PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT ON STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES IN SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOLS

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

Our focus in this chapter is to critically examine relevant literatures that would assist in explaining the research problem and furthermore recognize the efforts of scholars who had previously contributed immensely to similar research. The chapter intends to deepen the understanding of the study and close the perceived gaps. Precisely, the chapter will be considered in three sub-headings:

 Conceptual Framework

 Theoretical framework

 Chapter Summary

2.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Numerous variables support student achievement; however, studies haveindicated that one of the most critical components is parental involvement (Hara &Burke, 1998). Overall, educators acknowledge that parental involvement is key to successful student academic performance. Schools are doing their best to encourage parents to get involved in their children’s academic activities and schoolwork (Griffith, 1996). The purpose of this study was to determine whether differences exist in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics achievement between fourth grade students whose family members were involved in school and fourth grade students whose family members were not involved in school. The findings of this study may provide useful information regarding parent participation in schools. The following research topics are discussed to provide reasonable justification for the importance of parental involvement: (a) general overview of parental involvement based on Epstein’s six types of involvement, (b) the history of parental involvement, and (c) case studies and research that address the relationship between parental involvement and student achievement.

Epstein’s Six Types of Parental Involvement

Educators agree that parental involvement is essential to students’ academic growth; however, definitions of parental involvement vary.

A traditional definition of parental involvement includes participating in activities at school and at home, such as volunteering at school; communicating with teachers; assisting with homework; and attending open houses, back-to-school nights, and parent-teacher conferences (Bower & Griffin, 2011; Epstein et al.2009; Hill & Taylor, 2004). Lopez, Scribner, and Mahitivanichcha (2001) defined parental involvement as “supporting student academic achievement or participating in school-initiated functions” (p. 78). Epstein et al.’s (2009) framework consists of six types of parental involvement. The basic obligation of parents (Type 1) refers to a family’s responsibility of ensuring the child’s health and safety (e.g., parenting, child rearing, continual supervision, discipline, and guidance at each age level) and to providing positive home conditions that support learning and behavior. The basic obligation of schools (Type 2) refers to communication with the school about academic progress (e.g., memos, notices, report cards, conferences). The basic obligation of schools (Type 3) pertains to parental participation in the school setting (e.g., events, workshops, or programs for their own educational growth). The basic obligation of schools (Type 4) applies to communication with parents initiating, monitoring, and assisting in their children’s homework or learning activities. The basic obligation of schools (Type 5) refers to parents accepting decision-making roles in committees that monitor school improvement (e.g., Parent Teacher Association [PTA], advisory councils, or other committees or groups at school). The basic obligation of schools (Type 6) involves collaborating with the community, which pertains to integrating various community agencies and resources that support school programs (e.g., Title 1, after-school programs, parent institute committee) (Epstein, Coates, Salinas, Sanders, & Simon, 1997).

History of Parental Involvement

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (U.S. Department of Education, indicates that parents have a considerable role in promoting the academic achievement of their children. Regardless of this legislation, schools should and are encouraged to strengthen their efforts in developing innovative ways to involve parents in their children’s academic growth. Lai and Vadeboncoeur (2012) noted the duty of a school to promote parental involvement has become a passive act, rather than a genuine effort. In addition, parents are often scapegoats when trying to find the blame to student achievement. For example, some educators blame parents for the children’s academic failures (e.g., “If only the parents helped at home” or “Parents just don’t care about school”). Despite these remarks, research continues to credit parental involvement as a way to increase academic achievement effectively. Studies show that parents are, in fact, a strong independent variable in motivating their children to learn (Gonzalez-DeHass, 2005; Williams, & Holbein, 2005). Parental involvement corresponds to many constructs of school such as engagement, which includes attending parent-teacher conferences, contributing to extracurricular activities, monitoring student grades, imparting parental values, helping with homework, and providing intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. However, Lai and Vadeboncoeur (2012) noted that schools have failed to engage parents fully.For example, many schools do not provide literature in a second language or interpreters at conferences for parents whose primary language is not English. Academic leaders need to embrace parents as vital stakeholders within the educational system and encourage teamwork and collaboration.

Case Studies on Parental Involvement and Student Achievement Gonzalez-DeHass et al. (2005) argued that when parents are involved in their children’s schools, academic motivation and achievement increase. Students’ interest in learning, competence, and understanding of a subject area, improves and promotes student achievement. Haas and Reiley (2008) examined ways to increase homework completion among middle school students using selected interventions. One intervention required students to complete daily homework planners and parents to sign the planners for verification. Students who were consistent with the study requirements received a Gotcha slip from school staff as positive recognition. The findings indicated that most parents cooperated. Despite a few nonparticipants, the homework planners, in conjunction with a Gotcha slip, created a dialog between teachers and students as well as between teachers and parents. Haas and Reiley also found that not all students knew how to fill out the homework planners accurately, and the increased communication with parents served to improve these students’ organizational skills and increase homework completion rates. Hara and Burke (1998) investigated whether inner city third grade students experienced significant and sustained academic growth when their parents were more directly involved with the school. They conducted an assessment to determine what the elementary school needed to do to ensure an effective parent involvement program. The process included research, planning, implementation, and program evaluation. The researchers used Epstein’s framework for building parental partnerships as the model best suited for setting program goals and conditions. The five-step implementation process included: (a) create an action, (b) obtain funds, (c) identify a starting point, (d) develop a 3-year plan, and (e) continue planning to improve the program. Parents and the community were made aware of the program, and the researchers administered a needs assessment survey to parents and third grade students. They used the results of the survey to implement a program that encouraged parent participation in the following school related activities:

 .Offering parenting workshops (among the most popular

 activities)

 .Gathering and analyzing data for activity planning purposes .

 .Developing parent outreach training programs Obtaining information from the needs assessment analysis.

 .Planning alternatives for parents with special needs Seeking funding for additional program implementation

 .Establishing open houses (in-school and throughout the community) .

 .Hosting family nights (e.g., meet teachers at the public library or using the school library and computer labs with children)

 .Creating popular nutrition workshops Promoting parent discussion groups Offering Rabbit Ears Radio activity

 .Publishing parent-oriented newsletters and providing communication activities

 .Organizing student skits for and with parent involvement. (Hara & Burke, 1998, p. 223)

The needs assessment survey identified the need for various activities; however, some obstacles emerged, such as “Absences of adequate budget, faculty limitations which narrowed the number and scope of activities, lack of available time for teachers and activity development” (Hara & Burke, 1998, p. 227). Despite these limitations, students demonstrated growth through the program implementation. For example, third grade reading achievement increased by 4 months as measured by the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). Grade equivalent mean scores in reading also increased from 2 years and 7 months in 1995 to 3 years and 1 month in 1998. Overall, students whose parents were involved improved in reading more than their counterparts whose parents were not involved. Hara and Burke (1998) also found increased student participation in school activities, improved attendance, and enhanced self-esteem. Furthermore, parent involvement increased by 43% during program implementation. Bower and Griffin (2011) used the Epstein model as a strategy to study parental involvement in a high poverty, high minority elementary school. The study involved a student body of 347 students of multiethnic backgrounds. Five teachers and two members of the administrative team were interviewed for this study. The researchers used a digital voice recorder and transcribed responses to the questions verbatim. Collected data also consisted of field notes based on observations of formal parental involvement activities within the school environment. Communication and home learning consisted of weekly reports sent to parents and personal calls made by teachers and the administrator to invite parents to school events. Bower and Griffin (2011) found low parent attendance despite efforts by the school to include them in activities. Engagement was not apparent in the study, and the researchers observed a lack of communication between parents and teachers. The researchers determined that schools and teachers did not build effective relationships with parents. Further, Bower and Griffin noted that the Epstein model does not fully capture the essence of how parents want to participate in their children’s school activities. They suggested additional studies to provide information on improving communication and encouraging involvement among parents. Georgiou and Tourva (2007) examined the relationship between parents’ perceptions of their children’s academic achievement, their beliefs of being involved, and their actual involvement. Participants included 313 Greek Cypriot parents of children attending elementary through high school. The majority of parents were female (66.13%), and the average age was 36.7 years. The sample encompassed 145 parents with children in elementary school (fifth or sixth grade) and 168 parents with children in high school (ninth or tenth grade). The average age of elementary students was 11.2 years and that of high school students was 15.6 years. Parents held at least a university degree, a professional or semi-professional job, and family income ranked above average compared to local standards.

Georgiou and Tourva used two instrumental scales to collect data. The first was the Parental Attributions Scale (PAS), which was developed by O’Sullivan and Howe (1996) and later adapted to an attribution theory proposed by Weiner (1985). The 21-item scale examined characteristics or attributions that parents make about their children’s achievement. Respondents were asked to rate items on a 5-point Likert scale (5 = absolutely agree, 4 = agree, 3 = ambivalent, 2 = disagree, 1 = absolutely disagree). The second instrument was the Parental Involvement Scale (PIS), based on a self-report inventory developed by Campbell and Mandel (1990) and adapted to the Greek language and culture by Flouris (1991). Items referenced school-related activities that parents engaged in at home and at school. The PIS identified three sub-categories related to: a) child’s homework (e.g., examining homework), (b) supervision of child’s every day activities (e.g., television viewing), and (c) development of interests and hobbies (e.g., art, music, and sports). The second part of the PIS also included questions that referred to visiting schools, speaking with teachers, and attending school events. Georgiou and Tourva found that parental involvement was conductive to a child’s success in school. In other words, if the parents believed they could make a difference, they were more likely to get involved in their children’s academic pursuits. Those parents who believed that only teachers could help their children succeed academically tended to stay away from any type of school involvement. Griffith (1996) examined the relationship between parental empowerment and student academic performance. Specifically, he examined the association between parental involvement and empowerment and school characteristics using the school as the unit of analysis. He recruited a sample of 41 elementary schools in a large metropolitan school district where the relationship between parental involvement and student academic achievement were expected to be the highest. Participants completed a 41-item survey that consisted of Likert scale and open-ended questions from national and regional surveys on school climate and satisfaction. Open-ended items referred to school programs (e.g., Chapter 1, special education, gifted and talented) academic grades, parental expectations, and demographic characteristics (age, gender, race, and ethnicity). The survey also asked about parents’ participation in school activities (Griffith, 1996). The results revealed that schools with higher levels of parental involvement and empowerment tended to have higher student criterion-referenced test (CRT) scores (Griffith, 1996). Additionally, in this study schools with higher levels of parental involvement had fewer, but more experienced, teachers than did schools with less parental involvement. Griffith (1996) also noted that schools with high percentages of African Americans and Hispanic students who were enrolled in the free or reduced-price lunch program experienced lower parental involvement and lower CRT scores. Although further research is needed to incorporate concrete measures of the relationship between parental involvement and academic performance, overall, the results showed a positive relationship between parental empowerment, involvement, and student academic performance (Griffith, 1996).

ACADEMIC ACTIVITY

behavior should be probable, but unlikely to be emitted by chance; behavior should be shaped by successive approximations, beginning with a target that can reliably be successfully performed.

Educational games

designed to improve academic performance may be behaviorally based and have the potential to provide ample support to review course material outside of class. An ideal educational game should provide consistent opportunities for interaction, clear goals, progressive difficulty levels, and performance feedback, all components of programmed instruction (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002). A game like Jeopardy®, which features progressive difficulty levels, may progress from a) questions requiring selection of a response to those requiring production of a response, or b) broad to fine discrimination. More recent research on the topic of programmed instruction has developed the use of prompting as an additional component. (Miller & Malott, 1991). Independent responding is necessarily a part of mastery criteria. Prompting provided during skill acquisition, as in programmed instruction, does not hinder learning (Skinner, 1958). The structured presentation of material through games may further contribute to efficient study behavior with their use. Aamodt (1982) assessed the effect of optional in-class review sessions on exam scores. Sessions were structured such that students either simply asked questions and received answers, or were offered the course’s material organized into categories as well. The results suggest that organization of material into categories, rather than the presence of repetition and feedback alone, had the greatest effect on quiz performance. Categorization was also rated the component most preferred by students. Use of a categorizing game design, such as that of Jeopardy®, accomplishes this structured effect. A typical 50-question Jeopardy-like game was rated as the most desirable use of class time by 90% of students in an undergraduate course, who further cited a feeling of competency following its use (Walters, 1993). Similarly, Gibson (1991) implemented a Jeopardy-like study game in a core research methods course in order to assess students’ reception to and participation in the game. Class days featuring the game were announced in advance. Based on a self-reported survey measure, students studied more in preparation for the game and found it preferable to more traditional in-class review methods. Neef et al. (2007) found that use of educational games during review sessions was found to produce improvements in quiz scores relative to baseline, but no difference was found between the effects of games and traditional methods. The limited effects may have been due to the difference between the study questions and those included on quizzes; previous research has indicated the potential of generalization across question topography, but not from applied to theoretical material or vice versa. Following one study’s experimental intervention targeting performance on fill-in questions, performance on multiple-choice questions also improved more than that of participants in the control group (Alba & Pennypacker, 1972). Neef et al. (2007) also reported that ‘Behavioral Jeopardy’ was rated most preferred of a selection of academy games offered to students. An extension of Neef et al.’s (2007) study evaluated the effects of optional online review games in the form of ‘Behavioral Jeopardy’ and ‘Who Wants to Be a Behavioral Millionaire’ on the quiz performance of students in two graduate research methods courses (Neef et al., in press). Following baseline, the games were available online on alternate weeks, counterbalanced across sections. Results showed that availability of the study games did not have a significant effect on quiz scores. It was hypothesized that demonstration of beneficial effects may have been limited because students who utilized additional materials may have already possessed a repertoire of effective study habits. Further, relatively high quiz scores were observed regardless of condition, which may have masked the game’s influence due to a ceiling effect.

2.2 Theoretical framework

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

Abraham Maslow postulated that a person will be motivated when his needs are fulfilled. The need starts from the lowest level basic needs and keeps moving up as a lower level need is fulfilled. Below is the hierarchy of needs:

Physiological: Physical survival necessities such as food, water, and shelter.

Safety: Protection from threats, deprivation, and other dangers.

Social (belongingness and love): The need for association, affiliation, friendship, and so on.

Self-esteem: The need for respect and recognition.

Self-actualization: The opportunity for personal development, learning, and fun/creative/challenging work. Self-actualization is the highest level need to which a human being can aspire.

Hertzberg’s two factor theory

Hertzberg classified the needs into two broad categories namely hygiene factors and motivating factors. Hygiene factors are needed to make sure that an employee is not dissatisfied. Motivation factors are needed for ensuring employee's satisfaction and employee’s motivation for higher performance. Mere presence of hygiene factors does not guarantee motivation, and presence of motivation factors in the absence of hygiene factors also does not work.

McClelland’s theory of needs

McClelland affirms that we all have three motivating drivers, and it does not depend on our gender or age. One of these drives will be dominant in our behaviour. The dominant drive depends on our life experiences. The three motivators are:

Achievement: a need to accomplish and demonstrate own competence People with a high need for achievement prefer tasks that provide for personal responsibility and results based on their own efforts. They also prefer quick acknowledgement of their progress.

Affiliation: a need for love, belonging and social acceptance People with a high need for affiliation are motivated by being liked and accepted by others. They tend to participate in social gatherings and may be uncomfortable with conflict.

Power: a need for control own work or the work of others People with a high need for power desire situations in which they exercise power and influence over others. They aspire for positions with status and authority and tend to be more concerned about their level of influence than about effective work performance.

Vroom’s theory of expectancy

Victor Vroom stated that people will be highly productive and motivated if two conditions are met: 1) people believe it is likely that their efforts will lead to successful results and 2) those people also believe they will be rewarded for their success.

People will be motivated to exert a high level of effort when they believe there are relationships between the efforts they put forth, the performance they achieve, and the outcomes/ rewards they receive.

McGregor’s theory X and theory Y

Douglas McGregor formulated two distinct views of human being based on participation of workers. The first is basically negative, labelled as Theory X, and the other is basically positive, labelled as Theory Y. Both kinds of people exist. Based on their nature they need to be managed accordingly.

Theory X: The traditional view of the work force holds that workers are inherently lazy, self-centred, and lacking ambition. Therefore, an appropriate management style is strong, top-down control.

Theory Y: This view postulates that workers are inherently motivated and eager to accept responsibility. An appropriate management style is to focus on creating a productive work environment coupled with positive rewards and reinforcement.

2.3 SUMMARY

In this review the researcher has sampled the opinions and views of several authors and scholars on parental involvement on students academic activities. The works of scholars who conducted conceptual and theoretical studies have been reviewed also. The chapter has made clear the relevant literature.