, .
. 0.5. 5.5.9.".
3 . a
01:!) o 5‘ .
i
..
.
.p.

1.“? .
H

. . .. . 3:34.: kayak
. «mum "w." Egg
I: I. r
.

.v I.-
K...
.
(I ~

‘3
1.
“Y

ha,
"I
inn“.

army:

 

.1. 2 ‘5.
y. ‘zruzwfi... .1
1.33:2..5 a
.3. I; J; . ‘
.3. 123....»
....¢.:n.‘..
.. #1:
in, S
1 A 3|

....+ tismfivz
l? .35...

Ag:

‘ r. _
. .
5 Wu
$.13. . . £4 flax}...
. . , Ea iafifi
.3.

5|

fiaifihu

v

‘ 12.25%"!
3dr . 33.2493550
3&9}: .
. x 2.3.

p I. 91‘ .
:55. Sistiw
.1. .. .. €425?
.v:}1,3.u«.:.i. 1341.:
2:.2. Viv-51:93..
[1-7 5" 9‘:-
I:.30a or
.3 «1.. s.

[va9521

 

‘xd‘r
:Nfiuflflzfl

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Southern Taiwanese Mothers’ Involvement in Their

The

Doctoral

Children’s Education:
Involvement Patterns and Predictive Factors

presented by

Pi-Hun Yang

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

degree in _ Family and Child Ecology

 

Major Piofes/sor's Signature
7/5/0 5*
I /

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.

To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:lClRC/DateDuo.indd-p.1

SOUTHERN TAIWANESE MOTHERS’ INVOLVEMENT IN THEIR CHILDREN’S
EDUCATION 3 THE INVOLVEMENT PATTERNS AND PREDICTIVE FACTORS

By

Pi-Hun Yang

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family and Child Ecology

2005

ABSTRACT

SOUTHERN TAIWANESE MOTHERS’ INVOLVEMENT IN THEIR CHILDREN’S
EDUCATION 3 THE INVOLVEMENT PATTERNS AND PREDICTIVE FACTORS

By
Pi-Hun Yang

The study combined a multilevel model of parental context with a multidimensional
conceptualization of parent involvement to examine mothers’ involvement patterns and
the factors influencing mothers’ involvement in their children’s education. Six potential
influences on involvement were identified: maternal involvement beliefs, maternal
perceived invitations for involvement, mother’s school experiences, the mother-child
relationship, mother’s depression level, and the educational involvement of mothers’
social network members. Southern Taiwanese mothers (n=1242) of 2"d grade children
responded to questionnaires assessing factors that may influence parent involvement and
three types of parental involvement: home-based, school-based and school
govemance/advocacy involvement. Findings revealed that Taiwanese mothers showed
different degrees of educational involvement: home-based involvement was the highest,
followed by school govemance/advocacy, and finally school-based involvement.
Maternal role construction and maternal social network members’ involvement
significantly predicted all three types of involvement. A cultural interpretation of the

phenomenon was discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to gratefully and sincerely thank Dr. Tom Luster for his guidance,

patience, understanding and most importantly, his caring and kindness throughout my

graduate studies at Michigan State University. During my difficult times of completing

this dissertation, his academic insight, practical advice, support and encouragement have

helped me through the whole process. I don’t know how to thank Dr. Luster enough, for

all of the warmness and support that a student can receive from her/his teacher, I think I

have got the maximum. If I ever become a warmer person or a better teacher toward my

own students, Dr. Luster inspires me a lot. For everything you’ve done for me, Dr.

Luster, I want to say thank you again.

I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Barbara Ames, Dr. Holly

Brophy-Herb, and Dr. John Carlson for their assistance and guidance during the

dissertation-writing period. I would also like to thank Dr. Alice Whiren for her

assistance in getting my graduate career started. Many thanks to Ms. Ruth Sedelmaier,

FCE department secretary, I relied a lot on her and she never let me down.

For financial assistance, I would like to thank College of Human Ecology for

iii

awarding me the Graduate School Dissertation Completion Fellowship. I would also

like to thank Fooyin University for the financial support.

I would also like to thank Principal Oh of Han-Ming Elementary School in

Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Through her kind help, I was able to collect data smoothly. I

would also like to acknowledge the help of my colleagues at F ooyin University: Pin-Hwa

Chen, Ing-Er Chen, Yu-Chin Chen and Liou-Chiao Wu. Their friendship and

encouragement mean a lot to me. I would like to thank my friends, Nai-Kuan Yang,

Ginger Yang and Janice Hu for their unconditional support, understanding and friendship.

Especially, many many thanks to Nai-Kuan, for she has accompanied me through all the

good and bad, through all my years at MSU, and shared all my happiness and pain.

Thank you, Nai-Kuan.

Finally, I am especially indebted to my family --my husband, my son and my

parents-- who put up with my stress. Without them, I would never come this far.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................... Vii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................ viii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 1
Rationale for the Study .................................................................. 1
Purpose of the Study .................................................................... 6
Research Questions ..................................................................... 7
Assumptions .............................................................................. 8
Conceptual Framework ................................................................. 9
Conceptual Definition of Variables ................................................... 14
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE .......................................................... 17
An Overview of Advances in the Study of Parent Involvement ................... 17
The Shifting Definition of Parent Involvement ............................... 17
The Effects of Parent Involvement ............................................. 20
The Three Dimensions of Parent Involvement ................................ 23
Variables Related to Parents’ Decisions to be Involved ........................... 29
Parental Involvement Beliefs ............................... . ..................... 30
Parental Perceived Invitations for Involvement ............................... 39
Parental Social Networks ......................................................... 43
Summary ................................................................................. 45
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................... 47
Sample ..................................................................................... 47
Research Design ......................................................................... 48
Instrumentation .......................................................................... 49
Pilot Test of the Instruments ........................................................... 57
Reliability Analysis of the Instruments ............................................... 59
Data Collection Procedure ............................................................. 60
Data Analysis ............................................................................ 62
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS ................................................... 64
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample ......................................... 64

Descriptive Statistics for the Variables and Dealing With Missing Data. . . .
Correlations Among Variables .........................................................
Multiple Regression Analysis .........................................................
Path Analysis .............................................................................

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................

Summary of the Findings and Discussions ...........................................
Limitation of the Study ..................................................................
Recommendations for Applications of the Results and Future Research ........

APPENDIX I
INSTRUMENTS ..........................................................................

APPENDIX II
CONSENT LETTER ......................................................................

REFERENCES ..............................................................................

vi

65
76
85
87

95

95
113
114.

119

133

136

LIST OF TABLES

Table l The Items Deleted From the Scales .......................................... 59
Table 2 Internal Consistency of the Scales Using Cronbach’s Alpha ................. 60
Table 3 Descriptive Data for Each Variable .............................................. 66
Table 4 Taiwanese Motehrs’ Home-Based Involvement Patterns ..................... 74
Table 5 Pearson Correlation Matrix of Predictor Variables ............................ 77
Table 6 Pearson Correlation Matrix of Outcome Variables ............................ 78

Table 7 Pearson Correlation Matrix Between Demographic and Predictor Variables... 79
Table 8 Pearson Correlation Matrix Between Demographic and Outcome Variables... 80
Table 9 Pearson Correlation Matrix Between Predictor and Outcome Variables 81
Table 10 Significant Regression Coefficients upon Each Outcome Variables ...... 86
Table 11 Significant Path Coefficients between Background and Mediator Variables. 89
Table 12 Significant Path Coefficients between Background and Outcome variables. 90

Table 13 Significant Path Coefficients between Mediator and Outcome Variables 91

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Conceptual Model For the Study .......................................... 13

Figure 2 Result of Path Analysis with Standardized Beta Coefficients ......... 88

viii

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Rationale for the study

Parental school involvement has long been an interest among educators, researchers
and others concerned with children’s developmental and educational outcomes.
Empirical research has shown a positive relationship between parental involvement and
student outcomes for a variety of student populations. Stevenson and Baker (1987)
found that parent involvement in school activities was significantly related to teacher
reports of academic performance for a sample of students ranging in age from 5 to 17
years. A parent involvement study of Head Start children (Parker et al., 1997) suggested
that parent volunteer hours and frequency of attending school activities were significantly
related to parent and teacher ratings of children’s academic motivation, social
competence, and school readiness. Reynolds (1994) reported parent involvement to be
positively related to reading and mathematics scores for a sample of 7-year-old
low-income minority children. Across a range of studies, there has emerged a strong
conclusion that parent involvement in children’s education benefits children’s learning

and school success (Eccles & Harold, 1993; Epstein, 1991, 1994; Hoover-Dempsey &

Sandler, 1997).

Along with this emerging literature, more researchers are interested in studying the
factors that affect parent involvement. Family income, parents’ education, age,
employment status, marital status, culture of origin, and parent-staff relationships are
among those factors found to be related to parent involvement (Baker & Stevenson, 1986;
Coleman, 1987; Comer & Haynes, 1991; Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Fantuzzo, Tighe &
Childs, 2000; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994;). Most early work on predictors of parent
involvement has focused on demographic factors and used narrow, unidimensional
measures of parent involvement. However, recent studies challenged these approaches
and argued that such approaches do not take into account the diverse ways in which
parents can be involved (Auberbach, 1989).

For example, Grolnick, Benjet, Kurowski and Apostleris (1997) combined a
multilevel model of parental context with a multidimensional conceptualization of parent
involvement to examine the factors influencing parents’ involvement in their children’s
schooling. Three sets of factors were identified: parent and child characteristics, family
context, and teacher behaviors and attitudes. A diverse sample of 209 mothers, their
3"'-5th grade children, and 28 teachers participated. Parents, teachers and children

reported on 3 types of involvement: school, cognitive and personal. They found that

mothers who felt efficacious, who saw their roles as that of teacher, and who viewed their
children as less difficult were more involved in cognitive activities. Social support,
teacher attitudes and practices were associated with both school and personal
involvement. Furthermore, consistent with other studies, Grolnick et a1. (1997) found
marital status and family SES to be significantly related to parent involvement, especially
school and cognitive involvement. However, when taking into account other factors,
parent personal involvement was not associated with SES. In addition, although
mothers from single-parent families were less involved on all three dimensions than those
in two-parent families, only school involvement was lower when SES was held constant.
The study thus suggested that multiple factors at several levels are necessary to explain
parents’ involvement.

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997) proposed that specific variables create patterns
of influence at critical points in the parental involvement process. They suggested three
major constructs to be central to parents’ involvement decisions — parents’ role
construction, parents’ sense of efficacy for helping their children succeed in school, and
general invitations, demands, and opportunities for involvement. Hoover-Dempsey
(1992) argued that although parent efficacy is likely only one of several contributors to

parents’ involvement decisions, “it may operate as a fundamentally important mechanism,

explaining variations in involvement decisions more fully than do some of the more
frequently referenced status variables (e. g., parent income, education, employment)”-
(p.288).

Hoover-Dempsey’s conclusion may be applicable for understanding Taiwan’s
difficulties in getting parents involved in their children’s school education. Through
education reform in Taiwan, parents at all levels of schools are urged to get involved in
school activities, decision-making and governance. Many plans and projects were set
up to achieve this goal (National Educational Reform Policy Team, 1995; Family
Education Program, 1999). However, the outcome of these efforts was not satisfactory.
Research findings showed that the parental participation rate is low (Lin, 2002; Shu,
2001). Wu (2003) conducted a study with a sample ranging from elementary children to
high school students. Across the age range, she found that school conference /activities
got the lowest parental attendance rate, school-helping activities the second lowest rate,
and home-based involvement had a moderate involvement rate. Parents tend to do more
in-home supervision than school-based activities. Why does this happen? What can
schools do to increase parent involvement?

Influenced by Hoover-Dempsey’s model and Bandura’s self-efficacy theory, the goal

of this study was to understand Taiwanese parents’ beliefs about involvement and their

level of involvement. The hypothesis underlying this study is that parents’ beliefs about

their role in school involvement influence their involvement.

Although most research regarding parent involvement tends to assume gender

neutrality (Wu, 2003), maternal and paternal school involvement differ in both quantity

and quality. Based on Chinese tradition, gender roles are more rigid than those in

Western cultures. Mothers usually are the ones in charge of children’s care and

education, while fathers are given the role of bread winners. Interestingly, although

Chinese mothers normally invest more time and energy than fathers in child-rearing and

school-related activities, fathers’ participation in all levels of school advisory committees

is higher than mothers’ (Chang, 1999). Only a few studies have focused on this gender

difference. Chang (1999) studied a group of mothers who were actively involved in

their children’s education. She found that while doing school-based activities, mothers

were more likely than fathers to do volunteer work, acted more as followers and

supporters, and were usually the “doers” rather than the “power-holders”. Tseng (2002)

and Lin (2003) also conducted qualitative research regarding mothers’ school

involvement and found similar results. To help schools generate practical parent

involvement programs, it is necessary to study mothers’ and fathers’ school involvement

separately.

However, limited by resources and time, the present study focused on mothers’

involvement instead of studying both parents’ involvement at the same time. Given the

fact that in contemporary Taiwan, mothers are still typically the primary caretakers of

their children and are usually more involved than fathers in most of the day-to-day

activities of their children, focusing specifically on mothers made a meaningful

contribution to the literature.

Purpose of the study

The primary purpose of this study was to understand Taiwanese mothers’

involvement patterns in their elementary school children’s education. This study

focused on three types of parent involvement: home-based, school-based and school

govemance/ advocacy involvement. This study also examined six sets of predictor

variables: 1) maternal beliefs regarding parent involvement, 2) maternal perceived

invitations to be involved from the school and the child, 3) mother’s school

experiences, 4) mother’s relationship with the child, 5) maternal social networks, and 6)

mother’s depression level.

Research Questions

Eight research questions were addressed in this study and are listed below:

1. How involved are Taiwanese mothers in their children’s education? How

involved are they in the following categories: home-based, school-based, and

school govemance/advocacy?

2. What are Taiwanese mothers’ beliefs regarding parent involvement? Is there a

relationship between maternal involvement beliefs and level of involvement?

3. What are Taiwanese mothers’ perceptions about the school climate for

involvement? To what degree do they perceive invitations from the school

and their children to be involved? Is there a relationship between the mothers’

perceived invitations from the school or the child and their level of

involvement?

4. What are Taiwanese mothers’ school experiences? How do they perceive their

own school experiences and their experiences with their child’s school? Is

there a relationship between mothers’ own school experiences or their

experiences with their children’s schools and their educational involvement?

5. What are Taiwanese mothers’ relationships with their children? Is there a

relationship between the mother-child relationship and their educational

involvement?

6. What is the level of educational involvement of the Taiwanese mothers’ social

network members? Is there a relationship between the involvement of

maternal social network members and the mothers’ level of involvement?

7. What is the level of Taiwanese mothers’ perceived depression? Is there a

relationship between maternal perceived depression level and their educational

involvement?

8. What factors are directly or indirectly related to the three types of maternal

educational involvement

(e. g., home-based, school-based, and school govemance/advocacy

involvement) when other factors are controlled?

Assumptions

1. The Taiwanese mothers’ emphasis on education is reflected more in in-home

instruction and children’s extra-curricular activities than in school-based activities.

2. Although the society is changing, Taiwanese mothers’ perceptions of schools as

educational authorities remain unchanged.

3. Mothers will respond honestly to questions about their beliefs regarding parental

involvement, their level of involvement, their social network, and their perceptions

of the extent to which schools encourage parents to be involved.

Conceptual Framework

Theoretical support for the proposed model (Figure 1) was gleaned from two major

sources -- Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model (1989, 1998) and Hoover-Dempsey and

Sandler’s Parental Involvement Process Model (1997).

Bronfenbrenner (1979) speaks of the developing person “as a growing dynamic

entity that progressively moves into and restructures the milieu in which it resides” (p.21).

There is a constant and reciprocal interplay between the person and the environment

throughout the life span. The individual develops in a number of different contexts.

Bronfenbrenner describes four dimensions of an individual’s overall ecological system as

micro-, meso-, exo-, and macrosystem. A microsystem is a pattern of activities, roles,

and interrelationships between a developing individual and his immediate setting. The

initial microsystem that the child inhabits is the home where the primary interaction is

most often between the mother and the child. As the child grows, he/she develops in

many other microsystems: the school, the neighborhood, and the peer network. A

mesosystem is an interrelationship between two or more microsystems which contain the

developing individuals and is an extension of the microsystem; it is the interactions

among settings containing the developing person. The child’s development can be
facilitated by linkages between settings. An exosystem refers to a microsystem that
does not involve the developing person as an active participant, but events in that context
can influence the developing person. The final layer, a macrosystem represents the
outermost layer in the child’s context. The macrosystem is comprised of cultural values,
customs, rules and laws (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Most macrosystems are informal and
are maintained through custom and practice in everyday life.

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model provides a conceptual framework for
understanding the multidimensional nature of parent involvement. In keeping with an
ecological perspective, this study will examine interactions between interconnected
systems (school and family) that are viewed as having a critical influence on child
development outcomes.

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s Parental Involvement Process Model (1997)

proposed fives levels of the parent involvement process:

 

Level 5 Child/student outcomes

Skills & Knowledge
Personal sense of efficacy for doing well in school

 

Level 4 Tempering/mediating variables

Parent’s use of developmentally Fit between parents’ involvement
appropriate involvement strategies actions and school expectations

 

10

 

Level 3 Mechanisms through which parental involvement influences child outcome

Modeling Reinforcement Instruction

Level 2 Parent’s choice of involvement forms, influenced by

Specific domains of Mix of demands on total Specific invitations &
parent’s skill & parental time and energy demands for involvement
knowledge (family, employment) from child & school

Level 1 Parent’s basic involvement decision, influenced by

Parent’s construction of Parent’s sense of efficacy General invitations &
the parental role for helping children demands for involvement
succeed in school from child & school

 

Model of the parental involvement process (HooverbDempsey and Sandler, 1 99 7, p. 4)

Their model suggests that parents’ involvement decisions and choices are based on
several constructs drawn from their own ideas and experiences as well as on other
constructs growing out of environmental demands and opportunities. At the first level,
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler suggested that most parents’ fundamental decision to
become involved in their children’s education is a firnction primarily of three constructs:
a) the parent’s construction of his or her role in the child’s life; b) the parent’s sense of
efficacy for helping her or his child succeed in school; and c) the general invitations,
demands, and opportunities for parental involvement presented by both the child and the
child’s school.

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler argued that although it has been well established that

11

family status variables (e.g., income, education, ethnicity, marital status) are often related
to parent involvement, the family status variables do not explain fully parents’ decisions
to become involved in their children’s education, nor do such variables explain the
linkages between parents’ involvement and child school outcomes. Status does not
determine parents’ thinking, actions, or influences related to their involvement in their
children’s schooling. For example, status does not explain many parents’ abilities to
nurture positive educational outcomes in spite of difficult and presumably discouraging
circumstances. Presumably, it is parental willpower or determination that overcomes
these disadvantages. Therefore, an attempt to look beyond demographic variables to
understand the parental involvement process is likely to yield valuable information.
Guided by Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model as well as Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s
parental involvement process model, the conceptual model for this study is based on the
proposition that maternal beliefs mediate the effects of demographic characteristics on
maternal involvement. In addition, maternal beliefs, maternal perceived school climate
for involvement, mother’s school experiences, the mother-child relationship, and
maternal depression level along with maternal social networks operate as direct

influences on mothers’ school involvement. The model is illustrated in Figure l.

12

 

 

3080302: 5396a
\oofiwfigow 393m...
3080302: 83.33%...
Leofiozoin womanOEomr
Eva—929:: 3:332

 

 

3:3. 2: .8.“ .352 3:33an A «Sufi

 

‘

 

Eon—Eu:— e—uoEo: 338
3:33.: .3 «58929:: 3.83326”..—

 

 

 

_o>o_ 568.33. 3.55:2

 

 

 

35:333.. 239.3532

 

 

 

 

333. £53 2: at? moocotoaxm...
85598 338 85o 95522...
828335 32.8 9.3532

 

 

 

223 :25 88m 283835 333.69..
30:8 06 39a 323:2: 32089?
«58332:
.8.— mnoafigfi 333.8: 35332

 

coat—Eu .«o H"38.34...
0885 333m...
£58m

cacao—9:0 3:332...

33% 3:38 @5534...

35— 3:38:30 96:32...

own @8532...
833.3335 cinnamon—on

 

 

 

 

 

 

Begum E 30083 coho—Eu
wfifioa .8.“ 5850 38032...
8:25.».qu 28 38032...

£23.. Eon—029:: 3:332

 

13

Conceptual Definition of Variables

Conceptual definitions of variables were presented here. The operational definition
of variables will be addressed at the Instrumentation section in Chapter three.
131ml involvement

Maternal involvement is defined as mothers’ investment of resources and
time in their children’s schooling. This concept is further separated into three
categories:

1) Home-based involvement: Mother—child interactions involving the active

promotion of a learning environment at home.

2) School-based involvement: Mothers’ volunteering or participating in school with

their children.

3) School govemance/advocacy involvement: Mother’s actions related to school

improvement or school decision-making processes.
m1 involvement beliefs

Maternal beliefs regarding educational involvement is defined as mothers’ beliefs
towards helping children succeed academically. Guided by Hoover-Dempsey and
Sandler’s parental involvement process model ( 1997), this concept is further divided into

two parts:

14

1) Maternal role construction: The extent to which mothers believe it is their

responsibility to be involved in children’s day-to-day education.

2) Maternal efficacy for helping children succeed in school: The extent to which

mothers believe that they can help their children succeed in school.

Maternal perceived invitations for involvement

This variable refers to the degree to which mothers perceive invitations, demands or

opportunities for involvement fi'om their children’s school and from their child. To be

more specific, this concept is further divided into two parts: 1) perceived invitations from

the school, and 2) perceived invitations from the child.

Mother’s School Experiences

Mother’s school experiences refer to maternal perceived school experiences. This

concept is further divided into two parts: 1) mother’s own school experiences, and

2) mother’s experiences with the child’s school.

Mother-Child Relationship

The mother-child relationship refers to the degree to which mothers perceive their

relationships with their children positively or negatively.

Maternal Social Networks

The social network refers to the degree to which the participating mothers perceive

15

that parents in their social network are involved in their children’s education.

Mother’s Depression Level

Mother’s depression level refers to the degree to which mothers experience

depressive symptoms (e. g., feeling that people dislike me, feeling about the future).

Demoggaphic information

The demographic variables of interest in this study are: mother’s age, mother’s

educational level, mother’s employment status, family income, mother’s marital status,

and number of children.

16

Chapter Two

Review of Literature

This chapter is organized into three sections. Section one provides an overview of
the parent involvement literature. It includes the shifting definition of parent
involvement, the effects of parent involvement, and the three dimensions of parent
involvement. Section two discusses the research examining variables related to parents’
decisions to be involved. It focuses on three major factors: parental involvement beliefs,
parental perceived invitations for involvement from children and the school, and parental

social networks. The last section is a brief summary of prior research.

An overview of Advances in the Study of Parent Involvement
The shifting definition ofiarent involvement
Parent involvement is described in the child development literature as the degree to
which a parent is “committed to his or her role as a parent and to the fostering of optimal
child development” (Maccoby & Martin, 1983, p.48). The amount of effort put into
child-oriented activities is the major concern for researchers. In addition, in the

educational domain, parent involvement has typically focused on specific activities, such

as going to school activities and events, helping with homework, or communication
between families and schools.

Gordon (1978) defined parents’ six roles regarding parent involvement: 1) Teacher
of own child, 2) Paraprofessional, 3) Decision maker, 4) Learner, 5) Audience, and 6).
Classroom volunteer. Berger (1991) suggested that parent involvement contains five
levels, ranging from acting as an active partner to a passive supporter. The five levels
are: 1) parents as active school cooperators and leaders, 2) parents as decision-makers; 3)
parents as volunteers; 4) parents as school-family communicators; and 5) parents as
school supporters. Similarly, Greenwood and Hickman (1991) also described five levels
of parent involvement in schools: audience, teacher of the child, volunteer, trained
worker, and participant in decision making.

In the past ten years, much significant work has been accomplished in the area of
parent involvement and has thus broadened its meaning. In contrast to the “traditional”
view, Crolnick and Slowiaczek (1994) defined parent involvement as “the allocation of
resources to the child’s school endeavors” (p.237). Parent involvement was separated
into three dimensions: behavior, intellectual/cognitive, and personal involvement. The
parent can overtly manifest involvement through his or her behavior by going to school,

and/or participating in activities such as open houses or parent-teacher conferences.

18

Parent cognitive/intellectual involvement involves exposing the child to cognitively
stimulating activities and materials such as books and current events. Parents’ personal
involvement refers to parents conveying the idea to the child that the parent cares about
school, and has and enjoys interactions with the child around school.

Noted researcher Joyce Epstein (1995, 1997, 2002) has delineated six types of
family-school involvement, underscoring that families and schools can connect in many
ways, and that families can and do participate both at school and at home. Epstein has
moved from traditional definitions of involvement types and developed school-wide
family-school partnership programs. Epstein’s Type 1 of involvement, parenting, refers
to the school assisting families with parenting skills, helping parents understand child and
adolescent development, and helping families provide home conditions that support
learning. Type 2, communicating, refers to the development of effective two-way
communication between home and school about school programs and children’s progress.
Type 3, volunteering, refers to school efforts in recruiting, training, and organizing
families to support students and school programs. In type 4, enhancing learning at
home, educators are encouraged to work with families. Type 5, decision making, refers
to involving families in school- and district-level decision making, including decisions

for both practices and policies. Type 6, collaborating with the community, involves

l9

coordinating resources and services to families, students, and schools to enhance
students’ learning and school experiences. This definition has broadened the meaning of
parent involvement.

Much recent research has recognized parents and school personnel as
co-communicators, co-supporters, co-learners, co-teachers, and co-decision makers
(Moles, 1993; Epstein, 1995, 1997, 2002; Henderson & Berla, 1994). Furthermore,
options for parent involvement have moved beyond the traditional “big three”
(volunteering, helping with homework, helping with fund-raising) to integrating parents’

involvement in homes, schools and communities (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001).

The effects oQgent involvement

In the past decade, parent involvement in children’s learning and development have
frequently been discussed. Numerous books, journal articles, and conference
presentations on this topic have provided empirical evidence for the necessity and
importance of parent involvement. For example, in a study investigating home-school
collaboration for students with ADHD, it was found that effective parent-teacher
communication, collaborative planning and monitoring of interventions have made

critical differences for students’ development (August, Anderson, & Bloomquist, 1992;

20

Bos, Nahmias & Urban, 1999).

Besides special need children, parent involvement in children’s education is
positively associated with many benefits for typically developing students. When
parents are involved, students show improvement in grades, including reading (Comer,
1988; Epstein, 1997; Steven & Baker, 1987) and math achievement (Epstein, 1997).
Barton & Coley (1992) conducted a study using the National Assessment of Educational
Progress data. They analyzed three factors over which parents exercise
authority—school attendance, variety of reading materials in the home, and amount of
television watching. They found that parent involvement at home explained nearly 90%
of the difference in mean achievement of students in 37 states and DC.

Similarly, in an intervention study, parent involvement had been found to improve
children’s task completion and accuracy in mathematics compared with control group
children (Galloway & Sheridan, 1994). Thurston (1989) reported that parent
involvement improves children’s academic competencies including classroom
participation and ability to stay “on task”. Hill and Craft (2003) also reported that
parents’ involvement at school, including volunteering in the classroom and sending
materials to school, improved children’s academic skills, which in turn improved math

performance for African American children.

21

Moreover, with school-age children, parent involvement in school increases
children’s perceived competence and motivations for achievement (Grolnik, Ryan, &
Deci, 1991), increases adolescents’ engagement in school (Connell, Spencer, & Aber,
1994), and instills a sense of value for education in children that results in more
responsible behavior in school (Epstein, 1997). All of these factors, in turn, improve
children’s school performance.

Empirical research further suggests that parent involvement directly improves
children’s social behavior and interactions among peers. Parent-child interactions about
schooling are positively associated with rule compliance and sociability at school for
middle-class Euro-American samples (Adams, Ryan, Ketsetzis, & Keating, 2000) and
low-income African American samples (F antuzzo, Davis, & Ginsburg, 1995). In
addition, [220, Weissberg, Kasprow, and Friendrich (1999) reported that children with
parents who are involved in school have better emotional adjustment and social skills.

While there is evidence of the potency of parent involvement, recent research also
reveals the need for studying parent involvement from a multi-dimensional perspective.
Grolnick and Slowiaczek (1994) conducted a study of parent involvement in children’s
schooling measuring three types of involvement. In a sample of 300 parents with 11-14

year-old children, they found that there were substantial differences in parents’

22

involvement levels. For example, parents’ level of education was strongly related to
intellectual/cognitive involvement (exposing the child to cognitively stimulating activities
and materials) but was unrelated to parent behavior involvement (e.g. going to school,
volunteering, etc). Their results were consistent with other studies (Epstein, 1992;
Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler & Brissie, 1987; Stevenson & Baker, 1987) in which
background variables distinguished between some, but not all, measures of parent
involvement. If this is true, the stereotype of the low involved, less educated parent may
not hold true for all types of involvement. Because attitudes teachers hold about parents
can have important ramifications for how they treat them, and in particular for whether or
not they try to involve them, these results have important implications. The results
suggested that the ways in which parents get involved in their children’s school
experiences may vary according to their background.

Therefore, instead of treating parent involvement as a unidimensional construct, it is
important to identify the multi-dimensional nature of parent involvement (Epstein, 1997,

2002; Fantuzzo et al., 2000; Stevenson & Baker, 1987; Sui-Chu & Willms, 1996).

The three dimensions of parent involvement

This section will discuss the different dimensions of parent involvement:

23

 

home-based, school-based, and school governance/advocacy involvement.
Home-based parent involvement

Home-based involvement is defined as the activities and behaviors that parents do to
promote a learning environment for children. Home-based involvement activities
include providing a place in the home for learning materials, actively initiating and
participating in learning activities at home with children, and creating learning
experiences for children in the community.

Parents could support children’s reading by creating a rich and stimulating print or
written language environment, including serving as model readers for their children.
Topping (1985) reported that four aspects of parent involvement at home are related to
children’s reading achievement: 1) allowing more time for children to practice reading at
home, 2) making reading more enjoyable and valued, 3) giving children feedback and
praise, and 4) modeling reading and writing behaviors at home. In addition, parents
listening to a child read, and sharing and exploring books have significant effects on
children’s reading skills (Evans, cited from Connors & Epstein, 1995).

In his intensive observational study of the home environment of 10 high-achieving
and 10 low-achieving secondary-level students, all of whom were low income and

African American, Clark (1983) identified home variables that differentiate high and low

24

achievers. Parents of high achievers reported having frequent dialogue with children,

encouraging children’s academic pursuits, having warm and nurturing interactions with

children, and consistently monitoring how children’s time was spent. In his later study,

Clark (1993) studied the homework-related practices of parents of third graders. In a

sample of 460 predominantly Hispanic-American, African-American, Asia-American,

and other non-Anglo families, he found that most parents were sending their children to

school regularly, providing a regular time and a quiet place to study, and expecting them

to complete homework assignments. However, high-achieving students also had parents

who also checked homework for accuracy, demonstrated how to use references materials,

and read or studied in the home.

White’s (1982) analysis of 101 studies also supported the positive influences of

parental in-home involvement on children’s school performance. He concluded that the

following aspects of the home environment had a great impact on students’ school

performance: parents’ attitudes, guidance, and expectations for their children’s education;

quality of interaction; participation in cultural and learning-related activities; and overall

stability in the home. Overall, the significant influence of parent involvement at home

on children’s school performance has been well-documented in the literature (Entwisle,

Alexander, & Olson, 1997; Hoover-Dempsey, et al., 1993; Keith, 1991; Sheldon, 2002).

25

School-based parent involvement

School-based parent involvement is defined as activities and behaviors that parents
engage in at school with their children. Such behaviors include volunteering in the
classroom, going on class trips with children, and meeting with teachers to discuss their
children’s learning behaviors.

Empirical research on parent involvement has documented positive relationships
between parental school involvement behaviors and specific student outcomes for a
variety of student populations. Stevenson and Baker (1987) found that parent
involvement in school activities was significantly related to teacher reports of academic
performance for a sample of students ranging in age from 5 to 17 years. A parent
involvement study on Head Start children (Parker et al., 1997) suggested that parent
volunteer hours and frequency of attending school activities were significantly related to
parent and teacher ratings of children’s academic motivation, social competence, and
school readiness.

Similarly, Reynolds (1991) found that parent involvement in school activities, rated
by teachers at the end of the first year, had relatively strong indirect effects on reading
and mathematics achievement at the end of the second year. A substantial number of

studies have shown that greater parent involvement in school-aged children’s learning has

26

positive effects on school performance, including greater cognitive development and
higher academic achievement (Christenson, 1995; Eccles & Harold, 1996; Epstein &
Dauber, 1991; Moles, 1996).

Maternal school governance/advocacy involvement

Maternal school governance/advocacy involvement refers to mothers’ actions related
to school improvement or school decision-making processes.

This type of parent involvement is actually the most rare type of involvement seen in
the literature and probably in reality as well. In a study analyzing the relationship
between schools and disadvantaged parents, Mole (1993) suggested that parents had little
direct influence on program policy. Although federal education programs for
disadvantaged students require particular forms of parent involvement, such as parent
advisory councils to help make decisions about school programs and policies, parents

actually exert little power or influence on this matter.

In one of her articles, Epstein (1997) discussed the shifting paradigm of
family-school relationship. She wrote (p.441),

The psychological and sociological literatures in the early twentieth century
argued for the separateness of teachers’ and parents’ roles in schooling. Anna
Freud (1935, cited in Lightfoot, 1978) discussed the “dangers” of teachers
becoming too “motherlike”, resulting in children who would become too
“demanding” of teachers. Waller (1932) wrote about the necessity of separate
roles for parents and teachers in order to successfully train children in the
responsibilities of school and the demands of work. These views reflected
other long-standing sociological theories that organizations are most effective

27

when they set unique missions and fulfill distinct responsibilities. This
perspective put the family in charge of their child’s social development, and put
the school in charge of education.

Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1986) introduced a theoretical framework that
recognized the multiple and interdependent influences of various contexts on
children’s development. His paradigm emphasizes that children’s
development is “embedded” or nested within the microsystem and the
macrosystem. Researchers use this paradigm to study the contextual and
interrelated effects of maternal employment, day care, social support,
community conditions, and other factors on children’s achievement, other

indicators of success in school, and other aspects of development.

Epstein (1997) then suggested a social-organizational perspective of overlapping
spheres of influence for understanding and studying school and family relations. In this
model, an external structure of moving spheres and an internal structure of interpersonal
exchanges and interactions of the members of the various environments are identified.
The external model assumes that shared responsibilities are affected by forces of (1) time
to account for changes in the ages and grade levels of students and the influence of
historical change on environments, and (2) behavior to account for the background
characteristics, philosophies, and practices of each environment. Two levels of
school-family interactions within the internal structure are proposed: (1) between the
institutions of schools and families (as when schools invite families to events) and (2)
between and among individuals (as when a parent and a teacher meet in conference).

The child is assumed to be the reason for and a participant in home and school

28

partnerships.

Though theoretically clear, Epstein’s model of overlapping influences of schools and
families remains more in the realm of theoretical discussions than real-life practice. In
reality, parent involvement in school governance and advocacy needs more
encouragement from schools and the society (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001, Epstein &
Salinas, 1993; Epstein, 1997). Connors and Epstein (1995) suggested that schools
should take more initiatives to include parents in the school’s decision-making process.
Creating a friendly atmosphere for parents to communicate with the school about their
own and their children’s needs, encouraging parents to connect with each other, or even
offering formal or social opportunities for the parents to work together should be included

in school policies.

Variables Related to Parents’ Decisions to Be Involved
As mentioned above, different types of parent involvement may have different
influences on children’s learning. However, there has emerged a strong conclusion that
parent involvement in child and adolescent education generally benefits children’s
learning and school success (Brody, Flor & Gibson, 1999; Chavkin, 1993; Eccles &

Harold, 1993; Epstein, 1991, 1997, 2002; Hess & Holloway, 1984). Given this

29

conclusion, the follow-up critical question is: Why do parents become involved in their
children 3' education?

The following review focuses on the process of parental involvement
decision-making. It is organized into three parts: parental involvement beliefs,
perceived invitations for involvement from children and schools, and parental social

networks.

firental involvement beliefs

Kohn (1963) proposed that parents from various social class levels differ in terms of

what characteristics they value most for their children and these differences in values

contribute to differences in parenting behaviors. The causal sequence proposed by

Kohn has been diagrarned in the following way: social class —+ conditions of life —9

parental values —->parental behaviors (Gecas, 1979). Luster et a1. (1989) conducted a

study to test Kohn’s model. In a sample of 65 mother-infant dyads, they found that

differences in parenting behavior are due, at least in part, to differences in parental values.

Moreover, Luster and Rhoades (1989) reported that maternal beliefs of perceived control

mediated the relationship between family stress for adolescent mothers and the extent to

which they provided supportive, verbally stimulating, and warm homes for their toddlers.

3O

In the past two decades, Stevenson and his colleagues (1986, 1990) conducted
extensive research regarding parents’ beliefs about education. They studied the
relationship between parental beliefs and children’s mathematics achievement using data
from multinational research. Their data indicated that across the three cultures (US,
Japan and Taiwan), parents differed in their beliefs about what factors contribute to
children’s academic success. Compared to US. mothers, Japanese and Chinese mothers
placed much greater emphasis on effort than on ability, and they tended to hold much
higher expectations about children’s school performance. The researchers argued that if
parents view performance as primarily a function of effort, they may perceive themselves
as having a greater effects on influencing children’s development and achievement, and
thereby do more to encourage their children’s achievement.

Given the evidence from Kohn’s research and other research, researchers now
hypothesize that parental beliefs are important precursors to parent involvement. In
particular, parents’ beliefs that they can affect their children’s education, parents’
perception of their roles in children’s schooling, parents’ beliefs that the school desires
their help, and parents’ comfort with the school have all been suggested as important
predictors of parent involvement (Ames et al., 1995; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995,

1997; Sheldon, 2002). Among these beliefs, parents’ role construction and parents’

31

sense of self-efficacy have received the most attention.
Parents 'role construction

Roles are generally considered to he sets of expectations held by groups for the
behavior of individual members. When applied to parents’ involvement in their
children’s education, the group to which parents belong (e.g., the family, the school, the
workplace, close fiiends) would hold expectations about appropriate parental role
behaviors regarding involvement in children’s education. Although the definition is
clear, the question is: does role construction relate to parental involvement in children’s
education?

Lareau (1989) compared parental beliefs in a predominantly working-class school
with those of parents in a predominantly upper-middle—class school. She found that
working-class parents had a separated view of home and school. They tended to believe
that their roles involved behaviors such as getting children ready for school, ensuring that
children have good manners, and getting them to school on time. However, they did not
believe that their roles in their children’s education extended far beyond these basic
preparations. These parents had a strong tendency to accept the school’s decisions about
their children (e. g., regarding classroom placement or retention) for they believed that the

school—not the parents—were primarily responsible for decisions about educational

32

progress. Upper middle-class parents, on the other hand, were characterized as having
an interconnected view of home and school. These parents saw themselves as having an
integral role, together with the school, in educating children. They actively monitored
or “kept on top of” children’s progress; they also saw themselves as responsible for
intervening in school decisions as necessary. These parents appeared to exert more
control over their children’s educational progress than most working-class parents.

In contrast to Lareau’s conclusion, Clark’s (1983) work showed a different
perspective. He compared the high- and low-achieving students from low income
families and found that low-income parents actually varied considerably in beliefs about
parents’ home-support roles. High-achievers’ parents were comfortable with their
parental roles as active educators and preparers of their children. These parents believed
that they had strong home-based educational responsibilities with their children, and they
worked hard consistently to meet these responsibilities.

Moreover, Ritter, Mont-Reynaud and Dombush (1993) examined the differences in
parental school involvement among ethnic groups. Using a large multi-ethnic sample of
7,836 adolescents, with a subsample of 2,955 parents, the researchers divided their
sample into four main ethnic groups: Asian, African-American, Hispanic, and

non-Hispanic white. Their findings showed that Hispanic and Asian parents had fewer

33

contacts with the schools and teachers. However, instead of blaming ethnicity, they
found that these parents have the following characteristics in common: they tend to trust
the school more than the other two groups; they are less comfortable with teachers, less
likely to criticize teachers, and more likely to defer to the schools. Moreover, across
all four ethnic groups, Ritter et al. (1993) reported that parents who are deferential to and
less comfortable with teachers and schools are less likely to attend school programs or
discuss problems with the schools. Lower parent involvement was actually associated
with trusting schools or a lack of ease in dealing with schools rather than the stereotype
that less involved parents are not concerned with their children’s education.

The evidence revealed that status or ethnic background could not explain the
different behaviors among parents; what parents think of schools and what parents
believe they should do in regard to children’s education are much powerful influences on
their involvement decisions. When parents view participation in children’s schooling as
one of their responsibilities as a parent, they are more likely to become involved in their
children’s education. Parents’ perception of their relationships with the school (separate
roles or partnership) should also influence their behaviors. Overall, parents’ ideas of
appropriate roles in supporting children’s education at home and at school should

influence their decisions about involvement in their children’s education.

34

Parental sense of eflicacy for helping children succeed in school

In relating parental beliefs to parent involvement, parental role construction alone is
not sufficient. As Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997) argued, the presence of such a
role construction means that relevant responsibilities and activities have been considered
by the parent, thus creating the possibility of involvement. However, to ensure
involvement behaviors, the parent must believe that he or she has the skills and
opportunities necessary for involvement.

Parental sense of efficacy for helping children succeed in school means that a parent
believes that he or she has the skills and knowledge necessary to help his or her children,
that the children can learn what the parent has to share and teach, and that the parent can
find alternative sources of skill or knowledge when necessary (Hoover-Dempsey &
Sandler, 1997). Grounded in Bandura’e self-efficacy theory, parental sense of efficacy
shares many common components with general self-efficacy theory.

According to Bandura (1993), “people make causal contributions to their own
functioning through mechanisms of personal agency. Among the mechanisms of agency,
none is more central or pervasive than people’s beliefs about their capabilities to exercise
control over their own level of functioning and over events that affect their lives.

Efficiency beliefs influence how people feel, think, motivate themselves, and behave”

35

(p.118). In general, people who have a low sense of efficacy shy away from difficult
tasks. They have low aspirations and weak commitment to the goals they choose to
pursue. When faced with difficult tasks, they dwell on their personal deficiencies, on
the obstacles they will encounter, and on all kinds of adverse outcomes. Because they
diagnose insufficient performance as deficient aptitude, they quickly lose faith in their
capabilities. On the other hand, people with high efficacy approach difficult tasks as
challenges to be mastered rather than as threats to be avoided. Such an efficient outlook
fosters interest and deep engrossment in activities. These people set themselves
challenging goals and maintain strong commitment to them. They attribute failure to
insufficient effort or deficient knowledge that are acquirable. They approach
threatening situation with assurance that they can exercise control over them. Bandura
(1993) further suggested that “self efficacy beliefs contribute significantly to the level
and quality of human functioning” (p.145).

Inspired by Bandura’s self-efficacy theory, researchers tried to examine the
relationship between efficacy beliefs and the behaviors they may influence across various
domains. For example, Coleman and Karraker (2000) studied parenting self-efficacy of
mothers with school-age children and reported that parents with high self-efficacy

believed that they have the ability to effectively and positively influence the development

36

and behavior of their children and engaged in positive parenting behaviors. They also

reported that parents with high self-efficacy were more responsive to the needs of their

children (Donovan & Leavitt, 1985; Donovan, Leavitt & Walsh, 1997); engaged more in

direct interaction with their children (Mash & Johnson, 1983); and exhibited active

coping strategies (Wells-Parker, Miller & Topping, 1990).

Research outcomes also provided evidence for the role of parental self-efficacy in

mediating the effects of parent and child characteristics on parental sensitivity and

responsiveness. Teti and Gelfand (1991) examined the impact of parent self-efficacy in

depressed mothers of young infants. Depressed mothers often were reported as being

hostile and intrusive when interacting with their infants. However, high parental

efficacy reduced the potential negative effect of maternal depression. Thus, mothers’

sense of parenting efficacy mediated the relationship between personal feelings of

hopelessness and responsive parenting with their infants. Gondoli and Silverberg (1997)

reported similar findings in their research on parent-adolescent relationships.

Emotionally distressed mothers who had a positive sense of capability and skill in

handling parenting challenges were more responsive when talking to their adolescents

than were mothers with low self-efficacy.

Pelletier and Brent’s (2002) study showed firrther evidence of parent self-efficacy

37

influencing parental behavior related to children’s school readiness. They examined
parent factors and teacher strategies to foster parent involvement and efficacy in a unique
Canadian preschool intervention program in the greater Toronto area. ESL (n=64) and
English speaking (n=59) parent groups, who participated in school-based Parenting and
Readiness Center programs with their 4-year-olds, were compared. Their findings .
suggested that parents who perceived themselves as more effective were more involved
in their children’s education at the preschool level.

Overall, efficacy theory and related research suggested that parents with a stronger
sense of efficacy for helping their children succeed in school will be those most likely to
decide that involvement will yield positive outcomes for their children. Research
findings (e. g. Stevenson et al.) also suggested linkages between parental efficacy and
parents’ focus on the value of effort, rather than ability or luck, as critical to children’s
school success. Research on parental strategies aimed at improving school-related
outcomes for children suggested that higher-efficacy parents are more likely to develop
and act on strategies intended to solve current or anticipated problems related to school
success (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Stevenson & Baker, 1986; Useem, 1991).
Weaving together the theoretical framework and empirical observations, it appears that

parents with a strong positive sense of efficacy for helping children succeed in school

38

tend to develop and implement proactive strategies designed to help children succeed in
school. In sum, a stronger sense of efficacy seems essential to a positive parental
decision about involvement.

According to the discussion above, parents ’role construction and parental sense of
self-eflicacy in helping children succeed in school are two significant constructs for
examining parental beliefs about school involvement. However, though few empirical
studies examined the relationship between parental role construction, parental sense of
self-efficacy and parental involvement, this subject requires additional research to test

theoretical ideas. Thus the current study is designed to test this theoretical model.

Parental perceived invitations for involvement from children4and school

The perceived invitations for involvement from children and from school will be
discussed separately.
Parental perceived invitation for involvement from children

Besides parental involvement beliefs, Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler suggested that
parental perceived invitations for involvement from the school and children influence
parents’ involvement decisions. Effective invitations may come from both children and

the school. Children may hold more emotional influence over parental decisions

39

because of the personal relationship involved, but the inviting school environment
appears to be similarly influential because of the schools’ authority and power in
children’s lives (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997).

Evidence for child-generated invitations influencing parent involvement appears in
some research. For example, Dauber and Epstein (1993) reported that parents of
younger children tend to have greater involvement as opposed to older children. They
suggested that the decline in involvement is often associated with the changes in the level
of academic work required across the span of school years, and with changes in parents’
beliefs about their ability to help when their children are having problems. Moreover,
parents may distance themselves from their adolescent’s school affairs in response to the
child’s bid for autonomy (Ritter, et al., 1993).

Besides age, a child’s overall level of performance may also influence parents’
decisions about involvement. However, the evidence is mixed. Dauber and Epstein
(1993) reported that parents who have children with better academic performance have
greater school-related involvement. Baker and Stevenson (1986), on the other hand,
found that mothers of lower-performing young adolescents used more involvement
strategies than mothers of higher-performing students. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler

(1997) proposed a possible explanation: parents of young children may be motivated

4O

toward involvement in part by the prospect of improving and affirming positive
performance, while parents with older children may be more motivated toward
involvement if the adolescent’s performance is poor.

Children’s personal qualities also plays an important role in parents’ involvement
decisions. For example, Eccles and Harold (1993) found that the degree of parent’s
fondness of their children was related to his/her educational involvement. In addition,
parents who had children with slow-learning styles showed greater educational
involvement than those with children who demanded a lot of themselves.

Across the elementary age span, it appears that children’s development levels,
performance and personal qualities function as important influences on parental decisions
about involvement.

Parental perceived invitation for involvement from school

Epstein’s (1993, 1997, 2002) program of research (family-school partnership, see
www.schoolpartnerships.org) has long focused on the potential power of school and
teacher invitations for involvement. They have consistently produced evidence that
patterns of teachers’ attitudes and invitations are important to many parents’ decisions
about participation in children’s schooling. In one survey of parents of elementary

school children, Epstein (1986) compared teachers who engaged in many parent

41

involvement activities (high-involvement teachers) with teachers who engaged in few
such activities (low-involvement teachers); teachers were matched for experience, grade
level, student achievement, and average parental education. She found that parents with
high-involvement teachers were more positive about school and more aware of teachers’
interest in their involvement than were parents with low-involvement teachers. Using
related research findings, Epstein then developed a model of six types of family-school
partnerships (Connors & Epstein, 1995). Her model proposed ways for schools and
teachers to take leadership to involve families. Following this line of practice, she
further found that when schools take the responsibility to involve parents, parents learn
more about the schools’ programs and goals, become more effective influencers and
supporters of their children’s learning, and are more willing to participate in their
children’s education.

Similarly, Comer’s work (1991) has suggested that school organizations oriented
toward understanding students’ families often experience success in increasing parents’
involvement. Epstein and Dauber (1991) also reported that schools where teachers and
parents reported strong feelings about parent involvement were also the ones with strong
parent involvement programs and practices. Overall, various studies suggest that a

school climate of invitations to involvement influences parents’ understanding of

42

teachers’ interest in parental help and support, parents’ feelings of being needed and

wanted in the educational process, and parents’ knowledge about their children’s

schoolwork.

Parental social network

In addition to parental beliefs and perceived invitations for involvement, research

showed that the social context in which families live predicts parent involvement.

Wasserman and Faust (1994) defined social networks as the set of social relationships and

linkages one person has with other individuals. This context may be an important factor

related to the role that parents take in their children’s education.

According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), social networks act as channels of

communication that helped people identify the human and material resources they need,

as well as share and carry information or attitudes from one setting to another. Cochran

(1990) suggested that social networks provided parents with emotional and instrumental

support and affected parents’ attitudes and behaviors.

Sheldon (2002) reported that the resources parents gain through their social

networks contribute to their involvement in children’s education. In a sample of 155

mothers with elementary school children, Sheldon (2002) found that network size

43

predicted involvement at home and at school. In addition to network size, the
individuals with whom parents interacted were associated with the way parents were
involved. The number of parents with children at the same school and with whom a
parent interacted predicted parental involvement at school. In contrast, the number of
other adults (e. g. relatives, educators, and/or parents with children at another school) with
whom a parent speaks about her own child predicted parental involvement at home.
Moreover, Sheldon reported that parents’ perception of other parents’ involvement also
was as a predictor of their involvement.

Studies regarding social capital theory have suggested that parents’ social network
be viewed as social capital, for it’s a resource that enhances children’s education. Social
networks help produce social capital to the extent that social relationships encourage the
exchange of information, shape beliefs, and enforce norms of behaviors (Coleman, 1988,
1990; Morgan & Sorensen, 1999). In Lareau’s (1987, 1989, 1996 with Shumar) series
of studies regarding social class, family and school, she found that parents of elementary
school students who maintained ties to teachers and other parents regularly gained access
to and exchanged information about the school and schooling. Similarly, Useem (1992)
reported that mothers of middle school children who were more integrated into a web of

informal parent networks knew more about school tracking policies than isolated

44

mothers.

The above findings suggested that a sense of social pressure from other parents may
influence some individuals to spend more time at their child’s school. Having a
networkof other parents and adults with whom to discuss their child’s education may
reinforce parents’ feeling that they should be involved in their children’s education. The
behavior of social network members may be associated with norms about becoming
involved and helping at school.

Summary

Throughout the literature review, it is evident that there are different forms of parent
involvement. A parent who chooses not to go to his/her child’s school or have
interactions with teachers is not necessarily un-involved in her children’s education.
Actually, this parent might choose to be involved in another domain of the child’s
education, such as at-home supervision, creating an academic-enriched home
environment or supporting the value of education. Such behaviors also exert
tremendous influence on children’s school performance. Previous research using a
unidimensional definition (such as school communication, volunteering or attending
teacher-parent conferences) may overlook the “hidden” dimension of parent involvement.

While studying parental involvement, a multidimensional definition is suggested.

45

It has been well established throughout the review that family status variables (e.g.

income, education, ethnicity) are often related to parent involvement and in turn, to

children’s school success. However, it has been equally well established that family

status variables do not explain fully parents’ decisions to become involved in their

children’s education, nor do such variables explain the linkages between parents’

involvement and child school outcomes. Status does not determine parents’ thinking or

actions related to their involvement in their children’s schooling. They do not determine

the values parents put on education, their interest in having their children succeed in

school, or their aspirations for their children’s achievement. Throughout the review,

process variables (e. g. parental beliefs in what they should do and what they can do) are

often found to be more powerful than status variables in predicting parental involvement

and children’s school outcomes.

The present study, thus, is based on the proposition that maternal beliefs mediate the

effect of mothers’ demographic characteristics on maternal involvement. Moreover,

maternal beliefs, maternal perceived invitations for involvement, maternal social network,

along with mother’s school experiences, relationship with the child and depression level

operate as direct influences on maternal school involvement. The research design and

instrumentation used to test these ideas are discussed in the next chapter.

46

Chapter Three

Research Methodology

This chapter is divided into seven sections. First, information is provided about the
sample, followed by the research design. Next, information regarding instruments is
presented, followed by the pilot test of the instruments and the reliability analysis of the
measures. The sixth section presents the data collection procedures. Finally, in the

seventh section, the plan for the data analysis is provided.

Sample

The sample for this study was selected from mothers residing in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Kaohsiung is the second largest city in Taiwan with a population of approximately 1.5
million. Because the literature review suggested that parents’ involvement declined
along with children’s age, this study only included parents with second-grade children as
target participants. These parents are likely to be among those with the highest
participation rate, and afier one year of experience in their children’s schools they should
be capable of answering the questionnaires regarding their school involvement.

The majority of elementary schools in Kaohsiung are public schools. There are 86

47

public schools with a total of 119,840 students and only three private elementary schools
with 1,100 students in total. Cluster random sampling was used. There are 11 districts
in Kaohsiung. To obtain a diverse and representative sample of the second graders’
mothers in Kaohsiung, the investigator randomly picked one school in each district.
After being turned down by two schools, the investigator finally received permission
from 11 schools from different districts to conduct this research. Four second-grade
classrooms were randomly picked in each participating school, with only two exceptions
-- one school had only two second grade classrooms, and the other school had only three.
There were 41 classrooms involved in this study. With the assistance of classroom
teachers, 1,375 questionnaires were distributed to the mothers. The return rate was high
(91.2%) — with 1253 questionnaires being returned. However, there were four blank
questionnaires found and seven questionnaires with only the first page completed (29
items). After deleting these 11 cases, the total number of subjects used in the analysis

was 1242 (90.3% of those invited to participate).

Research Design
The design of this study is non-experimental and the associations among the

variables of interest were examined with data collected at one point in time. The unit of

48

analysis was the mothers with second-grade children and the investigator collected the
data.

The mothers who were willing to participate in the study were given written
measures through teachers: a demographic information questionnaire and instruments
created to measure mother’s educational involvement, involvement beliefs, perceived
invitations for involvement, school experiences, mother-child relationship, maternal
depression level and parental social networks. All measures were translated into
Chinese by the investigator and then translated by another individual back into English to
ensure proper translation. More information on the instruments will be provided in the

next section.

Instrumentation
There were eight instruments used in this study. They include: the Maternal
Involvement Beliefs questionnaire, Maternal Perceived Invitations for Involvement
questionnaire, Maternal School Experiences questionnaire, Mother-Child relationship
questionnaire, Maternal Social Network Scale, Mother’s Depression Scale, Maternal
Educational Involvement questionnaire and Demographic Information questionnaire.

Copies of the instruments are provided in Appendix I.

49

m1 Involvement Beliefs Questionnaire

The maternal involvement beliefs scale has 16 items with responses given in a
Likert scale format. Mothers’ beliefs towards children’s educational involvement were
examined through this set of questions; this scale is further divided into two
parts—matemal role construction and maternal efficacy for helping children succeed in
school.

Maternal role construction. The 8 items for the Parent Role Construction Scale
were selected from Hoover-Dempsey et al.’s lO-item scale (last revised edition, 2003) to
assess parents’ views on their roles in their children’s education. The items were selected
because they were judged to be the most culturally appropriate for a study in Taiwan.
Participants responded to the following prompt: “Parents have many different beliefs
about their level of responsibility in their children’s education. Please respond to the
following statements by indicating the degree to which you believe you are responsible
for the following.” Sample statements are: “Volunteer at the school”, “Communicate
with my child’s teacher regularly”, and “Stay on top of things at school.” The scale
employs a 6-point Likert-type response format (i.e., Disagree very strongly = 1, Disagree
= 2, Disagree just a little = 3, Agreejust a little = 4. Agree = 5. Agree very strongly = 6).

A total score was computed by computing the mean score of the 8 items with a possible

50

range from 1 to 6. Higher scores indicate that the parent believes that her role as parent
includes involvement in her child’s education; lower scores indicate a lower sense of
personal responsibility for involvement in the child’s education.

Maternal eflicacy for helping children succeed in school. The 8 items for the
Parent Efficacy for Helping Child Succeed in School Scale were picked from
Hoover-Dempsey et al.’s 12-item scale (last revised, 2003) to assess the degree to which
parents believe that they can help their children succeed in school. The items were
selected because they were judged to be the most culturally appropriate for a study in
Taiwan. The following instruction is given before the 12 statements: “Please indicate
how much you AGREE or DISAGREE with each of the following statements.” Sample
statements are: “I know how to help my child do well in school”, and “I make a
significant difference in my child’s school performance”. The responses range from
agree very strongly (6) to disagree very strongly (1). Higher scores indicate a stronger
sense of efficacy in helping children succeed in school.

Mirtiernarl Perceived Invitations for Involvement Questionnaire

The investigator created this questionnaire based on a careful literature review on

parental school involvement. To distinguish the impact of invitations from school and

from children, this questionnaire is divided into two parts—maternal perceived

51

invitations from school and maternal perceived invitations from their children.

Maternal perceived invitations from school. There are eight statements in the set
with 6-point Likert scale responses provided for each item. Sample questions are: “I
feel welcomed in my child’s school”, “I feel comfortable meeting with the teacher when I
have a concern about his/her teaching practice.” The responses range from agree very
strongly (6) to disagree very strongly (1). A total score was created by computing the
mean of the eight items. Higher scores indicate that mothers perceive stronger
invitations for their involvement from the school.

Maternal perceived invitations from their children. There are five statements in the
set with 6—point Likert scale responses provided for each item. Sample questions are:
“My child wants me to participate in his/her school activities”, “My child usually asks me
to check his/her homework.” The responses range from agree very strongly (6) to
disagree very strongly (1). A total score was created by computing the mean of the five
items. Higher scores indicate that mothers perceive stronger invitations for their
involvement from their children.

Maternal School Experiences Questionnaire
Mother’s school experiences scale has 10 items written in semantic differential

format. There are two subscales: (1) Mother’s own school experiences, and (2)

52

Mother’s experiences with her child’s school. The following instruction is given before

the 10 statements: “Please mark the number on each line below that best describes your

feeling.” Sample items are: “My school — disliked 1 2 3 4 5 6 liked”, “My teachers -—

were mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 were mean”, “My child’s teacher - ignored me 1 2 3 4 5 6

welcomed me”, and “My experience with my child’s school - bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 good”.

The possible responses range fiom 1 to 6 with a higher score indicating a more positive

perceived school experience. Total scores were created by computing the mean of the

items in each subscale.

Mother-Child Relationship Questionnam

The investigator created this questionnaire. There are four semantic differential

items in the scale asking the mothers about how they perceive their child’s temperament,

their child’s performance, their expectation for the child, and their overall relationship

with the child. The items are: “My child’s temperament is — difficult 1 2 3 4 5 6 easy”;

“My child’s school performance — disappoints me 1 2 3 4 5 6 satisfied me”; “My

expectation toward my child’s achievement is — below average 1 2 3 4 5 6 above

average”; and “My overall relationship with my child is — bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 good”. A total

score was created by computing the mean of these items. Higher scores indicate a more

positive mother-child relationship.

53

Maternal Socisl Netwofirk Scale

The social network scale was created to examine the degree to which the

participating mothers perceive that parents in their social network are involved in their

children’s education. The investigator created this scale. There are six questions in the

set: “How many parents do you know who you discuss your children’s education or

school matters with?” “How many parents in your child’s class/school do you discuss

your children’s education or school matters with?” “What percentage of your fiiends

attends school activities?” “What percentage of the parents in your child’s class attends

school activities?” “What percentage of your friends check their child’s homework or do

test preparation with their child?” “What percentage of your friends is highly involved at

school (e. g. volunteer at school, serve on an advisory committee, plan parties or other

social activities at school)?” The responses were coded from 1 to 5, with the higher

score indicating greater network involvement in school and learning activities. A total

score was created by computing the mean of these items.

Mother’s Depression Scale

Maternal depression was assessed with a set of seven questions adapted flour a

widely used 20-item depression inventory which was developed by Radloff (1977).

Sample items are: “I felt that I was just as good as other people”, “I thought my life has

54

been a failure”, “I enjoy life”, and “I felt that people disliked me”. Each item is scored
on a 4-point scale in terms of frequency of occurrence during the previous week with a
higher score indicating the higher occurrence. The items are averaged to produce a
mean score ranging from 1 to 4. Higher scores indicate higher levels of depression.
Maternal Involvement Ouestionna_ir_e_

The questionnaires are based on a careful review of the literature and are mainly
adapted from Epstein’s (1993) “school and family partnership questionnaire” and Wu’s
(2003) “Taiwanese mothers’ school involvement questionnaire.” Epstein’s “school and
family partnership questionnaire” was originally created to produce a profile of where a
school is starting from in its connections with families from the perspectives of teachers
and parents. There were two parts to her questionnaire: Isascher guestionnsires and
Psrent questionnafires. The parent questionnaires ask about general attitudes about the
school, how parents are currently involved, how the school asks for or guides their
involvement, and the partnership programs parents would like to see developed or
improved. The current study picked items regarding parental involvement from this
questionnaire, then compared them with the items used in Wu’s (2003) “Taiwanese
mothers’ school involvement questionnaire”, and finally came up with the measure for

the current study by combining content from both measures. The maternal involvement

55

scale has 34 items with responses given on a Likert scale format. Questions are asked

regarding mothers’ various forms of involvement in their children’s education, which

includes home-based, school-based and school governance/advocacy involvement.

Home—based involvement. Home-based involvement refers to the mother-child

interactions involving the active promotion of a learning environment at home.

Eighteen items are included in this subscale. Sample questions are: “How often do you

read to your child?” “How often do you check to see that your child has done his/her

homework?” “How often do you take your child to a library or bookstore?” Responses

range from everyday (4) to never (0). A total score was created by computing the mean

of these items. Higher scores indicate greater home-based involvement.

School-based involvement. School-based involvement refers to mothers’

volunteering or participating in their children’s school. Nine items are included in this

subscale. Sample questions are: “How often have you visited your child’s classroom the

previous school year?” “How often have you talked to your child’s teacher on the phone

the previous year?” “How often have you attended special events at school?”

Responses range from several times per week (4) to never (0). A total score was created

by computing the mean of these items. Higher scores indicate greater school-based

involvement.

56

School governance/advocacy involvement. This type of involvement refers to
mothers’ actions related to school improvement or school decision-making processes.
Eight items are included in this subscale. Seven of them are Likert-scale items.
Sample questions are: “When I have a concern regarding my child’s classroom
curriculum, I speak personally or write to my child’s teacher,” and “I keep myself aware
of the trends in educational reform.” Responses range from always (4) to never (0).
There is one yes-or-no question asking the mother whether or not she sits on the school
advisory board. The response will be coded as either 4 (yes) or 0 (no). Total scores
were created by computing the mean of these items and higher scores indicate greater
school govemance/advocacy involvement.

Demographic Information Questionnflrs

The participant mothers were asked to provide information regarding their age,
educational level, employment status, number of children, maternal relationship status
and family income. Responses were provided following each question and the mothers

chose one answer that applies to their situations.

Pilot Test of the instruments

Due to the fact that school involvement literature in Taiwan is still limited, the

57

instruments used in the current study were mainly developed from the Western literature.
To ensure the appropriateness of the instrument and to test the return rate, several pilot
procedures were done. First, an English teacher in Taiwan translated the Chinese
version of the questionnaire back to English. The result was satisfying with only a few
minor modifications. Second, the questionnaires were distributed to nine mothers of
second graders and six professionals who teach at the college level. The feedback from
the mothers was mainly about the wording, the time spent and the difficulties
encountered in answering the questionnaire. The professionals gave insights about the
items themselves, including the actual situations in Taiwan, the concerns regarding
cultural differences, the format and the wording of the items. Combining the feedbacks
from the two groups, the questionnaire was modified to form a 100-item questionnaire
(Appendix I).

Third, the questionnaires were distributed to mothers through two second grade
classrooms. The purpose of this procedure was to test the return rate in Taiwan using
the proposed method — distributing the questionnaires through classroom teachers, having
mothers fill out the questionnaires and returning it to the pre-arranged boxes in the
classrooms. The result was extremely satisfying; 69 mothers out of 75 returned the

questionnaires.

58

Reliability analysis of the instrument

Because there are multiple items in the measures created by the investigator or
adapted from various other measures, it was necessary to check their internal consistency
with the Taiwanese sample used in this study. The internal consistency was computed
using Cronbach’s alpha. The following criteria were used to determine whether or not
to retain or delete an item from a scale. If the alpha was larger than .7 and there was no
specific item that had an extremely low corrected item-total correlation, all items were
kept in the measure. If the alpha coefficient was less than .7, the investigator examined
what the alpha would be if an item was deleted from the scale; if an item lowered the
alpha, it was deleted from the scale. Using this criterion, three items were deleted

(Table 1).

Table l The items deleted from the scales

 

 

 

Subscale Deleted item

Maternal Perceived Invitation from #24. It is an honor in my child’s school
School to sit on the school advisory board.
Maternal Perceived Invitation from #28. My child s_eld_orp shares with me
Child his/her school related matters (e.g.

friends, teachers, events). (r)

 

Maternal School Govemance/Advocacy #90. I sit on the school advisory board.
Involvement D Yes [I] No

 

 

 

 

After deleting these three items, most of the scales had an acceptable level of

internal consistency. Table 2 shows the alpha coefficients for the various scales.

59

Table 2 Internal Consistency of the scales Using Cronbach’s Alpha

 

 

Maternal role construction belief

Maternal efficacy for helping children succeed in school
Mother’s perceived invitations from school
Mother’s perceived invitations from the child
Mother’s own school experience

Mother’s experience with the child’s school
Mother-child relationship

Maternal social network

Maternal Depression (CESD)

Mother’s home-based involvement

Mother’s school-based involvement

Mother’s govemance/advocacy involvement

.76

.76

.68

.62

.88

.88

.75

.74

.77

.85

.84

.77

 

Data Collection Procedure

Due to the fact that this study involves human subjects, an approval from the

University Committee on Research Involving Human Subject (UCRIHS) was required.

The UCRIHS approval letter is provided in Appendix II.

In the hope of getting a high response rate, the investigator carefully orchestrated the

data collection procedures. The investigator was referred to each participating school’s

principal by a senior principal who is from the investigator’s social network. On the

60

 

first visit to the school, the investigator presented the study thoroughly to the principal

and other administrative staff. After the presentation, four 2nd-grade classrooms were
randomly picked to participate. It was then left to the schools to inform the chosen
classroom teachers and ask for the teachers’ voluntary participation. On the second visit,
the investigator presented the project and the distribution procedures to the teachers of

the participating classrooms. There were opportunities for the investigator to
communicate face-to-face with the teachers, answer questions and exchange thoughts on
parental involvement in Taiwan.

After thorough communication with the teachers, teachers agreed to encourage
mothers’ participations in this project. On the day the questionnaires were distributed to
parents, a reminder note was put in the home-school communication journal along with
the questionnaire packet. The packet included a self-administrated questionnaire, a
consent form, and a self-sealed enve10pe. The consent form informed the parents about
the purpose of the study, and provided information regarding the parents’ rights as
participants. The mothers who agreed to participate in the study completed the
questionnaire, put it in the envelope and returned it to the teachers. The mothers were
not asked to return the written consent forms in order to reassure them that teachers were

not able to identify their responses. A copy of consent letter is provided in Appendix III.

61

To increase the rate of participation, the researcher coded the questionnaires before
distribution. This enabled the investigator to keep track of those parents who did not
return the questionnaire the first time. It was planned at the beginning of distribution
that a reminder letter along with a blank questionnaire would be sent out to those parents
who did not respond initially. However, the response rate was extremely high (91.2%).

The investigator did not need to send out reminder letters.

Data Analysis

The analyses involved four major parts: descriptive statistics, correlations, multiple
regression and path analysis. The first step involved computing descriptive statistics,
which were used to determine the distributional characteristics of each variable. This
enabled the investigator to get detailed information about the sample, to learn general
facts regarding the predictor variables, as well as to identify the various patterns of
maternal involvement.

Zero-order correlations among variables were the next to be calculated. Zero-order
correlations were calculated to determine the extent of associations among the predictor
variables (i.e. maternal beliefs, maternal perceived invitations, maternal school

experiences, mother-child relationship, maternal social network, and mother’s depression

62

level) and the outcome variables (maternal school involvement, and each of its

subscales).

Next, multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine which of the

predictor variables were related to maternal educational involvement. This regression

analysis served as a preliminary analysis and enabled the researcher to delete the

unrelated variables from the path analysis. Finally, path analysis was used to analyze

the relationships among variables and to determine which of the predictor variables have

a direct or an indirect effect on the maternal involvement measures: home-based,

school-based and school govemance/advocacy involvement.

The following chart summarized the data analyses used in the study:

 

 

 

 

 

Research questions (Q) Method used

Q1, Q2 - Q7 (first part of each question) Descriptive statistics

Q2 - Q7 (second part of each question) Correlation

Q8 Multiple regression
Path analysis

 

 

 

63

Chapter Four

Results of Data Analysis

In this chapter, the results of the data are reported. First, characteristics of the
sample and the descriptive data are reported, followed by the bivariate analyses. Next
the results from some preliminary regression analyses are reported. Finally, a path
analysis for each aspect of maternal educational involvement assessed in this study is

presented.

Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

In this sample, there are 627 male and 615 female students. The normal age for a
second grader in Taiwan is 7 - 8 years old. The age of the respondents’ mothers ranged
from 22 to 52 years with a mean age of 36.6 years. The majority of the mothers
completed a high school education (56.4%), followed by two-year college graduates
(18.9%), primary school (13.6), university graduate (9.3%) and graduate school or above
(1.8%). Ninety- one percent of the mothers were in their first marriage, and 6.6% were
separated, divorced or widowed; only 0.7% of mothers were remarried, 0.7% were single,

and 0.7% were in a committed-live-in relationship. When asked about their

employment status, 31% of the mothers reported that they were a homemaker, 8.3%

worked less than 20 hours per week, 7.2% worked 21-39 hours per week, and 52.1%

were working firll time. Forty-nine percent of the mothers had two children, 27% had

three children and 18% had only one child. Approximately six percent (6.1%) of the

respondents had four or more children.

Descriptive statistics for the variables in the analyses and dealing with missing data

In this section, descriptive statistics for the mothers’ role construction belief,

mothers’ sense of efficacy, perceived invitations from the school as well as from the child,

mothers’ relationship with the child, mothers’ own school experience as well as their

experience with the child’s school, mothers’ CESD score, and mothers’ social network

will be examined.

There were a few missing items in some cases. To better represent the population,

the investigator made efforts to include as many cases in the analyses as possible.

Therefore, for each scale, a subject would be included in the analysis as long as the

subject answered more than half of the questions in that scale. For each participant, the

mean of the items to which they responded on each scale was used as the total score for

that measure. Using this criterion, the investigator was able to include around 1,200

65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cases in the analyses (with the most being 1,239 and the least 1,212). A summary of the
descriptive statistics can be found in Table 3.
Table 3 Descriptive data for each variable
Variable # of Valid Miss-
iterrrs N ing Min. Max Mean SD
Role Construction 8 1239 3 2 6 4.63 0.56
(Possible mean score range: 1-6)
Sense of Efficacy 8 1231 11 l 6 3.96 0.72
(Possible mean score range: 1-6)
Perceived Invitation from school 7 1219 23 1.71 6 4.34 0.64
(Possible mean score range: 1-6)
Perceived Invitation from child 4 1232 10 2 6 4.84 0.66
(Possible mean score range: 1-6)
Mother’s Own School Experience 5 1216 26 1 6 4.63 0.92
(Possible mean score range: 1-6)
Mother’s Exp. with child’s School 5 1220 22 l 6 4.98 0.82
(Possible mean score range: 1-6)
Mother’s Relationship with Child 4 1214 28 1 6 5.02 0.71
(Possible mean score range: 1-6)
Maternal Social Network 6 1226 16 l 5 2.87 0.70
(Possible mean score range: 1-5)
Mother’s CESD score 7 1212 30 1 4 1.81 0.49
(Possible mean score range: 14)
Mother’s Home-based Involvement 19 1232 10 1.21 5 3.71 0.54
(Possible mean score range: 1-5)
Mother’s School-based 7 1231 ll 1 5 2.11 0.73
Involvement
(Possible mean score range: 1-5)
Mother’s School 7 1227 15 l 5 2.48 0.75
Governance/Advocacy
(Possible mean score range: 1-5)

 

Each variable is described in greater detail in the following section.

66

 

Predictor Variables

Maternal beliefs about educational involvement

Maternal beliefs about educational involvement were divided into role construction

and efficacy in the original proposal. The correlation between these two variables was

low (1‘: .096, p< .01), thus the decision was made to treat these two measures as separate

variables.

On the maternal role construction measures, mothers had a mean score of 4.63 on

the 6-point scale (possible range was 1-6) indicating that mothers agreed with the

maternal roles assessed in this study to some degree. Among the items assessed,

mothers highly agreed that it is mother’s responsibility to talk with the child about the

school day (mean=5.4l), communicate with the child’s teacher regularly (mean=5.19),

and help the child with homework (mean=4.99). The lowest mean scores were for

sitting on the School Advisory Board (mean=3.45) and volunteering at the school

(mean-4.00).

On the maternal efficacy measures, mothers had a mean score of 3.96 on the

6-point scale indicating that mothers, on average, slightly agreed that they could help

their child succeed in the school. Among the items assessed, the item with the highest

mean score was, “If I try hard, I can get through to my child, even when he/she has

67

difficulty understanding something,” (mean=4.64) and the item with the second highest
mean score was, “I feel successful about my efforts to help my child learn” (mean=4.58).
There is also one other noteworthy statistic -- the mean for the item, “Other children have
more influence on my child’s motivation to do well in school than I do” was 4.38 with
more than 52% of the mothers coded as 5 or 6 (i.e. agree or strongly agree). The
original measurement developer, Hoover-Dempsey (2004), claimed that the more
efficacious the mother is, the more she would believe in her ability to influence her
children. However, over 80% of the mothers believed that other children have more
influence on their children than the mothers themselves do. This phenomenon will be
discussed further in the next chapter.
Maternal Perceived Invitation for Involvement

The concept of maternal perceived invitation for involvement was divided into
two subscales — perceived invitation from the school and perceived invitation from the
child. On the perceived invitation from the school measure, mothers had a mean score
of 4.34 on the 6-point scale indicating that, to some degree, mothers perceived a
welcoming climate for their involvement from the school. Among the items assessed,
“My child’s teacher usually encourages me to help my child with homework or upcoming

tests” (mean = 4.89) stood out with nearly 94% of the mothers agreeing with this

68

statement. “I receive encouragement from the school to attend parent-learning programs
prepared by the school” (mean = 4.67), “I feel that my child’s teacher welcomes my
assistance in classroom or school-wide activities” (mean = 4.65) and “I feel welcomed in
my child’s school” (mean = 4.61) were other statements that most mothers agreed with.
Nearly 90% of mothers agreed with all three of these statements. Meeting school
authorities was rated as the least comfortable thing to do in the school. Forty-seven
percent of the mothers agreed with the statement, “I don’t feel comfortable meeting with
school authorities about my concerns regarding school.”

Perceived invitation from the child had a mean score of 4.84 on the 6-point
scale. When there were difficulties regarding homework, nearly 98% of the mothers
reported that their child would seek help fi'om them. In comparison with this high rate,
only 77% of the mothers agreed that their child would want them to help out at the
school.

Mother ’s School Experiences

There were two subscales measuring the concept of maternal school experiences —
mother’s own school experience and mother’s experience with the child’s school. The
mean for mother’s own school experience was 4.63 on a 6-point scale indicating that

Taiwanese mothers’ own school experiences were more towards the positive end.

69

Among the item assessed, “feeling towards my own teachers” had the highest mean score
(4.77).

Mother’s experiences with the child’s school were generally positive, with a mean
score of 4.98 for the total measure. Similar to their own school experiences, the mothers
responded most positively to the item assessing their feelings towards the child’s teachers
(mean = 5.28).

Maternal Relationship with the child

Among all the independent variables, the maternal relationship with the child scale
had the highest overall mean score, with a mean of 5.02. The mothers responded to
items about their relationship with their child on a 6-point Likert scale with higher
numbers indicating more positive feelings. Looking at the distribution, over 90% of the
mothers selected a response of three or higher on each item assessed. Moreover, when
looking at the highest two points (i.e. responses of 5 and 6), 70% of the mothers rated
their child’s temperament as easy; 67% rated their child’s school performance as
satisfying; 72% reported that their expectation towards child’s achievement was above
average. In addition, 91% of the mothers rated their overall relationship with their child

as a 5 or 6 on the 6-point scale.

70

Maternal Social Network
The social network referred to the degree to which the participating mothers

perceive that parents in their social network were involved in their children’s education.
There were six items in the scale, each ranging from 1 to 5 with the higher score
indicating greater network involvement in school and learning activities. The mean for
the social network measure was 2.87 indicating that Taiwanese mothers perceived a low
to moderate level of school involvement among members of their social networks.

When asked about members of their network with whom they could discuss
education issues, 13% of the mothers reported that there was no one. An even larger
percentage (23%) of mothers reported that there were no parents of their child’s .
schoolmates with whom they could discuss education issues. Thirty percent of mothers
reported that they had at least 5 people with whom they could discuss education issues,
while only 16% of them reported that they could find at least 5 parents in their child’s
school to discuss their education concerns with.

When asked about attendance at school activities, 23.7% of the mothers reported
that over half of their child’s classmates’ parents would attend school events, while 26%
of them reported that half of their own friends would do so. However, when asked

about test preparations or providing help with homework, 62.7% of mothers reported that

71

over half of their friends would do so.

Regarding the percentage of friends who were highly involved at the child’s

school, only 16.6% of the mothers said that over half of their friends were highly

involved parents.

Maternal Depression Level

Seven items were adapted from Radlofl"s (1977) CESD scale to create the measure

for the current study. Each item was scored from 1 to 4 with a higher score indicating a

higher level of depression. The mean score for this measure was low (mean = 1.81)

indicating that most mothers had low levels of depressive symptoms. However, one

observation is noteworthy — this subscale had the highest non-response rate in the study.

Items in this measure had 28 to 61 non-responses compared to 10 to 20 non-responses for

items from other scales.

Outcome Variables

Home-Based Involvement

Nineteen items were used to assess the mother’s involvement in the active

promotion of a learning environment at home. The most frequent activity engaged in by

Taiwanese mothers was “check and sign the daily home-school communication journal”

72

with 92% of them checking a response of 4 (several times per week) or 5 (everyday).

Using the same criterion (counting those coded as 4 or 5), the next four most frequent

activities were: “keep a regular morning and bedtime schedule during weekdays” (90%),

“check to see if the child has done his homework” (90%), “make sure the child is on time

for school” (89%), and “make sure that child has breakfast before attending school”

(85%). Mothers engaged in the above activities almost on a daily basis.

The activities engaged in less frequently by mothers (counting those coded as

l-never or 2-less than one time per week) included: “take child to library or bookstore”

(63.6%), “take child to special places or events in the community” (62.5%), “read to your

child” (54.2%), “listen to your child read” (44.7%), and “take your child to

extracurricular activities” (41.3%).

The following table (Table 4) provides a clearer picture of Taiwanese mothers’

home-based involvement patterns.

73

Table 4 Taiwanese mothers’ home-based involvement patterns

 

Frequent activities

(On a daily basis)

Check and sign the daily home-school
communication journal

Keep a regular morning and bedtime schedule
during weekdays

Check to see if the child has done his homework
Make sure the child is on time for school

Make sure that child has breakfast before

attending school

 

Moderately frequent activities

(At least 1-2 times per week)

Talk to your child about school

Review and discuss the work your child brings
home

Tell your child how important the school is
Limit the time that your child plays video games
Tell your child how important the academic
achievement is

Supervise your child’s TV viewing

Help your child plan time for homework or other
chores

Practice writing, math or other skills before tests

 

 

Least frequent activities
(Less than 1 time per week or

never)

 

Take your child to extracurricular activities
Listen to your child read
Read to your child

Take child to library or bookstore

 

74

 

S chool-based involvement

School-based involvement was assessed with a 7-item scale with possible responses
coded from 1 (never) to 5 (several times per week). The mean score was 2.11 (SD =
0.73) with a response of 2 indicating 1-2 times per semester. Given the nature of these
activities (e. g., going on a class trip), a modest mean score was expected. “Visit the
child’s classroom”(mean=2.86) and “talk with the child’s teacher at school” (mean=2.51)
were the items with the highest mean scores. “Go on a class trip with child”
(mean=1.57) and “help with class or school events”(l .70) were the items with the lowest
mean scores. Most notably, 60% of the mothers reported that they never helped with
class or school events, and 63% of the mothers reported that they never went on a field
trip with their child.
School governance/advocacy involvement

Seven items were used to assess mother’s actions related to school improvement or
school decision-making processes. The mean score was 2.48 (SD=0.75). Looking at
the individual items, “Speak personally or write to the child’s teacher when there was
concerns” (mean = 3.27), “keep self aware of the trends in educational reform”(mean =
3.24), and “read the school advisory board’s meeting reports carefully”(mean=3.17) were

the three activities engaged in most frequently by the mothers. Mothers were least

75

likely to “speak/write to the school advisory board members” (mean = 1.62) and
“speak/write to the principal or related school authorities” (mean= 1.88). Overall, 61%
of the mothers reported that they had never spoken or written to school advisory board

members, and 49% of them never contacted the principal or related school authorities.

Correlations Among Variables

Pearson correlation matrices were created to determine the relationship among the
predictor variables (Table 5), outcome variables (Table 6), the relationship between the
demographic variables and predictor variables (Table 7), the relationship between the
demographic variables and outcome variables (Table 8), and the relationship between the
predictor variables and outcome variables (Table 9). Due to the large sample size, all of
the correlations were statistically significant except one pair (maternal CESD and
School-based involvement). Using Cohen’s (1988) interpretation of the magnitude of a
correlation, a correlation greater than .5 is considered large, a correlation that ranges
from .5 to .3 is considered moderate and a correlation of .3 to .l is considered small.

Most correlations among the variables in this study were small to moderate in magnitude.

76

82553 3.3.62 :5. 2a a meozaefiv £82 8. 05 a ”625633.332 3. a: a savanna a 83280

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ enabN. {*mN. *nmN. aaahm. scab _ . aaamN. steam. 350. cofimuaun—
— 2.353 calm. comm. ELM. «comm. «aawN. com. M32502 360m
Qua—533%
H 1.3». «aim. acacm. naawm. aawN. ELL. 25.8502
Begum NEED
\3 oocotonm
H cahv. . ensmm. song. 3:..:. *aNm. 353a:
35:6me
Begum
g anavfi. ELN. nan—3 ERA. :30 38032
EEO
EC.” floassa
~ naan. aaamm. Snow. buzoouom
“venom
80¢ mac—#853
~ .Iihm. {sac—V. 92:00qu
2 .2. page...”
— flcmuogmflou ”—0.“
Begum 92.30 0253095 EEO Bob 323m 82m
MHOEDZ QEMGOfiN—OM \3 UOGDthQKm —OO£OW go flew—SSE GOES—>5 QOUOEWQOU
flommmuhQOQ HN—OOW U—ufiolbficz mafia“: ~QEBN2 U0>m09~0nm U0>m00h0nm ~A0fl0£m ”—0“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8333.5 33:8...— ue ~33: 5:33.980 :8..an m 03¢.

77

eozsézv .335 so. 2: a é2§é£ :35 S. 05 a égfiéEZEB 8. as a genome»... a 850:8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28803th
~ 1.2“. ..:I.mm. hoaoo>u£oo§Eo>om Begum
fl autumn. 8080235 323-33%
~ 3252th woman-oEom
3080335
zomoogfloogfigom Begum EoEoZoZ: womanAoonom 3080302: 8.0.3-0803

 

835.5» 2.88:9 .3 5.552 5:29.30 :canh 9 033—.

78

825-33 $3.2 so. as a

”825.28 .132 S. 2.: a

Avuzfi-o>av*_o>o_ no. 05 “a EaB-«Ewa $ 532280

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2:85
:3. .8. :8. 8. 88.- .2. .3. :2. 8. beam
22%
.8. s. 8.- 2,; 8.- 3.- 88.- 8. .8.- 885835
33m
8. .2. .8. 8.- 8.- .8. .8. 8. 8. BE:
.964
is. .3. s. 8.- 8.- .:. .8. :2. 8.- 3.88:3
8. .8. .3. 2. .8. .8. .8. .8. S.- .3.
323
£5 E 85883 220 88. 323m 88-.
x8332 Emma—0330M oucotoaxm 33$ :30 8:835 33835 5.83300
commmoaoa 38m EEO-8502 38082 35082 voice-Em 82080.“ .88—hm 20M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

833.3.» 38:55 ES Sandbag—non— :853 5.532 5322.50 nan-:3.— b 035.

79

€28-25 $.35 88. as a

828-05 £22 8. 2: a

A200=SéEVL0>2 no. 08 8 802.2880 02 88820800

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sic— . *oo. 0.00. 08005 338m
No: *3 .- .5. 2 2 .- 088m 808.388m
3o. co. *2. 088m 8282
t. 2 2 . :8. no. 22,02 Baoumoscm
:8. 8. 8. 00-.-
8080238
5000880080838 Begum 8080298 20003-8028 8080238 20003-0832

 

 

003883 0888C 88 03889809 800.502 5582 838—280 8080A m 0.88

80

82853 $.35 88. .5 a

”628-050 .132 8. 05 a

”90228-08vt082 mo. 08 8 8088me 02 88820800

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

81

 

.1.me wmo. 3.02. 8800080Q
...**oom. “I... 8N. *tewVN. 02.52502 Emoom
.32 _. .88. :88. 8828.8 2.50.382
Begum
3.52. 3&5. 3.282. 0.230 \3 08080me 208082
3:33 . ivwo. .12.. 2 S . 008080982 Begum 850 208082
.353. :33. 38%. EEO 88.2 88822 20020892
*3mmm. 1:53. 3.2.32. Begum 88-2 88838 32080.2
3.8.8. ...§. :88. 888m
iiwvm. tramm- *EwoN-N. 808850800 020%
8080298
50000208080838 880m 8080238 200002-8028 8080238 200002-080:

 

 

 

 

003885 08380 88 88:8...— 800382 882 828—0800 Hannah a 033—.

 

Correlations among the predictor variables

Maternal role construction was positively related to all other variables. Among

them, three correlations were considered moderate; the mothers who perceived stronger

responsibilities to be involved in their children’s education also perceived a greater

invitation from child’s school (.40), from their own child (.46), and had a more positive

experience with their child’s school (.32).

Although positively and significantly related to all other variables, maternal efficacy

only showed moderate correlations with the following two variables: perceived invitation

from the child’s school (.37) and maternal CESD (-.31). In other words, mothers who

had higher confidence in their abilities to help their child succeed in school also

perceived that their involvement was welcomed by the school and showed relatively few

symptoms of depression.

Respondent mothers who perceived greater invitations from the child’s school were

not only more likely to have greater maternal role construction beliefs and efficacy, but

also believed that their children encouraged their involvement in school (.42), had better

experiences with the child’s school (.44), and perceived greater educational involvement

from members of their social networks (.32). Moreover, those who perceived greater

invitations from their child tended to report better relationship with their child (.31) as

82

well as greater educational involvement among members of their social networks (.33).

Mothers who had better experiences with their own schools were more likely to
have a satisfactory relationship with their child’s school (.47) and a better relationship
with their child (.31).

In regards to mothers’ experiences with their child’s school, it was found to be
moderately correlated with maternal role beliefs (.32), perceived invitation from the
child’s school (.44), mother’s own school experiences (.47), and the mother-child
relationship (.41).

Correlations among outcome variables

The three outcome variables were found to be moderately correlated with each other.
Mothers who reported greater home-based involvement tended to have greater
school-based involvement (r=.35, p<.001) as well as greater school governance/advocacy
involvement (r=.35, p<.001). In addition, mothers who were more involved in
school-based activities also were found to be more involved in school
governance/advocacy (r=.47, p<.001).

Correlations among demographic variables and other variables
Most of the correlations between the demographic variables and all other variables

were very small. There was only one moderate correlation between the demographic

83

variable and all other variables. The mothers who had higher levels of education
perceived higher efiicacy in helping their child succeed in school (r=.3 1, p<.001).
Correlations between predictor variables and outcome variables

There were only two moderate correlations between the predictor and outcome
variables. The mothers who perceived a greater invitation from the child were more
likely to be involved in home-based activities (r=.33, p<.001). The mothers who
perceived greater involvement from their social network members were more likely to
participate in school governance/advocacy activities (r=.30, p<.001).

Although all the correlation coefficients except for one (Depression and School-based
involvement r =.O4) were significant, most of the coefficients were small in magnitude.
Yet there were two noteworthy observations. First, maternal role construction, perceived
invitation from the child, and maternal social network variables tended to have slightly
higher correlations with the three outcome variables (i.e., home-based, school-based, and
school governance/ advocacy involvement) than the other predictor variables. Second, the
correlations between maternal depression, mother’s own school experience, mother’s

experience with the child’s school and the outcome variables were all very small (<20).

84

Multiple Regression Analysis

Multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine which of the predictor
variables were related to maternal educational involvement. All the nine proposed
predictor variables were regressed upon each outcome variable, and the results are
presented in Table 10. Four variables were significant predictors of home-based
involvement when the other predictors were controlled: maternal role construction,
invitation from the child, the mother-child relationship, and the educational involvement
level of the mother’s social network. Three variables were associated with school-based
involvement: maternal role construction, invitation from the child, and mother’s social
network. Similarly, there were three significant predictors of school
govemance/advocacy — maternal role construction, maternal efficacy, and maternal social
network. Table 10 showed that perceived invitation from the school, maternal own
school experiences, maternal experiences with the child’s school, and maternal
depression level were unrelated to all of the three outcome variables at the 99%
confidence level. This regression analysis served as a preliminary analysis, and these

four variables were excluded from the path analysis.

85

Table 10 Significant regression coefficients upon each outcome variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Home-based School-based School
involvement involvement governance/advocac
(Standardized Beta) (Standardized Beta) y involvement
(Standardized Beta)
Role construction .155*** .151*** .153***
Efficacy .116***
Invitation from
school
Invitation from child . 165*“ .100”
Maternal own
school experiences
Maternal experience
w/ the child’s school
Mother-child . 1 56*“
relationship
Maternal social .126*** 234*" .199***
network
Mother’s depression
level

 

 

 

 

Coefficient is significant at the .01 level"
Coefficient is significant at the .001 level***

 

Path Analysis

Having examined the results of the preliminary regression analyses, the results
of the path analysis are examined next. The path analysis was done in a series of steps.
First, all the demographic variables were entered as exogenous variables and the
predictor variables as endogenous variables. Second, the outcome variables were
entered one at a time as endogenous variables, while all demographic and predictor
variables were entered as exogenous variables. Only respondents who had valid scores
for all of the variables in the analysis were included in the path analysis. The number of
cases included in the analysis was 1,047.

The demographic variable, number of children, was dropped from the path analysis
based on preliminary bivariate analyses showing that the correlations between number of
children and all three outcomes were less than .10. Predictor variables that were
unrelated to all three outcomes in the preliminary regression analysis also were excluded
from the analysis in order to trim the model. The variables excluded for this reason
were: perceived invitations from the school, mother’s own school experience, mother’s
experience with the child’s school and mother’s depression level (CESD).

The results of the path analysis are presented in Figure 2.

87

A 80.8... “Si... .28. v 32.8.8 52. 00323.5. .5: 8:23 £2. 0.. :38

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

89,30: 3.
2808 .8882 .
coo—N. a n aha—u—VQM— asim— so .u ow<
8080238 3.2.
5000808808056 Begum a
H a 3. 98888208
. u 0 = n
2 a 220.08.: .
08
a 08008 288m
8. u 0.353 m
808280 .805 88.2 .
808888 200200892 8 088...
808.3885
.23.? . 2.3:. H .56.
me. u 0.8.... ~—
80802o>8 0003-888 .. . .1-
H «Esm— % «m8
3. n 0.. an m 00050 .05. 888088
no 0800 80802 rim".
000nm. .33. . c .m. e—.flo.~a_—UH—
8080238 00.82.0803 a u _ 0306 28.32
4 1 GOWOEWGOO
arena.
3. n 0.8.50. ~— 30“: 020% .80532

 

 

cl

$

81A. 43.7.0 €358.85 S. n 22.3 a

88

Table 11 Significant path coefficients between background and mediator variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Role Efficacy Invitation Motehr-Chil Maternal
Construction form the child (1 social
relationship network
Marital status
Education level .25*** .09* . 15 **
Employment -.09** -.O9** -.O9*
status
Family income .13*** .O8* .09* .15***
Mother’s age .12*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coefficient is significant at the .05 level*(two-tailed);
at the .01 level" (two-tailed);
at the .001 level*** (two-tailed)

89

Table 12 Significant path coefficients between background and outcome variables

 

 

 

 

Home-based School-based School
involvement involvement governance/advocacy
involvement
Marital status .08***
Education level
Employment status -.08** -.19***

 

Family income

 

 

Mother’s age

 

 

 

 

 

Coeflicient is significant at the .05 1evel*(two-tailed);
at the .01 level" (two-tailed);
at the .001 level*** (two-tailed)

9O

Table 13 Significant path coefficients between mediator and outcome variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Home-based School-based School
involvement involvement governance/advocacy
involvement
Role construction .13*** .18*** .18**
Efficacy .12**
Invitation from child .16*** .10**
Mother-child . 16* * *
relationship
Maternal social . 13’“M .24*** .21 ***
network

 

 

 

 

Coefficient is significant at the .05 level*(two-tailed);
at the .01 level" (two-tailed);
at the .001 level*** (two-tailed)

91

 

In the current study, five background variables (i.e., marital status, educational level,
employment status, family income, and mother’s age) and five mediators (i.e., role
construction, efficacy, perceived invitation from child, mother-child relationship, and
maternal social network involvement) were proposed to explain the variance in
involvement activities. The significant path coefficients are summarized in Table 11,
Table 12 and Table 13.

With respect to home-based involvement, the total variance explained by the path
model (R square) was .19 with an F value for the overall model of 23.52 (p<.001).
Marital status, employment status, maternal role construction, perceived invitation from
child, mother-child relationship and maternal social networks significantly predicted
home-based involvement. Mothers who were more involved in their children’s
education at home tend to be a in a married relationship, not working full-time job,
perceive enhancing children’s education as one of their maternal responsibilities, perceive
a positive mother-child relationship, and have greater network involvement in school and
learning activities.

For school-based involvement variable, the total variance explained by the path
model (R square) was .19 with an F value for the model of 24.01 (p<.001).

Employment status, maternal role construction, perceived invitation from child, and

92

social networks significantly predicted school-based involvement. To be more specific,
mothers who were not working full-time, who believed that their children wanted them to
be involved in the school, who perceived a positive relationship with their child, and
those who thought that their network members were involved in their children’s
education were more involved in school-based activities.

In regard to school governance/advocacy involvement, the total variance explained
by the path model (R square) was .15 with an F value of 17.67 (p<.001). Maternal role
construction, efficacy and social network significantly predicted school governance/
advocacy involvement. In other words, mothers who were more involved in school
governance/advocacy tended to believe that they should be responsible for enhancing
children’s education. These mothers also had greater perceived efficacy in helping
children succeed in school. In addition, they perceived greater school involvement from
their social network members.

Furthermore, the results of path analysis also showed predictive effects of
demographic variables on some other variables. Maternal employment status has a
direct effect on school and home-based involvement, and marital status had a direct effect
on home-based involvement. The involvement of mother's social network members and

mother’s perceived invitations from their child were predicted by the same three

93

demographic variables: mother’s education level, family income, and maternal

employment status. Moreover, mother’s education and family income also predicted

mother’s sense of efficacy; and family income and mother’s age predicted mother-child

relationship.

In the next chapter, a summary and interpretation of the results will be presented.

In addition, the implications and limitations of this study will be discussed. Moreover,

directions for future research are noted.

94

Chapter 5

Discussion and Conclusions

This chapter is divided into three parts. The first part presents a summary of the
findings and a discussion of the findings. The second part presents the limitation of this
study. The last part presents the implications of the findings and directions for future

research.

Summary of the Findings and Discussions
In this first section, findings pertaining to the research questions are summarized and
discussed. In addition, discussion of path analysis results, the picture of Taiwanese
mothers’ educational involvement and the cultural interpretation of these results are
included at the end of this section.

Research Question 1:

How involved are Taiwanese mothers in their children’s education? How involved
are they in the following categories: home-based, school-based, and school
governance/advocacy?

In general, Taiwanese mothers showed different degrees of educational involvement

in the three areas: home-based involvement was high, involvement in school

95

govemance/advocacy was modest, and school-based involvement was slightly lower.
This outcome is consistent with studies suggesting the multidimensional nature of parent
involvement (Epstein & Salinas, 1993; Epstein, 1995; Epstein, Sanders, Simon, Salinas,
Jansom, & Van Voorhis, 2002; Grolnik & Slowiaczek, 1994). However, after looking
closely at the involvement patterns, it was found that Taiwanese mothers were more
engaged in “monitoring” types of home-based activities rather than
“cognitive-enrichment” types of activities (Table 4). Mothers made sure that they
signed the daily home-school journal, kept the bedtime and morning breakfast routine,
and checked homework; however, they were less likely to read to their child, listen to
their child read, or take their child to extracurricular activities or the bookstore/library.
With respect to school-based and school governance/advocacy involvement, the
result was somewhat surprising, with the governance/advocacy involvement slightly
greater than school-based involvement. There were numerous studies suggesting that
school govemance/advocacy involvement was the most rare type of parent involvement
among American families (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Epstein, 1995, 1997; Epstein,
et al., 2002; Mole, 1993). Do Taiwanese mothers differ from American parents?
Examining the findings more carefully, one pattern was noteworthy -- Taiwanese mothers

actually were more engaged in the “passive” kind of governance. They engaged in

96

activities such as discussing issues with teachers, keeping themselves aware of the trends

in educational reform and reading board meeting minutes. However, they did not exert

their influences on school policies or the educational system by meeting people who have

more authority such as the principal or school advisory board members. In other words,

Taiwanese mothers seemed to define their school governance/advocacy involvement

more as carefully monitoring the situation rather than intervening.

Along with this line of thinking, it is not surprising that mothers kept themselves

aware of classroom activities — they would visit their child’s classroom or talk to the

teacher at school. However, the more active involvement behaviors, such as helping

with class events or going on a class trip, were rare among Taiwanese mothers. Nearly

two-third of the mothers had never participated in those activities.

Research Question 2:

What are Taiwanese mother’s beliefs regarding parent involvement? Is there a
relationship between maternal involvement beliefs and level of involvement?

This study investigated Taiwanese mothers’ role construction beliefs and their

perceived efficacy in helping children succeed in school. The result showed that

Taiwanese mothers viewed things directly relating to their child to be more of their

responsibilities compared to circumstances that the child was embedded in that may not

97

have a direct effect on their child. To be more specific, Taiwanese mothers emphasized

communicating with the child, the child’s teacher and helping with homework; they

assumed less responsibility for supporting the teacher’s decisions or communicating with

other parents from their child’s school. In addition, their behavior suggested that they

did not seem to care too much about volunteering at school or sitting on the advisory

board. It seemed that mothers were more interested in helping their children to fit into

the current educational system rather than trying to alter the system to fit their child’s

unique needs.

This phenomenon has much to do with Chinese culture. Unlike Western culture,

which emphasizes individual differences, Chinese culture is group-oriented. Because

the educational system and scholars are highly valued in the society, they are empowered

with the authority for “educating the children for the good”. The society also places a

high value on individual’s educational achievement, and it is believed that an individual’s

success in learning is through efforts rather than fixed intelligence (Li, 2003, Tweed &

Lehman, 2002). Therefore, one of the parents’ responsibilities is to encourage their

children to work harder in order to achieve the standards set up by “educational

authorities” rather than arguing with the authorities to change their expectations for their

children. At the same time, underlying the role beliefs is the parent’s actions of shaping

98

their children to fit into the group. Consistent with this cultural understanding, the
current study showed that Taiwanese mothers believed that their role as a mother was
“facilitating” help for their children rather than “challenging” the authorities for their
children.

As to mothers’ efficacy in helping children succeed in school, mothers were found to
be more confident about interacting with their children, such as helping the child get
through difficult materials, helping the child learn, or understanding the child. However,
when it came to the things related to the school, mothers were less confident about
themselves. The mean score dropped on items such as “helping child do well in school”,
and “helping child to get a good grade in school”. In addition, mothers seemed to
believe that their child’s teacher exerted more influence on their child’s school success
than the mothers themselves.

Most interestingly, over 80% of the mothers believed that their children’s peer group
had the most profound influence on their children’s motivation to do well in school.

This phenomenon actually has a lot to do with Chinese culture.

There is a very famous Chinese folklore about Mencius (Confucius’s first and most

famous disciple). When Mencius was very young, he and his widowed mother lived

next to a butcher shop, and young Mencius developed an interest in butchery. His

99

mother was very concerned and decided to move. Their second residence was near a
market; young Mencius then imitated the bargaining behaviors he saw in the market.
Mencius’s mother was afraid that her son would learn to become a businessman, which
was not a decent job, so she decided to move again. Their third residence was near a
school. Young Mencius listened to the children reading aloud everyday and became
interested in studying. Mencius’s mother was very pleased and supported his interests,
so Mencius finally got to study with Confucius and became a great scholar. This story
is so famous that it is even included in Taiwan’s elementary textbooks. Every Chinese
reads about the story, and the implications underlying the story is well recognized in
Chinese culture. Chinese people believe that the environment and one’s friends have a
tremendous influence on the individual. Moreover, mothers play an important role in
shaping the child by steering the child toward certain environments.

The current study is consistent with these cultural beliefs. No matter the level of
Taiwanese mothers’ efficacy in helping children succeed in school, they weighed the
influences of teachers and the peer group to be paramount. Hoover-Dempsey (2004)
claimed that the more a mother is efficacious, the more she would believe in her ability to
influence her children. Taiwanese mothers’ perceptions seemed to be inconsistent with

this conclusion.

100

Maternal role construction and efficacy were found to have moderate relationships
to all three types of educational involvement, which was consistent with a large body of
prior research (Clark, 1983; Lareau, 1987, 1989; Ritter, Mont-Reynaud, & Dombusch,

1993; Hoover-Dempsey, 1997, 2004).

Reseaflr Question 3:

What are Taiwanese mothers’ perceptions about the educational climate for
involvement? To what degree do they perceive invitations from the school and their
children to be involved? Is there a relationship between the mothers’ perceived
invitation from the school/child and their level of involvement?

Taiwanese mothers perceived a positive atmosphere for them to get involved in their
child’s education. They reported perceiving encouragement from the teacher and the
school to help with the child’s homework, test preparation, attending parent-learning
programs, and assisting in school activities. Overall, the Taiwanese mothers perceived a
welcoming atmosphere from the school regarding general school activities or
academic-related activities. However, mothers reported being uncomfortable meeting
with school authorities to express their concerns.

In general, Taiwanese mothers perceived greater invitations to be involved from
their child than from the school. Ninety-eight percent of the mothers reported that their

child would seek their help when confronting homework difficulties. Because the

101

current study used the sample targeting only second graders’ mothers, there were no
comparison groups to understand the differences between various age groups. However,
this result is somewhat consistent with previous studies suggesting that parents of
younger children are more involved than those of older children (Dauber & Epstein, 1993;
Eccles & Harold, 1993). In addition, not only do younger children express more interest
than older children in parental involvement, but also parents of younger children express
more confidence in helping younger children with academic work (Dauber & Epstein,
1993)

Overall, Taiwanese mothers thought that their child and child’s teacher encouraged
their help for homework-related activities, and they actually believed it was an important
responsibility of being a mother. However, just like they did not extend their
involvement from “monitoring” to “intervening”, they perceived invitations to monitor or
help their child but did not perceive encouragement to be more “actively” involved in
school events or other bigger issues.

The bivariate correlation analysis showed that invitations from the school and the
child were both related to all three types of parent involvement. However, the
regression analysis suggested that maternal perceived invitation from the child better

predicted mothers’ involvement than the perceived invitation from the school. Maternal

102

perceived invitation from the school did not predict any of the three types of involvement
in the regression analysis. This result is different from a large body of prior research
suggesting that the invitations and demands from the school influence parents’ decisions
about getting involved in their children’s education (Comer & Haynes, 1991, Connors &
Epstein, 1995, Epstein, 1986, 1993, 1997, 2002, Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997).
There are two possible explanations for this unanticipated finding. First, the relatively
high mean score on the perceived invitations from the school measure might have
attenuated its influences on the outcome variables (i.e., a restricted range problem).
Second, the relatively high correlation between perceived invitations from the school and
perceived invitations from the child (r=.42) might raise questions about the ability to
detect the unique contribution of these two variables.

The path analysis 1 (see figure 2) again indicated that perceived invitations from the
child significantly predicted mothers’ home-based and school-based involvement. This
finding suggested that the motivation behind mothers’ involvements in the three different
domains may be different. Further research is needed to differentiate the effects of these
two variables on mothers’ involvement.

Research Question 4:

What are Taiwanese mothers’ school experiences? Is there a relationship between
maternal school experiences and their educational involvement?

103

Taiwanese mothers had positive experiences with their own school as well as their
child’s school. Among the different aspects of school experiences examined, they were
most satisfied with teachers, including their own teachers as well as their child’s teacher.
Moreover, Taiwanese mothers’ experiences with the child’s school were even better than
their own given that their own experience had already been a positive one.

The result of the bivariate correlation analysis showed that, to some degree, having a
better school experience was related to greater involvement in their children’s education.
However, the preliminary regression analysis revealed that mother’s own school
experience and experience with the child’s school did not significantly predict parent
involvement of all three types at the 99% confidence level when other predictor variables

were controlled. Therefore, this variable was removed from the path analysis.

Research mrestion #5:
What are Taiwanese mothers’ relationships with their children? Is there a
relationship between the mother-child relationship and their educational involvement?

Taiwanese mothers responded that they had positive relationships with their
second-grade child. With a child at this age, most mothers held high expectations for
their child’s performance and over two-third of them were satisfied with their child’s

achievement.

104

The bivariate correlation analysis showed that the mother-child relationship had

moderate correlations with home-based and school governance/advocacy involvement

but a very small correlation with school-based involvement. Preliminary regression

analyses and path analysis further showed that the mother-child relationship only

significantly predicted home-based involvement.

This result is somehow consistent with Eccles and Harold’s (1993) research — they

found that the degree of parent’s fondness of their children was related to his/her

educational involvement. Moreover, the current research was unique in the way that it

was able to differentiate the effects of mother-child relationship on various types of

parental involvement. The current study showed that Taiwanese mothers’ relationship

with their child was a predictor of mother’s home-based involvement.

Research Question #6:

What is the level of educational involvement of the Taiwanese mothers’ social
network members? Is there a relationship between social network involvement and

maternal educational involvement?

Overall, Taiwanese mothers seemed to perceive that their social network members

get involved in their children’s education to some degree. They responded that their

friends were highly involved in homework helping sorts of activities; however, they did

not feel that their network members participated regularly in helping with school events.

105

Interestingly, although the mean participation rate of social network members was
not high, social network involvement significantly predicted all three types of parent
involvement. Bivariate correlations revealed moderate relationships between social
network involvement and all three types of maternal educational involvement.
Preliminary regression analyses and path analysis further confirmed social network
involvement to be a significant predictor to all three types of involvement.

This result is consistent with prior research findings that social network members’
educational involvement affect parents’ involvement in their children’s education
(Coleman, 1990; Griffith, 1998; Portes, 1998; Sheldon, 2002).

Research Question #7:

What is the level of Taiwanese mothers’ depression level? Is there a relationship
between maternal perceived depression level and their educational involvement?

Overall, Taiwanese mothers had low levels of depressive symptoms. The bivariate
analysis revealed that mother’s depression level was related to maternal educational
involvement, although the relationship between them was not strong. However, the
regression analysis showed that mother’s depression level did not predict any of the three
types of involvement when other variables were controlled. As a result, mother’s

depression level was dropped from the path analysis.

106

However, the high non-response rate in this scale led to the suspicion that Taiwanese
mothers did not like to reveal their depressive feelings. Recall the decision that a
subject would be included in the analysis if she completed more than half of the items in
a certain scale. The low mean on this scale was possible due to the fact that mothers did
not respond when they felt that their answer might not be consistent with social
expectations, and therefore attenuated the effect of mother’s depression level on their
involvement. Future research could address how to help respondents deal with the
pressure to give answers consistent with social expectations and how best to measure

depressive symptoms with this population.

Research Question #8:
What factors are related to the three types of maternal involvement: home-based,
school-based and school govemance/advocacy?

As presented in the path analysis section in chapter four, maternal home-based ‘
involvement was predicted by marital status, employment status, maternal role
construction, perceived invitation from the child, mother-child relationship, and level of
involvement of the mother’s social network. Maternal school-based involvement was
predicted by employment status, maternal role construction, perceived invitation from

child, and social network involvement. Finally, maternal role construction, efficacy and

107

social network involvement significantly predicted school governance/advocacy
involvement.

Among all the predictor variables, maternal role construction and maternal social
network involvement were the only two variables that significantly predicted all three
types of involvement. This result is consistent with prior research. Parents are more
likely to become involved in their children’s education if they view such participation as
one of their responsibilities as a parent (Ames et al., 1995; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler,
1995; Sheldon, 2002). The results from the current study supported the idea that
parents’ social networks contributed to their involvement in their children’s education
(Sheldon, 2002). The finding also suggested that a sense of social pressure from other
parents might influence Taiwanese mothers to participate more in their child’s education.
Furthermore, having a network of other parents and adults with whom to discuss their
child’s education might reinforce mothers’ feeling that they should be involved in their
children’s education. Social networks, for some, might be associated with norms about

becoming involved, helping and governing the school.

The picture of Taiwanese mothers’ educational involvement

Taiwanese mothers did value the importance of education. They viewed parent

108

involvement as part of their responsibilities of being a mother. The nature of

multidimensional involvement was confirmed in this study — Taiwanese mothers behaved

differently in terms of home-based, school-based and school govemance/advocacy

involvement. Taiwanese mothers’ involvement was more as “monitoring” their child’s

activities to fit in the school system rather than “intervening” in the school system to fit

their child’s need. Therefore, Taiwanese mothers did more in-home supervision of their

children than advocating or participating in school activities. They were active in

“receiving” the decisions made by schools or authorities and then preparing their child to

be ready for the system.

Taiwanese mothers did not have relatively high efficacy regarding their ability to

help their children succeed at school. They believed that schoolteachers and their

child’s peer groups had more influence on their child’s motivation to do well in school

than they did. Although they believed that they could help their child with general tasks

or homework, they were not confident about influencing their children’s motivation,

which is even more important in children’s achievement.

Taiwanese mothers viewed their own school experience and their experiences with

their child’s school as positive. They were highly satisfied with their relationship with

their 2nd grade child. They perceived a welcoming atmosphere from the school and

109

from the child for their involvement; however, it was limited to helping the child rather
than “actively” participating in helping with school events or policymaking.

In terms of social network, many Taiwanese mothers got the impression that other
parents helped with their child’s homework-related activities; however, they did not
perceive great pressure to help with school-level activities.

Taiwanese mothers were highly involved in home-based educational activities.
Again, they focused more on “monitoring” the child’s daily life rather than doing
“cognitively enriched” activities with their child. However, they seemed to follow the
teacher’s and the school’s demands seriously. The majority of them signed the daily
home-school journal, supervised homework completion, and tried to keep routines to help
their child be ready for school. Taiwanese mothers did keep themselves aware of
developments in the school or education system; however, they did not seem to be
particularly interested in “altering” the system. Unlike their middle-class Western
counterparts who play an integral role with the school in educating their child and
actively intervening in school decisions when necessary (Lareau, 1989), Taiwanese
mothers seldom “physically or financially” participate in school events nor do they
intervene in the school decisions.

In summary, although there is no doubt that Taiwanese mothers value the importance

110

of education, they react in a “passive” way and view the school and the educational

system as the authorities in educating their child.

The cultural interpretation of Taiwanese mothers’ educatj_0_n_2_rl involvement

Education and scholars have long been respected in Chinese culture. There is an
invisible caste in the society with scholars on top, farmers second, workers third, and
businessmen last. To help children acquire a “noble” life, Chinese parents are willing to
sacrifice themselves to ensure the child’s academic success. In traditional Chinese
families, the child’s personal academic achievement affects the value and honor of the
whole family. Therefore, Chinese mothers make great efforts to help children succeed
in their academic field. Moreover, because Chinese people respect scholars and teachers,
teachers are given great respect and power to do what they think is the best for the
students. Parents believe that educators and the school system are most knowledgeable
in teaching their children.

With this cultural understanding in mind, it is not hard to explain Taiwanese
mothers’ parental involvement patterns. The present findings indicated that Taiwanese
mothers valued the importance of school and education; however, they did not exert

much effort to alter the school system. Taiwanese mothers participated most frequently

lll

in home-based involvement, and they did mostly “monitoring” types of activities. They
followed the demands of the school and teachers to prepare their children; however, they
relied on teachers and educational authorities to inspire their children “cognitively”.

This attitude might, in a way, explain the phenomenon of less maternal involvement in
the school-based activities and school govemance/advocacy.

This study responded to the suggestions from cross-cultural research emphasizing
the importance of interpreting parent involvement from the aspect of cultural norms.
Research showed that Euro-Americans feel more efficacious in their interactions at
school in comparison with their African American counterparts (Desimone, 1999; Kohl et
al., 2000). Other cross-cultural research also suggested that parents fi'om different
ethnic backgrounds might have different understandings of their role in their children’s
school context (Chao, 1996; Hill, 2001; Lareau, 1996; Muller & Kerbow, 1993). The
“western” norms that use the active level of parental school participation as an index of
parental involvement might not explain well Taiwanese mothers’ involvement.
Taiwanese mothers’ low school-based involvement should not be explained as a lack of
educational involvement. Instead, they focused more on getting their child ready for

academic demands by working on in-home activities.

112

Limitation of the study

The instruments used in this study are self-report instruments. There is an
advantage to use the self-report measures in this study. The investigator is interested in
mothers’ involvement decision-making processes. All of the predictor variables
discussed in this study are about how mothers think and how mothers feel in making
decisions about whether or not to get involved in their children’s education. This set of
variables is best examined through honest self-reports. However, while there is an
advantage to using self-report instruments in the study, there are problems related to the
use of them as well. For one, mothers may not be aware of certain aspects of their own
behaviors. Secondly, subjects may vary in their subjective interpretation of questions.
In addition, susceptibility to response sets, particularly to social desirability, is also a
problem. The limitations of using self-report instruments must be considered when
interpreting the data.

Using a single source of data is another limitation of the study. There might be
problems with shared method variance and its possible distortion of the results (Machida,
Taylor, & Kim, 2002). However, getting information from teachers would be extremely
difficult for an individual student’s project, and the second-grade children are too young

to report their mothers’ behaviors. Therefore, only the mother’s self-report was used in

113

the study.

In addition, no information is available on the children’s achievement. Therefore,
the extent to which parental involvement predicts achievement in the children in this
sample is not known.

Finally, in regard to the sample in this study, the results cannot be generalized to
mothers living in rural areas of Taiwan, nor Taiwanese mothers living outside of Taiwan.
However, it might apply to Taiwanese mothers living in urban areas in different
geographical locations, to some degree, due to the fact that they all grow up and live
under the same social-cultural environment. Generalization of the findings to
Taiwanese mothers’ educational involvement with children in a different age group (such

as preschools, middle school, or high schools) must be done with caution.

Recommendations for Applications of the Results and Future Research
In this study, maternal role construction and social network involvement were found
to be the two factors that were most predictive of parent involvement. In other words,
how mothers define their responsibilities as a parent and how they perceive other parents’
participation are most influential in their educational involvement. It implies that social

norms play critical roles in Taiwanese mothers’ involvement decisions. Therefore,

114

current school practices that facilitate parent involvement by encouraging interactions
between school/educators and parents need to be reconsidered. In Taiwan, schools most
commonly encourage teachers to communicate with families and provide individual
parents opportunities to help shape school policies. Neither practice treats parents as
social actors, and the latter strategy involves very few parents at a school. In this study,
61% of the mothers responded that they never communicated with school advisory board
members, and 36% of them never discussed concerns with other parents in their child’s
school. In a society with “passive” parents and highly respected (sometimes even
unchallenged) educators, it needs tremendous courage for any “singular” parent to stand
out, speak up or advocate policies. Therefore, to promote the climate for Taiwanese
mothers’ involvement, helping mothers build connections with other parents would be a
promising avenue for schools. Instead of focusing solely on educator-parent
relationships, future parent programs should be designed to encourage the establishment
of networks among parents.

Moreover, the findings showed maternal role construction to be a powerful predictor
on all three types of parent involvement. If a mother believes that she should be
involved in her child’s education, she would participate more in all kinds of children’s

education-related activities. In the tradition of Taiwan’s school practice, the school

115

initiates parent programs and parents are invited to participate voluntarily. However,
teachers and school staff ofien reported that the parent-learning programs could not
attract parents with whom the teachers really want to communicate (Wu, 2003). To
change this situation, a more effective parent education program should be launched to
reinforce parental educational involvement as part of the social norm. Future parent
education programs should be integral with governance policies to arouse the public
attention on parent involvement issue. In a society that defines parents as a
subordinating role to teachers in educating children, it takes efforts to “advocating” the
concept of being a “helpful and active” parent in the child’s education. Future parent
programs should be developed beyond the boundary of the school; that is, not only the
families and the school, but also the community and the society should all be taken into
consideration.

This study examined the involvement patterns and the contributing factors only from
the perspective of mothers. The other important viewpoint on parent involvement —— the
teachers’ perspective -- was left out. In this study, mothers generally perceived a
welcoming atmosphere from teachers and schools; however, this welcoming climate did
not predict any of the three types of parent involvement. It arouses the suspicion about

whether or not the teachers and school really invite parental “in-depth” participation.

116

What level of participation do schools and teachers expect from parents? Wu (2003)

reported that “passive” parent involvement programs, such as teacher-parent

communication regarding children’s development and performances and directly

informing parents about school policies or demands, are the most common in Taiwanese

schools. It was rare in Taiwan’s schools to employ more “active” parent involvement

programs such as encouraging volunteering, fund-raising, or helping shape school

policies or curriculum. Is it possible that there is an invisible line perceived by parents

and teachers to limit parent involvement in certain domains or to some level? Do

teachers view parent involvement as reinforcement for their teaching or a distraction to

their curriculum? Finding out the schools’ and teachers’ attitudes towards parent

involvement would be a valuable future research topic.

This study employed a quantitative approach to examine the factors related to

mothers’ involvement decision. It explored Taiwanese mothers’ involvement patterns

and some of the factors that predicted involvement. However, some subtle observations

revealed by this study could be further examined using a qualitative approach. How

would mothers define “educational involvement? How would mothers describe their

roles as a mother? How do social norms influence mothers’ role construction? How

do mothers react to the behaviors of their social network members? To what extent do

117

mothers perceive pressure from social network members to alter their behaviors? Future
qualitative research should aim to reveal this more subtle information regarding the
mothers’ thoughts.

Finally, due to the limited measures available in studying Taiwanese parent
involvement, the current study mainly adapted its instruments from the Western literature.
It would be useful in future research to put more efforts in developing more culturally

sensitive instruments.

118

APPENDIX I

Instruments

Maternal Involvement Beliefs Questionnaire (includingz subscales)
(l) Maternal role construction Subscale
Parents have many different beliefs about their level of responsibility in their children’s
education. Please respond to the following statements by indicating the degree to which
you believe you are responsible for the following.

l=disagree very strongly, 2=disagree, 3=disagree just a little, 4=agree just a little,

5=agree, 6=agree very strongly.

I believe it is my responsibility to

1. Volunteer at the school.

2. Communicate with my child’s teacher regularly
3. Help my child with homework

4. Support decisions made by the teacher

5. Stay on top of things at school

6. Talk with other parents from my child’s school
7. Talk with my child about the school day

8. Sit on the School Advisory Board.

119

(2) Maternal efficacy for helping children succeed in school
Please indicate how much do you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements.
l=disagree very strongly, 2=disagree, 3=disagree just a little, 4=agree just a little,
5=agree, 6=agree very strongly. Scores of the items marked with (r) will be

reversed.

How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements

9. My child is so complex. I never know if I’m getting through to him/her. (r)

10. I don’t know how to help my child do well in school.(r)

11. I don’t know how to help my child make good grades in school. (r)

12. I feel successful about my efforts to help my child learn.

13. Other children have more influence on my child’s motivation to do well in school
than I do. (r)

14. Most of a student’s success in school depends on the classroom teacher, so I have
only limited influence.(r)

15. If I try hard, I can get through to my child, even when he/she has difficulty
understanding something.

16. I make a significant difference in my child’s school performance.

120

Maternal gerceived Invitations for Lavolvementguestionnaire
(including 2 subscales)
(l) Maternal Perceived Invitations from the School
Please indicate how much do you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements.
l=disagree very strongly, 2=disagree, 3=disagree just a little, 4=agree just a little,
5=agree, 6=agree very strongly. Scores of the items marked with (r) will be

reversed.

How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements
17. I feel welcomed in my child’s school.
18. I feel that my child’s teacher welcomes my assistance in classroom or school-wide
activities
19. My child’s teacher does not like to be challenged about his/her teaching practice.(r)
20. I don’t feel comfortable meeting with the teacher when I have a concern about
his/her teaching practice.(r)
21. I don’t feel comfortable meeting with school authorities about my concerns
regarding school.(r)
22. My child’s teacher usually encourages me to help my child with homework or
upcoming tests.
23. I receive encouragement from the school to attend parent-learning programs
prepared by the school.

24. It’s is an honor in my child’s school to sit on the school advisory board.

121

(2) Maternal Perceived Invitations from their children
Please indicate how much do you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements.
l=disagree very strongly, 2=disagree, 3=disagree just a little, 4=agree just a little,
5=agree, 6=agree very strongly. Scores of the items marked with (r) will be

reversed.

How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements

25. My child wants me to participate in his/her school activities.

26. When there are difficulties regarding homework, my child wants me to help him/her.
27. My child usually asks me to check his/her homework.

28. My child am shares with me his/her school related matters (e. g. friends, teachers,

events). (r)

29. My child wants me to help out at the school.

122

Maternal School Experiences Questionnaire (including 2 subscales)

(1) Maternal Own Prior Experiences to School
People have different feelings about school. Please mark the number on each line below

that best describes your feeling about your own school experiences when you were a

student.

30. My school: disliked 1 2 3 4 5 6 liked

31. My teachers: were mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 were nice

32. My teachers: ignored me 1 2 3 4 5 6 cared about me

33. Ifelt like: an outsider l 2 3 4 5 6 Ibelonged

34. My overall school failure 1 2 3 4 5 6 success
experience:

(2) Maternal Prior Experience with Child’s School
Please recall the previous year of your encounter with your child’s teacher and school,

and mark the number on each line below that best describes your feelings.

35. My child’s school: disliked l 2 3 4 5 6 liked

36. My child’s teachers: were mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 were nice

37. My child’s teachers: ignored me 1 2 3 4 5 6 welcomed me

38. My experience with my child’s school: bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 good

39. My relationship with my child’ an outsider 1 2 3 4 5 6 a partner
teacher:

123

Mother-Child Relationship Questionnaire

Please think of your relationship with this second grade child. Please mark the number

 

on each line below that best describes your situation.

40. My child’s temperament is: difficult I 2 3 4 5 6 easy

41. My child’s school performance: disappoints me 1 2 3 4 5 6 satisfies me

42. My expectation toward my below above
child’s achievement is: average 1 2 3 4 5 6 average

43. My overall relationship with bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 good
my child is

124

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

Maternal Social Network Scale

How many parents do you know who you discuss your children’s education or
school matters with? (1) none, (2)1 or 2, (3) less than 5, (4) 5-10, (5) more than 10
How many parents in your child’s class/school do you discuss your children’s
education or school matters with? (1) none, (2)1 or 2, (3) less than 5, (4) 5-10, (5)
more than 10

What percentage of the parents in your child’s class attend school activities?

not aware of that, (2) less than 25%, (3) 25% to less than 50%, (4)50% to less
than 75%, (5) 75% or more

What percentage of your friends who are parents attend school activities? (1) none,
(2) less than 25%, (3) 25% to less than 50%, (4)50% to less than 75%, (5) 75%
or more

What percentage of your friends who are parents check their child’s homework or
do test preparation with their child? (1) none, (2) less than 25%, (3) 25% to less
than 50%, (4)50% to less than 75%, (5) 75% or more

What percentage of your friends who are parents is highly involved at school (e. g.
volunteer at school, serve on an advisory committee, plan parties or other social
activities at school)? (1) none, (2) less than 25%, (3) 25% to less than 50%,

(4)50% to less than 75%, (5) 75% or more

125

Maternal Depression Scale (Reduced items from CESD, by Radlotf, 1977)
Please indicate how often you have felt this way during the past week by checking the
appropriate space.

1=rarely or none of the time (less than 1 day)

2=some or a little of the time (1-2 days)

3=occasionally or moderate amount of the time (3-5 days)

4=most or all of the time (5-7 days)

50. I felt that I was just as good as other people.(r)
51. I felt depressed.

52. I felt hopeful about the future.(r)

53. I thought my life has been a failure.

54. I enjoy life.(r)

55. I felt that people disliked me.

56. I could not get “going”.

126

Maternal Involvement Questionnaire (including3 subscales)

(1) Home-Based Involvement Subscale

Please recall the previous year of your child’s schooling and respond to each question by

how often it describes you or your situation:

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

5=Everyday, 4=Several times per week, 3=1-2 times per week,

2=Less than 1 time per week, 1=Never

Check and sign the daily home-school communication journal.
Check to see that your child has done his/her homework.
Practice writing, math or other skills before a test.

Read to your child.

Listen to your child read.

Talk to your child about school.

Review and discuss the work your child brings home.

Help your child plan time for homework or other chores.
Supervise your child’s TV watching.

Limit the time your child plays video games.

Play with your child.

Keep a regular morning and bedtime schedule on weekdays.
Make sure your child has breakfast before attending school.
Make sure your child is on time for school.

Take your child to extracurricular activities.

Take your child to a library or bookstore.

Take your child to special places or events in the community (e.g. museums,

festivals, ...).

127

74. Tell your child how important school is.

75. Tell your child how important the academic achievement is.

(2) School-Based Involvement Subscale
Please recall the previous year of your child’s schooling and respond to each question by
how often it describes you or your situation:

5= Several times per week, 4=Several times per month,

3= Several times per semester, 2=1-2 times per semester, 1=Never

76. Visit your child’s classroom.

77. Talk with your child’s teacher at school.

78. Talk to your child’s teacher on the phone.

79. Go to parent-teacher or school meetings.

80. Help with a class or school events (such as helping on school Celebration Day, Sports
Union Day).

81. Go to special events at school.

82. Go on a class trip with your child.

128

(3) School Governance/Advocacy Involvement Subscale
Please recall the previous year of your child’s schooling and respond to each question by
how often it describes you or your situation:

5=Always, 4=Most of the time, 3=Sometimes, 2=Occasionally, 1=Never

83. When I have a concern regarding my child’s classroom curriculum, I speak personally
or write to my child’s teacher.

84. When I have a concern regarding my child’s school, I speak personally or write to the
principal or related school authority.

85. When I have a concern regarding my child’s school, I speak personally or write to the
members in school advisory board.

86. When I have a concern regarding my child’s school, I discuss it with other parents in
my child’s classroom or school.

87. I keep myself aware of the trends in educational reform.

88. When the time to change the principal comes, I pay attention to this matter.

89. When the school advisory board’s meeting reports are distributed to me, 1 read them
carefully.

90. I sit on the school advisory board. [1 Yes [1 No

129

Demographic Information

91. Please indicate your age?

 

92. What is the birth order of this second grade child? (1) First born (2) Second born
(3)Third born (4) Fourth born (5) Others

93. Ages of your other children (rather than this second grader)?

 

94. Please indicate your educational level:
___(1) primary school

____(2) high school

_(3) 2-year college graduate
_(4) university graduate

___(5) graduate school and above

* Number of years is not used as a measure of education level in Taiwan

95. Please indicate your current relationship status:
__(1) Married,

__(2) Separated, Divorced or Widowed,
_(3) Remarried,

____(4) Single,

(5) In a committed, live-in relationship.

130

If you are not currently married, please proceed to question number 98.
96. Please indicate your husband’s educational level if you are married:
_(1) primary school

____(2) high school

___(3) 2-year college graduate

_(4) university graduate

(5) graduate school and above

97. Please indicate how helpful your husband is when dealing with the following matters.
(1) Child’s behavior problems: Not helpful at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 very helpful
(2) Child’s learning problems: Not helpful at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 very helpful
(3) Taking children to the extra curricular activities:

Not helpful at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 very helpful
(3) Communication with child’s teachers:

Not helpfiil at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 very helpful

(4) Communication with school authority:

Not helpful at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 very helpful

98. Please indicate your employment status:

__(1) Homemaker,

_(2) Part —time employee (1-20 hours per week),
_(3) Part —time employee (21-39 hours per week),

_(4) Full-time employee (40 hours or more per week)

131

99. Does your work have different shifts other than regular business hours (8 am — 5 pm)?

_(1) Yes (indicate the shift: ) _(2) No

100. Please indicate your family mthy income:
_Under NT 20,000 dollars,
_NT 20,001 — 40,000 dollars,
_NT 40,001 - 60,000 dollars,
_NT 60,001 — 80,000 dollars,
____NT 80,001 — 100,000 dollars,
_NT 100,001 — 120,000 dollars,
___NT 120,001 — 140,000 dollars,
_Above NT 140, 001 dollars
*NT: New Taiwan Dollars;

*1 US dollar= 34 Taiwanese dollars

132

APPENDIX II

Consent letter

Dear Participating Mother:

I am a doctoral student at Michigan State University and currently work as a lecturer

in the Department of Early Childcare and Education, Fooyin University, Taiwan. I am

working on my dissertation under the supervision of Dr. Tom Luster from the Department

of Family and Child Ecology at Michigan State University. This research is designed to

study Taiwanese mothers’ educational involvement.

Attached are a self-sealed envelope and a questionnaire which you are being asked

to complete, if you choose to participate in this research project. The questionnaire asks

about your involvement in your children’s education, about your beliefs regarding

educational involvement, about your perceived invitations from the school and children,

and the educational involvement of your social network members. There are also

questions about you and your family.

To indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in the study, complete the

questionnaire, put it in the envelope and return the sealed envelope to the box located in

your child’s classroom. I will collect them later. There is no personal risk involved

133

with this research. The information you provide is confidential. As the investigator, I
will be the only person with access to your questionnaire. Your responses will not be
shared with the teacher. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law. If there are questions that you are not comfortable with answering them,
or if you do not wish to finish the questionnaire at any time, please feel free to do so.
There is no penalty for your withdraw or refusal.

I sincerely hope that you will take time to complete the questionnaire. It should
take no more than 30 minutes of your time. Thank you in advance for your time and
cooperation.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact the investigator—
Pi-Hun Yang, Ph.D. student at Michigan State University and Lecturer at Department of
Early Childcare and Education, Fooyin University by phone: (07) 7811151 ext. 364,
email: y_apgpihu@msu.edu, or regular mail: No. 151, J in-Sheh Rd., Da-Liao Shiang,
Kaohsiung 831, Taiwan. Or you could contact the investigator’s advisor-- Tom Luster,
Ph.D., Professor at Department of Family and Child Ecology, Michigan State University
by phone: (517) 432-3323, email: luster@msu.edu, or regular mail: 13 Human Ecology,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or

134

are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously,
if you wish -Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503,

e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Sincerely,

 

Pi-Hun Yang

Ph.D. candidate, Michigan State University

Lecturer, Fooyin University, Taiwan

135

References

Adams, G. R., Ryan, B. A., Ketsetzis, N., & Keating, L. (2000). Rule compliance
and peer sociability: A study of family process, school-focused parent-child

interactions, and children’s classroom behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 14,
237-250.

Ames, C., DeStefano, L., Watkins, T., & Sheldon, S. (1995). Teachers’

school-to-home communications and parent involvement: The role of parent
perceptions and beliefs (Report No. CF C28). Baltimore, MD: Center on Families,
Communities, Schools, and Children’s Learning.

Baker, D. P., & Stevenson, D. L. (1986). Mothers’ strategies for children’s school
achievement: Managing the transition to high school. Sociology of Education, 59,
156-166.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognition theory. American
Psychologist, 44, 1 175-1 184.

Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived
self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25, 729-735.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efiicacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H.
Freeman and Company.

Becker, H. J ., & Epstein, J. L. (1982). Parent involvement: A study of teacher
practices. Elementary School Journal, 83, 85-102.

136

Brody, G. H., Flor, D. L., & Gibson, N. M. (1999). Linking maternal efficacy
beliefs, developmental goals, parenting practices, and child competence in rural
single-parent African American families. Child Development, 70 (5), 1197-1208.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by
nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human
development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.

Chao, R. K. (1996). Chinese and European American mothers’ beliefs about the role
of parenting in children’s school success. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
27(4), 403-423.

Chavkin, N. F. (Ed.) (1993). Families and schools in pluralistic society. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.

Christenson, S. L. (1995). Families and schools: What is the role of the school
psychologist? School Psychology Quarterly, 10, 118-132.

Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating
essential connections for learning. New York: The Guilford Press.

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

Clark, R. (1993). Homework-focused parenting practices that positively affect
student achievement. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic
society (pp.85-106). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Cochran, M. (1990). Personal networks in the ecology of human development. In
M. Cochran, M. Lamer, D. Riley, L. Gunnarsson, & C. R. Henderson, Jr. (Eds),
Extending Families: The Social Network of Parent and Their Children (pp.3-3 3).
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Science (2”! ed).
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
137

Coleman, J. S. (1988). ’ Social capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94, 495-512.

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K. H. (2000). Parenting self-efficacy among mothers of
school-age children: Conceptualization, measurement, and correlates. Family
Relations, 49, 13-24.

Comer, J .P., & Haynes, N. M. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological
approach. Elementary School Journal, 91, 271-277.

Connell, J. P., Spencer, M. B., & Aber, J. L. (1994). Educational risk and resilience
in African-American youth: Context, self, action, and outcomes in school. Child
Development, 65, 493-506.

Connors, L. J ., & Epstein, J. L. (1995). Parent and school partnership. In M.
Bomstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting, vol. 4, Applied and Practical Parenting
(pp.437-458). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dauber, S. L. & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Parents’ attitudes and practices of
involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.),
Families and Schools in a pluralistic Society (pp.53-71). Albany, NY: State
University of New York.

Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: Do
race and income matter? The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 11-30.

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

Eccles, J .S. & Harold, RD. (1996). F arnily involvement in children’s and
adolescents’ schooling. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds), Family-school links: How
do they aflect educational outcomes? (pp. 3-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
and Associates.

138

Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents’ reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement.
Elementary School Journal, 86, 277-294.

Epstein, J. L. (1989). Family structures and student motivation: A developmental
perspective. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds), Research on motivation in education:
Vol. 3. Goals and cognitions (pp.259-295). New York: Academic Press.

Epstein, J. L. (1991). Eflects on student achievement of teachers’ practices of parent
involvement. In S.B. Silvem (Ed.), Advances in reading/language research:
Vol. 5. Literacy through family, community, and school interaction_(pp.261-276).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: caring for the children
we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712.

Epstein, J. L. & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of
parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools.
The Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 290-305.

Epstein, J. L., & Salinas, K. C. (1993). School and family partnerships: Surveys and
summaries. Baltimore: John Hopkins University, Center on Families, communities,
Schools and Children’s Learning.

Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G, Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansom, N. R., &
Van Voorhis, F. L. (2002). School, family, and community partnerships: Your
handbook for action (2“ ed. ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Fantuzzo, J., Davis, G Y., & Ginsburg, M. D. (1995). Effects of parent involvement
in isolation or in combination with peer tutoring on student self-concept and
mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 272-281.

F antuzzo, J ., Tighe, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family involvement questionnaire: A

multivariate assessment of family participation in early childhood education.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 367-376.

139

Fuller, M. L., & Olsen, G (1998). Home-school relationships: Working
successfully with parents and families. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Galloway, J ., & Sheridan, S. M. (1994). Implementing scientific practices through
case studies: Examples using home-school interventions and consultation. Journal
of School Psychology, 32, 385-413.

Gecas, V. (1979). The influence of social class on socialization. In W. R. Burr, R.
Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds), Contemporary theories anout the family (Vol. I,
pp. 365-404). New York: Free Press.

Gondoli, D. M., & Silverberg, S. B. (1997). Maternal emotional distress and
diminished responsiveness: the mediating role of parenting efficacy and parental
perspective taking. Developmental Psychology, 33(5), 861-868.

Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Parents’ ideas about parenting and development: A review of
issues and recent work. In M. E. Lamb, A. L. Brown, & B. Rogofl‘ (Eds),
Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 3, pp.193-242). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Griffith, J. (1998). The relation of school structure and social environment to parent
involvement in elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 99, 53-80.

Grohrick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C.O., & Apostleris, N. H. (1997). Predictors
of parent involvement in children’s schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology,
89(3), 538-548.

Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). The inner resources for school
achievement: Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 508-517.

Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s

schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child
Development, 65, 237-252.

140

Haddow, J. A. L. (2003). Everyday resilience in Japanese youth: Individual and
ecological protective factors and risk factors. Dissertation: Michigan State
University.

Harkness, S., & Super, C. M. (1996). Parents ’cultural belief systems: Their
origins, expressions, and consequences. New York: Guilford Press.

Hess, R. D. & Holloway, S.D.(1984). Family and school as educational institutions.
In R. D. Parke (Ed.), Review of child development research: Vol.7. The family
(pp.179-222). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hill, N. E. (2001). Parenting and academic socialization as they relate to school
readiness: The role of ethnity and family income. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93, 686-697.

Hill, N. E., & Craft, S. A. (2003). Parent-school involvement and school
performance: Mediated pathways among socioeconomically comparable Afiican

American and Euro-American Families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1),
74-83.

Hiner, N. R. (1989). Look into families: The new history of children and the farme
and its implications for educational research. In W. J. Weston (Ed.), Education and
the American family: A research synthesis (pp. 4-31). New York: New York
University Press.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. (2004). Parental role construction for involvement in the
child is day-to-day education. Retrived on Aug. 1, 2004 from
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabodv/familv-school/scale descn'ptiona/sd_role.html.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1987). Parent involvement:
Contributions of teacher eflicacy, school socioeconomic status, and other school
characteristics. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 417-435.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1992). Explorations in

parent-school relations. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 287-294.

141

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parent involvement in children’s
education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97 (2),
3 10-33 1 .

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V. & Sandler, HM. (1997). Why do parents become involved
in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3-42.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Walker, J .M.T., Jones, K.P., & Reed, RP. (2002). Teachers
Involving Parents (TIP): An in-service teacher education program for enhancing
parental involvement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 1-25.

1220, C. V., Weiss, L., Shanahan, T., & Rodriguez-Brown, L. (2000). Parental
self-efficacy and social support as predictors of parenting practices and children’s
socioemotional adjustment in Mexican immigrant families. Journal of Prevention
and Intervention in the Community, 20, 197-213.

1220, C. V., Weissberg, R. P., Kasprow, W. J ., & Frendrich, M. (1999). A
longitudinal assessment of teacher perceptions of parent involvement in children’s

education and school performance. American Journal of Community Psychology,
2 7, 8 1 7-839.

Keith, T. Z. (1991). Parent involvement and achievement in high school.
Advances in Reading/Language Research, 5, 125-141.

Kessler-Sklar, S. L., & Baker, A.J.L. (2000). School district parent involvement
policies and programs. Elementary School Journal, 101, 101-118.

Kohl, G O., Lengua, L. J ., McMahon, R. J ., & the Conduct Problems Prevention
Research Group. (2000). Parent involvement in school: Conceptualizing

multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk factors.
Journal of School Psychology, 38, 501-523.

Kohn, ML. (1963). Social class and parent-child relationships. American
Sociological Review, 68, 471-480.

142

Lamb-Parker, F., Piotrkowski, C. S., Baker, A. J. L., Kessler-Sklar, S., Clark, 3., &
Peay, L. (2001). Understanding barriers to parent involvement in Head Start: A
research-community partnership. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 35-51.

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The
importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73-85.

Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parent involvement in
elementary education. New York: F almer Press.

Lareau, A. (1996). Assessing parent involvement in schooling: A critical analysis.

In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds), Family school links: How do they aflect
educational outcomes (pp. 57-64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lareau, A., & Shumar, W. (1996). The problem of individualism in family-school
policies. Sociology of Education, 69, 24-39.

Lekskul, K. (2003). Factors related to the school performance of second grade
children born to low-income adolescent mothers. Dissertation: Michigan State
University.

Li, J. (2003). US. and Chinese cultural beliefs about learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95(2), 258-267.

Luster, T., Bates, L., Vandenbelt, M., & Casady, A. (2001). Family influences on the
early academic success of children born to low-income teenage mothers: A
qualitative study. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child
Development, Minneapolis, MN.

Luster, T., & Rhoades, K. (1989). The relation between child rearing beliefs and the
home environment in a sample of adolescent mothers. Family Relations, 40,
272-278.

Luster, T., Rhoades, K., & Haas, B. (1989). The relation between parental values
and parenting behavior: A test of the Kohn hypothesis. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 51, 139-147.

143

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social
development (pp. 1-102). New York: Wiley.

Machida, S., Taylor, A. R., & Kim, J. (2002). The role of maternal beliefs in
predicting home learning activities in head start families. Family Relations, 51(2),
176-184.

McBride, B. A., Rane, T. R., & Bae, J. H. (2001). Intervening with teachers to
encourage father/male involvement in early childhood programs. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 16, 77-93.

Moles, O. C. (1996). New national directions in research and policy. In A. Booth
& J. Dunn (Eds), F amily-school links: How do they aflect educational outcomes?
(pp. 247-254). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Morgan, S. L., & Sorensen, AB. (1999). Parental networks, social closure, and
mathematic learning: A test of Colenan’s social capital explanation of school effects
American Sociological Review, 64, 661-681.

Muller, C., & Kerbow, D. (1993). Parent involvement in home, school and
community. In B. Schneider & J. S. Coleman (Eds), Parent, their children, and
schools (pp.13-42). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Pelletier, J., & Brent, J. (2002). Parent participation in children’s school readiness:
The effects of parental self-efficacy, cultural diversity and teacher strategies.

International Journal of Early Childhood, 34 (I), 45-60.

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology.
Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1-24.

Reynolds, A. J. (1991). Early schooling of children at risk. American Educational
Research Journal, 28(2), 392-422.

144

Reynolds, A. J. (1994). Effects of a preschool plus follow-on intervention for children
at risk. Developmental Psychology, 30, 787-804.

Ritter, P.L., Mont-Reynaud, R. & Dombusch, S. M. (1993). Minority parents and
their youth: Concern, encouragement and support for school achievement. In N. F.
Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp.107-120). Albany,
NY: State University of New York.

Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Parents’ social networks and beliefs as predictors of parent
involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 1 02(4), 301-316.

Stevenson, D. & Baker, D. (1987). The family-school relations and the child’s school
performance. Child Development, 58, 1348-1357.

Stevenson, H. W., Chen, C., & Uttal, D. H. (1990). Beliefs and achievement: A
study of Black, White, and Hispanic children. Child Development, 61, 508-523.

Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S., Chen, C., Lummis, M., Stigler, J ., Fan, L., & Ge, F. (1990).
Mathematics achievement of children in China and United States. Child
Development, 61 , 1053-1066.

Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S. Y., & Stigler, J. W. (1986). Mathematics achievement of
Chinese, Japanese, and American children. Science, 231, 693-699.

Sui-Chu, E. H., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on
eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69, 126-141.

Teti, D. M., & Gelfand, D. M. (1991). Behavioral competence among mothers of
infants in the first year: The mediational role of maternal self-efficacy. Child
Development, 65 , 918-929.

Topping, K. (1985). Parental involvement in reading: Theoretical and empirical
background. In K. Topping & S. Wolfendale (Eds), Parental involvement in
reading (pp. 17-31). London: Croom Helm.

145

Thurston, L. P. (1989). Helping parents tutor their children: A success story.
Academic Therapy, 24, 579-587.

Tweed, R. G, & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context:
Confucian and Socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 5 7, 89-99.

Useem, E. L. (1991). Student selection into course sequences in mathematics: The
impact of parent involvement and school policies. Journal of Research on

adolescence, I , 231-250.

Vincent, C. (1996). Parents and teachers: Power and participation. Washington,
DC: Falmer Press.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and
application. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Watkins, T. (1997). Teacher communications, child achievement, and parent traits in
parent involvement models. The Journal of Education Research, 91 , 3-14.

Wu, P. J. (2003). A study of maternal involvement in education. Educational
Research & Information (Taiwan’s Journal), 11 (5), 85-112.

146

TE

u1111111911111111611117101ij