1. The influence of parental involvement practices on student self-regulation
Joan 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”

2. 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)

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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.

7. Student Self-Regulation
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler (1995, 2005) Model of Parental Influence on Student Outcomes
Child perceptions of parent mechanisms
Mediator
Parental Involvement Mechanisms
Modeling
Encouragement
Reinforcement
Instruction
Strategy use
Academic self-efficacy
Social self-efficacy
Intrinsic motivation
Student Self-Regulation
Modeling
Modeling
Reinforcement
Reinforcement
Instruction
Instruction
Encouragement
Encouragement
Parental Involvement Mechanisms

8. Our research questions
Across 2 studies we asked:
Are parental involvement mechanisms perceived differently by parents and children?
Examined parents’ self-reported practices and children’s perceptions of those practices
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

9. Expectations
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
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

10. Conditions for mediation
Student perceptions of involvement mechanism
Parental Involvement Mechanisms
Parental Involvement Mechanism
Student self-regulation

11. 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.

12. Parent Mechanisms
Questionnaire 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; a = .93)
Modeling, 5 items (a = .80)
“We show this child that we like to learn new things.”
Encouragement, 5 items (a = .83)
“We encourage this child to keep trying when things get difficult.”
Reinforcement, 5 items (a = .89)
“We show this child we like it when s/he explains what s/he thinks to the teacher.”
Instruction, 13 items (a = .87)
“We teach this child how to check his or her work.”

13. Student perceptions
Questionnaire 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; a = .92)
Preceded by stem, “The person in my family who usually helps me with my homework…”
Modeling, 14 items (a = .70)
“…likes to learn new things.”
Encouragement, 5 items (a = .69)
“…encourages me to keep trying when I don’t feel like doing my schoolwork.”
Reinforcement, 13 items (a = .87)
“…shows me s/he likes it when I explain what I think to the teacher.”
Instruction, 15 items (a = .81)
“…teaches me how to check my homework as I go along.”

14. Student self-regulation
Self-report questionnaire; 19 items rated on a 4-point scale (1 = not at all true for me, 4 = very true for me; a = .84)
Intrinsic motivation to learn (4 items, a = .67; Stipek & Gralinski, 1996)
“I want to learn new things.”
Strategy use (7 items, a = .64; Stipek & Gralinski, 1996)
“I go back over things I don’t understand.”
Academic self-efficacy (4 items, a = .65; Roeser et al., 1996)
“I can do even the hardest homework if I try.”
Social self-efficacy for relating to teachers (4 items, a = .65; Ryan & Patrick, 2001)
“I find it easy to go and talk with my teachers.”

15. Results
Are parental involvement mechanisms perceived differently by parents and children?
Factor analyses with promax rotation
Parents: 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 < .01
Encouragement, r = .16, p < .01
Reinforcement, r = .16, p < .01
Instruction, r = .16, p < .01

16. Correlations among mechanisms
.74**
.71**
.76**
Instruction --
.61**
.82**
Reinforcement
.59**
Modeling
Encouragement
.70**
.72**
.61**
Instruction --
.75**
Reinforcement
.67**
Modeling
Encouragement
Parent self-reported use of mechanisms
Child perceptions of parent mechanisms

17. Do involvement mechanisms influence self-regulation directly or indirectly?
Student self-regulation
Parental Involvement Mechanisms
Student perceptions of involvement mechanisms
Student perceptions of involvement mechanisms
= .59; t = 14.99, p < .000
b = .20; t = 4.23, p < .000
b = .58, t = 14.56, p < .000
Parental Involvement Mechanisms
= .21; t = 4.48, p < .000
b = .08; t = 1.98, p < .05

18. Study 1: Conclusions
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
Influence of parent involvement mechanisms appears to be mediated by children’s perceptions of the parent’s practices

19. 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.

20. 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 (a = .97)
Student perceptions of mechanisms (a = .95)
Student self-regulation (a = .86)

21. Study 2: Scale Reliabilities
Parent reported use of involvement mechanisms (51 items)
.97
Encouragement (13 items)
.92
Modeling (10 items)
.94
Reinforcement (13 items)
.96
Instruction (15 items)
Student perceptions of involvement mechanisms (50 items)
.95
Encouragement (12 items)
.87
.75
.86
Student self-regulation (17 items)
Academic self-efficacy (3 items)
.71
Intrinsic motivation to learn (3 items)
.66
Strategy use (6 items)
.61
Social self-efficacy for relating to teachers (5 items)
.72

22. Study 2: Results
Are involvement mechanisms perceived differently by parents and children?
Factor analyses with promax rotation
Parents: 4 clear factors emerged
Children: no discernable patterns emerged
Correlations between parent reports and children’s perceptions of the parent’s behavior:
Modeling, r = .22, p < .01
Reinforcement, r = .16, p < .01
Instruction, r = .17, p < .01
Encouragement, r = .14, p < .01

23. Correlations among mechanisms
Encouragement
Modeling
Reinforcement
.55**
.44**
.50**
Instruction --
.57**
.59**
.54**
.75**
.56**
.72**
Instruction --
.52**
.68**
Reinforcement
.47**
Modeling
Encouragement
Encouragement
Modeling
Reinforcement
Modeling
.54** --
Modeling
.47** --
Reinforcement
.68**
.52**
Instruction
.72**
.56**
.75**
Reinforcement
.59**
.57** --
Instruction
.50**
.44**
.55**
Parent self-reported use of mechanisms
Parent self-reported use of mechanisms
Child perceptions of parent mechanisms
Child perceptions of parent mechanisms

24. Study 2: Mediation Student self-regulation
Parental Involvement Mechanisms
Student perceptions of involvement mechanisms
Student perceptions of involvement mechanisms
b = .69, t = 17.84, p < .000
b = .12, t = 2.26, p < .05
b = .69, t = 17.54, p < .000
Parental Involvement Mechanisms
b = .19, t = 3.65, p < .05
b = -.01, t = .30, p = .76

25. 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)

26. 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

27. Purpose of the study
Address complexity of parental involvement practices
Focused on 4 mechanisms of parental influence as manifested in homework involvement:
Modeling, Encouragement, Reinforcement, Instruction
Test theoretical perspectives explaining how these mechanisms may influence student self-regulation.

28. Study 1: Scale Reliabilities
Parent reported use of involvement mechanisms (28 items)
.93
Encouragement (5 items)
.83
Modeling (5 items)
.80
Reinforcement (5 items)
.89
Instruction (13 items)
.87
Student perceptions of involvement mechanisms (47 items)
.92
.69
Modeling (14 items)
.70
Reinforcement (13 items)
Instruction (15 items)
.81
Student self-regulation (19 items)
.84
Academic self-efficacy (4 items)
.65
Intrinsic motivation to learn (4 items)
.67
Self-regulatory strategy use (7 items)
.64
Social self-efficacy for relating to teachers (4 items)