Parental involvement and student self-regulation: Testing a mediational model

Joan M.T. Walker, James R. Dallaire,

Christa L. Green, Howard M. Sandler &

Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey

Many thanks to the Institute of Education Sciences for the funding that made this research possible

(OERI/IES #R305T010673-03).

Background

Parental involvement in children’s education has been associated consistently with student outcomes (Clark, 1983; Eccles & Harold, 1993; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995).

We have a limited understanding of how parents’ involvement behaviors influence children’s learning.

Purpose of the study

To learn more about how parents contribute to student outcomes, we investigated the influence of 4 specific parental involvement behaviors:

1. Modeling

2. Instruction

3. Reinforcement

4. Encouragement

Examined involvement in context of homework: represents a common involvement activity generalizable

across families narrow-band activity accessible to empirical

examination.

Potential paths of influence

Examined 2 paths of parental involvement influence Transmission model (i.e., direct path) Cognitive mediation (i.e., mediated path)

Parent involvement behaviors

Student perceptions

Student self-regulation

Parent involvement behaviors

Student perceptions

Student self-regulation

Defining parental involvement

Modeling: Implicit parent behavior that children attend to, retain, and reproduce during homework related activities.

Instruction: Explicit parent behavior in which parents share information and structure tasks to enhance student learning during homework related activities.

Reinforcement: Explicit parent behavior that children associate with positive homework outcomes.

Encouragement: Explicit parent behavior in which parents support the emotional and cognitive aspects of children’s homework related behaviors.

Defining student self-regulation

3 components comprised self-regulation: (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990)

Strategy use: Observable tactics students use to enhance learning; behavioral.

Academic self-efficacy: Students’ beliefs in their ability to learn; cognitive.

Intrinsic motivation: Students’ desire to learn and joy in learning; affective.

4 criteria for mediation the predictor is associated with mediator the predictor is associated with dependent variable the mediator is associated with dependent variable the association between predictor and outcome is

less after controlling for mediator (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

Parent involvement behaviors

Student perceptions

Student self-regulation

Student perceptions

Student self-regulation

Participants 350 students enrolled in a public school system in

the mid-South of the U.S. 4th-6th graders 38% were female

One parent of each participating child 83% female Median family income = $30-40K per year Typically high school graduate with some college 57% Caucasian 27% African-American 6% Hispanic 4% Asian

Independent variable: Parents’ self-reported behaviorCompleted questionnaires asking about homework involvement during Fall 2003

Modeling, 10 items (e.g. “We show this child that we like to learn new things;” = .94)

Instruction, 15 items (e.g., “We teach this child to go at his or her own pace while doing homework;” = .92).

Reinforcement, 13 items (e.g., “We show this child we like it when he or she checks his or her homework;” = .96).

Encouragement, 17 items (e.g., “We encourage this child when he or she doesn’t feel like doing homework;” = .92).

6-point scale (1 = not at all true for me, 6 = completely true for me)

Measures adapted from Martinez-Pons,1996

Mediator: Student perceptions

Students completed self-report questionnaires in classrooms; items preceded by stem, “The person who usually helps me with my homework…”

Modeling,10 items (e.g., “enjoys figuring things out,” = .75) Instruction, 15 items (e.g., “teaches me how to find out more

about things that interest me,” = .86) Reinforcement, 13 items (e.g., “shows me that he or she likes

it when I stick with a problem until it gets solved,” = .88) Encouragement, 12 items (e.g., “encourages me to try new

ways to do homework when I’m having a hard time,” = .87)

Modeling items loaded on one factor (implicit) whereas all other mechanisms loaded on a 2nd (explicit) factor.

Dependent variable: Student self-regulation

Strategy use, 4 items (e.g., “I go back over things I don’t understand,” .61; Stipek & Gralinski, 1996)

Academic self-efficacy, 3 items (e.g., “I can do even the hardest homework if I try,” .70; Roeser, Midgley & Urdan, 1996)

Intrinsic motivation to learn, 3 items (e.g., “I want to learn new things,” .66; Stipek & Gralinski, 1996)

All student items rated on 4-point scale (1 = not true, 4 = very true).

Testing for mediation We conducted 3 regressions:

Model 1: examined direct path; relationship between independent variable (parental involvement mechanisms) and dependent variable (student self-regulation)

Model 2: examined relationship between predictor and mediator (student perceptions of the parent’s behavior)

Model 3: used independent variable and mediator to predict dependent variable

If mediation is present, the predictor variable should be less highly associated with the dependent variable in Model 3 than in Model 1.

Results Criteria for mediation was not met:

Model 1: Weak path between parents’ involvement behaviors and student self-regulation

Model 2: Weak path between parent involvement behaviors and student perceptions

Strongest relationship between student perceptions and student self-reported behavior

Parent involvement behaviors

Student perceptions

Student self-regulation

Parent involvement behaviors

Student perceptions

Student self-regulation

Model 2

R2 = .07

Model 1 R2 = .04

R2 = .41

Results, cont’d.

Factor analyses revealed differences in student and parent perceptions of the parents’ behavior: Parents reported 4 factors, children reported 2 Interpreted child factors as:

Implicit (i.e., modeling items) Explicit (i.e., instruction, reinforcement,

encouragement items)

Explanations

Methods variance (i.e., same reporter) may have inflated correlation between student perceptions and student self-reports

Omitted variables Affective quality of parent-child relationship not assessed

(Grolnick & Ryan, 1986) Children’s developmental level

Simplistic views of parents’ involvement Limited ability to reflect on own engagement/abilities

High achievers may not require parents’ involvement during homework.

Post hoc analyses Explored relationships among variables

within high- and low-achieving students. Selected upper and lower 15% of sample

Correlations between parents’ self-reported involvement behaviors and child achievement were similar among the two groups.

Stronger correlations between student perceptions of parents’ behaviors and self-regulation among lower-achieving students Suggests parents’ involvement behaviors are

more salient to low achieving students.

Next steps

Achievement may act as a moderator. Children who do not inherently engage in self-

regulatory behaviors may more actively appropriate the parents’ behavior.

Continue to pursue mediational model. Tap general context in which parental

involvement mechanisms operate (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Steinberg et al., 1992).

ReferencesBaron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Clark, R. (1983). Family life and school achievement: Why poor Black children succeed and fail. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1993). Parent-school involvement during the early adolescent years. Teachers College Record, 94, 568-587.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,143-154.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97, 310-331.

Martinez-Pons, M. (1996). Test of a model of parental inducement of academic self-regulation. Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 213-227.

Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents' psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 408-422.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S.D., Dornbusch, S.M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281.

Stipek, D. & Gralinski, J. H. (1996). Children's beliefs about intelligence and school performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 397-407.

Zimmerman, B.J., & Martinez-Pons, M.P. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59.