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”

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.

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

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

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

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

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 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.”

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.”

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.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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)