Transcript

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.tat

�Tel.: +1 727

E-mail addre

Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 807–817

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Elementary preservice teachers’ opinions about parentalinvolvement in elementary children’s education

Asli Uludag�

Childhood Education, Reading and Disability Services, Florida State University, USA

Received 8 April 2006; received in revised form 6 November 2006; accepted 15 November 2006

Abstract

Although parent–teacher interaction is a key factor for children’s education, little attention has been paid to this issue in

teacher education programs. This study explores and examines the opinions of elementary preservice teachers about

parental involvement in elementary children’s education. While a total of 223 preservice teachers from a large research

university in the southeast of United States participated in the quantitative part, twelve preservice teachers within the same

sample who were at the end of their student teaching participated in the qualitative part of the study. Study results

suggested that teacher education programmes where parental involvement instruction and activities are integrated into the

courses help preservice teachers become better prepared and carry positive opinions toward parental involvement.

r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Parental involvement; Preservice teachers; Elementary education programme

1. Introduction

Mattingly, Prislin, McKenzie, Rodriguez, andKayzar (2002) stated that through the last threedecades there has been an emerging consensus thatthe quality of relations between schools and familiesplays an integral role in student success. Parentalinvolvement in children’s education has beenemphasized as a particularly important aspect ofthe school–family relationship, with significantimplications for children’s education. Mattingly etal. (2002) pointed out that ‘‘at the national level, thegoal of improving parent participation has enjoyedbipartisan support and has been part of all majoreducational reform legislation. Most recently, par-

e front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

e.2006.11.009

729 9840.

ss: [email protected].

ent involvement is one of the six targeted areas inthe No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001’’ (p.549). How Will NCLB Affect You (2006) states thatNCLB includes requirements about parental invol-vement in addition to requirements such as highlyqualified teachers, scientifically based reading in-struction, tutoring and supplemental educationalservices, research-based teaching methods, andschool and school district report cards. Heath(2006) states that NCLB covers all states, schooldistricts, and schools that accept Title 1 federalgrants. Title 1 grants provide funding for remedialeducation programmes for poor and disadvantagedchildren in public schools, and in some privateprogrammes. NCLB applies differently to Title 1schools than to schools that do not receive Title 1grants. However, one way or another, this lawcovers all public schools in all states.

.

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Uludag / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 807–817808

According to a study in United Kingdom,parental involvement in the education of childrenhas been identified nationally as a major contribu-tory factor in overall levels of attainment in school.Consequently, many new deal for communities(NDC) partnerships have included parental involve-ment schemes among their education projects. Lall,Campbell, and Gillborn (2002) stated that parentalinvolvement has become a focus for governmentpolicy and educational initiatives more generally.

Scottish Schools Parental Involvement Bill (2006)states that Commission for Racial Equality reportedthat the Scottish Schools Parental Involvement Billwill provide a new framework to promote andsupport parental representation and involvement inschools. School Boards will be replaced by parentcouncils representing a larger parent forum. Mem-bership and functions of parent councils will bedecided locally by parent forums within the frame-work of legislation and guidance. The Bill will alsoplace a duty on Education Authorities and Minis-ters to promote involvement of parents in schooleducation.

Cotton and Wikelund (2001) revealed that parentinvolvement in children’s learning is positivelyrelated to achievement. Also the more intensivelyparents are involved in their children’s learning, themore beneficial are the achievement effects. Thisholds true for all dimensions of parental involve-ment in children’s learning and for all types andages of students. According to Gorard, Rees, andFevre (1999) ‘‘families are universally acknowledgedas a key determinant of educational performance inprimary and secondary schooling and, by extension,in higher education too’’ (p. 517). Riggins-Newby(2003) reports that family involvement leads tohigher grades, better attendance, and increasedmotivation in students regardless of their ethnicbackground, socioeconomic status, or their parents’level of education. According to US Department ofEducation (1997), schools cannot work successfullyin isolation from students’ families and commu-nities. Policymakers who formulated the nationaleducational goals in 1990 recognized this inescap-able fact and made family involvement in children’slearning a priority area for program development.Moran, Ghate, and Merwe (2004) stated that in thelast 20 years, the literature in parental involvementfield has grown from a trickle to a flood. In early2003, the Family Research Policy Unit of the HomeOffice commissioned the independent Policy Re-search Bureau to carry out a review of the

evaluation literature and evidence on effectivepractice ‘what works’ in interventions to supportparenting.

Students at all grade levels perform better inschool, have more positive opinions toward school,and behave better when their parents are involvedin, know about, and support the school (Becker &Epstein, 1993; Coleman, 1991; Greenwood & Hick-man, 1991; Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Getting toKnow F and ST Canada (2006) states that‘‘Families and Schools Together Canada’’ is builton the belief that every parent loves their childrenand wants a better life for them. The goals of theprogramme are to improve family relationships andbuild stronger family bonds; promote children’ssuccess in school; prevent substance abuse bychildren and their families; reduce the stress thatparents and children experience in daily life; andincrease parent involvement in their children’sschool and in their community. Families andSchools Together Canada gives parents and theirchildren opportunity to spend quality time together,enjoy and support one another and participate morefully and comfortably in their school and in theircommunity.

Family Service (2006) founded in 1982, statedthat Canada is a not-for-profit, national voluntaryorganization representing the concerns of familiesand family-serving agencies across Canada. Mem-bership includes family service agencies, corpora-tions, government agencies and interestedindividuals.

Australian Government Department of Educa-tion, Science and Training (2004) found thatparental involvement in parent/teacher interviews,attendance at information evenings and otheractivities connected with monitoring their child’sprogress have a positive effect on students’ atti-tudes, behavior and learning. Strategies to encou-rage this participation are significant in the schoolbeing effective. Although it has been found thatparental involvement in academic matters is higherin primary schools than in secondary schools,effective schools manage to encourage parentparticipation in other areas too. A positive partner-ship between school–parent–child can communicatethe importance of education to the child.

Even though teachers, principals, and teachereducators agree on the importance of parentalinvolvement, teacher education programmes donot generally address this issue (Chavkin & Wil-liams, 1988). Furthermore, according to Chavkin

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Uludag / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 807–817 809

and Williams, all teachers must be provided with theknowledge, time, resources, and recognition neces-sary to involve parents in education. The failure toaddress parental involvement in both university andprofessional development contexts sends the mes-sage that it is unimportant. In addition, the gap inteacher education has left teachers in need ofknowledge and support to carry out parent involve-ment initiatives (Lazar, Broderick, Mastrilli, &Slostad, 1999). A brief review of the teachereducation literature reveals that very little attentionis given to preparing preservice teachers to workwith parents. Hancock (1998) reports on an evalua-tion of a home–school liaison initiative and theextent to which various forms of parental involve-ment entered school practice in a lasting way. Hestresses the need for more initial training and in-service training for teachers if teachers are to takeon an increased role in terms of parental involve-ment in children’s school learning.

Epstein (1995) reports that ‘‘most educators enterschool without an understanding of family back-ground, concepts of caring, or the framework ofpartnerships y most teachers are not prepared tounderstand, design, implement, and evaluate prac-tices of partnerships with the families of theirstudents’’ (p. 706). Opportunities to acquire par-ental involvement skills are often limited onceteachers enter the school setting. Thus, teachersare in need of preservice training (Epstein et al.,2002).

Preservice teachers who feel more confident withparents are more likely to involve parents (Katz &Bauch, 1999; McBride, 1991).Teachers havingreceived training in their preservice teacher pre-paration report feeling well prepared with the abilityto engage in an assorted number of parentingpractices (Hiatt, 2001). Preservice teachers thoughtthey had little preparation for implementing par-ental involvement strategies. Once they were in thefield working with children and their parents, theirawareness of the importance of parental involve-ment became even greater (McBride, 1991).

Using overlapping influence as a framework, thepurpose of this study was to examine the opinionsof preservice teachers toward various types ofparental involvement dimensions. It also examinespreservice teacher opinions about their preparationin parental involvement strategies and what kinds ofexperiences regarding parental involvement theythink teacher education programmes should pro-vide. Epstein’s parental involvement model is used

for these purposes. Her model is based on a socialorganization perspective of overlapping influence,emphasizing that children are best supported whenfamilies and schools have shared goals and workcollaboratively. This model includes the communityas an important arena of child and adolescentlearning. It views school, family, and communityrelations as dynamic, in that their overlappingspheres can be pushed together or pulled apart byimportant forces: background and practices offamilies, schools and communities; developmentalcharacteristics of students; historical and policycontexts; and time (Epstein & Sanders, 2000; Simon,2000). Families, schools, and communities arejointly responsible for and influential in children’sdevelopment.

For this study, the term parental involvement isdefined using Epstein’s (1988) parental involvementdimension. Epstein’s dimension establishes fivecategories of parental involvement and parentalinvolvement in general.

Type 1 Dimension: basic obligation of parents. Thefirst level includes the basic parenting and childrearing approaches that prepare children for school.

Type 2 Dimension: basic obligation of schools. Thesecond level of involvement includes the basicobligations on the part of the schools to commu-nicate with families, providing information aboutthe school programmes and children’s progress.

Type 3 Dimension: parent involvement in the

schools. In the third level, parents volunteer at theschool level assisting the teachers in classrooms. Itmay also include parental support for their childrenin extra-curricular activities such as sports, andother events.

Type 4 Dimension: parent involvement in learning

activities at home. The fourth level of involvementcomprises learning at home and includes requestsand guidance from teachers for parents to assisttheir own children at home on learning activitiesthat are coordinated with the children’s class work.

Type 5 Dimension: parent involvement in decision

making roles. The fifth level of involvement is thedecision-making level that includes families indecision-making, governance, and advocacy. Par-ents help make decisions in the school throughparent groups, building leadership teams and otherlocal school organizations.

Parent Involvement in general involves parentand teacher collaboration on children’s learning.For example, parents could learn ways to assist theirchildren on schoolwork at home, if shown how, and

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Uludag / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 807–817810

teachers should receive recognition or compensationfor time spent on parental involvement activities.

Epstein’s five dimensions of parental involvementaddress any kind of parental involvement both athome and at school. Epstein’s framework definessample practices or activities to describe the involve-ment more fully. Her work also describes thechallenges inherent in fostering each dimension ofparental involvement as well as the expected results ofimplementing them for students, parents, and teachers.

2. Research design

To accomplish the goals of the study, a cross-sectional survey methodology was employed in thestudy. A cross-sectional design is a time efficientdesign. When utilizing cross-sectional survey meth-odology, survey data are collected at one point intime from a predetermined population or popula-tions (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2003). In this study,quantitative data were collected from differentgroups of preservice teachers at various points inthe elementary education programme consistentwith a cross-sectional design.

The sampling in the study was purposive innature. Purposive sampling is elected when certaingroups are likely to provide rich information(Krathwohl, 1998). Therefore, groups of preserviceteachers in the elementary education programme atone Research I university were asked to participatein this study.

2.1. Research questions

The research deals with the following questions:

(1)

What are the opinions of preservice teachersabout parental involvement in elementaryschools?

(2)

Is there a significant difference in preserviceteachers’ opinions of parental involvement atvarious points in their elementary educationprogramme?

(3)

Do preservice teachers think their preparationto utilize parental involvement strategies isadequate?

(4)

What courses and activities in the elementaryeducation programme address parental involve-ment?

(5)

What kinds of experiences regarding parentalinvolvement do preservice teachers think wouldbe useful during teacher education programmes?

2.2. Participants

The undergraduate programme in elementaryeducation was designed to provide students withboth the academic foundation and the public schoolexperience necessary to become a beginning teacherof children in grades K-6 (kindergarten through 6thgrade).

All preservice teachers accepted in the elementaryeducation programme must meet certain require-ments including passing three prerequisite educationcourses: Teaching Diverse Populations, Introduc-tion to Education, and Introduction to EducationalTechnology. Students must also have taken andpassed all sections of the CLAST (College LevelAcademic Skills Test) exam and/or the Praxis Iexam before admission to the programme. TheCLAST is an achievement test that measuresselected communication and mathematics skillsadopted by the State Board of Education (SBE).It includes four subtests: essay, English languageskills, reading, and mathematics. The mathematics,reading, and English language skills subtests aremultiple-choice. The essay requires written compo-sition on one of two provided topics. Praxis I exam(Academic Skills Assessments) consists of standar-dized examinations designed to measure the aca-demic proficiencies of students entering orcompleting teacher preparation programmes andindividuals seeking professional certification. PraxisI measures basic proficiency in reading, mathe-matics, and writing by means of the Academic SkillsAssessments. It may be used as an entrance examfor teacher-training programmes or as a preliminarylicensing exam. To be admitted, students must havea grade point average (GPA) equal to or greaterthan 2.5 and must have presented a satisfactorySAT or ACT score, three references, and anacceptable essay. The SAT tests students’ reasoningbased on knowledge and skills developed throughtheir coursework. It measures their ability toanalyze and solve problems by applying what theyhave learned in school. SAT measures criticalreading, mathematics, and writing skills. The ACTis America’s most widely accepted college entranceexam. It assesses high school students’ generaleducational development and their ability to com-plete college-level work. The multiple-choice testscover four skill areas: English, mathematics, read-ing, and science. The Writing Test, which isoptional, measures skill in planning and writing ashort essay.

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Uludag / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 807–817 811

Elementary education preservice teachers at theuniversity are about 95% female and tend to comefrom White, middle-class backgrounds. Of the totalparticipants, 214 were female and 9 were male.Subjects included 47 (45 female) preservice teachersenrolled in a beginning education course, 56 (54female) preservice teachers at the end of firstsemester, 41 (40 female) preservice teachers at theend of second semester, 47 (44 female) preserviceteachers at the end of third semester, and 32 (31female) preservice teachers at the end of fourthsemester (student teaching semester). The standardlength of degree was 4 years. Class standing,identified by the participants, was as follows: (a) 0freshman, (b) 1 sophomore, (c) 101 juniors, (d) 114seniors, and (e) 7 graduate students. Five of theparticipants were parents with at least one child.The preservice teachers ranged in age from 19 to 31years old with an average age of 21. A freshman is afirst-year student in college or university; sopho-more is a second-year student; junior may refer to astudent in the third year at a college, or university;senior is a student in the fourth and last year at acollege, or university. A graduate school or ‘‘gradschool’’ is a school that awards advanced degrees,with the general requirement that students musthave earned an undergraduate (bachelor’s) degree.Those attending graduate schools are called ‘‘grad-uate students’’.

3. Method

This study was designed to examine the opinionsof elementary education preservice teachers aboutparental involvement in elementary children’s edu-cation. Opinions of groups of preservice teacherswere examined at five different points in thepreservice programme to identify possible changesin opinions about parental involvement. The studyalso examined what preservice teachers think abouttheir preparation to utilize parental involvementstrategies and what kinds of experiences related toparental involvement they believe would be usefulduring teacher education programme so that anunderstanding of the opinions of preservice teachersabout parental involvement can contribute to theundergraduate curriculum development process.

Courses taken by the preservice teachers werealso examined to help understand results of surveyand interview data. During their study in theelementary education programme, preservice tea-chers took some courses that integrated the topic of

parental involvement in their curriculum throughsuch activities as reading and discussing textbookchapters related to parental involvement, articlereflections and presentations in class, role playingparent conferences in class, portfolio assignment—parent interview; inviting families to science work-shop which includes experimental science activitiesand family science night, using email to commu-nicate with parents, and creating online classroomnewsletter.

It is important to mention that above is the list ofthe activities included in the specific courses thatwere identified as having the greatest potential forincluding parental involvement topics. However, wecannot assume all preservice teachers were exposedto the same information and experiences related toparental involvement. The main reason for thisinference is that five different groups of preserviceteachers participated in the study and they tookthese courses at different times.

Preservice teachers have progressively greaterinvolvement in the field through the four semesterprogramme. During the first two semesters pre-service teachers are in the elementary schools tohave field experiences for 36 h+1 full week. Duringthe third semester, they have field experiences for amonth+3 full weeks. The final semester is 14 weeksof field experience that is also called ‘‘studentteaching’’.

3.1. Survey instrument

The Parental Involvement Questionnaire wasdeveloped by Epstein (Epstein & Dauber, 1988),and consists of 82 Likert-type scale items, 6 open-ended questions, and 10 demographic questions.Therefore, preservice teachers ideas about parentalinvolvement were compiled by means of a ques-tionnaire based on Epstein’s Framework of FiveDimensions of Parental Involvement. In addition tothe five dimensions, some of the questions in thissurvey correspond with parental involvement ingeneral (Epstein, 1988).

The survey data in this study were collected toprovide a depiction of how undergraduate elemen-tary education majors viewed the topic of parentalinvolvement. The instrument used negatively andpositively worded items in order to avoid responsepatterns by the respondents.

The Cronbach Alpha level was found to be low inthis study for Type 5 Dimension which measuresopinions toward parental involvement in the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Parental involvement dimension variables

Scale Definition Number of

items

Cronbach

alphaaCronbach

alphabCronbach

alphac

Type 1 Dimension—basic obligations of parents 12 .80 .80 .82

Type 2 Dimension—basic obligations of schools 8 .72 .69 .73

Type 3 Dimension—parent involvement in the schools 5 .76 .69 .72

Type 4 Dimension—parent involvement in learning activities at home 13 .86 .86 .84

Type 5 Dimension—parent involvement in decision making roles 2 .21 .47 .44

Parent involvement in general 9 .62 .65 .63

aTichenor, 1998.bMcBride, 1991.cResults from current study.

A. Uludag / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 807–817812

governance of schools. The reason for the lowCronbach alpha could be because it is comprisedonly two items. Since Type 5 Dimension measuresgovernance and advocacy, participants had nothave any experiences on building leadership teams,and other local school organizations in elementaryschools. Despite to low Cronbach alpha, the Type 5Dimension items were retained in order to maintainthe integrity of the original instrument.

Table 1 presents the number of items making upeach dimension, and the Cronbach alphas for eachdimension from McBride (1991), Tichenor (1995),and current study.

3.2. In-dept interviews with twelve fourth semester

preservice teachers

Twelve of the preservice teachers who were intheir fourth semester were asked to participate ininterviews. The purpose of these interviews was toobtain detailed information about preparation ofpreservice teachers in the programme regardingparental involvement. They were randomly selectedfor the interview. The interviews were videotapedand transcribed. During the first phase of analysis,the researcher conducted color coding in which theresearcher read and analyzed line by line alltranscribed group and individual interview com-ments. During the second phase of coding, theresearcher identified consistent themes and relation-ships in each of the sources. After determining thesegeneral categories, the researcher reviewed the dataagain to locate additional evidence backing up eachtheme. Strauss and Corbin (1990) describe thisprocess as axial coding since it involves analysisfocused individually around the axis of eachcategory or theme. Finally, during the third phase

of coding, the researcher compared the generalthemes across all data sources, creating broader,more consistent themes. The inclusion of multipledata sources increased the validity of the specificfindings and conclusions as well as the fourthsemester preservice teachers’ opinions about andexperiences with working with parents.

4. Results

4.1. Opinions

The data suggest that the preservice teachers heldpositive opinions relative to each of the dimensionsof parental involvement. The means on the sixdimensions ranged from 2.58 to 3.78. Respondentsreported the most positive opinions on Type 2Dimension (Basic Obligations of Schools). The leastpositive opinions were reported for Type 5 Dimen-sion (Parent Involvement in Decision MakingRoles). Table 2 presents the means and standarddeviations for each of the six scales.

The mean scores on all dimensions were higherfor the groups that had just completed fourthsemester than for entry level preservice teachersexcept for Type 1 Dimension. Preservice teachers atthe end of fourth semester means were higher thanentry level preservice teachers on Type 2, 3, 4, 5 and6 Dimensions.

4.2. Thoughts on preparedness for parental

involvement

Not surprisingly, preservice teachers at the end offourth semester thought themselves to be moreprepared to implement parental involvement stra-tegies than the other groups. Table 3 shows that on

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Preservice teachers’ scores on each dimension of parental involvement

Dimensions Before first

semester

n ¼ 47

After first

semester

n ¼ 56

After second

semester

n ¼ 41

After third

semester

n ¼ 47

After fourth

semester

n ¼ 32

All partici-

pants

n ¼ 223

ANOVA

F p�

Type 1 Dimension

Mean 3.54 3.58 3.66 3.63 3.54 3.59 4.202 .002

SD .616 .574 .570 .563 .632 .590

Type 2 Dimension

Mean 3.66 3.78 3.85 3.81 3.81 3.78 10.189 .000

SD .536 .440 .367 .431 .407 .449

Type 3 Dimension

Mean 3.00 3.24 3.34 3.24 3.26 3.19 8.039 .000

SD .697 .675 .671 .632 .631 .682

Type 4 Dimension

Mean 3.33 3.42 3.52 3.41 3.42 3.42 4.945 .001

SD .777 .698 .705 .795 .734 .745

Type 5 Dimension

Mean 2.41 2.35 2.57 2.48 2.68 2.58 1.086 .363

SD 1.19 1.072 1.176 1.104 1.110 1.128

Parental involvement in general

Mean 3.18 3.35 3.28 3.28 3.32 3.29 3.898 .004

SD .665 .643 .702 .699 .671 .676

Note: Each scale contains 5 points.�po.05.

Table 3

Thoughts of preparedness by all preservice teachers

Question Before first

semester

n ¼ 47

After first

semester

n ¼ 56

After second

semester

n ¼ 41

After third

semester

n ¼ 47

After fourth

semester

n ¼ 32

All

participants

n ¼ 223

ANOVA

F p�

How well prepared?

Mean 2.55 2.48 2.78 2.87 3.43 2.77 12.561 .000

SD .716 .632 .652 .679 .564 .720

Note: Each scale contains 4 points.�po.05.

A. Uludag / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 807–817 813

a scale from ‘‘not prepared (1)’’ to ‘‘very prepared(4)’’ the mean was 2.77 for all the groups, while themean was 3.43 for fourth semester preserviceteachers.

The narrative responses indicated that preserviceteachers at the end of fourth semester agreed thattheir experiences (e.g., observations and fieldexperiences) had contributed the most in preparingthem to work with parents. Analysis of the interviewindicated that hands on experiences, almost fullcontrol of class, interactions, and communication

with parents prepare preservice teachers to utilizeparental involvement strategies. When asked torespond to why teachers do not encourage moreparental involvement many themes emerged. Pre-service teachers’ responses included: (1) lack of timeon the part of teachers and parents; (2) parents donot respond and lack interest; (3) teachers arethreatened and intimidated by parental involve-ment; (4) little knowledge or understanding byteachers on how to effectively work with parents; (5)lack of communication between teachers and

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Uludag / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 807–817814

parents. Preservice teachers at the end of fourthsemester seemed unconcerned with the lack ofcommunication between teachers and parents. Thismay be because fourth semester preservice teachershave been in the classrooms in the role of teacherand think that they communicate with the parentssufficiently.

4.3. Courses and activities in the elementary

education programme to address parental involvement

Preservice teachers benefited from their pro-gramme in relation to parental involvement as theymoved through teacher education courses. Duringtheir student teaching, they had opportunities to usetheir knowledge and skills. Findings from this studysuggested that parental involvement knowledge andskills were provided through lectures/instructions,being given opportunities to interact with parents,and planning parental involvement activities. Theseopinions related to the five dimensions of parentalinvolvement and parental involvement in generalidentified by Epstein (1988). Concerns about par-ental involvement were evident at the beginning ofstudent teaching but they gained confidence andskills by the end of student teaching.

During their study in the elementary educationprogramme, preservice teachers took some coursesthat had the topic of parental involvement in theircurriculum. Although preservice teachers stated thattheir own schooling experiences; taking courseswhich included parental involvement activities andlectures; and outside school activities helped themgain experience in parental involvement, most ofthem stated that teacher education programmesshould provide specific information on how toimplement successful parental involvement pro-

Table 4

Education majors should be required to take a course or a lecture/disc

Required

course

Before first semester

n ¼ 47

After first semester

n ¼ 56

After se

n ¼ 41

Frequency % Frequency % Frequen

Yes 32 68 34 61 21

No 14 30 22 39 18

Unsure 1 2 2

Lecture/discussions

Yes 42 90 47 84 38

No 3 6 5 9 2

Unsure 2 4 4 7 1

grammes without adding an extra course to theirprogramme of study.

4.4. Opinions on types of experiences teacher

education programme could provide

Preservice teachers indicated that teacher educa-tion programmes could better prepare preserviceteachers to deal effectively with parents by multiplelectures in other courses or offering specific parentalinvolvement courses, seminars, and workshopsduring teacher education programme. Some pre-service teachers (52.46%) out of 223 responded thateducation majors should be required to take aparental involvement course while 89.23% re-sponded that at least one class session on parentalinvolvement should be required in relation to thecontent of the specific course. They also indicatedthat they wanted more specific information onsuccessful parental involvement programmes, in-formation on how to implement such programmes,and, how to effectively communicate with parents.Table 4 shows preservice teachers’ responses aboutparental involvement course/s and lecture/s.

Many preservice teachers agreed that theiropinions have changed during their student teach-ing. Student teaching helped them realize theimportance of parental involvement. Preserviceteachers at the end of fourth semester reported thatthey gained confidence about interacting withparents; they felt very comfortable about making aphone call to parents; and they learned how to dealwith parents. They indicated that the programmeoffered a variety of parental involvement activitiesduring the field experience which included observingand participating in parent–teacher conferences,writing class newsletters to be distributed to the

ussion session on parental involvement

cond semester After third semester

n ¼ 47

After fourth semester

n ¼ 32

cy % Frequency % Frequency %

51 16 33 14 44

44 30 65 18 56

5 1 2

93 44 94 28 88

5 2 4 4 12

2 1 2

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Uludag / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 807–817 815

parents. The narrative responses indicated thatpreservice teachers’ experiences in involving parents(parent–teacher conferences, writing class news-letters, volunteering, lectures and their own school-ing experiences) had contributed the most inpreparing them to work with parents.

5. Discussion of findings and implications

Although the mean of the fourth semesterpreservice teachers’ (mean: 3.54) opinions on Type1 Dimension ‘‘Basic Obligation of Parents’’ wasrelatively high, second semester preservice teachers’mean score (3.66) was significantly higher. Lookingat the open-ended questions on the same survey, onecan conclude that the significant difference on thisitem is coming from the fourth semester preserviceteachers’ internship experiences. Most of the fourthsemester preservice teachers indicated that being ina real classroom and dealing with parents helpedthem realize that most of the parents have difficultyin preparing their children for school and insupporting school learning effectively because offull time work and other obligations. Such percep-tion may have contributed to the mean differencebetween these two groups.

The most positive component of preserviceteachers’ opinion was Epstein’s Type 2 Dimension‘‘Basic Obligations of Schools’’. This dimensiondeals with communications from school to homeabout school programmes and children’s progressincluding various form and frequency of commu-nication such as memos, notices, report cards, andconferences. These methods of communicationgreatly affect whether the information about schoolprogrammes and children’s progress can be under-stood by all parents. The mean on the Type 2Dimension was 3.78 for all preservice teachers. On ascale from 1 to 4 (4 being most positive) these meansclearly represent positive opinions. A closer exam-ination revealed that entry level preservice teachershad a statistically significant lower mean score thanthe other groups (3.66) since they had not have anycourses or activities yet. This may indicate thatpreservice teachers learned the importance ofcommunication with parents about school pro-grammes, conferences, children’s progresses duringtheir elementary education programme and duringtheir experiences in elementary schools.

Type 3 Dimension ‘‘Parent Involvement atSchool’’ relates to parents assisting teachers, admin-istrators, and children in classrooms or in other

areas of the school. The results indicated that entrylevel preservice teachers scored the lowest mean(3.00). There was a significant increase between theentry level and the rest of the groups. This result canbe explained that preservice teachers before thebeginning of their programme probably had not hadany courses or activities involving parental involve-ment. Thus, their opinions on Type 3 Dimensionhad not been developed yet. The increase on thisdimension is more visible when moving to studentteaching. This assures that courses and activities inthe elementary education programme including fieldexperiences give opportunities to improve preserviceteachers’ opinions on this dimension.

Type 4 Dimension ‘‘Parent Involvement inLearning Activities at Home’’ involves families withtheir children in learning activities at home, includ-ing homework and other curriculum-linked activ-ities and decisions. The average mean on this type ofinvolvement was 3.42, and peaked at 3.52 for thosewho had completed the second semester in theprogramme. There was no significant differencebetween scores for groups after the second and thirdsemester, and after the fourth semester. It seemsapparent that preservice teachers’ coursework andexperiences affected their opinions positively to acertain degree as they progressed through theprogramme.

The lowest score among all dimensions wasreceived on Type 5 Dimension ‘‘Parent Involvementin Decision Making Roles’’ with an average meanscore of 2.58. There was no significant differenceamong any of the groups when compared on thisdimension. This dimension of parental involvementincludes parents helping to make decisions in theschool through parent groups, building leadershipteams and other local school organizations andwork for school improvement at the district, state,and national level. Also it is vital to mention thatthe lowest reliability was calculated for this Type 5Dimension in Tichenor (1995), McBride (1991) and,the current study.

Type 6 Dimension ‘‘Parental Involvement inGeneral’’ relates to parent and teacher participationon children’s learning e.g. parents learning how toassist their children with schoolwork at home andteachers receiving recognition or compensation fortime spent on parental involvement activities. Theaverage mean was (3.29) for this type of involve-ment. Entry level preservice teachers received thelowest score on this item. Their score was signifi-cantly lower than the score of the group after the

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Uludag / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 807–817816

first semester. Again, these results suggest that sinceentry level preservice teachers had no training andhad not been involved in field experiences in theelementary classrooms, they may have less positiveopinions on parental involvement in this dimension.

Preservice teachers also thought that teachereducation programmes should provide specificguidance and suggestions on how to communicateeffectively with parents. Preservice teachers in thisstudy stated that there should be multiple lecturesintegrated into a course or a specific parentalinvolvement course or seminars, and workshops tohelp them expand their knowledge on how toeffectively communicate with parents. Unlike manystudies, preservice teachers mentioned importanceof emailing the parents to involve them in theirchildren’s education.

Findings from this section of the study suggestthat preservice teachers held positive opinions aboutparental involvement according to Epstein’s par-ental involvement dimensions. In general, the resultsshowed that there is a steady increase on the meanscores across the groups. On some of the dimen-sions, there was an increase on the scores betweenthe preservice teachers who had completed thesecond semester and preservice teachers who hadcompleted the third semester.

Study results suggested that teacher educationprogrammes where parental involvement instruc-tion and activities are integrated into the courseswould help preservice teachers prepare more andcarry positive opinions during the student teachingtoward parental involvement. The preservice tea-chers in this study tended to possess the theory ofoverlapping spheres of influence. Combining courseinstruction and the opportunity to work withparents during student teaching may create astronger disposition and tendency to implementparental involvement when they enter full timeteaching. The lectures integrated into coursesprovide multiple sessions on the ‘‘how to’’ ofparental involvement practices (communication,parent conferences, open house, newsletters, andvolunteers in the classroom) but link content toissues of parental involvement. Therefore, wheneverpossible early field experiences, prior to studentteaching, where preservice teachers have moreopportunity to observe and facilitate parentalinvolvement activities that include working withactual parents would be recommended.

The literature mentioned in this study fromaround the world suggests that parental involve-

ment, in almost any form, produces measurablegains in student achievement. The concept ofparental involvement with the preservice teachersand the parents is a vital one and can produce greatrewards for all concerned parties. The results of thisstudy suggests that Elementary Education pro-grammes need to make sure to provide the requiredknowledge, skills and practices to help preserviceteachers improve their parental involvement skills.Each preservice teacher should be able to learn howto work with the parents in order to contributestudents’ learning and school effectiveness.

References

Australian Government Department of Education, Science and

Training. (2004). Schooling issues digest no 2004: School

effectiveness. Retrieved August 07, 2006 from /http://

www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_re-

sources/schooling_issues_digest/school_effectiveness/charac-

teristics.htmS.

Becker, H. J., & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Parent involvement: A survey

of teacher practices. Elementary School Journal, 83, 85–102.

Chavkin, N. F., & Williams, D. L. (1988). Critical issues in the

teaching training for parent involvement. Educational Hor-

izons, 66, 87–89.

Coleman, J. S. (1991). Parental involvement in education.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Cotton, K., & Wikelund, K. R. (2001). Parent involvement in

education. Retrieved October 12, 2004, from Northwest

Regional Education Laboratory Web site: /http://

www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/cu6.htmlS.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School–family–community partnerships:

Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9),

701–712.

Epstein, J. L. (1988). How do we improve programs for parent

involvement? Educational Horizons, 66(2).

Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1988). Teacher attitudes and

practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and

middle schools. Baltimore Center for Research on Elementary

and Middle Schools, The Johns Hopkins University.

Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2000). Connecting home, school

and community: New directions for social research. In M. T.

Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp.

285–306). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.

Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C.,

Jansoron, N. R., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2002). School, family

and community partnerships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press, Inc.

Family Service (2006). Retrieved August 5, 2006 from /http://

www.familyservicecanada.org/aboutus/index_e.htmlS.

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and

evaluate research in education (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Getting to Know F and ST Canada. (2006). Retrieved August 4,

2006 from /http://www.familyservicecanada.org/fst/know_

fast_e.htmlS.

Gorard, S., Rees, G., & Fevre, R. (1999). Patterns of participa-

tion in lifelong learning: Do families make a difference?

British Educational Research Journal, 25(4), 517–532.

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Uludag / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 807–817 817

Greenwood, G. E., & Hickman, C. W. (1991). Research and

practice in parent involvement: Implications for teacher

education. The Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 279–288.

Hancock, R. (1998). Building home school liaison into classroom

practice: A need to understand the nature of a teacher’s

working day. British Educational Research Journal, 24(4),

379–381.

Heath, S. (2006). parent’s guide to no child left behind. Retrieved

August 8, 2006 from /http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/

nclb.parent.guide.heath.htmS.

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence:

The impact of school, family, and community connections on

student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational

Development Laboratory.

Hiatt, M. (2001). Preparing teachers to work with parents.

Washington DC: Eric Clearinghouse on Teaching and

Teacher Education. ED460123.

How will NCLB affect you? (2006). Retrieved August 14, 2006,

from /http://www.wrightslaw.com/nclb/art.htmS.

Katz, L., & Bauch, J. (1999). The Peabody family initiative:

Preservice preparation for family/school involvement. Paper

presented at the annual conference of the Mid-South

Educational Association, Point Clear, Al.

Krathwohl, D. R. (1998). Methods of educational and social

science research: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). New York,

NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Lall, M., Campbell, C., & Gillborn, D. (2002). Parental

involvement in education. Research report 31. New deal for

communities. The National Evaluation. Sheffield Hallam

University. Retrieved August 13, 2006 from /http://ndceva-

luation.adc.shu.ac.uk/ndcevaluation/Documents/Research%20

Reports/RR31.pdfS.

Lazar, A., Broderick, P., Mastrilli, T., & Slostad, F. (1999).

Educating teachers for parent involvement. Contemporary

Education, 70(3), 5–10.

Mattingly, D. J., Prislin, R., McKenzie, T. L., Rodriguez, J. L., &

Kayzar, B. (2002). Evaluating evaluations: The case of parent

involvement programs. Review of Educational Research, 72(4),

549–576.

McBride, B. A. (1991). Preservice teachers’ attitude toward

parental involvement. Teacher Education Quarterly, 18(4),

57–67.

Moran, P., Ghate, D., & Merwe, A. (2004). What works in

parenting support? A review of the international evidence.

(Policy Research Bureau. No. 574).

Scottish Schools Parental Involvement Bill. (2006). Retrieved

August 4, 2006 from /http://www.cre.gov.uk/Default.aspx.

LocID-0hgnew0b5.RefLocID-0hg00900f004.Lang-EN.htmS.

Simon, B. S. (2000). Predictors of high school and family

partnerships and the influence of partnerships on student

success. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins

University. Retrieved May 15, 2005 from /http://www.se-

dl.org/pubs/fam32/10.htmlS.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:

Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Riggins-Newby, C. G. (2003). Families as partners. Principal,

82(4), 8.

US Department of Education. (1997). The case for teacher

preparation in family involvement. Retrieved July 2005, from

/http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NewSkills/chptr1.htmlS.

Tichenor, M. S. (1995). Preservice teachers’ attitudes toward

parent involvement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pea-

body College of Vanderbilt University.


Top Related