family influences upon learning group investigation project n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Family Influences Upon Learning Group Investigation Project PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Family Influences Upon Learning Group Investigation Project

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 23

Family Influences Upon Learning Group Investigation Project - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 78 Views
  • Uploaded on

Family Influences Upon Learning Group Investigation Project. EDP 603, Summer III August 3, 2005 Beth Arnos, Kristin Bixby, Angie Cowan & Chris Tickle. Table of Contents:. Overview Birth Order Parent Education Values Family Structure Conclusion. Overview:. Role of Family in Learning:

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Family Influences Upon Learning Group Investigation Project


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. Family Influences Upon LearningGroup Investigation Project EDP 603, Summer III August 3, 2005 Beth Arnos, Kristin Bixby, Angie Cowan & Chris Tickle

    2. Table of Contents: • Overview • Birth Order • Parent Education • Values • Family Structure • Conclusion

    3. Overview: • Role of Family in Learning: • Birth Order • Parent Education • Family Values • Family Structure “The classroom is an opportunity for teachers to look at the family dynamics of each student and determine ways to assist the child with regard to these factors.”

    4. Birth Order: • Intelligence: • Zanjunc & Markus (1975) • Sample of 350,000 males • Later born, lower IQ test score • Based on Household Intellectual Climate • Only-child & last-born phenomenon • Limitations

    5. Birth Order: • Implications for Cooperative Learning: • Typical Personality Traits by Birth Order (Dreikurs, 1958; Morales, 1994) • Only Child- Unfamiliar with relating to other children, shy, not used to competition, lacks opportunities to learn how to successfully share, selfish. • First Born- Most favorable position, entrusted with power and responsibility, positive self-esteem, confidence, has tutoring/teaching opportunity at home… responds with hostility towards second child, feels status is threatened when second child is born…

    6. Birth Order: Typical Personality Traits by Birth Order (cont.) • Middle Child- More relaxed, even tempered, less driven by parents, sometimes develops sense of humor to obtain attention, becomes more extroverted…could develop low self-esteem, could develop feelings of inferiority. • Youngest Child- More sociable, friendly, less demanding, less jealous, develops skills such as accommodation, tolerance, becomes more popular… If too pampered, can feel weak and develop feeling of inferiority, not entrusted with responsibility…seeks situations free of competition, shies away from tasks for fear of failure.

    7. Birth Order: • Children arrive at school expecting that their classmates will behave like their siblings, their teachers like their parents (Romeo, 1994). • Teachers should choose roles and groups based on a balance between the skills the child has and the skills the child needs to acquire, based on birth order (Morales, 1994).

    8. Parent Education: • Duncan & Magnusan (2005) • Higher test scores • Dearing et al. (2005) • Parent involvement • Davis-Kean (2005) • Parent education in relation to child achievement

    9. Parent Education: • Parent education and involvement affect the student in three main ways: • Instruction (cognitive ability) • Modeling (social cognitive theory) • Reinforcement (behaviorism)

    10. Family Values: • Behaviorism • Reinforced behaviors (in early childhood) related to values • Anglo Americans values promote autonomy of children to a greater degree than Latinos (Puerto Ricans and Mexicans, reportedly) • this has the effect on Latino students of “lack” of competition for teacher attention, lack of competition with peers, and lower self-efficacy • Competition & self-efficacy are thought to help children achieve in Anglo-American based school systems *Though Latinos value this as a form of unhealthy pride

    11. Family Values: • Autonomy: • Latinos(Puerto Ricans and Mexicans) • Native Americans (Hupa Tribe in Ca.) In two studies, these three groups demonstrated a value for conformity in their young children. Autonomy was only valued by parents if that meant the parents’ value system was going to be reinforced (autonomy with regard to peers)

    12. Bachtold (1982) study involved California residents and preschool children of Anglo-American heritage and Hupa Native American heritage • Hupa desired their children to learn new ways and prosper more than previous generations • Hupa embedded values were transmitted earlier than six years of age • Hupa children conformed early to transactions of intimacy and cooperation that are consistent with the Hupa values – altruism in their culture circumvented development of autonomy, assertiveness and competition which leads to seeking of attention and goal orientation in their Anglo-American counterparts

    13. Family Values: • Literacy: • One study reviewed 3 decades of data from Detroit Mi., including religious and ethnic diverse populations • Catholics showed the greatest change in values • increase in parental valuation of autonomy for children and a decrease in preference for obedience, from 1958 to 1983 • Approx. 25% - 30% of the differential change in the (entire study population) parental values (e.g., valuation of autonomy) was attributed to increased educational levels in Detroit Catholic parents • Alwin (1984)

    14. Family Values: • Parenting Style: • Parental involvement in homework as an intersection of family literacy, SES, social support for the student • Parents’ homework involvement influenced student academic success when parental modeling, reinforcement and instruction supported student attitudes about homework, student perceptions of competence and student self-regulatory skills (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001) • Behaviorist views are supported in the findings, where the parental involvement served to reinforce children’s attitudes and self-regulatory skills • Social cognitive theory is also supported due to the positive outcomes that resulted from parental modeling and parental support of students perceptions of competence

    15. Family Values: • Parenting Style: 2ndary outcome - peer group • Durbin, et al.(1993) examined an association between peer group orientation and parenting style among European-American high school adolescents - teens reported on the style • authoritative (students were oriented toward balanced peers that rewarded both adult&peer- values, e.g., "jocks," "the in crowd," and "brains") • authoritarian (no data trend) • indulgent (fun-culture orientation, "partiers") • uninvolved (mostly girls; some boys, oriented toward crowds that didn’t endorse adult values (e.g., "druggies")

    16. Family Values: • Parenting Style: • Disparity between teens’ expectation of the onset of ‘more’ autonomy, compared with their parents’ expectation-values created a secondary effect • Decreased interest in parent value system • Promoted student attachment to peer values • Depending on the peers selected, delinquent behavior resulted (a distraction from school and learning) • Researchers think the the greater the teens’ PERCEPTION of disparity between the parent/teen values caused maladjustment in teens

    17. Family Structure: • Family Background • Ford et al. 1998 • “Students from two-parent families were more likely to be identified as gifted, than those from single-parent families.” “Projections suggest that more than half of the children born in the U.S. in the 1990’s will spend some of their childhood in single-parent families,” (Pong, 1997).

    18. Family Structure: • Affects of divorce on children • Two years • Malone et al. (2004) • Kindergarten through grade 9 • Tracked students behavior of parents who were married in kindergarten • Boys vs. Girls behaviors

    19. Family Structure: • Implications for Teachers: • Assumptions that students have two biological parents • Look for acting-out behavior, especially with boys. Understand that this is normal • Frieman (1997) explain to the student that, that behavior is unacceptable and emphasize to them that they are liked and valued (Maslow)

    20. Family Structure: • Single-Parent Homes: • Difficult to monitor after-school activities (lack of modeling) • Lower income (typically) “Traditional families are at more of an advantage when it comes to meeting Maslow’s hierarchy of needs,” (Ormrod, 2004).

    21. Family Structure: • Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (in relation to divorce): • People need to feel safe in their environment (regardless of where that may be) • People need to feel love and belongingness (affectionate relationships) • People need to feel good about themselves (self-esteem)

    22. Conclusions: • Family characteristics are factors in the learning process • Families are educators • School/teacher/class are educators • Teachers have a unique opportunity • partner with the family • help children learn • Improve self-efficacy within students

    23. Questions?