7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
Parents’, teachers’ and children’s perception of parental involvement in
relation with pupils’ learning achievement and wellbeing
Lien Ghysens, Ghent University, Belgium
Abstract
In this study, the association between parent, pupil and teacher perceptions, and their
relationship with child achievement and wellbeing were questioned. A survey was
administered to 117 fifth- and sixth grade teachers, 484 parents and their children. The results
indicated congruence between parent and child perceptions, but parent and teacher ratings
tend to diverge. This is especially true for dimensions concerning home involvement and
estimations for lower SES parents. For pupil achievement as well as wellbeing, parental
involvement seemed to be an influencing factor, however exerting only a little to moderate
effect. Parental involvement measures were the best predictors for children with low educated
parents and traditional families. Suggestions for future research are integrated.
1.
Introduction
In the field of study related to the effective schools movement, parental involvement has
been argued to be an essential component to improve global school quality and, in particular,
to increase student’s learning achievement (Comer & Haynes, 1991; Mortimore, Sammons,
Stoll, Lewis & Ecob, 1988; Schneider, 1993). Other research has added that parent’s interest
in and support of the child’s schooling acts as a protective factor for pupils at risk, resulting in
decreases in the levels of learning difficulties these children are faced (Berger, 1995). Parental
involvement would even exert a mediating influence between parents’ background and
student achievement (Stevenson & Baker, 1987). In addition to these positive effects of
parental involvement on the school results of children, favourable effects on the behaviour on
the part of the child have also been found (Domina, 2005; McNeal, 1999). Moreover, Barnard
(2004) points to the long-term effects in addition to the more direct effects: a significant
positive association has been proved between parental involvement in elementary school and
indicators of school success a decade later. Taking these empirical evidenced effects into
account, the goal of parent involvement in education cannot merely be to get parents
involved. Rather, it is a means to establish important connections between contexts important
for the child in order to facilitate children’s learning and development (Carter, 2002;
Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). Although parental involvement has been found to influence
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
positively children’s cognitive and social development, research remains unclear about which
specific types of involvement are effective.
Nevertheless parents’ involvement mediates between the family’s background and the
child’s achievement, studies have indicated considerable variation in the degree of
involvement, dependent on the socio-economic and ethnic profile of the parents (Boethel,
2003). However, a lack of involvement of lower SES parents in the school does not implicate
that they are not involved at all in the schooling of their children. The involvement model
expected by schools refer to upper-class parents’ behaviours, congruent with the culture of the
school (de Carvalho, 2001). Because of these culturally- and class-specific presuppositions
about parental involvement, lower SES parents who are not active within school can be
considered as not engaged in their children’s school life. For teachers, such a perception can
easily result in making the parent unjustly responsible for underachievement of pupils (HussKeeler, 1997; Tett, 2004). Consequently, teachers’ perceptions of parental involvement is an
important issue, especially in the relation with the achievement of children.
In many studies, only parent and/or teacher rating of parent involvement are taken into
account, which means an important methodological deficit in the research domain. Children
are not passive recipients of inputs of these actors, but can actively shape their parents’
involvement in their education (Edwards & Alldred, 2000; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994).
For this reason, some have argued that pupil ratings – whose development is the object of the
whole parental involvement process – are most appropriate. The argumentation is that the
child’s perception of the involvement is more influential on later child outcomes rather than
the actual activities (Keith, 1991). Moreover, parents and teachers cannot produce successful
pupils, they only can motivate and support (Epstein, 1995).
The main purpose of this study is twofold. First, we seek to gain insight into parent, child
and teacher perceptions of parental involvement in the child’s schooling. Examining the
association between the several perceptions and the achievement and wellbeing of the child is
the second goal of the present study. Thereby, special attention is paid to background
characteristics of parents and children. For this purpose, the following research questions are
formulated: (1) How strong is the interrelationship between parent ratings, teacher ratings and
pupil ratings of parental involvement?; (2) What is the effect of parent, teacher and pupil
ratings of parental involvement on the learning achievement/wellbeing of pupils?
1.1
The relation between parents’ socio-economic background and involvement
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model of child development (1979), which can be considered
as the fundamental framework of this study, states that child development takes place through
processes of progressively more complex interaction between an active child and the persons,
objects, and symbols in its immediate environment. To be effective, the interaction must more
occur on a fairly regular basis over extended periods of time. (Bronfenbrenner & Morris,
1998, p. 996). This model acknowledges that a child is affected by the settings in which
he/she spends time. Since a child spends the most time in the family, this is the most
important system for him/her. An other influencing setting is the educational programs and
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
environment the child participates. A child’s development is determined by what it
experiences in these settings with people and objects surrounding it, the so called primary
engines of human development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). The number and quality of
the connections between the contexts the child pertains to also have important implications
for its development. Because of this significance of children’s experiences in primary
educational systems, research has focused to the relation between the background of families
children live in and the level of parental involvement they experience.
A whole range of studies about the relation cultural capital – parental involvement belong
to the parental involvement research domain. An important structural background variable is
parents’ educational level, which has resulted in various conclusions. A variety of studies
dating to the late 1980s and early 1990s pointed to a positive correlation between parent
educational level and involvement (e.g. Astone & McLanahan, 1991; Dauber & Epstein,
1989; Stevenson & Baker, 1987). Differences in parental involvement can be due to the gap
between home and school culture, rather than to a lack of interest in low educated parents
(Lareau, 1989). Low-educated parents may have doubts about the child’s schooling, because
of the lack of educational skills, with an absent parent-teacher relation as a consequence.
More recently, the stereotype ‘the lesser educated, the lesser involved’ is somewhat
abandoned and the relation ‘educational level – parental involvement’ is considered as
differential. Not as much the degree, but rather the shape the involvement takes might be
influenced by parents’ educational level. For example, it has been indicated that parent
education is strongly related to the cognitive-intellectual dimension, but less strongly related
to parents’ affective behaviour at home (Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994). Contrary to these
findings, other researchers argued that this background variable causes no substantive
differences at all (e.g. Balli, Wedman & Demo, 1997; Sui-Chu & Willms, 1996).
In common with the conclusions as described above, the same tendencies are found with
regard to the ethnicity of parents. The results vary from ‘no effect of ethnicity on parental
involvement’ (e.g. Drummond & Stipek) over ‘a differential relation between both variables’
(e.g. Yan & Lin, 2005) to ‘ethnicity exerting a significant effect on involvement’ (e.g.
Griffith, 1998).
Social capital (Coleman, 1988) is an essential condition for the child to take advantage of
whatever cultural and economic capital the parent possesses. To have the informal and formal
contacts and connections at one’s disposal, determined by the number of parents in the
household, is an indicator of children’s social capital within the family. On the basis of this
conceptual definition of social capital, it can be argued that there is a relation between family
structure and the degree of parental involvement (Astone & McLanahan, 1991; Lee, 1993).
Children who live with a single mother or father, implying a structural deficit in the family’s
social capital, tend to receive lower educational aspirations, less overall supervision and daily
monitoring than children who live with both biological parents (Astone & McLanahan, 1991;
Grolnick, Benjet, Kurowski and Apostoleris, 1997; Lee, 1993). According to Grolnick et al.
(1997), traditional families are also higher represented in the participation or school board or
the parent committee than single-parent families. The average lower degree of parental
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
involvement in single parents can be explained by the time and economic burdens they face
(McLanahan, 1985).
In addition to the availability of parents in the family, the strength of the attachment
between parent and child indicates children’s social capital. This second indicator makes it
possible to place an interpretation to the negative correlation between a stepparent family
structure and parents’ involvement (Astone & McLanahan, 1991). In general, the stepparent’s
willingness and ability to provide the child with time and attention and the child’s receptivity
to step-parental overtures are lower than in biological-parent families. Traditional family
structures wherein both parents working outside the home also can experience a lack of
capital due to demanding working schedules (Balli, Wedman & Demo, 1997).
1.2
The relation between child characteristics and parental involvement
It has been argued that some characteristics of the child exert influence on the parents’
involvement. Research about the relationship between parental involvement and pupil
achievement yields quite diverse, even contradicting, results because of the absence of a
univocal definition. Broadly, it can be stated that parents are more likely to be involved when
their children earn good results (Dauber & Epstein, 1989). Specified to the various
dimensions of parental involvement, it has been indicated that parents of children with
learning or behavioural difficulties initiate more frequently communication with the teacher to
discuss the child’s difficulties; whereas their school and home participation are pointed out to
be low (Sui-Chu & Willms, 1996). In contrast, Shumow and Miller (1996) find parents of
struggling children to be more involved at home, which is particularly true for the degree of
homework support, but they confirm the higher level of participation within the school of
caregivers of well achieving children.
1.3
The effect of involvement on the child’s achievement and well-being
Various explanations have been offered for the observed relation between parents’
background and pupil achievement. Jensen’s (1972) statement that the school success of
children is genetically determined, has been challenged by different theorists. Bourdieu and
Passeron (1970) argue that the cultural capital of parents is an important determinant of the
child’s school career. Not all societal classes start with the same kind or level of cultural
capital. Children socialised into a dominant family culture will have an advantage over
children not educated in such a culture, because schools tend to reproduce a general set of
dominant cultural values and ideas. A lack of social capital in lower-class families, is the
argument Coleman (1987) proposes for the lower achievement of children living in these
families. In line with this social capital theory, a more recent approach considers low
achievement as a consequence of an insufficient level of the involvement of parents in their
children’s schooling.
To test this hypothesis, a lot of studies have examined the association between the
variables parent involvement and educational outcomes of children, resulting in divergent
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
conclusions. Numerous studies show a direct positive effect of an involved attitude on
students’ academic achievement (e.g. Bogenschneider, 1997; Fehrmann, Keith & Reimers,
1987; Flouri & Buchanan, 2002; Zellman & Waterman, 1998). Other researchers observe an
indirect (e.g. Brody, Stoneman & Flor, 1995) or a differential impact (Sui-Chu & Willms,
1996). A little or no effect at all of the involvement of parents on the academic achievement
of pupils, is found in only a few studies (e.g. Desimone, Finn-Stevenson & Henrich, 2000;
Domina, 2005). In their examination of the relation with learning achievement, a scarce
amount of authors distinguish between parent ratings and teacher ratings of involvement.
They indicated that teacher ratings are associated more strongly to the child’s academic
performance, in comparison with parent ratings (Barnard, 2004; Bakker, Denessen & BrusLaeven, 2007).
Some findings suggest that parental involvement does not improve children’s learning, but
certain involvement activities do prevent behavioural problems (e.g. Domina, 2005). The
effect of involvement on the well-being of children only have received limited attention.
Lareau (1989) warns for the dark side of parent involvement. When parents are too
intensively involved in their child’s education, they risk to create tensions and fear in
children. But, empirical evidence about the relation between these variables is scarce.
1.4
The need for multiple informants
Parental involvement is typified as a contextual process, formed by schools as well as
individual (f)actors (Kerbow & Bernhardt, 1993). Consequently, it is necessary to involve
several perspectives to describe parental involvement. The reporter of parental involvement is
an important issue to consider in parental involvement research, certainly with respect to the
interpretation of results (Barnard, 2004; Kohl, Lengua, McMahon, 2000). Exemplary is the
repeatedly found discrepancy between teacher’s perception of parental involvement and
parents’ report of involvement, in particular with regard to the dimension ‘home-based
involvement’. Moreover, teachers typically judge parents with a higher level of education and
two-parent families as being more involved in the education of their children than lowereducated and single parents. In contrast, parents with different levels of education do not
report different levels of involvement in the school careers of the children. This finding shows
that teachers apparently hold a rather stereotyped image of the involvement of parents in the
academic development of their child (Bakker, Denessen & Brus-Laeven, 2007; Epstein,
1996). It also confirms that teachers only have little knowledge about parent behaviours at
home, especially when the family culture differs significantly from school life (Bastiani,
2000).
To assess parent involvement, most of the studies take parent or teacher perceptions into
account. Only a few studies have been conducted concerning the degree of parental
involvement perceived by children. According to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system model
(1979) and Epstein’s theory of school, family and community partnerships (1995), and
empirically evidenced by Keith (1991), children’s perceptions of their parents’ involvement
are as important influences on their development as are parents’ actual behaviour. They locate
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
the pupil at the center of their model. The inarguable fact is that children are the main actors
in their education and development. School and family, and partnerships between both
systems cannot simply produce successful students. Rather, involvement activities may be
designed to engage, guide and motivate students to produce their own successes. The
assumption is that, if children feel cared for and encouraged to work hard in the role of pupil,
they are more likely to deliver efforts, which stimulates positively the development (Epstein,
1995). Paulson and Sputa (1996) indicated that pupil ratings of parental involvement are
lower than parents’ ratings.
Though, focussing exclusively on the child’s perspective is insufficient for assessing
parental involvement. Multiple informants have to be used since different raters may be more
or less qualified to evaluate certain aspects of involvement (Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994).
Furthermore, parents tend to report more accurately when they know that other informants
will also provide information about their involvement (Morsbach & Prinz, 2006).
2.
Method
2.1
Procedures
The research group included 117 primary school teachers in the fifth and sixth grade,
employed in schools spread over all regions in Flanders. The children in the classes of these
teachers were informed about the research in their classrooms. They received a letter to take
home containing further explanation about the project and asking for their parents’ permission
to participate. The proportion of returning positive answers differed strongly in the classes,
ranging from only 10% to more than 60%. In collaboration with the teacher, four parents were
selected out of the group reacting positive to the call for participation in each class, in order to
obtain maximal heterogeneity in the background profile of the respondents. Each parent was
surveyed orally by means of a structured interview to assess their involvement, taking place at
the parent’s home. Before interviewing the parent, the same survey was presented to the child,
separated from the parent. Teachers completed a written version of the survey to assess the
degree and nature of the involvement of parents in the child’s schooling.
2.2
Measures
2.2.1 Parent background
Socio-economic status (SES) refers to the position of an individual or group within a
hierarchical social structure (Reynders, Nicaise & Van Damme, 2005). In this study, SES was
measured by four separate variables: educational level and ethnicity, which are proxies for
social status (Lee & Bowen, 2006), family structure, a proxy for social capital (Coleman,
1988), and the number of hours the parent works per week. For the educational level, three
categories were created: ‘0 = at most lower secondary education’, ‘1 = higher secondary
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
education’, and ‘2 = higher education’. Home language was an indicator for the parent’s
ethnicity. The original variable consisting of seven categories was recoded into a dichotomous
variables: families with Dutch as home language were coded ‘0’ and families not speaking
Dutch at home were coded ‘1’. The variable family structure provided additional information
about the background of the respondents. Three categories were made: ‘0’ for traditional twoparent families, ‘1’ for recomposed families and ‘2’ for single-parent households. According
to the approach of Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (2007, p. 536), the variables
assessing SES were entered separately into a single block in regression analyses because
aggregating or simplifying SES measures could ignore the complexity and fluctuations that
may characterize the components of family SES.
2.2.2 Perceived child characteristics
Previous studies mostly used teacher indices to measure children’s school achievement as
a determinant of parental involvement. Given the fact that parents’ perceptions of
achievement allows a more direct test of the hypothesis that involvement is a reaction to the
perception that a child needs help (Drummond & Stipek, 2004), this study focused on the
child’s learning capacities as perceived by the parents. Therefore, the parent answered during
the interview the next question: “Do you find your child achieves well at school in
comparison with his/her classmates?” The answers of the respondents (0 = achieves much
lower results, 4 = achieves much higher results) were categorized in three codes: 0 = lower
achiever, 1 = medium achiever, 2 = higher achiever. The same code system was applied to the
questions mapping the parents’ perceptions of the behaviour and wellbeing of their child at
school.
2.2.3 Parental involvement
The parental involvement construct was the key factor in this study and therefore required
a secure development process. In an earlier study (…), a parental involvement questionnaire
design was developed. This study defines parental involvement as the extent and manner in
which the parent’s interest in the schooling of their child is expressed in cognitive, affective
and motivational support for the child provided by the parent. In order to gain an estimate of
the degree and nature of parent’s involvement in their children’s schooling, three
questionnaires were constructed: one to assess the level of parental involvement in the
education of their children reported by parents, one to assess children’s perceptions of the
level of parental involvement and the third to assess teachers’ perceptions. Although these
questionnaires were equal in content, the statements were formulated from the perspective of
the different respondent groups. The questionnaires consisted of 25 items, categorised in 6
dimensions: (1) performance orientation, (2) parent-teacher communication, (3) participation
in school, (4) cognitive stimulating home environment, (5) parent-child communication, (6)
structuring home climate. Parents, pupils and teachers had to indicate the frequency for each
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
of these items along a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘0 = strongly disagree’ to ‘4 =
strongly agree’.
2.2.4 Child outcomes
In order to assess the academic achievement of the participating children, teachers were
asked to circle the code that represent them in comparison with their classmates (0 = pertains
to the lowest achievers in class, 4 = pertains to the highest achievers in class). School
wellbeing was assessed using the school well-being scale of Elchardus (1999), which was
orally completed by the child (α = .65). This instrument is comprised of six items (e.g. “In
general, I like school”, “I want to change from school”, “In general, I am unhappy when I am
at school”) which had to be rated along a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = strongly
disagree to 4 = strongly agree.
2.3
Participants
Questionnaire data were collected from a sample of 457 parents of children enrolled in the
fifth or sixth grade in 117 classes. Their age ranged from 29 to 64 years (M = 41.1, SD = 4.8).
The sample included 86.2% females. The number of children per respondent ranged from 1 to
8, with an average of 2.6 (SD = 1.2). The educational level of the participants varied from
‘less than lower secondary education’ (12.1%) over ‘higher secondary education’ (28.5%) to
‘received a higher professional or academic diploma’ (59.4%). Of the sample, 50.3% reported
to be employed full time, 35.6% were employed part time and 14.1% didn’t work at the
moment of the study. In addition, 8.1% generally didn’t speak the Dutch language at home.
77.4% of the respondents declared to form a traditional two-parent family, 11.8% were single
parents and 10.7% lived in a recomposed family.
From the 457 participating pupils, 211 were boys and 246 were girls. Of the entire sample,
13.4% had a 1 or 2 years educational delay. According to the parent perceptions, 51.9% of the
children achieved better than their classmates at school; only 8.1% were reported to be lower
achievers in class. Moreover, only 4.4% and 3.3% of the pupils were perceived as
respectively feeling and behaving (very) bad at school by their parents.
The sample of 117 fifth and sixth grade primary school teachers consisted of 33 men and
84 women. The age ranged from 22 to 58 years, with an average of 38.5 years (SD = 9.7). The
average teaching experience in the sample was 16.0 years (SD = 10.4), with a mean of 13.0
years in the current school (SD = 9.0). Most of the teachers were employed in subsidised
privately run schools (68.4%), 18.8% in subsidised publicly run schools and 12.0% in
community education.
3.
Results
3.1
Parent, pupil and teacher reports of parental involvement
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for parental involvement from the parent’s,
pupil’s and teacher’s perspective. The reliability coefficients are also reported. The
‘structuring home climate’ subscale from the child’s perspective excluded (α = .45), all scales
were sufficiently high internal consistent with reliability coefficients approaching the value of
.60 or higher (Nunnally, 1967). For most of the items, the mean scores of the different
reporters were higher than the scale midpoint of 2. So, the level of parent involvement was
generally perceived as moderate or high. The highest scores were found for the dimensions
‘performance orientation’ and ‘parent-child communication’. In contrast with teacher
perceptions, parents and pupils tended to give lower ratings of the factor ‘parent-teacher
communication’. In general, children judged the level of involvement lower than their
parents. With regard to the comparison between parent and teacher ratings, it is more difficult
to derive a univocal pattern.
In table 2, the intercorrelations between the six dimensions of parental involvement,
calculated for parents, pupils and teachers, are presented. As can be seen, these interrelations
were much higher for the teachers than for the parents. Generally, the pupil data tend to show
the lowest interrelations between the different aspects of parent involvement.
3.2
Congruence between parent, pupil and teacher reports of parent involvement
Following the approach of Schwarz, Barton-Henry and Pruzinsky (1985), estimates of the
pairwise agreement between the multiple informants for each of the six subscales were
computed. In order to compare parent and pupil/teacher ratings of parent involvement, several
paired samples correlations have been performed. This analysis method has been preferred to
the application of a paired samples t-test. The reason therefore is the use of attitude scales in
this study. Response choices on such scales may be biased to the extent that actors with
higher expectations about appropriate levels of involvement may rate parental involvement
lower than actors whose expectations are not as high for the same level of involvement,
because of the lack of absolute frequencies in the rating scale. On the contrary, paired samples
correlations tell something about the connection between the reports of two actors. The
absolute value of the scale points, which are susceptible to interpretation, are less important in
this case.
For all items of the parent involvement scale, correlations between parent and pupil
ratings at the .01 level have been found. This means that children of parents who judge
themselves as involved in a high degree also report a higher degree of involvement of their
parents in their schooling. However, for some aspects of involvement these correlation values
are negligible (r < .30). This concerns particularly for the items pertaining to the dimension
‘communication with the teacher’, which have correlation values of .29, .23 and .22. Low
correlations have also been found for the four items of the parent-child communication
dimension, with values of .13, .22, .24 and .17.
The comparison of correlations between parent and teacher ratings of involvement in the
child’s education delivers a more various picture. Several correlations are non-significant at
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
the .01 level. This finding is mostly valid for the dimensions ‘parent-child communication’,
‘structuring home climate’, and most of the items pertaining to the ‘performance orientation’
factor. For the items of the ‘cognitive stimulating home environment’ dimension, low
correlations were also found ranging from .07 to .32. That the items ‘being member of the
parent committee or an other board at school’ and ‘being volunteer on activities organised by
school’ (.65 and .58 respectively) show the highest correlation values between parent and
teacher ratings is not surprising, because these types of involvement are most visible for
teachers. In this sense, it is remarkable that the correlation test between parent and teacher
reports of the aspect ‘parent – teacher communication’ produces such low – but significant –
values. The in general non-significant or low correlations show the parent and teacher ratings
to diverge for the most aspects of parent involvement.
3.3
Group differences in parental involvement
Table 4 shows the mean parent, pupil and teacher ratings for the different aspects of
parental involvement, according to predicting parent and child characteristics, i.c. parent
educational level, home language, family structure, and the child’s perceived achievement,
wellbeing and behaviour. For the predictor ‘educational level’, the analysis of variance
produces F-values all significant at the .01 level. Parents, pupils and teachers judge the
involvement of lower educated parents lower than the involvement of high educated parents.
But, the F-values produced by teacher data are larger than these resulting from analyses
on parent and pupil reports. This finding shows that teachers rate lower educated parents as
less involved than these parents judge themselves. Moreover, variance analyses on the
difference scores between parent and teacher reports showed a significant difference,
especially for the performance orientation factor (F = 3.250, p = .040). The comparison of the
difference scores between parents and their children along the educational level variable
indicated a significant lower score given by children from high educated parents for parental
involvement in general – measured as an aggregate score of all the items (F = 4.235, p =
.015).
According to parent and pupil ratings, home language only play a little role in the degree
parents are engaged in their child’s education. Only for the dimension ‘participation in
school’, non-native speakers reported a lower degree of involvement (F = 3.968, p = .047).
Children speaking an other language at home experience a somewhat lower performance
orientation atmosphere at home (F = 3.944, p = .048), but perceive an equal degree of
involvement for the other dimensions. On the contrary, teachers report a lower degree of
involvement of non-native parents for almost all aspects concerning involvement at home:
performance orientation (F = 10.769, p = .001), parent-child communication (F = 11.452, p =
.001), structuring home climate (F = 4.813, p = .041).
Being involved within the child’s school seems less evident for parents in recomposed
families, as can be derived from parents’ (F = 3.432, p = .033) and pupils’ (F = 6.228, p =
.002) reports. In these families, children also experience a less structuring home climate (F =
6.228, p = .002). On the contrary, teachers are convinced that these parents as well as single
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
parents are less involved in all spheres: performance orientation (F = 6.834, p = .001), parentteacher communication (F = 3.249, p = .040), participation in school (F = 4.790, p = .009),
cognitive stimulating home environment (F = 5.286, p = .005), parent-child communication
(F = 4.500, p = .012), structuring home climate (F = 7.061, p = .001). The total score of
parental involvement differs also significantly between the various family structures (F =
9.362, p = .000). Generally, parents of traditional families are thought to be most involved,
followed by single parents and parents living in a recomposed family.
Next to parental characteristics, child characteristics – assessed by parents – also exert
influence on the degree parents are educationally involved. In this case, the wellbeing of the
child at school seems to have the least influence on parental involvement. Only for the pupil
data a significant effect of the child’s wellbeing on the degree of communication between
parents and teachers was found (F = 4.028, p = .018). Children feeling bad at school reported
a higher degree of parent-teacher talk.
With respect to the child’s behaviour at school, parents of bad behaving children and the
pupils themselves declared to participate less within school (F = 3.869, p = .022; F = 3.778, p
= .024). A stronger structured home climate was also pointed out by these parents (F = 3.264,
p = .039). The other parent and pupil ratings of dimensions of involvement seem not to be
influenced by pupils’ behaviour at school. In contradiction to the limited influence of the
child’s behaviour on the degree of involvement indicated by parents and children, teachers
seem to base their rating of parental involvement strongly on how the child behaves at school.
Generally, parents of bad behaving pupils are perceived as less involved (F = 4.638, p =
.010), and more specifically, they are thought to create a less cognitive stimulating and
structuring home environment (F = 3.585, p = .029; F = 3.285, p = .039) and to participate in
a lower degree in school (F = 4.638, p = .010). The results of a comparison of the difference
scores of the parent and teacher ratings revealed a significant underestimation of parents of
bad behaving pupils by teachers concerning the dimension ‘structuring home climate’ (F =
6.883, p = .001).
Parents who perceive their child as a low achiever in class as well as these low achievers
report living in a less cognition stimulating home climate compared with high achievers (F =
8.783, p = .000; F = 3.495, p = .031). In general, teachers rate parents of low achievers to be
less involved than these of high achievers (F = 13.074, p = .000).
A final finding is noteworthy. Three groups were created based on parents’ ratings of the
degree they communicate with the teacher. A first group included all parents indicating they
communicate in a high degree with the child’s teacher. The second and third group consisted
of parents respectively communicating in a moderate and low degree with the teacher. An
independent samples t-test on the difference between parent and teacher ratings of parental
involvement between the most frequently and least frequently communicating group showed
a larger congruence between those actors when they regularly talk with each other. Significant
results were found for ‘cognition stimulating home climate’ (t = 2.864, p = .005), ‘parentchild communication’ (t = 4.184, p = .000) and the general assessment of involvement (t =
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
7.365, p = .000). The significance of the parent-teacher communication dimension was not
taken into consideration because this was the grouping variable.
3.4
Effect of parental involvement on the child’s achievement and wellbeing
Table 5 presents the results of multiple regression analyses executed to examine the
relations between demographic background variables, the various parental involvement types
and pupil achievement and wellbeing. These analyses were performed with parent, pupil and
teacher ratings of involvement on the child’s school performance as assessed by the teacher
and its wellbeing assessed by the pupil self. The standardized regression coefficients (β) and
bivariate correlation coefficients (r) between the predicting variables and achievement and
wellbeing are represented. Because bivariate correlation coefficients are not inflated by
multicollinearity, the interpretation of both regression and structure coefficients is
recommended for multiple regression analysis (Courville & Thompson, 2001).
Model 1, which includes only the family background variables, explains 14.3% of the
variance in child achievement and is significant (F (4, 379) = 15.790; p = .000). Parental
educational attainment is positively and significantly associated with and predicted a
significant .31 standard deviation increase in the child’s achievement. The dummy variable
‘family structure’ (0 = traditional family; 1 = non-traditional family) predicted a significant
.19 standard deviation decrease in pupil performance. This is valid for parent, pupil and
teacher ratings. Home language and the number of hours work per week don’t play a
significant role in predicting child achievement. None of the background variables is
significantly related to child wellbeing, neither is a significant predictor of this outcome
variable.
Model 2 includes the demographic variables along with the main effects of the six types
of parent involvement. With respect to child achievement, this model is significant for
parents, pupils and teachers with F (10, 373) -values of 7.160, 6.667 and 11.924 respectively.
With regard to the parent ratings of involvement, this model explains 16.1% of the
variance in academic performance. Notwithstanding the significance of the whole model; the
change in R² is not significant (p = .235). The components ‘parent-teacher communication’ (r
= .10), ‘participation in school’ (r = .18), ‘cognitive stimulating home environment’ (r = .19)
and ‘parent-child communication’ (r = .17) have a positive and significant association with
achievement. In the full model, only parent-child communication has a significant predictive
power of .12 of a standard deviation. However, after deleting systematically the nonsignificant predictors, parent-child communication as well as participation have a significant
β-value (.09 and .10). In this case, the proportion of explained variance is 12.5% for the
model including the significant background variables educational level and family structure,
with a significant change of R² (p = .01) if the significant parent-reported parental
involvement types were integrated (R² = 14.4%).
None of the parental involvement variables assessed by parents was significantly
correlated to the child’s wellbeing; neither the whole explaining model was significant (F (10,
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
373) = .886, p = .547). The search for significance resulted in a model with the parental
involvement variables ‘performance orientation’ (β = .16, p =.00) and ‘parent-child
communication’ (β = -.13, p = .02), which explain a limited but significant proportion of
variance (R² = 2.4%) in the child’s wellbeing (F (4, 447) = 2.694).
For the pupil data, model 2 explained 15.2% of the variance in achievement. The change
in R² was not significant (p = .695). Four involvement dimensions show a significant
correlation with performance: performance orientation (.09), participation in school (.15),
cognitive stimulating home environment (.12) and structuring home climate (.09). Initially,
none of the parental involvement types predicted significantly child performance. After
having applied the backward method, child-reported participation in school was significantly
associated with a standard deviation increase of .12 in pupil performance. The explained
variance of the final model (including (1) ‘educational level’ and ‘family structure’; (2)
‘participation in school’) is 14.0% with a significant R²-change from the first to the second
model (p = .01).
Notwithstanding the significant correlation of performance orientation and participation in
school to child wellbeing, the original pupil model is not significant (F (10, 373) = 1.347; p =
.20). After having deleted non-significant items, it can be concluded that the child’s wellbeing
is significantly correlated to and predicted by performance orientation (r = .13, p =.01; β =
.15, p =.00) and participation in school (r = .09, p =.04; β = .10, p =.05). This final model is
significant (F (2, 449) = 3.942, p = .00) and explains 3.4% of the variance in child wellbeing.
The teacher model combining demographic predictors and involvement activities explains
24.2% of the variance in pupil achievement, with a significant R²-change from the first to the
second model. All types of parental involvement are significantly and positively correlated to
performance. According to the teacher data, a cognitive stimulating home environment was
found to significantly predict child achievement (β = .38). Even after systematically deleting
non-significant components, it was the only significant predictor (β = .35). When only this
involvement component included in the model, the proportion of explained variance in pupil
performance is 22.7%.
Although participation in school predicted a significant .11 standard deviation increase in
the child’s wellbeing, no significant model explaining this output variable was found for the
teacher data (p = .760).
3.5
Group differences in effects
Finally, it was investigated how the effects of parental involvement vary for students from
different backgrounds, with the parent, pupil and teacher perspective taken into account. As
the former analyses indicated that home language and number of hours work/week do not
significantly influence pupil performance and wellbeing, only models funded on educational
level and family structure were interpreted (see table 6 for the results).
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
For pupils from low educated parents, parent- and teacher-reported performance
orientation respectively predicted a .41 and .80 increase in wellbeing. On the contrary, parentchild communication assessed by these actors resulted in a negative standard deviation
decrease (β = -.44; β = -.55). Somewhat surprisingly, a negative effect was found for
cognitive stimulating home environment, for which parent reports resulted in a .34 standard
deviation decrease in achievement. The significant and positive effect of participation in
school on achievement for lower educated parents’ children was indicated by parents and
teachers (β = .37; β = .40).
For pupils from parents with a higher secondary diploma, significant effects were only
found on achievement. Whereas parent-reported performance orientation had a negative
predictive power ((β = -.27), cognitive stimulating home environment reported by parents and
teachers exerts a positive influence (β = .36; β = .49).
Participation in school is not only positive for children from parents with a low diploma,
but also for pupils with high educated parents. Parent and pupil reports of this component
were significantly associated with a standard deviation increase of .15 and .14 in
achievement; teacher-reported participation predicted a .13 standard deviation increase in
child wellbeing. A significant positive effect on wellbeing was also indicated by pupilreported performance orientation (β = .14). Finally, teachers associated a cognitive
stimulation home environment with a .33 standard deviation increase in the child’s
performance.
Parents, pupils as well as teachers correlated parental involvement in children living in
traditional families to positive effects. Participation in school had a predictive power of .14
(parent), .16 (pupil) and .13 (teacher) of a standard deviation for achievement, and of .11
(pupils and teachers) for wellbeing. For these children, achievement was also significantly
predicted by the creation of a cognitive stimulating home environment, with a .13, .12 and .38
standard deviation increase for parents, pupils and teachers respectively. This involvement
component had also a predictive power of .13 for wellbeing. Parent-reported parent-child
communication was associated with a standard deviation increase of .14 in child performance.
A performance oriented climate at home as assessed by parents predicted a significant .50
standard deviation increase in the wellbeing of children living in recomposed families. These
children achieve also higher when they are cognitively stimulated by their parents (β = .55), at
least according to the teacher data.
No significant effects of parental involvement components were found for pupils from
one-parent families.
4.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to gain insight into parents’, pupils’ and teachers’
perceptions of parental involvement and their relation with outcomes on child level. Two
research questions were examined: (1) How strong is the interrelationship between parent
ratings, teacher ratings and pupil ratings of parental involvement?; (2) What is the effect of
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
parent, teacher and pupil ratings of parental involvement on the learning
achievement/wellbeing of pupils?
Before focussing specifically on the first research question, descriptive statistics showed
that parental involvement is generally perceived as high by parents, pupils as well as teachers.
This finding is particularly valid for dimensions concerning the involvement at home. With
respect to the interrelations between the dimensions of parental involvement, these were
found to be much higher for the teachers than for the parents. The pupil data showed the
lowest interrelations between the various aspects of parent involvement. In other words,
teachers perceive involvement as a general construct, while children differentiate mostly
between the various dimensions of involvement. Based on the consistently high teacher
correlations between ‘performance orientation, ‘cognitive stimulating home environment’,
‘parent-child communication’ and ‘structuring home climate’, it can be supposed that teachers
have only little knowledge of what happens in the child’s home environment and therefore
consider different aspects of involvement at home as one dimension. This finding is in line
with Bakker et al.’s (2007) conclusion and an earlier study exploring the factor structure of
parental involvement from multiple perspective (…). This study showed that teachers
consider parental involvement as a limited one-factor construct. Notwithstanding the general
approach by teachers, this study distinguishes six equal factors for all actors in order to be
able to compare them.
The paired correlation results show parents’ and children’s reports of parental
involvement in the child’s schooling generally to converge. Only for the dimension ‘parentteacher communication’, there has been found a somewhat larger discrepancy between parent
and pupil ratings. In contrast with the other constructs, the involvement activities belonging to
this dimension are less visible for pupils. Consequently, it can be concluded that children are
hardly abreast of the subjects of communication between their parents and teacher. Because of
the large agreement between both actors’ ratings, it can be supposed that their perceptions are
a reliable reflection of the real degree and nature of parental involvement. On the contrary,
teacher ratings diverge strongly from parent ratings. This is particularly true for the
dimensions concerning home involvement, invisible for teachers. Moreover, it has been
pointed out that teachers judge low educated and non-native parents and parents from nontraditional families more negatively than parents with a higher economic socio-economical
status. Certainly in regard to the different aspects of involvement at home, they perceive these
parents as significantly less involved than the parents themselves do. Possibly, teachers
extrapolate the lower degree of involvement within the school – as non-native parents and
parents in recomposed families themselves indicated – to all dimensions of involvement. In
other words, as Bakker et al. (2007 suggested, teachers tend to have a rather stereotyped
image of lower SES parents. Moreover, teacher perception of parents’ involvement is not only
influenced by demographic variables, but also seemed to be effectuated by child
characteristics. From the parent and pupil data, it can be derived that the parent’s involvement
depends on the child’s needs. For example, parents of children feeling bad at school are
perceived to communicate more frequent with the teacher, probably as a consequence of the
low wellbeing. Parents of bad behaving children may impose stricter rules at home as a
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
reaction to the bad behaviour of the child at school. However, teachers report a lower degree
of setting rules by these parents. Furthermore, parents of low achievers in class are considered
being less involved by teachers, which hasn’t been confirmed by pupil and parent data.
So, teacher assessment of parental involvement seem to be funded on family background
variables and characteristics of the child expressed in class or school rather than on
knowledge of the parent and the context the child lives in. However, the results indicated that
a higher degree of parent-teacher communication resulted in a better congruence between
parents’ and teachers’ report of involvement, in particular for the components of home
involvement. This finding implies a call for teachers to regularly meet the parents, not only as
a consequence of difficulties in the child. This makes it possible to see the whole child, not
only in its role of pupil but as a part of several systems whose have to be adjusted to each
other.
Multiple regression analyses were performed in order to answer the second research
question regarding the effect of parental involvement on child outcomes, according to parent,
pupil and teacher ratings. For pupil achievement as well as wellbeing, parental involvement
has been evidenced to be an influencing factor, however exerting only a little to moderate
effect. In comparison to parent reports, pupil perceptions of their parents’ involvement
explain 0.4% less of the variance in academic achievement and 1% more of the variance in
school wellbeing. This is a somewhat remarkable finding since it has been argued that the
child’s perception of the involvement is more influential on later child outcomes rather than
the actual activities, reported by parents (Keith, 1991). But, because of the accordance
between parent and pupil ratings found in this study, it is not surprising that the data of both
actors contribute a more or less equal proportion to explain the variance in child achievement.
However, there is a difference in the dimensions effecting these outcomes. Based on
parent reports, the degree in which parents are involved within school and communicate with
their children influence significantly the achievement of children. Performance orientation
and parent-child communication has a positive respectively negative effect on wellbeing. So,
from the parent perspective, the variables reflecting a general or particular interest in the
child’s school life. The same has been found for the child data, where participation positively
influence achievement, and performance orientation and participation have a positive effect
on participation. The negative influence of parent-child communication on wellbeing may
suggest a converse relationship between these variables. Low child wellbeing can result in a
higher degree of parent-teacher communication. Another possible explanation is that parents
and teachers only talk with each other about negative things concerning the child. This can
lead to an aversion of school in children. Further studies with a longitudinal design have to be
set up in order to determine the direction of the relationship. According to the teacher data,
the cognitive stimulating environment dimension and the demographic variables educational
level and family structure explains 22.7% in child achievement. This finding hypothesizes
that teachers consider strict cognition related involvement – congruent to the middle- and
upper-class school culture – as most important in relation to achievement. In contradiction to
this immediately to cognitive development related dimension, the involvement components
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
considered important by parents and pupils are a motivational, affective (rather than
cognitive) expression of being involved, which can indirectly facilitate the child’s learning. It
can be hypothesized that teachers consider the relation ‘parent involvement – child
achievement’ as directly, while parents and pupils see this as more indirectly with
motivational constructs intermediating the effect of involvement on achievement. Therefore,
future research has to include such intermediating variables when investigating the
‘involvement – performance’ relation.
Compared to the parent and pupil model, the model including teacher reports of parental
involvement explains the largest percentage of pupil performance. Hereby, however, the
question has to be asked in which direction the relation goes. Teachers can base their reports
of the degree parents are involved on the level of pupils’ learning results. In this case, it is not
surprising that teacher perceptions of involvement show a stronger relationship with learning
achievement. Although the three models – for parents, pupils, and teachers – all explain a
significant proportion of learning achievement, and the parent and pupil model significantly
explain child wellbeing, these proportions of explained variance are little to moderate. In
general, research in learning suggests that the more specific the learning outcome is defined
and measured, the more likely it is to detect the effect of a causal factor. Following this logic,
if parental involvement has any effect on learning outcomes, it may be better to use measures
that are more specific (Fan, 2001). So, in future research, subject specific measures are
advised, for parental involvement as well as learning achievement.
Analyses for separate groups showed that parental involvement measures were the best
predictors for children with low educated parents. With regard to achievement, participation
in school was the largest predictor for this group of children. For children with higher
educated parents this dimension also exerts a positive impact, but in a less stronger degree.
This finding implies a compensating effect of parental participation for pupils at risk, which is
analogous to the protective value Berger (1995) ascribed to parental involvement. So,
involvement within school seems to provide an opportunity to bridge the gap between home
and school affecting positively child achievement. Several mechanisms influence this
relationship, such as establishing accountability in parents because of the relationship fostered
between teachers and parents, increasing the child’s motivation by experiencing that school is
important to the parent, and increasing actual learning opportunities if participation efforts are
directed toward increased school resources (Desimone, 1999). However, the positive
relationship between active school involvement and performance for children with lower
educated parents can be biased by teacher perceptions. This study invented child achievement
by means of subjective teacher assessment. Possibly, involved parents at the school level
positively influence teacher perceptions of pupil performance. Consequently, the positive
effect on achievement is due to subjective teacher assessment rather than the child’s actual
cognitive capacities. With respect to wellbeing, the performance orientation dimension exerts
a strong positive impact. Low educated parents creating a performance oriented climate at
home make their children feeling well at school. By building such a home climate, home
culture and school culture are connected to each other. This results in the creation of school-
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
like families and may make children adapt easily to and feel them well in school. On the
contrary, parent-child communication is associated negatively with the child’s school
wellbeing. This negative relationship may be caused by the nature of the parent-child talk.
Negatively value-laden school related discussions between parents and their children possibly
result in low school wellbeing in children. In order to understand this mechanism, future
studies need to integrate the relationship between both variables in a more comprehensive
framework to gain insight into the larger educational context the communication takes place.
This insight in the larger context is also needed to explain the negative relationship between
parent-reported performance orientation and achievement for children with middle-educated
parents. As already mentioned, parents may focus more strongly on performance when the
child achieves poorly at school (Shumow & Miller, 1996). The positive effect the presence of
a cognitive stimulating home environment has on achievement is valid for children from
middle- and high educated parents. However, it has to be mentioned that especially teacher
reports let see this significant association. Therefore, it can be supposed that teachers’
estimation of the degree parents cognitively stimulate their children is based on the child’s
achievement.
With regard to family structure, parental involvement variables were better predictors for
traditional families than for non-traditional families. According to parent, pupil and teacher
reports parental participation at the school level is significantly associated with higher child
achievement and school wellbeing. The cognitive stimulating home environment also
positively influences achievement for children living with both biological parents. These
positive effects are less found in recomposed families and not at all in one-parent families.
Probably, other processes may mediate the beneficial relationship between parental
involvement practices and pupil outcomes in these families. Again, a call for a more
comprehensive approach whereby parental involvement is embedded in the larger familial and
educational context has to be done in order to get the whole picture. Such information will
provide educators with the necessary knowledge to use familial processes as a resource to
cope effectively with the needs of every child and to facilitate the academic achievement of
all pupils (Desimone, 1999).
References
Astone, N. & McLanahan, S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and high school
completion. American sociological Review, 56, 309-320.
Bakker, J., Denessen, E. & Brus-Laeven, M. (2007). Socio-economic background, parental
involvement and teacher perceptions of these in relation to pupil achievement.
Educational Studies, 33 (2), 177-192.
Balli, S.J., Wedman, J.F. & Demo, D.H. (1997). Family involvement with middle-grades
homework: effects of differential prompting. Journal of Experimental Education, 66 (1).
Barnard, W.M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment.
Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 39-62.
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
Bastiani, J. (2000). ‘I know it works!... Actually proving it is the problem!’: examining the
contribution of parents to pupil progress and school effectiveness. In: S. Wolfendale & J.
Bastiani (Eds.) The contribution of parents to school effectiveness (pp.19-36). London:
David Fulton Publishers.
Berger, E.H. (1995). Parents as partners in education. Families and schools working
together. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Boethel, M. (2003). Diversity: school, family and community connections. Annual synthesis
2003. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Bogenschneider, K. (1997). Parental involvement in adolescent schooling: A proximal
process with transcontextual validity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59 (3), 718733.
Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J.C. (1970). La reproduction. Eléments pour un théorie du système
d’enseignement. Paris : Les Editions de Minuit.
Brody, G.H., Stoneman, Z. & Flor, D. (1995). Linking family processes and academic
competence among rural African American youths. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
57 (3), 567-579.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. & Morris, P.A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In: W.
Damon & R.M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol.1: Theoretical models
of human development (pp. 93-1028). New York: Wiley.
Carter, S. (2002). The impact of parent/family involvement on student outcomes: an annotated
bibliography of research from the past decade. Eugene: CADRE.
Christenson, S.L. (2004). The family-school partnership: an opportunity to promote the
learning competence of all students. School Psychology Review, 33 (1), 83-105.
Christenson, S.L. & Sheridan, S.M. (2001). Schools and families: creating essential
connections for learning. New York: Guilford Press.
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, 95-120.
Comer, J.P. & Haynes, N.M. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: an ecological approach.
Elementary School Journal, 91 (3), 271-277.
Courville, T., & Thompson, B. (2001). Use of structure coefficients in published multiple
regression articles: beta is not enough. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61
(2), 229-248.
Dauber, S.L. & Epstein, J.L. (1989). Parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in innercity elementary and middle schools. In N.F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a
plurastic society (pp. 53-71). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
de Carvalho, M.E.P. (2001). Rethinking family-school relations: A critique of parental
involvement in schooling. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations Publishers.
Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: do race and
income matter? The Journal of Educational Research, 93 (1), 11-30.
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
Desimone, L., Finn-Stevenson, M. & Henrich, C. (2000). Whole school reform in a lowincome African American community: The effects of the CoZi model on teachers, parents,
and students. Urban Education, 35, 269-323.
Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: assessing the effectiveness of parental
involvement in elementary school. Sociology of Education, 78 (3), 233-249.
Drummond, K.V. & Stipek, D. (2004). Low-income parents’ beliefs about their role in
children’s academic learning. The Elementary School Journal, 104 (3), 197-213.
Edwards, R. & Alldred, P. (2000). A typology of parental involvement in education centring
on children and young people: negotiating familialisation, institutionalisation and
individualisation. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21 (3), 435-455.
Elchardus, M. (1999). Zonder maskers. Een actueel portret van jongeren en hun leraren.
[Without masks. An actual portrait of youngsters and their teachers]. Gent: GLOBE.
Epstein, J.L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: caring for the children we share.
Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712.
Epstein, J.L. (1996). Perspectives and previews on research and policy for school, family and
community partnerships. In: A. Booth & J.F. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school links. How do
they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 209-246). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Fan, X. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A growth
modeling analysis. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70 (1), 27-61.
Fehrmann, P.G., Keith, T.Z. & Reimers, T.M. (1987). Home influence on school learning:
direct and indirect effects of parental involvement on high school grades. Journal of
Educational Research, 80, 330-337.
Flouri, E. & Buchanan, A. (2004). Early father’s and mother’s involvement and child’s later
educational outcomes. British of educational Psychology, 74, 141-153.
Green, C.L., Walker, J.M.T., Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Sandler, H.M. (2007). Parents’
motivations for involvement in children’s education: an empirical test of a theoretical
model of parental involvement. Journal of educational psychology, 99 (3), 532-544.
Griffith, J. (1998). The relation of school structure and social environment to parent
involvement in elementary schools. Elementary School journal, 99, 53-80.
Grolnick, W.S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C.O., & Apostoleris, N.H. (1997). Predictors of parent
involvement in children’s schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 538-548.
Grolnick, W.S. & Slowiaczek, M.L. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: a
multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child development, 65, 237252.
Huss-Keeler, R.L. (1997). Teacher perception of ethnic and linguistic minority parental
involvement and its relationships to children’s language and literacy learning: a case
study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13 (2), 171-182.
Jensen, A.R. (1972). Genetics and education. London: Metheun.
Keith, T.Z. (1991). Parent involvement and achievement in high school. Advances in Reading
and Language Research, 5, 125-141.
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
Kerbow, D. & Bernhardt, A. (1993). Parent intervention in the school: the context of minority
involvement. In J. Coleman & B. Schneider (Eds.). Parents, their children, and schools
(pp. 115-145). Boulder/ CO: Westview.
Kohl, G.O., Lengua, L.J. & McMahon, R.J. (2000). Parent involvement in school
conceptualizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk
factors. Journal of School Psychology, 38 (6), 501-523.
Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental involvement in elementary
education. New York: Falmer Press.
Lee, S. (1993). Family structure effects on student outcomes. In B. Schneider & J.S. Coleman
(Eds.), Parents, their children, and schools (pp.43-75). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Lee, J-S. & Bowen, N.K. (2006). Parent, involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement
gap among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43 (2),
193-218.
McNeal, R. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness on
science achievement, truancy and dropping out. Social Forces, 78, 114-144.
Morsbach, S.K. & Prinz, R.J. (2006). Understanding and improving the validity of self-report
of parenting. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 9 (1), 1-21.
Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D. & Ecob, R. (1988). School matters. The
junior years. Somerset: Open Books.
Nunnally, J.C. (1967). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Paulson, S.E. & Sputa, C.L. (1996). Patterns of parenting during adolescence: perceptions of
adolescents and parents. Adolescence, 31, 369-381.
Reynders, T., Nicaise, I. & Van Damme, J. (2005). De constructie van een SES-variabele
voor het SIBO-onderzoek. LOA-rapport n° 31 [The construction of a SES variable for the
SIBO research. Loa-report n°31]. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Schneider, B. (1993). Parents, their children, and schools: an introduction. In: B. Schneider &
J.S. Coleman (Eds.), Parents, their children, and schools: an introduction (pp. 1-12).
Boulder: Westview Press.
Schwarz, J.C., Barton-Henry, M.L., & Pruzinsky, T. (1985). Assessing child-rearing
behaviors: a comparison of ratings made by mother, father, child, and sibling on the
CRPBI. Child Development, 56, 462-479.
Shumow, L., & Miller, J.D. (2001). Parents’ at-home and at-school academic involvement
with young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21 (1), 68-91.
Stevenson, D.L. & Baker, D.P. (1987). The family-school relation and the child’s school
performance. Child Development, 58, 1348-1657.
Sui-Chu, E. & Willms, J. (1996). Effects of parent involvement on eighth-grade achievement.
Sociology of Education, 69, 126-141.
Tett, L. (2004) Parents and school communities in Japan and Scotland: contrasts in policy and
practice in primary schools, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 23, 259–273.
Yan, W. & Lin, Q. (2005). Parent involvement and mathematics achievement: contrast across
racial and ethnic groups. The journal of educational Research, 99 (2), 116-127.
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
Zellman, G.L. & Waterman, J.M. (1998). Understanding the impact of parent school
involvement on children’s outcomes. Journal of Educational Research, 9 (6), 370-380.
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
Table 1: Descriptive statistics for parental involvement from the parent's, pupil's and teacher's perspective
Aspects of parent involvement
(1) Performance orientation
1.1 Talking with the child about its results
1.2 Looking at and discussing about the child’s school
tasks it brought at home
1.3 Reacting on the child’s questions/signals about
school, learning, homework
1.4 Paying the child a compliment about good results
or behaviour at school
1.5 Letting know the child that its efforts are
appreciated
1.6 Interrogating the child’s lessons
(2) Parent-teacher communication
2.1 Communicating with the teacher about the child’s
school results
2.2 Communicating with the teacher about the child’s
behaviour
2.3 Communicating with the teacher about how the
child feels at school
(3) Participation in school
3.1 Being member of the parent committee or an
other board at school
3.2 Being present at activities organised by school
3.3 Being volunteer on activities organised by school
(4) Cognitive stimulating home environment
Parents’ rating
Pupils’ rating
Teachers’ rating
α = .70
Scale mean = 3.62
Mean
SD
3.74
.62
α = .57
Scale mean = 3.45
Mean
SD
3.64
.58
α = .89
Scale mean = 3.42
Mean
SD
3.64
.62
3.52
.88
3.15
1.08
3.26
.92
3.72
.61
3.39
.85
3.53
.74
3.85
.48
3.68
.63
3.65
.62
3.75
.61
3.61
.74
3.48
.78
3.17
1.17
3.21
1.03
2.96
1.03
α = .84
Scale mean = 2.93
Mean
SD
α = .71
Scale mean = 2.11
Mean
SD
α = .74
Scale mean = 3.30
Mean
SD
3.10
1.07
2.32
1.19
3.43
.93
2.92
1.20
2.14
1.30
3.26
1.05
2.77
1.28
1.87
1.28
3.23
1.02
α = .69
Scale mean = 2.18
Mean
SD
α = .63
Scale mean = 2.08
Mean
SD
α = .85
Scale mean = 2.31
Mean
SD
1.21
1.75
1.11
1.63
1.54
1.71
3.42
1.91
1.06
1.76
3.47
1.67
.92
1.69
3.29
2.11
1.14
1.65
α = .71
α = .58
α = .85
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
4.1 Playing party games with child
4.2 Encouraging the child to read books
4.3 Parent themselves read books and explicit their
interest in books to the child
4.4 Watching informative television programs with
the child or encouraging the child to watch such
programs
4.5 Doing creative things with the child
4.6 Making cultural excursions
(5) Parent-child communication
5.1 Talking with the child about activities he/she
has done at school
5.2 Talking with the child about other things
happened at school (for example: contact with
classmates, incidents on the playground)
5.3 Trying to find out what the child likes doing at
school
5.4 Talking with the child about its behaviour
(6) Structuring home climate
6.1 There are rules about how long the child is
allowed to play electronic games
6.2 There are rules about the television programs
the child is allowed to watch
6.3 there are rules about the time the child is
allowed to watch television
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
Scale mean = 2.78
Mean
SD
2.69
1.28
3.17
1.18
Scale mean = 2.49
Mean
SD
2.44
1.32
2.32
1.40
Scale mean = 2.68
Mean
SD
2.53
1.02
2.90
1.06
2.87
1.43
2.62
1.34
2.63
1.07
2.68
1.31
2.32
1.35
2.64
1.02
2.69
2.58
1.32
1.36
2.58
2.69
1.34
1.18
2.63
2.74
1.06
1.12
α = .65
Scale mean = 3.47
Mean
SD
α = .60
Scale mean = 2.54
Mean
SD
α = .82
Scale mean = 3.39
Mean
SD
3.74
.56
2.99
.98
3.58
.65
3.54
.79
2.50
1.23
3.36
.78
3.40
.97
2.32
1.31
3.39
.74
3.20
1.15
2.33
1.35
3.22
.87
α = .69
Scale mean = 2.48
Mean
SD
α = .45
Scale mean = 2.09
Mean
SD
α = .81
Scale mean = 2.90
Mean
SD
2.54
1.46
2.45
1.40
2.79
.98
2.33
1.45
1.85
1.41
2.93
.98
2.56
1.46
1.99
1.53
2.98
.95
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
Table 2: Correlations between dimensions of parental involvement
Parent-teacher
communication
Participation in
school
Cognitive
stimulating home
environment
Parent-child
communication
Structuring home
climate
**. Correlation is not significant at the 0.01 level
teacher
parent
pupil
teacher
parent
pupil
teacher
parent
pupil
teacher
Structuring home
climate
pupil
Parent-child
communication
parent
Cognitive
stimulating
home
environment
teacher
Participation in
school
pupil
teacher
1
Parent-teacher
communication
parent
Performance
orientation
pupil
parent
Dimension
Performance
orientation
.31
.21
.51
.10**
.08
.26
.39
.39
.58
.55
.32
.77
.18
.17
.53
1
.18
.14
.23
.33
.20
.39
.42
.34
.51
.15
.05**
.32
.26
.18
.35
.11**
.11**
.25
.10**
.16
.18
.39
.28
.56
.31
.23
.56
.19
.13
.46
1
1
1
1
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
Table 3: Paired Samples Correlations ‘parent – pupil’ and ‘parent – teacher’
Comparison parent - pupil
Comparison parent - teacher
Items
Correlation
Sig.
Correlation
Sig.
(1) Performance orientation
1.1 Talking with the child about its results
1.2 Looking at and discussing about the child’s
school tasks it brought at home
1.3 Reacting on the child’s questions/signals about
school, learning, homework
1.4 Paying the child a compliment about good
results or behaviour at school
1.5 Letting know the child that its efforts are
appreciated
1.6 Interrogating the child’s lessons
.56
.17
.00
.00
.19
.05**
.00
.31
.37
.00
.17
.00
.27
.00
.09**
.06
.28
.00
.11**
.02
.44
.00
.11**
.02
.51
.00
.15
.00
(2) Parent-teacher communication
2.1 Communicating with the teacher about the
child’s school results
2.2 Communicating with the teacher about the
child’s behaviour
2.3 Communicating with the teacher about how the
child feels at school
.32
.00
.27
.00
.29
.00
.20
.00
.23
.00
.25
.00
.22
.00
.21
.00
(3) Participation in school
3.1 Being member of the parent committee or an
other board at school
3.2 Being present at activities organised by school
3.3 Being volunteer on activities organised by
school
.76
.00
.68
.00
.75
.00
.65
.00
.41
.00
.34
.00
.68
.00
.58
.00
.57
.53
.37
.00
.00
.00
.31
.17
.16
.00
.00
.00
4.1
4.2
(4) Cognitive stimulating home environment
Playing party games with child
Encouraging the child to read books
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
4.3 Parent themselves read books and explicit their
interest in books to the child
4.4 Watching informative television programs with
the child or encouraging the child to watch such
programs
4.5 Doing creative things with the child
4.6 Making cultural excursions
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
.56
.00
.29
.00
.34
.00
.14
.00
.41
.46
.00
.00
.07**
.32
.13
.00
(5) Parent-child communication
5.1 Talking with the child about activities he/she
has done at school
5.2 Talking with the child about other things
happened at school (for example: contact with
classmates, incidents on the playground)
5.3 Trying to find out what the child likes doing at
school
5.4 Talking with the child about its behaviour
.26
.00
.19
.00
.13
.01
.13
.00
.22
.00
.11**
.02
.24
.00
.08**
.11
.17
.00
.23
.00
(6) Structuring home climate
6.1 There are rules about how long the child is
allowed to play electronic games
6.2 There are rules about the television programs
the child is allowed to watch
6.3 there are rules about the time the child is
allowed to watch television
.38
.00
.18
.00
.43
.00
.11**
.02
.16
.00
.19
.00
.38
.00
.09**
.05
**. Correlation is not significant at the 0.01 level
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
Table 4: Group differences in parental involvement
teacher
parent
pupil
teacher
parent
pupil
teacher
parent
pupil
teacher
parent
pupil
teacher
Structuring
home climate
pupil
Family structure
Traditional
Single parent
Recomposed
Parent-child
communication
parent
Home language
Dutch
Non-native speaker
Cognitive
stimulating
home
environment
teacher
Educational level
Lower secondary education
Higher secondary
education
Higher education
Participation in
school
pupil
Predicting parent
characteristics
Parent-teacher
communication
parent
Performance
orientation
3.42
3.22
3.02
2.61
2.02
3.11
1.60
1.61
1.74
2.22
2.07
2.13
3.22
2.21
3.00
2.11
1.80
2.36
3.63
3.44
3.56
2.78
2.17
3.24
2.07
2.01
2.18
2.58
2.33
2.45
3.39
2.63
3.28
2.24
1.95
2.85
3.67
3.49
3.54
3.06
2.09
3.38
2.35
2.21
2.49
2.99
2.66
2.91
3.56
2.56
3.53
2.68
2.23
3.05
3.63
3.46
3.45
3.62
2.11
3.32
2.21
2.10
2.32
2.80
2.50
2.70
3.47
2.55
3.41
2.47
2.09
2.93
3.50
3.30
3.13
2.93
2.11
3.11
1.80
1.92
2.22
2.54
2.36
2.47
3.39
2.34
3.06
2.47
2.05
2.64
3.64
3.46
3.47
2.93
2.09
3.34
2.25
2.14
2.40
2.85
2.52
2.74
3.49
2.52
3.43
2.50
2.12
2.98
3.50
3.38
3.26
2.86
2.05
3.32
2.07
2.17
2.12
2.61
2.51
2.50
3.30
2.53
3.25
2.35
2.28
2.60
3.67
3.43
3.22
2.97
2.29
2.99
1.79
1.56
1.87
2.47
2.26
2.42
3.48
2.69
3.21
2.46
1.70
2.68
3.61
3.29
3.26
3.00
2.28
3.41
1.86
1.79
1.79
2.36
2.20
2.09
3.35
2.47
3.34
2.51
1.91
2.58
3.62
3.47
3.36
2.93
2.11
3.22
2.09
1.99
2.25
2.69
2.48
2.50
3.40
2.49
3.28
2.43
2.08
2.83
3.63
3.45
3.50
2.93
2.09
3.37
2.29
2.19
2.43
2.91
2.55
2.91
3.54
2.58
3.47
2.51
2.14
3.01
3.69
3.51
3.47
2.98
2.57
3.35
2.38
2.10
2.42
2.61
2.50
2.61
3.65
2.80
3.55
2.43
2.25
2.92
3.45
3.32
3.49
3.01
2.44
3.54
2.45
2.54
2.63
2.79
2.33
2.68
3.42
2.73
3.47
2.21
2.14
2.88
3.63
3.45
3.42
2.92
2.07
3.29
2.14
2.05
2.28
2.79
2.50
2.68
3.46
2.51
3.37
2.50
2.09
2.90
3.68
3.40
3.10
2.51
1.96
3.07
1.40
1.47
1.42
2.39
2.26
2.21
3.27
2.45
3.25
2.60
2.00
2.51
Predicting child characteristics
Perceived learning
achievement
Lower achiever
Medium achiever
Higher achiever
Perceived wellbeing
Low wellbeing
Medium wellbeing
High wellbeing
Perceived behaviour
Bad behaviour
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
Not bad, not good
Good behaviour
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
3.68
3.39
3.38
3.22
2.12
3.29
1.95
1.73
2.02
2.75
2.50
2.47
3.53
2.42
3.34
3.08
2.14
2.62
3.63
3.46
3.44
2.94
2.12
3.31
2.22
2.12
2.36
2.80
2.50
2.71
3.48
2.56
3.41
2.45
2.09
2.93
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
Table 5: Multiple regression analyses predicting child achievement and wellbeing
Model 1
Model 2
Outcome: achievement
parent
Demographics
pupil
teacher
parent
pupil
teacher
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
Educational level
.31*
.32*
.31*
.32*
.31*
.32*
.26*
.32*
.29*
.32*
.20*
.32*
Number of hours work/week
-.07
-.05
-.07
-.05
-.07
-.05
-.05
-.05
-.06
-.05
-.01
-.05
Home language
.00
-.08
.00
-.08
.00
-.08
.00
-.08
.00
-.08
-.02
-.08
-.19*
-.23*
-.19*
-.23*
-.19*
-.23*
-.17*
-.23*
-.18*
-.23*
-.13*
-.23*
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
Performance orientation
-.07
.06
.04
.09*
-.05
.20*
Parent-teacher communication
-.02
.10*
-.04
-.04
-.01
.13*
Participation in school
.09
.18*
.09
.15*
.07
.21*
Cognitive stimulating home
environment
.03
.19*
-.02
.12*
.38*
.42*
Parent-child communication
.12*
.17*
-.01
.03
-.02
.19*
.01
.08
.02
.09*
-.01
.23*
Family structure (1 = nontraditional)
Parental involvement
Structuring home climate
Outcome: wellbeing
Demographics
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
Educational level
-.01
-.01
-.01
-.01
-.01
-.01
-.03
-.01
-.07
-.01
-.04
-.01
Number of hours work/week
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.03
.01
.03
.01
Home language
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.03
.02
.03
.02
.01
.02
Family structure (1 = nontraditional)
-.03
-.03
-.03
-.03
-.03
-.03
-.02
-.03
-.02
-.03
-.02
-.03
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
.13*
.08
.13*
.13*
.03
.04
Parental involvement
Performance orientation
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
Parent-teacher communication
.01
.01
-.09
-.02
.01
.03
Participation in school
.08
.08
.10
.09*
.11*
.11*
Cognitive stimulating home
environment
.03
.04
.05
.08
.06
.06
Parent-child communication
-.12
-.03
.03
.06
-.03
.02
Structuring home climate
-.01
.10
.00
.04
-.04
.01
*. Significant at the .05 level
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
Table 6: Relationship of parental involvement to achievement and wellbeing by parental educational level and family structure
Achievement
parent
Parental involvement variables
Lower secondary education
Wellbeing
pupil
teacher
parent
pupil
teacher
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
Performance orientation
.03
.01
.15
.13
.16
.36*
.41*
.29*
.23
.25*
.80*
.13
Parent-teacher communication
.00
.14
-.02
.10
-.24
.03
.23
.17
.20
.16
-.30
-.20
Participation in school
.37*
.29*
.40*
.36*
.11
.32*
.01
.11
-.12
.01
-.13
-.07
Cognitive stimulating home
environment
-.34*
-.12
-.09
.05
.24
.43*
.29
.29*
.10
.22*
.05
.12
Parent-child communication
.21
.15
.08
-.02
.02
.26*
-.44*
-.04
-.11
.04
-.55*
-.14
Structuring home climate
-.04
.02
.06
.08
.21
.41*
-.08
-.04
-.07
-.03
-.02
.07
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
-.27*
-.03
.00
.05
.04
.29*
.08
.02
.07
.09
.00
.03
Parent-teacher communication
-.02
.03
-.09
-.02
.11
.21*
.03
-.01
-.01
.06
.08
.09
Participation in school
-.04
.00
.04
.05
-.04
.11
.07
.07
.10
.12
.11
.12
Cognitive stimulating home
environment
.36*
.24*
.09
.10
.49*
.46*
.03
.02
-.01
.08
-.02
.02
Parent-child communication
.20
.11
.07
.08
-.14
.27*
-.16
-.09
.05
.10
-.03
.03
Structuring home climate
-.14
-.01
.01
.05
.01
.30*
.05
-.06
.02
.05
-.01
.02
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
Performance orientation
-.06
-.01
-.01
-.02
-.10
.00
.10
.08
.14*
.16*
.04
.08
Parent-teacher communication
-.08
-.02
-.08
-.08
-.04
.06
.02
.05
-.08
-.03
-.03
.04
Participation in school
.15*
.15*
.14*
.15*
.12
.19*
.10
.10*
.11
.11
.13*
.14*
.02
.07
.02
.02
.33*
.28*
.04
.07
.08
.13*
.05
.11*
.13
.09
.01
-.01
-.05
.02
-.07
.00
.04
.08
.01
.07
Higher secondary education
Performance orientation
Higher education
Cognitive stimulating home
environment
Parent-child communication
7th International Conference of the European Research Network about Parents in Education
ISBN 978-91-86238-82-2
Structuring home climate
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION
ERNAPE 2009
.06
.07
.02
.04
-.01
.09
.01
.04
.01
.04
.02
.06
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
Performance orientation
-.09
.04
.02
.07
.01
.22*
.04
.05
.10
.14*
.06
.07
Parent-teacher communication
-.01
.09*
-.08
-.02
-.09
.10*
.01
.06
-.05
.02
-.01
.04
Participation in school
.14*
.16*
.16*
.18*
.13*
.24*
.10
.13*
.11*
.12*
.11*
.14*
Cognitive stimulating home
environment
Parent-child communication
.13*
.18*
.12*
.15*
.38*
.40*
.13*
.15*
.09
.14*
.09
.12*
.14*
.15*
.03
.07
.01
.20*
-.10
-.02
.04
.09*
-.08
.03
.05
.09*
.07
.11*
.02
.22*
.04
.07
.00
.05
.00
.06
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
Performance orientation
-.10
-.12
.17
.03
.06
.20
.50*
.39*
.26
.23
.36
-.03
Parent-teacher communication
-.34
-.16
-.21
-.19
-.22
.03
-.01
-.06
-.25
-.13
-.12
-.20
Participation in school
.08
.16
.30
.24*
-.01
.14
.03
-.21
.00
-.07
-.20
-.22
Cognitive stimulating home
environment
Parent-child communication
-.11
.08
-.02
-.05
.55*
.42*
-.16
-.29*
.13
.03
-.09
-.17
.37
.17
-.27
-.24*
-.19
.16
-.28
-.30*
.08
.07
-.03
-.08
Structuring home climate
.13
.18
.10
.15
.11
.22
-.21
-.26*
-.15
-.11
-.22
-.19
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
ß
r
Performance orientation
-.29
.06
.04
.06*
-.41
.22
.19
.17
.16
.24*
.35
.29*
Parent-teacher communication
.14
.22
-.05
.01*
.41
.31*
.15
.14
.17
.20
-.03
.17
Participation in school
.06
.13
.07
.07
-.12
.13
.11
.13
.12
.18
.14
.23*
Cognitive stimulating home
environment
Parent-child communication
.16
.17
.05
.06*
.50
.51*
.09
.12
-.04
.16
-.01
.20
.23
.20
.10
.12
.00
.27*
-.11
.12
-.01
.13
-.25
.15
Structuring home climate
-.03
.09
-.15
-.11
.26
.45*
-.27
-.14
.07
.15
.21
.30*
Traditional family
Structuring home climate
Recomposed family
One-parent family
*. Significant at the .05 level