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

1. 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).

2. 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.

3. Purpose of the study To learn more about how parents contribute to student outcomes, we investigated the influence of 4 specific parental involvement behaviors: • Modeling • Instruction • Reinforcement • Encouragement Examined involvement in context of homework: • represents a common involvement activity generalizable across families • narrow-band activity accessible to empirical examination.

4. Student perceptions Student perceptions Parent involvement behaviors Parent involvement behaviors Student self-regulation Student self-regulation Potential paths of influence • Examined 2 paths of parental involvement influence • Transmission model (i.e., direct path) • Cognitive mediation (i.e., mediated path)

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Student perceptions Student perceptions Parent involvement behaviors Student self-regulation Student self-regulation 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).

8. 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

9. Independent variable: Parents’ self-reported behavior Completed questionnaires asking about homework involvement during Fall 2003 • Modeling,10 items (e.g. “We show this child that we like to learn new things;” a = .94) • Instruction,15 items (e.g., “We teach this child to go at his or her own pace while doing homework;” a = .92). • Reinforcement,13 items(e.g., “We show this child we like it when he or she checks his or her homework;” a = .96). • Encouragement,17 items (e.g., “We encourage this child when he or she doesn’t feel like doing homework;” a = .92). • 6-point scale (1 = not at all true for me, 6 = completely true for me) • Measures adapted from Martinez-Pons,1996

10. 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,” a = .75) • Instruction, 15 items (e.g., “teaches me how to find out more about things that interest me,” a = .86) • Reinforcement, 13 items (e.g., “shows me that he or she likes it when I stick with a problem until it gets solved,” a = .88) • Encouragement, 12 items (e.g., “encourages me to try new ways to do homework when I’m having a hard time,” a = .87) • Modeling items loaded on one factor (implicit) whereas all other mechanisms loaded on a 2nd (explicit) factor.

11. Dependent variable: Student self-regulation • Strategy use, 4 items (e.g., “I go back over things I don’t understand,” a = .61; Stipek & Gralinski, 1996) • Academic self-efficacy, 3 items (e.g., “I can do even the hardest homework if I try,” a = .70; Roeser, Midgley & Urdan, 1996) • Intrinsic motivation to learn, 3 items (e.g., “I want to learn new things,” a = .66; Stipek & Gralinski, 1996) • All student items rated on 4-point scale (1 = not true, 4 = very true).

12. 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.

13. Student perceptions Student perceptions Parent involvement behaviors Parent involvement behaviors Student self-regulation Student self-regulation 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 Model 2 R2 = .07 R2 = .41 Model 1 R2 = .04

14. 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)

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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).

18. References Baron, 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.