1. Why do parents decide to become involved in their children’s education? An empirical test of the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler model Christa L. Green Vanderbilt University Joan M. T. Walker Long Island University Howard M. Sandler & Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey Vanderbilt University

2. 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/

3. 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

4. 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.

5. Background

6. 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)

7. 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).

8. 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).

9. Participants 853 parents of 1 st through 6 th grade public school children. Parents recruited at 2 different points Questionnaire packets sent home with and returned by children from participating schools

10. Demographics Study 1Study 2 Date of data collectionFall 2002Fall 2003 Participating public schools3 elementary 2 middle 5 elementary 4 middle Parent participantsGrades 1-6Grades 4-6 Number495358 Mean parent educationHigh school or equivalentSome college Mean family income$20,000-30,000$30,000-40,000 Race (% of total) African American Asian American Hispanic American White Other Missing 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%

11. 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

12. Scale Reliabilities ConstructTime/Number of ItemsAlpha Reliability Coefficient Role Activity BeliefsTime 1: 7 items Time 2: 10 items.67.83 Parental Self-Efficacy for Involvement Time 1: 7 items Time 2: 5 items.78.80 General School InvitationsTime 1: 6 items Time 2: 6 items.88.79 Specific Teacher InvitationsTime 1: 6 items Time 2: 5 items.81.67 Specific Child InvitationsTime 1: 6 items Time 2: 5 items.70.64 Self-perceived Skills and Knowledge for Involvement Time 1: 9 items Time 2: 6 items.83.82 Self-perceived Time and Energy for Involvement Time 1: 8 items Time 2: 5 items.84.81 Involvement: Home-based Involvement: School-based Time 1: 4 items Time 2: 5 items Time 1: 6 items Time 2: 5 items.70.79.82.71

13. 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)

14. Predictors of Home-based Involvement Significant portion (F = 137.07, p <.000; Adj. R 2 =.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

15. Predictors of School-based Involvement Significant portion of the variance was accounted for (F = 163.65, p <.000, Adj. R 2 =.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

16. Predictors of Total Involvement Regression results were significant (F = 239.39, p <.000, Adj. R 2 =.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

17. 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.

18. Involvement across grades

19. Comparisons between elementary and middle school

20. Exploring age-related differences in the model Total involvement: Elementary: Adj. R 2 =.51 Middle: Adj. R 2 =.56 Home-based involvement: Elementary: Adj. R 2 =.27 Middle: Adj. R 2 =.48 School-based involvement: Elementary: Adj. R 2 =.47 Middle: Adj. R 2 =.36

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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

25. Thank you! Special thanks to Kathy Hoover-Dempsey, Joan Walker, Katie Shepard, Kelly Sheehan, and Kathleen Miller for their assistance with this presentation. http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/family-school/