, Room: 2nd Floor, Room 2002: Self-Regulation and Homework Behavior: The Role of Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Homework Quality, and Parental Behavior
Specific Purpose Examine the ability of model constructs to
predict parents’ involvement choices and behaviors. Ability of constructs to predict involvement
after controlling for SES. Examine age-related differences in
predicting parental involvement from model constructs.
Model Constructs
Parent’s motivational beliefs Role construction (“Do I think I’m
supposed to be involved?”) (Drummond & Stipek, 2004; Gonzalez & Chrispeels, 2004; Grolnick et al., 1997, Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995, 1997; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Scribner et al., 1999)
Efficacy (“If I’m involved, will it make a difference?”) (Bandura, 1997; Bandura et al., 1996; Eccles & Harold, 1996; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1992, 2005; Grolnick et al., 1997; Sheldon et al., 2002; Seefeldt et al., 1998)
Model Constructs cont. Parent’s perception of invitations from others
General school invitations (“Is the school inviting? Does the school ‘tell’ me that they want my involvement?”) (Adams & Christenson, 1998; Comer, 1985; Griffith, 1998, 2001)
Specific teacher invitations (“Does the teacher ask me to be involved, make specific requests and suggestions?”) (Balli, Demo, & Wedman, 1998; Corno, 2000; Epstein & Salinas,
1993; Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1995; Shumow, 1998). Specific child invitations (“Does my child want or
need my involvement?”)(Balli et al., 1998; Baumrind, 1991; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1995; Xu & Corno, 1998).
Model Constructs cont.
Parent’s perceived life context Knowledge & Skills (Dauber & Epstein, 1993; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1995;
Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Kay, Fitzgerald, Paradee, & Mellencamp, 1994; Lareau, 1989). Time & Energy (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1995; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005;
Lareau, 1989; Weiss, Mayer, Kreider, Baughan, Dearing, Hencke, & Pinto, 2003).
Participants
853 parents of 1st through 6th grade public school children.
Parents recruited at 2 different points Questionnaire packets sent home with and
returned by children from participating schools
DemographicsStudy 1 Study 2
Date of data collection Fall 2002 Fall 2003
Participating public schools 3 elementary2 middle
5 elementary4 middle
Parent participants Grades 1-6 Grades 4-6
Number 495 358
Mean parent education High school or equivalent Some college
Mean family income $20,000-30,000 $30,000-40,000
Race (% of total)African AmericanAsian AmericanHispanic AmericanWhiteOtherMissing Value
16.5% 5.6%24.5%30.5% 7.7%15.2%
27.4% 3.9% 6.4%57.3% 4.2%0.8%
Measures
Predictor constructs used a 6-point agree-disagree response scale: Motivational beliefs (role construction and efficacy) Perceptions of invitations to involvement from others
(general invitations from the school, specific invitations from teachers and from the child)
Perceived life context (perceived skills and knowledge, time and energy for involvement)
Outcomes used a 6-point never-to-daily response scale Commonly observed home-based and school-based
parental involvement behaviors
Scale ReliabilitiesConstruct Time/Number of Items Alpha Reliability Coefficient
Role Activity Beliefs Time 1: 7 itemsTime 2: 10 items
.67
.83
Parental Self-Efficacy for Involvement
Time 1: 7 itemsTime 2: 5 items
.78
.80
General School Invitations Time 1: 6 itemsTime 2: 6 items
.88
.79
Specific Teacher Invitations Time 1: 6 itemsTime 2: 5 items
.81
.67
Specific Child Invitations Time 1: 6 itemsTime 2: 5 items
.70
.64
Self-perceived Skills and Knowledge for Involvement
Time 1: 9 itemsTime 2: 6 items
.83
.82
Self-perceived Time and Energy for Involvement
Time 1: 8 itemsTime 2: 5 items
.84
.81
Involvement: Home-based
Involvement: School-based
Time 1: 4 itemsTime 2: 5 itemsTime 1: 6 itemsTime 2: 5 items
.70
.79
.82
.71
Analyses: Primary
Multiple hierarchical regressions were conducted using factors in the following blocks to predict parental involvement:
Block 1: Motivational beliefs (role activity, self-efficacy for helping the child succeed in school)
Block 2: Perceptions of invitations for involvement (general invitation from the school, specific teacher invitations, specific child invitations)
Block 3: Self-perceived life context (skills and knowledge, time and energy for involvement)
Predictors of Home-based Involvement
Significant portion (F = 137.07, p < .000; Adj. R2 = .39) of the variance was accounted for by: Motivational Beliefs
• Role activity ( = .05)• Self-efficacy for helping the child succeed ( = .22)
Perceptions of Invitations • Specific invitations from the child ( = .51)
Life Context• Time and energy for involvement ( = .15)
Excluded variables: General invitations for involvement from the school Specific invitations from teachers Self-perceived skills and knowledge
Predictors of School-based Involvement Significant portion of the variance was accounted for (F =
163.65, p < .000, Adj. R2 = .49) by:Motivational Beliefs
• Role activity ( = .06)• Self-efficacy for helping the child succeed in school ( = -.06)
Perceptions of Invitations• Specific invitations from teachers ( = .37) • Specific invitations from the child ( = .31)
Life Context • Time and energy for involvement ( = .19)
Excluded: General invitations for involvement from the school Skills and knowledge for involvement
Predictors of Total Involvement Regression results were significant (F = 239.39, p < .000,
Adj. R2 = .58):Motivational Beliefs
• Role activity ( = .08)
Perceptions of Invitations • Specific invitations from the child ( = .46) • Specific invitations from teachers ( = .22)
Life Context • Skills and knowledge ( = .12)• Time and energy for involvement ( = .17)
Excluded: Self-efficacy for helping the child succeed in school General invitations from the school
Considering SES
Some have found SES and parental involvement to be positively related (Lareau, 1996).
Others note that SES variables do not explain fully why parents decide to become involved effects of SES have been found to be minimal when
underlying processes are examined (e.g., Grolnick et al 1997)
Added in the first block of the multiple regressions, SES variables were not significant in predicting variance in any of the equations.
Involvement across grades
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
Grade level
Means
Home-based Involvement
School-basedInvolvement
Total Involvement
Comparisons between elementary and middle school
School type Number Home-based Involvement Mean (SD)
School-based Involvement
Total Involvement
Elementary (1st - 4th grade)
401 5.22 (.87) 2.50 (1.07) 3.66 (.77)
Middle (5th - 6th grade)
443 4.69 (1.02) 1.86 (.66) 3.16 (.66)
T- test (unequal variances) t (1, 787.65) = 10.07, p < .000
t (1, 656.46) = 10.30, p < .000
t (1, 839.27) =8.10, p < .000
Effect size (Cohen’s d) .70 .73 .55
Exploring age-related differences in the model
Total involvement: Elementary: Adj. R2=.51 Middle: Adj. R2=.56
Home-based involvement: Elementary: Adj. R2=.27 Middle: Adj. R2=.48
School-based involvement: Elementary: Adj. R2=.47 Middle: Adj. R2=.36
Discussion of Results: Primary
Parents’ involvement behavior can be predicted by constructs included in the model.
All involvement types were predicted by Specific child invitations Parents’ perceptions that they have the time and energy to
become involved Parents’ beliefs that they should play an active role in the
child’s education. Home-based involvement:
Also included: Parents’ beliefs that they can help their child succeed in school
School involvement: Also included: Specific teacher invitations
Discussion: Secondary interests
Model continued to predict involvement when controlling for SES
As expected, involvement decreased as the children aged.
The model accounted for different amounts of variance for different age groups.
Applications
Helpful for interventions to know which constructs to target to increase specific types of parent involvement Specific child invitations to increase home-
based involvement in middle school Specific teacher and child invitations to increase
school-based involvement for all grades Role and self-efficacy to increase home-based
involvement in elementary school
Next steps
Explore model’s ability to predict involvement across different cultural groups
Use multiple methods to determine effectiveness of model constructs
Continue to work with the upper levels of model