Application of the Theory of Planned
Behavior to Explain Parental Involvement of Immigrant and Refugee Populations
in Head Start
Dissertation
Manuscript
Submitted
to Northcentral University
School
of Education
in
Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements
for the Degree of
DOCTOR
OF PHILOSOPHY
by
ANTHONY
TRAN
San
Diego, California
March
2019
Application
of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Explain Parental Involvement of Immigrant
and Refugee Populations in Head Start
By
Anthony
Tran
Approved by:
________________________________________ _____________
Chair: Leslie Curda, Ph.D. Date
Member: Ph.D.
Member: Ph.D.
Certified by:
______________________________________ ________________
School Dean: Ph.D. Date
Abstract
The purpose of this quantitative,
correlational study was to assess the key variables of the theory of planned
behavior (TPB) as possible determinants of parental intentions for school
involvement behavior specially for immigrant and refugee parents with children
enrolled in Early Head Start and Head Start programs, and ascertain whether
they are significantly correlated to and can predict reported intentions of
parent involvement in their children’s school. Little is known about the theory
of planned behavior’s ability to explain variance in the intentions of parental
involvement toward children’s education. The variables in the TPB that
contribute to parental intentions have not been thoroughly examined in the
context of the target population. A sample of 122 parents completed a written
questionnaire in four languages. The reported attitudes and beliefs, subjective
norms, behavioral control perceptions or intentions were significantly
correlated with one another and contributed to the prediction of parental
involvement by immigrant/refugee parents. The null hypothesis was rejected. The findings are particularly encouraging in that parents reported
moderately high parental intentions, which will likely have a positive effect
on their children’s education. Additionally, there is room for teachers and
center directors to implement strategies that may lead parents to increase
their level of involvement in a program. Future
research should focus on: (1) further examination of demographic
characteristics, (2) expanding the diversity and size of the sample for
additional generalizability, (3) comparing immigrant and non-immigrant families
regarding parents’ educational involvement practices in Head Start programs, and
(4) improved measurements given the Parent Involvement Project (PIP) and its
data collection protocol were not designed specifically with the TPB based
model.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the
members of my committee. I express the deepest gratitude to Dr. Leslie Curda,
my dissertation chair for guiding, motivating, and being very patient
throughout this dissertation process and my appreciation to the Subject Matter
Expert, Dr. Cary Gillenwater; the academic reader, Dr. Joanna Vance; and the advisor,
Ms. Beth Lynch for their commitment to my success.
I also thank to Ms. Yolanda Perez,
the Head Start Executive Director, and Dr. Patsy Brown, the Director of Early
Childhood Education and Program Operations in Head Start programs, and the 12
Early Head Start and Head Start’s center directors who helped me do research by
supporting in collecting the data for this study was invaluable. To Ms.
Hortensia Murillo, Ms. Betty Smith, Ms. Valerie York, Ms. Melissa Miller, Ms.
Leslie Stopani, Ms. Danielle Angeletta, Ms. Adonica Goettsch, Ms. Sherlyn
Banas, Ms. Danielle Angeletta, Ms. Clarise Fernandez, Ms. Gloria Sanchez, Ms.
Deborah Durham, and Ms. Tina Cruz. I express my gratitude to them for all their
support and commitment to this project.
Finally, to my niece, Thao Pham, for
continuous support and patience over the years and for being my profreader. I
truly appreciated her help from the first day to the end of the study. She has
been a great supporter.
Table
of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction.................................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem......................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study................................................................................................ 4
Research Questions.................................................................................................. 6
Hypotheses............................................................................................................... 7
Theoretical Framework Overview........................................................................... 7
Nature of the Study ............................................................................................... 11
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................... 14
Definition of Key Terms........................................................................................ 16
Summary................................................................................................................ 18
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature............................................................................. 20
The Theory of Planned Behavior........................................................................... 21
Parent Involvement and Family
Engagement........................................................ 29
Immigrant and Refugee Family
Demographic Characteristics ............................. 34
The Importance of Parental
Involvement.............................................................. 46
Barriers to Parental Involvement .......................................................................... 55
Facilitators of Parental Involvement...................................................................... 62
Summary................................................................................................................ 64
Chapter 3: Research Method........................................................................................ 66
Research Design..................................................................................................... 69
Population Sample................................................................................................. 71
Materials/Instrumentation...................................................................................... 72
Operational Definitions of Variables..................................................................... 78
Study Procedures................................................................................................... 79
Data Collection and Analysis................................................................................. 81
Assumptions........................................................................................................... 85
Limitations............................................................................................................. 85
Delimitations.......................................................................................................... 86
Ethical Assurances................................................................................................. 87
Summary................................................................................................................ 88
Chapter 4: Findings...................................................................................................... 90
Reliability and Validity of the
Data....................................................................... 91
Results.................................................................................................................. 103
Chapter 5: Implications,
Recommendations, and Conclusions112
Implications.......................................................................................................... 115
Recommendations for Application...................................................................... 120
Recommendations for Future Research............................................................... 123
Conclusions.......................................................................................................... 125
References.................................................................................................................. 127
Appendices................................................................................................................. 137
Appendix A. Parent
Survey (English)....................................................................... 138
Parent
Survey (Arabic) …...……………………………………………………145
Parent
Survey (Spanish)……………………………………………………......152
Parent
Survey (Vietnamese)……………………………………………………159
Appendix B. Informed
Consent Form (English)……………………………………….169
Informed Consent Form (Arabic)………………………………………………173
Informed
Consent Form (Spanish)……………………………………………..176
Informed
Consent Form (Vietnamese)…………………………………………180
Appendix C. Parent
Demographic Data .................................................................... 184
Appendix D. Cover
Letter (English)……………………………………………………185
Cover Letter (Arabic)…………………………………………………………...187
Cover
Letter (Spanish)………………………………………………………….188
Cover
Letter (Vietnamese)……………………………………………………...191
Appendix E. Head
Start Executive Director/Center Directors' Consent Letters....... 193
Appendix F.
Pre-Notice of Parent Survey (English)................................................. 196
Pre-Notice of Parent Survey
(Arabic)…………………………………………..198
Pre-Notice
of Parent Survey (Spanish)…………………………………………199
Pre-Notice
of Parent Survey (Vietnamese)……………………………………..201
Appendix G. Recruitment Letters
(English)……..……………………………………..203
Recruitment Letter
(Arabic)…………………………………………………….205
Recruitment
Letter (Spanish)……………...……………………………………206
Recruitment
Letter (Vietnamese)………………...……………………………..208
Appendix H. Permission
of Using the Parent Involvement Project (PIP) Letter...... 210
Appendix I. The
Evidence of Permission was Granted to Use the Instrument......... 211
Appendix J. Table
Head Start and Early Head Start Enrollment, 2015..................... 212
Appendix K. Table
Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables................................. 213
Appendix L. Q-Q
Plots.............................................................................................. 223
List
of Tables
Table
1 PIP Subscale Reliabilities…................................................................................92
Table
2 The Shapiro-Wilk Test of Normality....................................................................93
Table
3 Descriptive Statistics............................................................................................93
Table
4 Model Summary....................................................................................................97
Table
5 Checking for Multicollinearity...........................................................................103
Table
6 Demographic Characteristics............................................................................104
Table
7 Descriptive Statistics of Predictors and Dependent Variables..........................106
Table
8 Correlation Coefficients.....................................................................................107
Table
9 Results of the Multiple Regression.....................................................................109
List
of Figures
Figure
1. Parental Intentions: Normality of
Residual......................................................95
Figure 2. Parental Intentions: PP
Plot of Residuals........................................................95
Figure 3. Boxplots of AB, SN, PBC,
and PI......................................................................96
Figure 4. Scatterplot for
Combinations of Variable Models............................................98
Figure 5. Partial Regression AB
Model............................................................................99
Figure 6. Partial Regression SN
Model...........................................................................100
Figure 7. Partial Regression PBC
Model........................................................................101
Figure 8. Testing for
Homoscedasticity...........................................................................102
Chapter 1: Introduction
The Head Start and Early Head Start
programs were designed for students to become ready upon enrolling in school
(DeLoatche, Bradley-Klug, Ogg, Kromrey, & Sundman-Wheat, 2015; Dove,
Neuharth-Pritchett, Wright, & Wallinga, 2015). However, while these
programs showed generally positive results (DeLoatche et al., 2015), without
parental involvement, these students were less ready to enter schooling at their
elementary school age (Dove et al., 2015; Manz et al., 2014). Parental
involvement is an important factor in helping to create successful early
childhood education experiences (Garbacz et al., 2016; McCormick, Cappella,
O'Connor, & McClowry, 2013; Smith, 2014). If parents are involved in their
children’s preschool, then it bodes well for future involvement, academic
success, and other positive outcomes for their children (Demircan & Erden,
2015). Nevertheless, immigrant and refugee families are of a particular concern
in Head Start and Early Head Start programs because getting these parents
involved is a challenge for many reasons (Cheatham & Ostrosky, 2013;
Demircan & Erden, 2015). Barriers to parental involvement included parents’
pre-concieved beliefs about involvement, their current life circumstances, and
their cultural beliefs (Manz, Gernhart, Bracaliello, Pressimone, &
Eisenberg, 2014). Researchers have found a significant positive impact of parental
involvement for toddlers at the beginning of early schooling (McCormick,
Cappella, O’Connor, & McClowry, 2013). However, identifying ways to
increase parental involvement with immigrant and refugee families has been
difficult (DeLoatche et al., 2015; Porumbu & Necsoi, 2013; Pratt, Lipscomb,
& Schmitt, 2015).
Attitudes and beliefs about the
roles of parental involvement in education for immigrant or refugee parents might
include that education is a teacher's responsibilities or that parents do not
make a positive difference in their children's education (Bracke & Corts,
2012; Cheatham & Ostrosky, 2013). Parental involvement in overall education
relates to the beliefs of parents and whether they should or should not be
involved in their children's education (Bracke & Corts, 2012). This
knowledge serves as a role construction and is often shaped by a parent's
personal experiences with schooling and personal perceptions (Bracke &
Corts, 2012; Manz et al., 2014). If parents believe good parenting means that
they should take an active role in their children's education, there is a
greater likelihood they will play a decisive role in their children's education
(Bracke & Corts, 2012). In the context of subjective norms about the roles
of parents in education, parents may not be involved because they lack the
examples of involvement or they come from a culture in which parents were never
expected to be involved (Bracke & Corts, 2012). These norms are a product
of whether an individual believes other meaningful people approve or disapprove
of a behavior and their motivation to comply with those people (Perry &
Langley, 2013). Parental intentions are a direct function of the attitude about
the behavior and represent an indication of a parent’s readiness to perform a
given behavior, such as how the responding parents plans on being involved
during the school year (Bracke & Corts, 2012; Kiriakidis, 2015). Finally,
parents’ perceptions of their personal level of control over their choices for
involvement and the barriers to participation that they encounter contribute to
their level of participation within the school (Ajzen, 1991). For example,
low-income parents may have restrictive jobs that limit their availability,
thereby giving an obstacle to their involvement (Bracke & Corts, 2012). Considered
holistically, researchers have suggested that parents or caregivers of
immigrant or refugee children would need to be involved in their children’s
education to promote success; however, few studies exist specifically assessing
and addressing immigrant and refugee populations who are at risk of low
parental involvement with regard to education of toddlers and preschoolers
(Manz et al., 2014).
Parental involvement in schooling
activities for toddlers and preschoolers is important to a child’s outcomes
(e.g., higher levels of proactive learning behaviors, greater receptive
vocabulary, and lower levels of conduct problems) (Bracke & Corts, 2012;
Hindman et al., 2012; Manz et al., 2014). Particularly, parents who are
immigrants or refugees, for example someone who was foreign born
(first-generation immigrant) (Krogstad, 2015; Winsler et al., 2014), often have
low involvement in their children’s education, possibly due to their attitudes
and beliefs (Demircan & Erden, 2015; Manz et al., 2014; Poureslami et al.,
2013). Use of a relevant theory may guide the design of an intervention to
improve parental participation for a particular population (Lin, 2012). The
theory of planned behavior (TPB) might be useful to examine parental behaviors,
but this theory has been applied in a limited way to early childhood education
settings (McGregor & Knoll, 2015). There was a need for research concerning
parental involvement with the Early Head Start and Head Start programs,
particularly within the immigrant and refugee communities (Hindman et al.,
2012; Manz et al., 2014).
Statement
of the Problem
The problem to be addressed in this
study was the limitation of immigrant and refugee parent involvement in Head
Start and Early Head Start to support their child’s education (Hindman et al.,
2012; Manz et al., 2014). Specifically, this study addressed a lack of
knowledge regarding what variables were related to high and/or low parent
involvement and identification of those that might serve as barriers to or
promoters of parent involvement in this population. The lack of knowledge
mostly surrounded which, if any, variables were related to parents’ beliefs
about whether they “should” or “should not” be involved in their children’s
education were specifically among immigrant and refugee parents who might or might
not engage in parent involvement activities differently than other parents given
their different personal experiences and perceptions about schooling (Brace
& Corte, 2012). Some of the barriers for immigrant and refugee families might
be related to their pre-conceived beliefs about education (Cheatham &
Ostrosky, 2013) as well as differences due to language and culture (Cheatham
& Ostrosky, 2013). The variables as defined within the theory of planned
behavior (TPB), that contribute to parental intentions are attitudes and
beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991;
Bracke & Corts, 2012; Perry & Langley, 2013), and these have not been
thoroughly examined within this parent population. Such knowledge could
hopefully be applied to help program educators devise interventions for parents
(McGregor & Knoll, 2015) to improve their intention for involvement in
schooling. Without a further understanding of how these variables are related
to and predict parental intentions for involvement, strategies employed by
these programs to increase the parental involvement of immigrant and refugee
families might be less effective and the families might not take full advantage
of these programs (Lee & Zhou, 2014).
Purpose
of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative
descriptive, and correlational study was to assess key variables posed in TPB
as possible determinants of parental intentions for school involvement behavior
(i.e., parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived
behavioral control) and ascertain whether they were significantly related to
and could predict the reported intentions of involvement of immigrant and
refugee parents in their children’s early childhood education programs. By
assessing these constructs that are pivotal to TPB, a test of this theory
within the context of immigrant and refugee families with children enrolled in
Head Start or Early Head Start can be accomplished. Using a survey instrument
to collect data, the goals were to (1) identify parental attitudes and beliefs,
subjective norms, parental intention, and perceived behavioral control
regarding parent involvement, and (2) investigate how, if at all, these
variables are correlated with and served to predict parent involvement, as TPB
would suggest, in this population. The dependent variable was the level of
intention for parental involvement, and the predictors were the determinants of
behaviors as outlined in TPB (i.e., parent attitudes and beliefs, subjective
norms, and perceived behavioral control) and reported by immigrant and refugee
families with children enrolled in Head Start and Early Head Start programs.
The population
under study targeted the approximately 800-1000 parents/caregivers who were
foreign born, i.e., first-generation immigrants or refugees (Krogstad, 2015; Winsler et al.,
2014), living in a region of Southern California, and whose children were
enrolled in either an Early Head Start or Head Start program. A census of this
population was conducted with the goal of obtaining a sample of 122
parents/caregivers whose children participated in these programs. A power
analysis using G-Power software yielded an estimated sample size of 110 for a
linear regression with three predictors (power of 0.8, type one error of 0.05,
and medium size effect) (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). Parents were
asked to complete the Parental
Involvement Project (PIP) Parent Questionnaire (Appendix A), a 57-item survey
that has been found to be reliable and valid for measuring attitudes and
beliefs (24 items), subjective norms (6 items), perceived behavioral control
(17 items), and parental intentions (10 items) for parent involvement. All
items were used a six-point Likert scales. Data collection provided an
opportunity to assess how these variables presented in immigrant and refugee
families and examine their ability to predict parent intentions towards
involvement. Step-wise multiple regression was used to assess the significance
of the contributions of each predictor to explain the variation in the
dependent variable (Field, 2013).
Q1. What are the attitudes and beliefs
of immigrant/refugee parents regarding parent involvement in AKA Head Start and
Early Head Start as determined by Parental Involvement Project (PIP) Parent
Questionnaire?
Q2. What are the subjective norms of
immigrant/refugee parents regarding parental involvement in AKA Head Start and
Early Head Start as determined by Parental Involvement Project (PIP) Parent
Questionnaire?
Q3. What are the perceived behavioral
control perceptions of immigrant/refugee parents regarding parent involvement
in AKA Head Start and Early Head Start programs as determined by Parental
Involvement Project (PIP) Parent Questionnaire?
Q4. What are the parental intentions
of immigrant/refugee parents regarding parent involvement in AKA Head Start and
Early Head Start programs as determined by Parental Involvement Project (PIP)
Parent Questionnaire?
Q5.
What is the
relationship of measures of attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived
behavior control, and how well, if at all, do they predict parental intentions to
parental involvement by parents in AKA Head Start and Early Head Start
programs?
Hypotheses
H50. The attitudes and beliefs,
subjective norms, intentions, behavioral control perceptions, and perceived
control of immigrant and refugee parents are not significantly related to (p > .05) or can not predict parents’
level of involvement in AKA Head Start and Early Head Start programs.
H5a. One or more of attitudes and
beliefs, subjective norms, intentions, behavioral control perceptions, or
perceived behavior control perceptions are significantly correlated to (p < .05) and significantly contribute
to the prediction of parental involvement by immigrant/refugee parents in AKA
Head Start and Early Head Start programs.
Theoretical Framework
Overview
Ajzen's
theory of planned behavior (TPB) (1991) was the framework employed to explain
and predict intentional behavior based on personal beliefs about outcomes of
behaviors. His theory was developed in the late 1980s as an extension of the
theory of reasoned action. Ajzen described the dynamic and complex nature of
parental engagement in a child’s life and education (Bracke & Corts, 2012).
The TPB offered a viable theoretical lens for examining parental involvement
and identifying the determinants among the immigrant and refugee parent
population. To understand planned behavior and parental involvement, social
attitudes and personality traits were included in an attempt to predict and
explain human behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The TPB focused on the motivations of an
individual to engage in a particular behavior, and the theory had the potential
to be a useful framework for conducting research into parental involvement
(Perry & Langley, 2013).
The
central tenet of the theory is the intention to perform a particular behavior
as defined by three independent determinants of intentions: attitude and belief
toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen,
1991). First, attitude referred to an individual’s values for the outcomes of
behavior as associated with his or her beliefs related to the behavior and his
or her evaluation of performing a behavior. Second, subjective norms were an
individual’s perceptions of social pressures that existed for performing the
behavior. This concept was comprised of beliefs about social expectations and
the need to adhere to those expectations. Third, perceived behavioral control was
related to an individual’s perception of how difficult the task would be to
perform (Ajzen, 1991). Furthermore, the theory was based on beliefs about
factors that were for or against performing the behavior and the perceived
power of those factors. In general, the intention of performing a behavior was
strong when the performance of a particular behavior elicited a favorable
attitude from the individual, was positively associated with subjective norms,
and it was easy to perform with few obstacles (Ajzen, 1991). If the surrounding
social environment was conducive to the behavior, and the individual was
confident in their ability to perform the behavior then the person's intention was
stronger to engage in the behavior, and thus, it was more likely he or she would
(Ajzen, 1991).
Ajzen
stressed that interventions designed to change behavior could be directed at
one or more of its determinants (attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, or
perceptions of behavioral control). Changes in one of these determinants should
produce changes in behavioral intentions and, given adequate control over the
behavior, intentions should be carried out under appropriate circumstances
(Ajzen, 1991). Subsequent parental involvement might succeed in producing
corresponding changes in attitudes, subjective norms, and perceptions of
behavioral control because intentions were directed by behavioral, normative,
and control beliefs (Kiriakidis, 2015). However, the behavioral intention might
vary towards different behaviors and within different populations. For example,
intention to perform one behavior might be primarily determined by the attitude
toward the behavior, while another behavioral intention might be determined
largely by normative influence. Similarly, intention to perform a particular
behavior might be primarily under the attitudinal influence in one population,
while more influenced by normative influence in another population (Montano
& Kasprzyk, 2015). Thus, to design effective interventions to influence
behavioral intentions, it is important first to determine the degree to which
intention is influenced by attitudes and beliefs, perceived norms, and
perceived behavioral controls (Montano & Kasprzyk, 2015). Parent
interventions would be ineffective unless individuals were in fact capable of
carrying out their newly formed intentions (Girardelli & Patel, 2016).
Ajzen (1991) also noted that there should be an active link from intentions to
behavior to facilitate the success of an intervention (Ajzen, 1991). One of the
most efficient ways to intervene to help develop intentions is to induce
individuals to form a plan with specific details of when, where, and how the
desired behavior would be performed (Lin, 2012).
Girardelli and Patel
(2016) provided the importance of behavioral intentions in the function of the
three constructs of attitudes toward the target behavior, perceived norms, and
perceived behavioral control/self-efficacy. Attitudes toward the target
behavior were defined as a latent disposition or tendency to respond with some
degree of favorableness or unfavorableness to a psychological object. Perceived
norms referred to what was considered an acceptable or permissible behavior in
a group or society. Perceived norms captured the total social pressure that the
environment exerts on an individual to perform, or not perform a given behavior.
Perceived behavioral control is defined as the extent to which people believed
they are capable of performing a given behavior, that they have control over
its performance.
Conducting research on parental
involvement, using Ajzen’s theory, in immigrant and refugee families might be
useful (Perry, 2013) because through this perspective, benefits for the child,
family, and school could be encouraged (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012).
However, to apply the TPB based model to immigrant and refugee families such as
African, Asian, or Hispanic/Latino, researchers need a better understanding of
the issues in practice for these populations (Paat, 2013), since they might
have several specific factors that impede family involvement such as a lack of
knowledgeable resources and language, cultural, and physical barriers (Garbacz
et al., 2016). From these points of view, the gaps often happen between this
theory and its practices (Dobson & Beshai, 2013) because there are a number
of issues, controversies, and assumptions involving the translation of theory
into practice (Udo-Akang, 2012). However, the gap between theory and practice
was framed as a knowledge transfer problem, and researcher’s continuous
refinement and development based on learning from the application of theory
into the field were never completed (Udo-Akang, 2012). Thus, it was important
to choose theory-testing rather than theory-building because the theory was
needed in explaining and predicting parental involvement with the TPB in
distinct populations (Udo-Akang, 2012). It was critical to investigate and
understand the behavior from the perspective of the study population because
some individuals in certain demographic groups might hold beliefs about
positive outcomes of the behavior and thus hold more positive attitudes and
stronger intention to carry out the behavior. In addition, they might be more
likely than others to engage in the behavior (Montano & Kasprzyk, 2015).
Researchers have examined parental
involvement through the application of other theories to include identifying
theory, parental investment theory, socio-ecological theory, role theory and
social exchange theory; however, the theories have been limited in explaining
and predicting parental involvement in early childhood education (Perry &
Langley, 2013). According to Perry and Langley (2013), such theories assumed
that active involvement of parents only relied on the parents' will and desired
to be involved in their children's education. As an alternative theory was more
helpful to explain and predict parental involvement, Perry and Langley (2013)
suggested using Ajzen's TPB model and stressed that this model was “versatile
enough to account for the dynamic and complex nature of parental engagement”
(p. 181). What remained unknown was whether the TPB model would hold for
parental engagement in schools with parents of particular cultures and status,
such as those with immigrant and refugee status.
Nature of the Study
In the current study, Ajzen’s version of TPB (1991) was
used as a basis of a model to examine how intentional behaviors of parents and
personal beliefs about outcomes of their behaviors might impact their perceived
levels of participation in their child’s school. The model constructed for this
study included the TPB constructs of attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms,
perceived behavioral control, and parental intentions for involvement (Bracke
& Corts, 2012). The descriptive and correlational design allowed for assessing
the key variables posed in the TPB model as determinants of behavior (i.e.,
parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control)
and then analysis of whether they were significantly related to and could
predict the intentions of immigrant and refugee parents to be involved in their
children’s early childhood education programs. The dependent variable were the parent’s
reported intentions for involvement, and the predictors would be the
determinants of behaviors as outlined in TPB, which were parental attitudes and
beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (Bracke &
Corts, 2012).
The correlational design used in this study was
appropriate for testing whether TPB constructs fit a model for an observed set
of relationships among the constructs in the model (Girardelli & Patel,
2016). Survey methods were
used to measure the four constructs of TPB with the three predictor variables
and the single dependent variable of parent intention (Bracke & Corts,
2012). The survey method allowed objectivity and minimized bias (Smith, 2015).
The quantitative design-controlled biases so that facts, instances, and
phenomena could be understood in an objective way (Park & Park, 2016).
Moreover, a quantitative design focuses on “the accumulation of facts and
causes of behavior through isolation, measurement, and evaluation of variables,
focusing on predictability and control over time” (Park & Park, 2016, p.
4). This design best aligned with the purpose and goals of the study.
In this study, the quantitative
methodology utilized a non-experimental design, so manipulating variables were
not a part of this process (Smith, 2015). Given the aim was to answer questions
related to how much of a phenomenon existed, qualitative methods were not
appropriate to use (McCusker & Gunaydin, 2014). Based on the purpose of
this study, a quantitative design was the most appropriate method, since it would
provide for numerical data to be analyzed to determine relationships between
the multiple predictor variables posed in the TPB (Park & Park, 2016). A
regression model was used to investigate whether the TPB determinants of
behavior were significantly related to and could predict the involvement of
immigrant/refugee parents in their children’s early childhood education
programs, specifically Early Head Start and Head Start programs.
According to the All Kids Academy
Head Start and Early Head Start’s (AKA-HS/EHS) reports from 2014-2015, there
were 1,381 children, including Hispanic or Latino (803) and Non-Hispanic (578)
who attended twelve Head Start centers in Southern California. Based on this
statistic, a target of approximately 800-1000 parents/caregivers, who were
identified as immigrant or refugee living in this area, and whose children were
enrolled in either an Early Head Start or Head Start program, were solicited to
participate in the survey with the hope of obtaining the sample size required
of 122 completed surveys.
The Parent Involvement Project
(PIP) survey was the instrument used for data collection. The questionnaire
contained 57 items developed by Hoover-Dempsey, Walker, Jones, and Reed (2002).
All items were measured on a six-point Likert scale for attitudes and beliefs,
subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and parental intentions. The Likert
scale ranged from strongly disagree
to strongly agree, with the
additional option of I Don’t Know. For example, parents were
asked to rate each statement based on how much they disagree or agree. The
options were 1 indicating Strongly
Disagree, 2 indicating Disagree,
3 indicating Don’t Know, 4 indicating
Agree Just a Little, 5 indicating Agree, and 6 indicating Strongly Agree.
After receiving approval from Northcentral
University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the AKA Head Start
administrative office, parents were solicited at each of the centers. During
the drop off time at each of 12 centers, the researcher briefly explained the
purpose of the study to the parents/caregivers and asked them to voluntarily
participate if they were interested in cooperating with the research (Appendix
B) (Fowler, 2009). The consent form informed them of the voluntary nature of
participation, the level of involvement, the absence of deception, and that their
participation would remain anonymous. When consent was granted, volunteers were
asked to complete a brief demographic information questionnaire regarding their
immigrant/refugee status (Appendix C). Eligible participants received a PIP
survey package (Appendix A) with a cover letter (Appendix D). The cover letter
to parents detailed the purpose of the study. All papers were translated into
their home language (i.e., Arabic, Spanish or Vietnamese) to ensure
parents/caregivers understand explanations clearly. Self-addressed
and stamped envelopes were enclosed for returning the survey. A reminder
postcard was sent two weeks later to encourage participation for those who might
not have completed a returned survey (Blaxter, Hughes, & Tight, 2014).
Those who completed the survey received a gift card of ten dollars.
Significance of the Study
Parental involvement has been
recognized as a variable of significant impact on early childhood education
(McCormick, Cappella, O’Connor, & McClowry, 2013). It has been found to
increase the academic functioning of young children, especially for immigrant
children who grow up with at least one foreign-born parent and speak a home
language other than English (Demircan & Erden, 2015; Winsler et al., 2014).
Therefore, it was important to study the involvement of immigrant and refugee
parents in preschool because their historical, socio-demographic characteristics
and academic concerns are possibly different with regards to parental attitudes
and beliefs, perceived control, subjective norms, and subsequent behavioral
intentions (Hindman et al., 2012). A lack of parental involvement was a factor
in at-risk children’s academic achievement (Demircan & Erden, 2015; Hindman
et al., 2012). Parent/caregiver involvement has improved children’s success
(Bracke & Corts, 2012; Demircan & Erden, 2015; Porumbu & Necşoi,
2013). Little is known about how the theory of planned behavior might explain
parent involvement of immigrant and refugee children at Early Head Start and
Head Start programs (Ntuli, Nyarambi, & Traore, 2014). This quantitative
study contributed to understanding parents’ perceptions of their involvement in
Head Start programs and factors that might contribute to their involvement. The research was important because it builds
greater understanding of how or if parental involvement and engagement
practices for immigrant/refugee parents or caregivers could be effective. The
findings could be used to encourage school and childcare center directors and
teachers to expand their repertoire of strategies to involve parents from
diverse language, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds. Identifying the
determinants of parent involvement, or lack thereof, in immigrant and refugee
populations that could subsequently be used to develop interventions was an
important goal of the study (Hindman et al., 2012). Implications for improving
current parent involvement policies and practices for engaging immigrants and
refugees were developed from the findings and could be useful in overcoming the
barriers to involvement if the schools wish to improve their programs.
Subsequently, these parents might be able to better support their children and
the school (Bulotsky-Shearer et al.,
2012; Smith, 2014).
The testing
of Ajzen’s TPB with regard to parent involvement in early childhood programs
has never been tested relative to immigrant and refugee parents/caregivers in
the context of Head Start and Early Head Start programs; therefore, more
information concerning parents’ attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived
behavioral controls, and subsequent behavioral intentions can contribute to
improving the effectiveness of the program. By using Ajzen’s TPB model (1991),
the results from this study contributed to the knowledge of potential outcomes
of parental involvement, such as the following: affirmation of parents’ and
caregivers’ positive attitudes about school participation, clarification of the
dissonance between parents’ professed attitudes, beliefs, values, and
intentions and in their actual behaviors, and rationale for a norm-based
initiative that might increase parental involvement (Bracke & Corts, 2012).
Definition of Key
Terms
Attitude
toward behavior. An attitude toward a behavior is an individual’s positive
or negative evaluation of self-performance of the particular behavior. The
concept is the degree to which performance of behavior is a positive or
negative value. It is determined by the total set of accessible behavioral
beliefs linking behavior to various outcomes and other attributes (Ajzen, 1991).
Behavioral
belief. Behavioral
belief is an individual’s belief about consequences of a particular behavior.
The belief is based on the subjective probability that the behavior will
produce a given outcome (Ajzen, 1991).
Behavior
intention. Behavior
intention is an indication of an individual’s readiness to perform a given
behavior and is assumed to be an immediate antecedent of behavior (Ajzen,
1991).
Head
Start. Head Start
(1964) provides comprehensive services for children between ages 3 and 5 and their
families. It supports the school readiness of dual-language learners with
culturally sensitive family engagement practices. It also builds relationships
with families to support positive parent-child relationships, family
well-being, and connections to peers and community. The Head Start program is
federally funded for low-income children under the age of mandatory school
attendance (Head Start, 1964).
Early
Head Start. The
Early Head Start program (1964) was established to assist and promote the
physical, cognitive, social and emotional development of infants and toddlers
up to age 3.
Immigrants. Immigrants are people who moved
into the United States in order to find a settlement and become citizens
(Poureslami et al., 2013).
Intention.
The intention is
the perceived likelihood of performing a behavior. It is a direct function of
the attitude about the behavior and subjective norm associated with the
behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
Perceived
behavioral control.
Perceived behavioral control is an individual’s perceived ease or difficulty of
performing the particular behavior. Perceived behavioral control is determined
by the total set of accessible control beliefs (Ajzen, 1991).
Refugee. A refugee is defined as a person
who flees from persecution, invasion, or political danger in their home country
and is unable to return (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2007).
Southwest
Asian groups.
Southwest Asia is sometimes described as the Near East or the Middle East. The
people of its area are Greek Cypriots, Turks, Jews, Arabs, Kurds, Iranian,
Iraqi, and Afghani (Poureslami et al., 2013).
Subjective
norm. Subjective
norm is an individual’s perception of the particular behavior, which is
influenced by the judgment of significant others, such as parents, spouses,
friends, and teachers. It refers to the perceived social pressure to perform or
not to perform a behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
Southeast
Asian groups.
Southeast Asia is made up of many thousands of tropical islands and a mainland
area. The nations are Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines,
Cambodia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Indonesia, and East Timor (Lee &
Zhou, 2014).
Summary
Parental involvement in schooling
activities for toddlers and preschoolers is important to children’s later
school success because it created higher levels of proactive learning
behaviors, greater receptive vocabulary, and lower levels of conduct problems
(Bracke & Corts, 2012; Hindman et al., 2012; Manz et al., 2014). However,
parents who are immigrants/refugees may have low parental involvement due to
their attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral controls,
and subsequent parental intentions (Demircan & Erden, 2015; Manz et al.,
2014; Poureslami et al., 2013). These factors served as the key variables posed
in TPB determinants of behavior and were important to determining whether they were
significantly related to and able to predict the parental intentions of
immigrant and refugee parents for involvement in their children’s early
childhood education programs. By assessing these constructs that were pivotal
to TPB, testing this theory within the context of immigrant and refugee
families with children enrolled in Head Start or Early Head Start was
accomplished. Using the theoretical framework provided by the TPB, the effect
of the variables on intention and behaviors that might frame parents’ decisions
to be involved or not involved in their children’s education were identified
(Girardelli & Patel, 2016).
Due to immigrant and refugee children’s educational risk in community and
societal contexts, these parents needed to support programs starting with their
children’s early preschool enrollment. Without understanding the theory of
planned behavior, teachers and educators might encounter some adverse outcomes or
lacking parental involvement. Encouraging immigrant and refugee parents to have
good intentions and high academic expectations for their children’s education was
possible (Castro et al., 2015). Likewise, the perception of participation as a
social norm might help increase the likelihood of parental involvement; however,
the theoretical models of parents’ participation in school activities from
toddler to preschool needed better development (Manz et al., 2014).
Applying Ajzen’s theory (1991) of planned behavior to parent involvement in Head
Start and Early Head Start could strengthen immigrant and refugee family
practices. However, to provide evidence of this theory’s usefulness, a theory of
planned behavior-based model was tested. Testing the TPB model based on
immigrant and refugee parents’ attitudes/beliefs,
norms, and perceived behavioral control allowed analysis of how to increase
parental involvement, thereby, raising children’s education standards. The hope
for this study was to reveal implications for Head Start and Early Head Start
program’s administrators, directors, teachers, and policy-makers alike to find
ways to promote parental involvement in immigrant and refugee populations.
Chapter
2: Literature Review
Researchers
studying parent involvement have found a positive association between parents’ engagement
in their children’s education and academic achievement outcomes (Bracke &
Corts, 2012; McCormick, Cappella, O’Connor, & McClowry, 2013). Parental
involvement is an especially important resource for immigrant and refugee
families, where children face elevated risks for later academic and social
difficulty in school (Hindman, Miller, Froyen, & Skibbe, 2012). Hindman, Miller, Froyen, and Skibbe (2012) stressed that the primary aim of Head Start programs is to enhance family
involvement; however, researchers did not widely consider on “how often parents
are involved in various social contexts, as well as what features of families’
lives and experiences are linked to their environment” (p. 654). Even less so, it
was required for researchers to explore these issues within immigrant and
refugee families, who might have unique assets (e.g., support from programs
such as Early Head Start and Head Start) and special constraints (e.g., limited
resources) that resulted in distinct patterns and predictors of involvement
(Hindman et al., 2012). Furthermore, the theoretical models of parent
involvement in learning activities for infants and toddlers were not well-developed
(Manz, Gernhart, Bracaliello, Pressimone, & Eisenberg, 2014). To provide a
framework that would illuminate these issues more clearly, Ajzen’s (1991)
theory, the theory of planned behavior (TPB) could structure the inquiry of
parental involvement in children’s education (Bracke & Corts, 2012). This
theory was used as the framework for identifying the immediate antecedents of
parent behavior with practical advantages regarding prediction and potential
intervention (Kiriakidis, 2015). Additionally, the theory outlined key
variables for detailed and in-depth analysis, specially attitudes and beliefs, subjective
norms, and perceived behavioral control that influenced intentions and behavior
(Kiriakidis, 2015; McGregor & Knoll, 2015). The following literature review
served to inform and support the study and is organized around themes revealed
through an examination of empirical research. The themes related to the study
topic are (a) the theory of planned behavior, (b) parent involvement and
family engagement, (c) immigrant and refugee family characteristics, (d) the
importance of parental involvement, (e) barriers to parent involvement, and (f)
facilitators of parental involvement.
Several
literature search engines were used to identify and access empirical literature
for possible inclusion in the literature review. They included Google Scholar, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, and
ERIC. Peer-reviewed journal articles and books spanning from 2005 to the
present were surveyed. Keywords included
parent involvement, family engagement, Head Start and Early Head Start,
immigrant and refugee, attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls. The
literature identified was reviewed, analyzed, and organized into themes for
presentation in this chapter.
Theoretical
Framework: Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
The theory of planned behavior
(TPB) might provide an insight into issues related to parental involvement in
schools. This theory emphasizes that behavioral change can occur if the
determinants of behavior are identified and used to design interventions for
behavioral change (Demircan & Erden, 2015). The three most important tenets
of TPB that affected behavior aligned well with current research on parent
involvement in general given they focused on the key roles of attitudes and
beliefs, subjective norms, and control beliefs and perceived behavioral control
(Ajzen, 1991). As applied to parent involvement, control beliefs might refer to
those perceptions that parents might have concerning barriers, which hinder
their participation. Perceived behavioral control refers to the ease or
difficulty of performing a behavior, in this case, involvement in schooling
(Ajzen, 2991). However, how TPB applied to the study of parental involvement
received little attention (McGregor & Knoll, 2015), especially with regards
to specific educational contexts or subsets of the population; it remains
unclear how it might be used in a context such as parent participation in Head
Start and Early Head Start programs with immigrant and refugee populations
(Hindman et al., 2012) to provide an insight into the specific issues of this
parent population and how and if it could assist in identifying determinants of
behavior that could then be used to design interventions to increase parent
involvement. Variables related to immigrants and refugees, such as whether a
family was first or second-generation, their age, and length of time they have
lived within their receiving nation have significant implications on family
outcomes (Salas-Wright, Kagotho, & Vaughn, 2014), so this population might
encounter sole determinants of parent involvement that needed exploration and
identification.
The TPB
evolved from the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), which originated in 1975
(Ajzen, 1991). Tipton (2014) expressed that according to the TRA, the more
favorable the attitudes and subjective norms an individual hold, the stronger
should be an individual’s intention to perform a behavior. In this theory, the
behavioral intention is directly determined by attitudes and subjective norms.
Attitudes towards a particular behavior could be either positive or negative.
More favorable attitudes toward a behavior should increase the intention to
performing the behavior. Subjective norms refers to the social pressure to
perform or not perform the behavior (Ajzen, 1991). However, TRA was not clear
to be a predictor of future behaviors in which volitional control was reduced
(Montaño & Kasprzyk, 2015). Thus, the TPB was developed by Ajzen to include
the construct of perceived behavioral control (PBC; Montaño & Kasprzyk,
2015). This addition was based on the premise that an individual’s degree of
confidence in one’s own ability to engage in behavior is a strong determinant
of the behavioral intention (Ajzen, 1991). By adding the construct of perceived
control over the behavior, TPB took into account situations where one might not
have complete volitional control over a behavior; therefore, the theory allowed
a better understanding of the relationships between attitudes, intentions, and
behavior (Montaño & Kasprzyk, 2015).
The TPB
could guide research towards understanding the factors influencing educational
success (Bracke & Corts, 2012). This theory incorporates attitudes and
beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control of human behavior
into a framework to analyze behavioral choices (Ajzen 1991). Within TPB, an
attitude was defined as whether an individual behaved positively or negatively
based on prior judgments they might have made; for example, a positive attitude
toward parental involvement and engagement might increase a parent’s
willingness to help a child with their activities at home and school (McGregor
& Knoll, 2015). According to Perry and Langley (2013), this theory was
developed as a modification of the theory of reasoned action (TRA); the rationale for the original
theory was to understand the relationship between attitudes and behaviors. Indirect
measures could assess a person’s attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of norms
toward performing a behavior. The measures could be used to determine
behavioral intentions defined as the subsequent likelihood of engaging in the
target behaviors (Montaño
& Kasprzyk, 2015). In addition to these constructs, the TPB contained
perceived behavioral control (Perry & Langley, 2013), which allowed for the prediction
of the likelihood someone would engage in the behavior.
According to Ajzen (1991), the
predicted behavior was determined by both motivation (intention) and ability to
perform the behavior, that is, perceived behavioral control. Ajzen asserted
that an individual child would exert more effort to perform a behavior when his
or her perceived behavioral control was high (Ajzen, 1991). There is an
interplay between intentions and perceived behavioral control. In this process,
the perception of the ability to control the behavioral performance along with
behavioral intentions was expected to lead to observable behaviors (Montaño & Kasprzyk, 2015). When there
was perceived control over a situation, there was a more accurate assessment of
the potential for control over the situation and the ability to carry out
intended behaviors (Ajzen, 1991). Ajzen (1991) stressed that the
model was intended to provide an explanation and prediction of behavioral
problems and appropriate behaviors.
The TPB
could be applied to any human behavior under volitional control; and when
combined with perceived behavioral control, it could guide predictions of
behavior with greater accuracy than previous models (Ajzen, 1991). The theory
has been successfully applied in several fields, such as parental involvement
in children’s education
(Bracke & Corts, 2012; McGregor & Knoll, 2015; Perry &
Langley, 2013; Tipton, 2014),
binge drinking (Case, Sparks, & Pavey, 2016), physical exercise (Esposito,
van Bavel, Baranowski, & Duch-Brown, 2016), fertility intentions (Ajzen
& Klobas, 2013), health psychology (Montaño
& Kasprzyk, 2015), and marketing (Girardelli & Patel, 2016;
Rosa & Tudge, 2013). The TPB predicted parents’ intentions and behaviors
related to involvement in their child’s education that “offer support for a
long term, collaborative relationship between education and the local
community” (Bracke & Corts, 2012, p. 198). Parental attitudes and
beliefs, subjective norms, and expectations generated a formula for successful
family-school partnerships and interventions (Bracke & Corts, 2012).
Parents might believe education was
the teacher’s responsibility alone, or they might believe that parents could
make a positive difference in their child’s education (Bracke & Corts, 2012). Researchers have found parental involvement in their child’s education
relates to the parents’ belief that they should or should not be involved in
their children’s education (Bracke & Corts, 2012). This belief was often
shaped by the parent’s personal experiences with schooling and personal
perceptions about schooling when parents were invited to participate in
children’s school activities (Bracke & Corts, 2012). If parents believe
that good parenting means they should be taking an active role in their
children’s education, then there is a greater likelihood that parents will take
an active role in their children’s education (Bracke & Corts, 2012). In the
context of a parent’s subjective norms about their roles, they might not
be involved because they lack the examples of parental involvement or they come
from a culture in which parents are never expected to be involved (Bracke & Corts, 2012).
Researchers found these norms might be a product of whether an individual
believes that other meaningful people approve or disapprove of their behaviors
and motivations to comply with expectations (Perry & Langley, 2013).
Perceived behavioral control over parents’ level of involvement was determined by their control beliefs
concerning perceived barriers to their behaviors (Ajzen, 1991). For example,
parents of low socioeconomic status might have restrictive jobs that are
obstacles to their involvement (Mendez & Westerberg, 2012).
The perceived attitudes and
beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls can be used to
determine the intentions a person has behaved in a certain manner, for example,
whether a parent will engage in involvement in their child’s education (Ajzen,
1991). Ajzen’s (1991) theory can be expressed in three conceptually independent
antecedents, attitude toward the behavior (A), subjective norms (SN), and
perceived behavioral control (PBC). These antecedents lead to a behavioral
intention (BI) represented as BI = Awi
+ SNwi + PBCwi. Attitude toward the
behavior (A) was defined as a person’s overall favorableness or unfavorableness
toward performing the behavior (Ajzen & Klobas 2013). Ajzen and Klobas
(2013) stressed that parents might have positive or negative feelings about
their behavior of interest. If the parents feel efficacious in helping their
children learn, they have positive perceptions of invitations for involvement
from the teachers and have life contexts that allow or encourage involvement to
promote a positive climate in their children’s school, then they will have
positive involvement (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). Ajzen (1991) pointed out
that the subjective norm was determined by all readily accessible normative
beliefs about a person’s perception of the social environment surrounding the
behavior; it reflects the social pressure that parents feel to participate or
not participate in their child’s education and school activities (Ajzen & Klobas,
2013). If they see most parents at their child’s school are unable or unwilling
to be actively involved in the school, they might perceive involvement as
having negative outcomes (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005).
The perceived behavioral control
(PBC) construct was based on beliefs about the presence of factors that might
facilitate or impede the performance of the behavior (Steinmetz, Knappstein,
Ajzen, Schmidt, & Kabst, 2016). If there is room for change in two or more
predictors, it is possible to consider their relative weights in the prediction
of intentions and behavior to target the intervention (Ajzen, 1991). Ajzen (1991)
noted that these weights are usually interpreted as corresponding to the
relative importance of the predictors; however, regression or path coefficients
might not always reflect the relative importance of different predictors
(Ajzen, 1991) because they are influenced by the degree of variance in the
items used to measure the predictors. For example, a large proportion of parents
or caregivers in the immigrant and refugee population would show a low
predictive value for perceived control over home-school involvement only if
variability was very low in responses. Ajzen (2006) noted that such a “factor
would not correlate well with intentions or behavior and would thus receive a
low regression or path coefficient” (p. 3). Nevertheless, an intervention that
succeeded in raising the level of perceived behavioral control among an
appreciable proportion of parents could produce a considerable increase in the
rate of parental involvement (Ajzen, 2006). Also, following the intervention,
there might be much more variability in perceived behavioral control, and one might
see a strong coefficient for this factor in the prediction of parental intention
and behavior (Ajzen, 2006). Researchers assumed overall positive or negative
attitude toward the behaviors were based on the strength of the behavioral
beliefs, which were a person’s beliefs about the likely consequences of
performing the behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The stronger parent’s beliefs were that
their involvement would lead to positive outcomes and prevent negative
outcomes, the more favorable parent’s attitude would be toward involvement
(Ajzen, 2006).
Drawing on Ajzen’s TPB, the gaps in
understanding of parental involvement in schools by immigrant and refugee
families could be examined and addressed, giving insight into a family
mechanism that affects parental involvement in children’s development (Paat,
2013). An understanding of parents’ intentions concerning engagement and
involvement could be a means to increase involvement and decrease achievement
gaps across the different groups of immigrant and refugee children (Mendez
& Westerberg, 2012). Researchers have
found correlations among behavioral intentions, actions, and parental
involvement outcomes, and these outcomes have been the subject of considerable
research (Bracke & Corts, 2013).
According
to Lin (2012), some important mediating variables interfering with parental
involvement were parents’ beliefs and attitudes, subjective norms, and
perceived behavioral control regarding the role of parent involvement in their
children’s education. These variables also moderated the effects of parents’
intentions for involvement in their child’s program (Lin, 2012). To strengthen
these findings, researchers might direct attention on parents’ intentions and
how often they would participate or not participate in various social contexts
(Bracke & Corts, 2012). Exploration of these issues for immigrant and
refugee families, who might have unique beliefs or attitudes and face special
constraints, might result in findings concerning distinct behavioral patterns
and predictors of parental involvement (Hindman et al., 2012). Researchers
had not tested TPB in the specific context of immigrant and refugee children
enrolled in Early Head Start and Head Start (Esposito et al., 2016).
Examination of how well the constructions of TPB mapped onto and predicted the
intention of immigrant and refugee parents for involvement in their child’s
education should extend the application of the theory to this unique and
growing population.
Parent
Involvement and Family Engagement
Parent
involvement, family engagement, and family involvement were the terms defined
similarly in the early care and preschool education literature (Forry et al.,
2012). Researchers found these were related and overlapping concepts that include
the notion of a common goal to enhance children’s learning through strong
partnerships between schools, programs, and families (Forry et al., 2012).
Researchers have shown that parent involvement, as a shared responsibility of
families and schools contributes to a child’s education success (Mendez &
Westerberg, 2012). Hilado, Kallemeyn, and Phillips (2013) stressed that parent
involvement was the key, for stakeholders, and could be strengthened with
positive results for young children and their school readiness. School and
community-based organizations were committed to reaching out to engage families
in meaningful ways, and families were committed to actively supporting and managing
their children’s learning and development.
At the
federal level, a policy regarding parent involvement in early childhood
education emphasizes parents’ role in supporting children’s development of
literacy skills (Hilado et al., 2013). Models of parent and family involvement
in Early Head Start and Head Start’s programs contain a range of outcomes for
children, including cognitive, physical, and social-emotional approaches to
learning outcomes (Miller, Farkas, Vandell, & Duncan, 2014). The literature
related to parental involvement in schools tended to convey a positive
connection among parent involvement, education achievement, school attendance,
graduation rates, educational aspirations, positive classroom behavior,
enrollment in more challenging curricula, and favorable attitudes (Bracke &
Corts, 2012; Koury & Votruba-Drzal, 2014). Researchers stressed the
importance of parental involvement programs and how frequently the programs were
successful when schools were easy to reach and communicate with and the needs
of the total family were met (Garbacz et al., 2016; Manz et al., 2014). Dove,
Neuharth-Pritchett, Wright, and Wallinga (2015) stated that parental
involvement reached beyond home practices into children’s classrooms.
Involvement in school gives parents additional knowledge that helps complement
their children’s learning in class.
Epstein
(1995) proposed six different types of parental involvement: parenting,
communication, volunteering, learning at home, decision-making, and community
collaboration. They were widely cited in the K-12 educational literature.
Epstein’s model focused on the parents’ role in children’s education and
learning and the school’s role in working with families to promote children’s
academic success (Epstein, 1995). This model emphasized how parents might
become involved in schools and how schools could facilitate this involvement
(Castro et al., 2015). Even though this model focused on an elementary school,
researchers also suggested that families in the preschool context could adopt
the six domains of Epstein’s (1995) model for parental involvement. The
following are a brief overview of each type of involvement:
·
Parenting is parental support in the home for a
child’s success at school (Kikas, Tulviste, & Peets, 2014). This support
includes activities such as ensuring a child to get enough sleep, eat
breakfast, and get to school every day on time (Kikas et al., 2014; Neuhauser,
2014).
·
Communication consists of parents’ communications
about school programs, their children’s academic progress, and achievement
between home-school and school-home to convey information about the school and
children’s educational needs (Garbacz et al., 2016). In school-home, the
communications include the following: newsletters mailed from school, telephone
conversations between parent and teacher, parent-teacher conferences, and home
visits. In home-school, parents or caregivers can do various things to help
their children succeed in schools, such as daily conversations about their
hobbies, stories, school events, and attention to school matters, and
affectionate concern for children’s progress by visiting their classroom
(Garbacz et al., 2016).
·
Volunteering consists of multiple opportunities for
parents to help the school and become actively engaged (Bulotsky-Shearer, Wen,
Faria, Hahs-Vaughn, & Korfmacher, 2012). Parents can help and support in a
classroom, at the school library, in the lunchroom, and accompany the class for
field trips.
·
Learning at home can be conjoined to the teacher in
a program to provide families with information and ideas on how to help
children with homework and other curriculum-related activities at home
(Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012).
·
Decision-making consists of invitations for parents
to receive skills from training or workshops on how to be involved in parental
leadership, such as school site council and the English learner advisory
committee (Kikas et al., 2014).
·
Community collaboration is coordination with
community partners to provide resources, services, and information to
strengthen a school program, family practice, and children’s learning
such as when schools host health fairs or college career fairs (Willems
& Gonzalez-DeHass, 2012).
Researchers
agree that whenever parents’ engagement occurred at home or in out-of-class
education activities, such as parents helping their children do homework, get
enough sleep, and get to school on time, children tended to have positive
attitudes towards school activities (Castro et al., 2015). Encouraging parents in their roles as a
teacher for their children and promoting their awareness of their children as learners, helped parents be more
equipped to support and encourage children’s learning at home (Willems &
Gonzalez-DeHass, 2012). Furthermore,
whenever parents and teachers communicated effectively between school
and home about children’s progress and school programs, they provided a support system that buttressed a child’s academic
learning and reinforced the value of schooling (Hindman et al., 2012; Willems
& Gonzalez-DeHass, 2012). There is widespread consensus among researchers
that parents’ involvement in their children’s education at home and school is
an important factor contributing to children’s adaptive development (Hilado et
al., 2013; Hindman et al., 2012).
Mothers are more
involved in their children’s education than fathers; although the role of
fathers’ involvement has been highlighted in recent years, fathers are still
less engaged in the parental involvement process (Kikas et al., 2014). Kikas,
Tulviste, and Peets (2014) also noted that an emphasis on social values at home
is related to paternal, and marginally related to maternal, home-based academic
involvement. Researchers noted parents’ values concerning socialization might
become a factor that influences children’s education (Kikas et al., 2014).
Socialization is a quality parents should consider as importance to instill in
children. When parents give priority to social values, such as politeness,
obedience, trustworthiness, and respect for others, they socialize their
children toward interdependence (Kikas
et al., 2014). In contrast, when they value self-directed activities, such as
creativity, self-confidence, and autonomy, they socialized them toward
independence (Kikas et al., 2014). Researchers found that parents who emphasize
social values might consider that teachers were the main educators of children
and might be less engaged in children’s education. Therefore,
it is important to identify characteristics of the immigrant and refugee
families that enhance or inhibit parental involvement in education, such as
these types of behaviors and attitudes (Kikas et al., 2014).
Classrooms
have become increasingly diverse as demonstrated by immigrant and refugees’
children comprising over 20% of children under the age of six (Caughy &
Owen, 2015). Nearly 93% of these children are U.S. citizens and are more likely
than children of U.S. born citizens to face social, economic, cultural, or
psychological hardships. These issues create significant barriers to healthy
development and make these children less ready to succeed in school (Neuhauser,
2014). According to Garbacz et al. (2016), several important factors could
influence immigrant and refugee parents or caregiver’s involvement (Garbacz et
al., 2016). The factors include low family income, low parental education,
parenting beliefs and practices, high parent-child conflicts, a lack of English
proficiency (Hindman et al., 2012; Manz et al., 2014; Winsler, Kim, &
Richard, 2014), parent depression (Han & Osterling, 2012; Tichovolsky,
Arnold, & Baker, 2013; Tingvold, Hauff, Allen, & Middelthon, 2012),
history of schooling, timing and reasons for coming to the United States, and
emotional trauma and vulnerability (Nguyen, 2013; Reed-Danahay, 2015). These
factors might place immigrant and refugee parents or caregivers at risk for
having low involvement that affects their children’s academic performance
(McCormick et al., 2013). However, the most significant factors are parents’
past traumatic experiences (Muldoon
& Lowe, 2012) and current stressful
life circumstances (Nguyen, 2013). These factors allow both immigrant and
refugee parents to be vulnerable to disturbances in family involvement
(Tingvold et al., 2012). However, a lack of parental involvement might be a
result of other factors unrelated to a family’s demographic status but related
to the interrelationship among demographic and characteristic variables. These factors could be related to situations where
parents do not have high academic expectations for their children, do not
develop and maintain communication with them about school activities, and do
not help them to develop reading habits (Castro et al., 2015; Dove et al.,
2015). Researchers found that low parent involvement is associated with greater
family struggles such as lower monthly income, less parental education, and greater
parental depression (Bulotsky-Shearer
et al., 2012). Furthermore, the continuity of
high-quality experiences within the home and school that comprise higher
parental home involvement and higher classroom quality is associated with
higher academic and social development (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012). Researchers list more concerns regarding
low levels of parent involvement related to several demographic correlates of
involvement such as parent education, marital status, employment, primary
language, and demographic characteristics (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012).
Immigrant
and Refugee Families Demographic Characteristics
Demographic
characteristics of immigrant and refugee groups are included in the
inter-related constructs of the TPB and contribute to the level of involvement that parents have in their child’s schooling (Dove et al.,
2015). Hindman, Miller, Froyen, and Skibbe (2012) stated that one challenge of
identifying universal parental concerns is that not all families have the same
demographic characteristics, especially with culturally and linguistically
diverse backgrounds. Each family might perceive their needs differently and
thus, might seek different resources (Mendez & Westerberg, 2012). They also
might encounter problems settling into American culture and might have many
challenges, such as learning English and customs, gaining employment, adjusting
to a new environment, and having little social and family support (Han &
Osterling, 2012; Tingvold et al., 2012). Moreover, Tingvold, Hauff, Allen, and Middelthon (2012) agreed that the research findings concerning
refugees and parenting in exile often emphasized the vulnerability of immigrant
and refugee groups. They faced stresses associated with torture, trauma, and
separation from and death of family members (Tingvold et al., 2012). When these
families migrated to a new country, their children encountered many challenges
in a new culture including mental and physical health problems, social
isolation, poverty, and behavioral problems (Sullivan & Simonson, 2016).
Most studies relied heavily on the samples of immigrants and refugees from
three ethnic groups, African, Asian, and Hispanic or Latino because they were
substantially represented in the US (Poureslami et al., 2013).
In 2011,
African Americans were the second largest minority group in the US with a
population of 43.9 million persons (Census Bureau Reports, 2012). Africans were
among the fastest growing immigrant groups in the US, and almost all groups
were more socially conservative and collectivist than the mainstream US
population (Rasmussen, Chu, Akinsulure-Smith, & Keatley, 2013). Researchers
found that parents and caregivers often have a hard time involving themselves
in their children’s schooling (Rasmussen et al., 2013). Furthermore, the reports
in the media that serve these ethnic communities were disdainful of permissive
American disciplinary practices, which were perceived as the causes of rampant
crime, recreational drug use, and sex (Rasmussen et al., 2013).
Middle
Easterners and Southwest Asians who recently have immigrated were estimated
at 276,000 persons, and approximately 39% of U.S. refugees were children and youth (Auclair & Batalova, 2013). Farsi-speaking people
have many similarities with Southeast Asians; they are refugees likely fleeing
from their home countries having experienced some level of trauma before their
escape (Sullivan & Simonson, 2016). Researchers found that Southwest Asian
immigrants engaged in less visible forms of involvement in schools; for
example, they were not represented in parent-teacher associations. Still, they are
often actively involved in their children’s education outside school. In
particular, Southwest Asian immigrant parents tend to set high academic
standards and then marshal the resources that their children need to meet those
standards (Poureslami et al., 2013).
Of the
Southeast Asians, more than 60% of the populations living in the United States were
foreign-born (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). More than 75% of the Asian-American
population immigrated to the United States within the past two decades (Han
& Osterling, 2012). Asian-American ethnic groups varied in their reasons
and timing of immigration to the US (Han & Osterling, 2012). According to Jacob,
Gray, and Johnson (2013), most Chinese, Indian, Filipino, and Korean
immigrants came to join their families and to invest in the U.S. economy.
However, many of those of Southeast Asian origins, such as Vietnamese,
Cambodians, and Laotians arrived as a refugee from war and persecution
(Tingvold et al., 2012). Becoming a US resident gave immigrants opportunities
to “develop a more comfortable life than they have in their country of origin,
although it brought many challenges related to the merging of very different
cultures” (Jacob et al., 2013, p. 181). Cambodian and Vietnamese Amerasian children
(Fry, McCoy, & Swales, 2012), and veterans of the former Republic of
Vietnam Armed Forces are some significant members of the Vietnamese refugee
community because they often are struggling with mental health, post-war loss,
and trauma issues (Nguyen, 2013). Moreover, researchers found these groups of
refugees were under stress because they were parenting in exile, which might
increase the vulnerability of this particular group (Han & Osterling,
2012). While in exile, families also experienced changes to family roles,
language difficulties, and differences in cultural expectations of their
behavior (Tingvold et al., 2012). Refugee parents face similar challenges with
their children and adolescents as experienced by parents of the mainstream
receiving culture, which could include parental mental and physical health
problems (Jacob et al., 2013), social isolation, poverty, and their children’s
behavioral problems (Tingvold et al., 2012). Tingvold, Hauff, Allen, and
Middlelthon (2012) also found that many immigrants had traumatic
experiences before and during the process of leaving their countries of origin
leading to higher levels of depression within these groups, and this made
adaptation even more difficult. Furthermore, this population from Southeast Asia
needs a government, a civil society organization, a development agency, and
school to advocate for them and to collaborate with them across sectors to
strengthen the child protection system (Fry et al., 2012).
Hispanics
and Latinos or other Spanish-speaking groups were approximately 50 million
persons and considered as the largest minority in the U.S. (Mendez &
Westerberg, 2012). Spanish was the largest non-English language spoken in the
U.S. (Manz et al., 2014). More than a half of Hispanics/Latinos’ children were
classified as second-generation meaning that they were born in the United
States to immigrant parents (Manz et al., 2014; Mendez & Westerberg, 2012).
In 2009, Latinos made up the numerical majority of students enrolled in public
school at 11 million (US Census, 2012). They had many struggles to overcome
structural, cultural, and linguistic barriers upon entering their respective
schools, and this result occurred in lower levels of school readiness and
academic achievement when compared to White children (Mendez & Westerberg,
2012; Nino, 2014). Researchers found that Latin American immigrants were less
likely than many other parents to engage in school involvement at levels which
American schools might expect (Manz et al., 2014; Nino, 2014). In general,
researchers examined parental involvement among Latinos and other minority
groups focusing on school-based involvement, such as volunteering or learning
at home (Nino, 2014). This choice by researchers distorted their findings
concerning the true nature of parental involvement among Latinos (Nino, 2014).
Furthermore, Latino parents, especially second-generation, invested a
substantial amount of time in their children’s education in a home-based
setting (Nino, 2014). Latin American immigrants had low rates of educational
attainment and lower income than other groups (Manz et al., 2014; Mendez &
Westerberg, 2012). Researchers found that if parents were more educated, then
they were likely to understand what was needed for their children to succeed in
school (Mendez & Westerberg, 2012). A higher income enabled them to puchase
goods and services for their children (e.g., preschool’s books) and freed them
from barriers (e.g., transportation costs, inflexible work schedules) to
participation in school involvement (Caughy & Owen, 2015; Manz et al.,
2014).
Parents
may hold beliefs regarding the importance of education and have respect for
teachers; howerver, parents may not expect to be involved with the teacher
directly (Mendez & Westerberg, 2012). Further, moral teaching tends to
focus on respect for authority, obedience, intergenerational solidarity, and
hard work (Nino, 2014). Nino stressed that this model might not bring
advantages to an individualistic culture as in the U.S. Likewise, the American
educational system emphasizes competition, rewards demanding and entitled
behavior, and views work outside of school as a threat to work inside the
school (Ntuli, Nyarambi, & Traore, 2014). Researchers found that successful
parent involvement of Hispanic parents begins with understanding their culture
and values (Fung & Fox, 2014). If they fail to understand families’ culture
and values, educators’ perception might lead to negative outcomes for schools’
involvement (Fung & Fox, 2014).
There was
mixed evidence regarding the associations between family demographics and
personal characteristics of immigrant and refugee family members, such as
parents of children with special needs who were less likely to feel a sense of
partnership with their children’s educator (Forry et al., 2012). According
to Acar and Akamoglu (2014), some studies were published about parent
participation in intervention programs for children with special needs. Results
were that parental involvement could affect positive outcomes for children with
physical disabilities; for example, parents or caregivers could recognize their
children’s signals, respond appropriately to their needs, implement a variety
of challenging activities to support their children’s motor behavior, and
encourage their children to continue motor behaviors (Forry, 2012).
Furthermore, children with special needs were at risk of the targeted domains
of cognitive, socio-emotional development, and children’s health, requiring
parental involvement as a predictor of satisfaction in an early childhood
intervention program (Miller, Farkas, Vandell, & Duncan, 2016). Families
might participate in five categories ranging from parent fulfillment of basic
obligations all the way to active participation in school governance (Kocyigit,
2015). Parent involvement included providing children’s basic needs,
communicating with school staff, assistance at their child’s school, supporting
and participating in learning activities with children at home, and
participating in school governance and advocacy activities (Kocyigit, 2015).
According to Head Start programs’ policy regarding parents’ shared
responsibility for children’s learning, each program must have at least 50
percentages of the parent advisory councils to input their opinions into the
decisions of policy-making. In this way, they could directly affect the schools
that their children attend (Kocyigit, 2015). However, to promote parent
involvement in child’s school, teachers need to respect, recognize, and respond
to the diversity of family needs and interests (Acar & Akamoglu, 2014).
In short, children with disabilities who have non-English speaking parents more
likely received positive educational outcomes when their parents or caregivers
participate in their children’s school activities (Acar & Akamoglu, 2014).
However, their English language ability must be particularly influential in determining
the activities in which parents chose to participate in their children’s school
(Forry et al., 2012). Researchers found that parent meetings were led in
English, leaving many other parents who were immigrants and refugees, spoke
Spanish or Farsi-speaking groups, felt alienated and resulted in a lack of
parent participation in parent-teacher meetings (Forry et al., 2012; Poureslami
et al., 2013).
According
to McGregor and Knoll (2015), the demographic factors such as a marital status,
parental skill levels of education, an occupation, employment, age, or family
income could influence their ability to change the attitudes and beliefs about
parental involvement. Morrison (2012) stated the two main reasons for changing
families’ lives were divorce and single parenthood. Single parenthood was an
important factor that impacted parent involvement (Pratt, Lipscomb, &
Schmitt, 2015). Dubeau, Coutu, and Lavigueur (2013) studied 45 dual-parent
families having preschool-aged children (20 girls and 25 boys). They found that
children whose single fathers took an active role in discipline, assessed by
childcare teachers, were more socially competent than children whose single
fathers were uninvolved. They concluded that fathers were important in
motivation to participate in household duties and children’s education (Dubeau
et al., 2013). Also, fathers’
involvement during their children’s toddlerhood contributed to children’s later
emotional security (McWayne, Downer, Campos, & Harris, 2013; Kim &
Hill, 2015). McWayne, Downer, Campos, and Harris (2013), in the field of father
involvement, used meta-analyses in a total of 23 experts that were contacted
and asked for specific articles and authors, and they believed these analyses should
include a review of father involvement and children’s early learning (McWayne
et al., 2013). McWayne et al. emphasized that developmental period was crucial
for children to have a positive start to school, and fathers’ direct
involvement might play a unique and strong role in children’s development
during this time. These researchers found that a father’s frequency of positive
engagement activities and some aspects of parenting quality demonstrated a
small but consistent association with the key early childhood competencies
(McWayne et al., 2013). This study’s findings concerning the race and ethnicity
of fathers suggested that experts have much more to learn about other ways to
measure and support father involvement in non-White families. Moreover, the
findings on father residential status suggested that early childhood programs
could be a place to increase nonresidential father involvement, perhaps helping
to strengthen fathers’ positive impact on children (McWayne et al., 2013).
However, researchers found no answers to the questions on how father
involvement and child development were related to one another over the course
of time. In particular, it was unclear if during this all-important transition
from the home into preschool and then from preschool into an elementary school
certain types of father involvement were more central than others at various
points in early childhood development. Moreover, issues of shared genes for
positive behavior and cognitive skills, as well as the effects of omitted
environmental variables such as mothers' parenting and other maternal
characteristics that relate to both fathering and child outcomes, remain
unclear (McWayne et al., 2013).
Findings
from a growing number of studies showed that teenage mothers from immigrant and
refugee families chose to raise their children with their grandparents’ assistance
(Morrison, 2012). These teenage parents need support in their role as parents.
As early childhood programs enroll more children of teenage mothers, they must
seek ways to creatively and sensitively involve these families (Morrison,
2012). Also, according to Morrison, in the classroom, children from lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgendered families were more than some teachers might
have thought. To involve and embrace all parents and families in children’s
programs, immigrant and refugee groups should be invited with equal and quality
treatment, such as with dignity, respect, and honor (Morrison, 2012).
Morrison
(2012) stated that nowadays more children than ever were living with their
grandparents. Especially, immigrant and refugee grandparent’s involvement in
their grandchild’s education would help grandparents understand how children
and schooling have changed since they reared their children (Morrison, 2012).
Pratt, Lipscomb, and Schmitt (2015) studied 181 families in the Head Start
programs and found that grandmothers had a positive effect on preschool-base
involvement up to 66% for non-parental families. Efforts to engage non-parental
caregivers within the school setting, such as volunteering in the classroom and
attending teacher conferences are effective for these families (Pratt et al.,
2015).
Researchers
found when immigrant and refugee families migrated to a new country, they
encountered many challenges in between an old and a new culture (Sullivan &
Simonson, 2016). Poureslami et al. (2013) studied a parenting program for
Chinese-, Korean-, and Farsi-speaking parents of children enrolled in a Head
Start program. A total of 119 parents participated in the study. The
researchers found that a Farsi-speaking group had a stronger relationship
between parents and children in their home country as compared to a new country.
However, cultural clashes, such as home culture practices versus mainstream
Canadian cultural practices, might affect parenting values and styles
(Poureslami et al., 2013). For this reason, many Farsi-speaking parents in this
community believe that in their new country, the culture supports too much
freedom and parents are too lenient with their children in ways unacceptable to
them (Poureslami et al., 2013). Poureslami et al. (2013) noted that there might
be differences in the newcomers’ cultural beliefs and practices related to
early child’s education involvement when compared to the mainstream of a
country’s cultural beliefs and practices (Poureslami et al., 2013). Researchers
found that their cultural background shaped different aspects of home-school relationships
and the practices they use for child’s educational involvement (Cardona, Jain,
& Canfield-Davis, 2012). For example, in Chinese culture, parents felt that
the only focus on children’s education was cognitive and intellectual
development rather than physical, social, behavioral, and spiritual
development. Researchers found Mexican immigrant parents tended to view schools
as responsible for providing formal early instruction in math and literacy
while emphasizing family connectedness, warmth, and decorum over early literacy
activities or teaching of academic skills (Koury & Votruba-Drzal, 2014).
Researchers found immigrants and refugees
had war trauma after they fled their countries or experienced some level of
trauma before their flight (Sullivan & Simonson, 2016). In a meta-analysis
of nearly 7,000 adult refugees in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Columbia,
Sudan, Somalia, Burundi, Congo, Vietnam, Turkey, and Eritrea revealed close to
60% of the sample that needed mental health services due to prevalence of
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) compared with about 8% of the control
sample (Sullivan & Simonson, 2016). Researchers found that mental health
issues were increasingly evident in Asian American communities, especially in
immigrant and refugee people who escaped from war and persecution (Jacob et
al., 2013). In a sample of 32 Vietnamese immigrants, parents revealed that
mental health problems were related to a high risk for parent involvement in
the child’s education (Han & Osterling, 2012).
Researchers
found that when educators focused
on cultural
beliefs, attitudes, values, and practices of immigrant and refugee families,
they best conceptualized a framework through which actions promoted the value
of cultural diversity in education (Garbacz et al., 2016; Jacob et al., 2013).
For example, when considering parent involvement in education, all parents wanted
to support their children, but their practices might differ in approach
depending on their cultural background (Garbacz et al., 2016). Kikas, Tulviste,
and Peets (2014) stated that Latino immigrant parents were likely to stress
social values and concerned about children’s social development rather than
their cognitive development and individual school accomplishments. Parents who
emphasized social values might consider that teachers are the main educators of
children and thus might be less engaged in children’s education (Fung &
Fox, 2014). However, parents who give priority to self-direction values, such
as independence, creativity, and self-confidence, might consider cooperation
and sharing of responsibilities with teachers as inappropriate (Kikas et al.,
2014).
Researchers
found that an immigrant family culture played a significant role in parents’
ideas of the ways they could and should be involved in supporting their child’s
learning (Garbacz et al., 2016). However, even when schools invited them, families
characteristics regarding cultures suggested that parents should play a limited
role in children’s formal schooling. Likewise, families whose cultures
regularly expect direct family involvement might offer considerably more active
involvement than what their children’s schools expects. Quantitative research
concerning immigrant and refugee characteristics might reveal further variables
that have previously confounded quantitative results concerning correlation
with family involvement and young children’s learning.
The Importance of Parental
Involvement
Researchers
have reported that high levels of parental involvement are correlated with
improved academic performance, higher evaluation scores, more positive
attitudes toward school, fewer placements in special education, and lower
behavioral problems (Garbacz et al., 2016). Furthermore, parental involvement
in children’s schooling and activities make a great difference in the
likelihood of important early learning during this developmental period
(McWayne et al., 2013). If there is a lack of parental involvement in
children’s education, they fall behind with their learning process (Ntuli et
al., 2014). Researchers expressed the importance of family involvement in
cultural practices and social values among immigrant and refugee families,
including single parent households and grandparents (Kim & Hill, 2015).
These factors might affect preschool-based parent involvement that should be
investigated further to understand the issues (Pratt et al., 2015).
Mothers are more
actively involved in their children’s education than fathers (Kikas et
al., 2014). According to Kikas, Tulviste, and Peets (2014), fathers are less
engaged in their children’s education. Kim and Hill
(2015) used a meta-analysis to examine the relative strength of the association
between educational involvement of fathers versus mother and achievement of
school-age children. Their examination included 52 empirical studies representing
329 correlations for the relationship between parental involvement of mothers
or fathers and achievement (Kim & Hill, 2015). The data represented over
52,085 father-child dyads and 65,534 mother-child dyads. Sample sizes ranged
from 60 to 35,100 for studies including mothers. Kim and Hill (2015) addressed
three main research questions: (a) What is the overall relationship between
parental involvement in education and student achievement for fathers and
mothers? How are they compared to each other? Are there any significant
differences in the mean levels of involvement for mothers and fathers? (b) How
does the strength of the association between involvement and achievement and
mean levels of involvement vary across the different types of involvement for
fathers versus mothers? (c) How does the strength of the relation between
involvement and achievement and mean levels of participation vary by child
grade level, child gender, and ethnicity for fathers versus mother?
Researchers
found no differences in the strength of an association between father’s
involvement and children’s achievement across ethnic majority and ethnic
minority groups; likewise, the ethnic minority group had a marginally stronger
association than the ethnic majority group for mothers (Kim & Hill, 2015).
When compared with mothers, father’s involvement in children school activities was
positively associated with achievement; however, when fathers were engaged in
only home-based activities, there was a lower association with achievement as
compared with providing homework support that contributes to cognitive
enrichment (Kim & Hill, 2015). Furthermore, fathers who displayed high
levels of home-based involvement might influence overall achievement as
strongly as mothers do. Kim and Hill (2015) shared several limitations in their
study. First, meta-analyses were limited by the quality and breadth of the
existing corpus of research. Although a few longitudinal studies provided
evidence for the robustness of the relationship between parental involvement
and achievement over the time, the meta-analysis was based mostly on
cross-sectional studies. Second, there was a wide variability in the ways
parents’ involvement and student achievement have been measured across the
studies in the meta-analysis. These issues made it difficult to identify and
interpret consistent patterns of associations. No standard parent involvement
scale was used systematically, although certain scales were adapted and used in
more than one study, i.e., the parental involvement scale by Hoover-Dempsey et
al., 2005. There was also heterogeneity in the outcome measures, such as
grades, GPA, and standardized tests. Nonetheless, they identified similar
patterns in this study as were found in previous parental involvement studies.
Third, a lack of power precluded them from using more sophisticated methods of
analyses, such as meta-regressions that could account for shared family
context. Fourth, the relatively small number of studies available for some
moderator analyses was small. Thus, the results should be considered with
caution.
A few
decades ago, fathers were expected to be the breadwinners and providers of
moral guidance to children at home (Kim & Hill, 2015). Today, some fathers
stay at home in a growing number of families. Census statistics reveal that 20%
of preschoolers –whose mothers work are cared for by their fathers (McWayne et
al., 2013). The level of fathers’ involvement with their children’s education
indicated a need for a systematic appraisal of research on the link between
direct father involvement and children’s early learning during this
developmental period (McWayne et al., 2013). The physical presence of fathers’
roles in the lives of children was critical for their language development,
particularly in the areas of physical play, emotions, role models, companions,
standard setters, guidance, and instruction; therefore, there are calls for
efforts to include fathers in policies and programs targeting family-school
relationships (McWayne et al., 2013). Furthermore, the role of fathers in
involvement and support for schooling was a key element for children’s success
in inclusive settings, especially for English Language
Learners (ELLs) and children with disabilities (Kim & Hill, 2015).
Negative consequences for children raised without a father are that they were
three times more likely to fail at school, two to three times more likely to
experience emotional or behavioral problems requiring psychiatric treatments,
three times more likely to commit suicide as adolescents, and five times more
likely to be deprived (Kim & Hill, 2015). Kim and Hill (2015) also noted
that ethnic variations, such as African American, Latino, or Euro-American have
different levels of school involvement because of their cultural values, gender
role attitudes, and socioeconomic status. Even when families came from the same
socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds, children without an involved father encounter
more challenges in school and at home (Kim & Hill, 2015).
When
home, school, and community are connected, it enhances children’s physical,
social, emotional, and intellectual development (Willems &
Gonzalez-DeHass, 2012). Many of
the techniques are geared to improve center-home-school-community relationships
are already in place (Berger & Riojas-Cortez, 2012). To increase attention
on partnerships and to change negative attitudes, researchers focused on the
links to family, community resources, and activities that enhance children’s
learning and are readily available to families in high-quality early childhood
programs (Willems, Gonzalez-DeHass, 2012).
To
increase parental involvement in immigrant families with low socioeconomic
status and who are English language learners, teachers and school staff used
strategies that provide more attention to the specific issues of minority
groups (Hilado et al., 2013; Kocyigit, 2015; Youngblom & Houlihan, 2015).
Hilado, Kallemeyn, and
Phillips (2013) suggested that teachers focused on empowering parents to be
partners and helped shift the school’s efforts from traditional forms of
parental involvement to more active involvement. For example, parental
involvement in meaningful homework, home learning activities, and bidirectional
communication with the teachers might have more effect on academic achievement
than the more traditional roles parents have played (Zhai, Brooks-Gunn, &
Waldfogel, 2014). When parents demonstrated low involvement by not returning
forms, not attending conferences, or not participating in school events, these
behaviors could cause frustrations within school staff or educators (Hilado et
al., 2013; Smith, 2014). Although educators may provide home learning
activities, they do not expend the same amount of energy to invite parents to
the school (Hindman et al., 2012). Researchers found that parental involvement was
increased when the cultural expectations of the school allowed parents to feel
welcomed and valued (Hindman et al., 2012). Castro et al. (2015) stressed that
the parental involvement of immigrant families and their expectations for
children’s educational achievement are linked. Involvement included
communications with children about school issues, supervision of homework, and
reading with children, attendance and participation in their school activities,
and a parenting style such as supporting and helping their children (Castro et
al., 2015). According to Lee and Zhou (2014), Asian immigrant and refugee
children exhibited high educational aspirations and mobility outcomes
regardless of their families’ disadvantaged economic backgrounds and lack of
middle-class cultural capital.
In early childhood education, one of the important
ways that parental involvement could increase child readiness at home is to
provide children with pre-academic stimulation (Miller et al., 2014). According
to Miller, Farkas, Vandell, and Duncan (2014), the association between these types of activities
and academic success in early childhood has been amply documented, stressing
the important role of parental pre-academic stimulation at home. Researchers
suggested that low-income children on average received less pre-academic
stimulation at home than did children in higher income families; although,
there was wide variability in both types of households (Miller et al., 2014).
Parents could transfer this commitment in the home into ways in which they could
become more involved in their children’s formal schooling (Perry & Langley,
2013). However, researchers showed that Head Start programs did not affect all
children in the same way because the fit between what the program provides and
what the family provides to a child is likely to differ across families and
programs (Miller et al., 2014). Therefore, the powerful effect of proximal
processes, such as parental pre-academic stimulation, could generate variation
in children’s development for the individual child and within a specific
context, such as Early Head Start and Head Start programs (Miller et al.,
2014).
There are many benefits for
children, families, and programs as a result of family involvement (McCormick
et al., 2013). Children are at a tremendous advantage when families and
teachers agree on what they expect children will learn and be able to do and
when they have agreed on how to help children achieve goals (Manz et al., 2014;
McCormick et al., 2013). When
parents get involved with classroom teachers, some of the benefits for children include enhanced
cognitive development, improve behavior, maintenance of emotional security,
and increased language and problem-solving skills (Manz et al., 2014; McCormick et al., 2013). Moreover, children with the
advantages of adult involvement in their education tend to have fewer
disciplinary problems and a decreased need for special education classes (Manz
et al., 2014). According to Dove,
Neuharth-Pritchett, Wright, and Wallinga (2015), parental involvement in a home-based setting influenced children’s
literacy development and their family life also benefited.
Parents also experience benefits
when they take advantage of opportunities to participate in their children’s
early childhood education
(Castro et al., 2015). For example, children’s participation in Head Start
promoted parental well-being and parents’ educational advancement and
employment (Sabol & Chase-Lansdale, 2015). According to Decker, Decker, Freeman, and Knopf (2009), family members might enjoy
the benefits if they interact with children in an early childhood setting.
Parents could contribute positively to their children’s education by assisting
them with their homework. Researchers pointed out that the level of parental
involvement is associated with academic success by promoting information
sharing and control over children’s behavior (Hindman et al., 2012).
Family
involvement helps improve early childhood education programs’ climate and plays
a major role in how children adjust in school (Cardona et al., 2012). Cardona,
Jain, and Canfield-Davis (2012) found in an experimental evaluation of family
involvement in their children’s school that the way families understand parent
involvement is strongly influenced by issues of ethnicity, social class, the
level of education, and language. Likewise, according to Dove, Neuharth-Pritchett,
Wright, and Wallinga (2015), when families can share their familial makeup and
culture with school personnel, caregivers, and teachers, these stakeholders are
likely to become more aware and understand a family’s strengths. Moreover,
family members who were involved in the program were more likely to understand
an educational program’s rationale, curriculum, and teaching strategies. Data was
collected on families and teachers from 31 sites across the country which
focused on 1,943 fathers and 1,865 mothers who were Head Start attendees (Dove
et al., 2015). Dove, Neuharth-Pritchett, Wright, and Wallinga (2015) addressed
two research questions: (a) What is the influence of family routines at home on
child literacy outcomes? (b) What is the influence of family routines at school
on child literacy outcomes in the areas of receptive vocabulary, letter-word
identification and passage comprehension?
Dove and
colleagues found that families with more consistent routines at home had
children who scored higher on literacy assessments (Dove et al., 2015). The
findings supported existing research and suggested that parental involvement in
enriching activities with their children was associated with children’s
literacy skills. This finding also contributed to evidence that when parents make
activities routine, then children’s language and literacy abilities might
improve (Dove et al., 2015). Finally, parent involvement provides opportunities
for teachers and staff to learn about the connections between family engagement
and school readiness (Smith, 2014). Teachers can learn new effective teaching
and guidance strategies as they observe parents’ characteristics and cultures
and exchange information with them (Porumbu & Necşoi, 2013). Also, teachers can enhance their views by gaining an insight
into child development, education, desired outcomes, and approaches (Porumbu
& Necşoi, 2013). These views
help teachers expand a program, and thus, there is an opportunity to observe
families’ values, preferences, and parenting styles (Hindman et al., 2012). In
short, Hindman, Miller, Froyen, and Skibbe (2012) noted the families would
learn the expectations of a program (e.g., Head Start) while the professionals
learned from them through collaborative relationships. The interactions help
enhance their communication as these groups relate to each other by sharing
power and making the decision together. More importantly, this is a way to form
supportive relationships, which can lead to a network of mutual support
(Hindman et al., 2012; Morrison, 2012). Also, when families and educators in
programs work together, a community also gained school-business involvement as
a means of strengthening children’s program and families (Morrison, 2012).
The
higher the participation of the parents and caregivers, the better the
children’s educational achievement will be (Castro et al., 2015). In a
meta-analysis study, researchers showed that parental involvement was
associated with high achievement, positive attitudes, and better behavior in
children. Parents or caregivers formed a closer bond with children’s teachers,
while teachers were more willing to create better working relationships with
the parents (Castro et al., 2015). Through the parent-teacher communication,
teachers had an advantage as they came to know the children better. Once again,
variables such as a cultural background, ethnic groups, parental in-school and
in-home involvement, especially fathers, were significantly related to
children’s academic performance and success (Castro et al., 2015). Significant
positive correlation between family involvement and school partnerships enhances
children’s early learning and developmental outcomes.
Barriers
to Parental Involvement
The
families of immigrant and refugee children are less likely to participate in
early education programs (Hilado & Phillips, 2013; Manz et al., 2014). Qualitative
data was collected from 10 immigrant or refugee parents and caregivers. These
participants revealed that one of the major challenges was a language barrier
(Ntuli et al., 2014). Sullivan and Simonson (2016) noted that immigrant and
refugee parents from Mexico, Central America, Dominican Republic, Philippines,
Iraq, and Indochina were less likely to be involved in their children’s
preschool ages from two to five as compared to White families. Mendez and
Westerberg (2012) addressed the fact that there were many different reasons for
parents not to be involved in their children’s education. They have no means
for parenting programs, limited transportation access, strict work schedules, an
inability to obtain a babysitter, no convenience to discuss with others, a fear
of disapproval from their family or friends, health problems, night classes,
mental exhaustion, or a view that they are not necessarily involved as a key
role in promoting children’s school readiness (Hindman et al., 2012; Mendez
& Westerberg, 2012).
Mendez
and Westerberg (2012) studied a literacy and parenting program for Latino
parents of children enrolled in a Head Start program. A total of 54 Latino
parents (91% female) participated in the study. These parents represented a
variety of countries of origin including Ecuador, Mexico, Brazil, Honduras,
Peru, Colombia, and Puerto Rica. The researchers found that these immigrant and
refugee parents and caregivers faced many barriers and challenges to active
involvement in their children’s literacy. In a study of early childhood
education, Hilado and Phillips (2013) suggested that immigrant families of
Latin American and Asian backgrounds usually had the least school involvement
as compared to native-born White parents. These immigrant and refugee families
often had a low-income status and emotional or mental health challenges that could
include periods of stress and depression (Hindman et al., 2012). Children from
these families often have educational challenges in school typically associated
with low socioeconomic status, culture clashes, and language barriers (Manz et
al., 2014; Nganga, 2015; Ntuli et al., 2014).
In
fostering parental participation in childcare programs, there are both
opportunities and obstacles (Lin, 2012). There was a causal relationship found
between parental attitudes toward participation and beliefs about education
(Lin, 2012). Socioeconomic status, parents’ educational level, and cultural
values might mediate the relationship between these parental attitudes about
education and their level of participation (Hindman et al., 2012). These
mediators could be seen as barriers to parental involvement, requiring active
intervention (Manz et al., 2014; Tichovolsky et al., 2013; Tingvold et al.,
2012). In the case of immigrant and refugee families with young children, the
schools or childcare centers could provide some intervention to help reduce
these challenges and barriers to parents’ participation in their children’s
education (Caughy & Owen, 2015). These barriers to the involvement
of immigrant and refugee families placed their children at risk for academic
failure (Tichovolsky et al., 2013).
A lack of
parental involvement in child’s school more often occurs with non-English
speaking parents who are in a lower socioeconomic status (Manz et al., 2014).
These parents have fewer opportunities of involvement through volunteering,
parent meetings, and regular communications via newsletters, memos, and phone
calls (Garbacz et al., 2016). Moreover, one underlying reason for a lack of
parental involvement is a lack of knowledge of the school system and its
resources (Mendez & Westerberg, 2012). Frequently, educators are unclear
about how to work as partners with immigrant parents. Communication between
these families and school staff can be difficult when children have crises.
Furthermore, parents might see educators as more powerful than the families.
This perceived power differential might impede some family members from
participating and contributing to schools (Garbacz et al., 2016).
Dove,
Neuharth-Pritchett, Wright, and Wallinga (2013) found that differing cultural
beliefs and attitudes between stakeholders concerning parental involvement might
lead to a school’s misinterpretion that low parental activity reflects a lack
of interest on the part of the parents. For example, Hispanic and African
American communities often place much trust and responsibility in teachers and
believe parents should only enter their children’s schools upon invitation
(Dove et al., 2013). Parental involvement could be shaped by culture and social
interaction (Alghazo, 2015; Han & Osterling, 2012). For example, an Asian
family structure is traditionally governed by Chinese-derived Confucian ethics
(Lee & Zhou, 2014). Both Vietnamese and Chinese immigrant families commonly
use an authoritarian parenting style based on their cultural attitudes (Han
& Osterling, 2012; Koh, 2015). These parents often misunderstand their role
in children’s education, or they do not comprehend the concept of involvement
as defined by the American school system (Hindman et al., 2012). Bracke and
Corts (2012) recognized that some parents remain uninvolved because they
believe it is not considered appropriate for them to interact with program
staff. The other reason parents are not involved with their children is because
they straightforwardly trust the school and never question the authority of
school personnel (Dove et al., 2013). They may feel they have little knowledge
of how to give input to their children’s schooling (Han & Osterling, 2012).
Another study found similar responses relating to their first language and
culture in which parents might perceive the school as a threat to preserving
their customs; thus, they might be reluctant to fully participate with a childcare
center (Osman & Månsson, 2015).
Ntuli, Nyarambi, and Traore (2014)
collected data from 10 participants using semi-structured interviews; they
found that the greatest obstacle to parental involvement or participation among
immigrant and refugee parents was the language barrier. For many immigrant and
refugee parents who speak little or no English, communication between school
and home is difficult or non-existent (Caesar & Nelson, 2014). Some schools
do not have bilingual staff available to assist in orienting new families to
the school or to translate written materials provided by the school (Osman
& Månsson, 2015).
This situation leaves without knowledge of how to help them and what is
expected of them in their children’s school (Osman & Månsson, 2015).
Written materials are the primary mode through which schools communicate with
parents. However, if these materials are written in English only and especially
at a high level of English, many parents whose first language is not English will
not be able to read and respond to these communications (Turkan & Iddings,
2012). Translation of these written materials sent to parents could help, but
not all schools have access to translators of all languages spoken by the
families whose children are enrolled in the school. Even in cases where written
materials are translated, many language minority parents have limited education
in their native countries and might not read or write in their native language
(Turkan & Iddlings, 2012). Moreover, immigrant and refugee parents are
often reluctant to participate in school activities where spoken English is
necessary; for example, telephoning from the school to report a student
absence, participating in parent-teacher conferences, and volunteering in the
classroom or on field trips (Hindman et al., 2012). In some cases, program
personnel might perceive that immigrant and refugee parents are not interested
and do not care about their children’s education (Stevens & Patel, 2015).
These perceptions may be based on the language issues if the parents speak
little or no English or on cultural misunderstandings between parents and
childcare personnel (Dove et al., 2013). Because culture and language backgrounds and
educational reality of many immigrants and refugee families do not match the
U.S. cultural model, the parents and caregivers often believe that holding a
high value for the early childhood education is not their responsibility
(Mendez & Westerberg, 2012). Rather, their beliefs and attitudes toward the
behavior to their children’s learning and education are considered important
for being involved (Fung & Fox, 2014).
Immigrant
and refugee parents’ limited English language skills often lead to a sense of
isolation (Osman & Månsson, 2015). Particularly for those whose immigration
status is undocumented, some parents are reluctant to venture out into a
community (Koury & Votruba-Drzal, 2014). Others fear violence in the
community, and some parents do not live in areas with ready access to safe and
reliable public transportation, such that coming to the school is difficult
(Koury & Votruba-Drzal, 2014). Still, others do not have access to
childcare for their young children, making it difficult to attend school
functions for their older children (Poureslami et al., 2013). All of these
barriers increase the likelihood of low parent involvement. Linguistically
diverse families often face language and cultural barriers that greatly hamper
their ability to become actively involved in their children’s education,
although many have a great desire and willingness to participate (Morrison,
2012). Morrison (2012) stressed that because the culture of linguistically
diverse families often differs from that of the majority in a community, those
who seek a truly collaborative involvement must take into account the cultural
features that inhibit collaboration. Styles of child rearing and family
organization, attitudes toward schooling, organizations around which families
center their lives, life goals and values, political influences, and methods of
communication within the cultural group all have implications for parent
participation (Youngblom & Houlihan, 2015).
Although parental involvement might
be influenced by parents’ language and cultural barriers, socioeconomic status
might also play a role that affects parental involvement for newcomers to the U.S.
(Youngblom & Houlihan, 2015). Researchers found that many immigrants and
refugee parents, especially newcomers who were still struggling to find a job,
make money, support their family, and adjust to a new environment, might have
less time to spend with their children. These parents often lack access to
childcare, making it difficult to participate in school activities (Poureslami
et al., 2013). Also, Poureslami et al.’s (2013) review of research noted that
parents might work the swing shift or night shift, making it impossible to
attend school functions or to oversee their children’s homework. When given a
chance to work overtime, parents might choose to earn a much-needed income even
when this requires being away from family (Poureslami et al., 2013). Some other
parents might also be responsible for caring for young children at home—both
theirs and others (Manz et al., 2014). Researchers also found that it was unrealistic to expect
families who are grappling with the effects of poverty and struggling to
survive to willingly embrace participation in assessment and education services
for their children (Ntuli et al., 2014).
Hindman,
Miller, Froven, and Skibbe (2012) found a critical factor in school culture and
school climate that affects a migrant family’s involvement. Some schools do not
provide an atmosphere that immigrant and refugee parents perceive as welcoming
(Demircan & Erden, 2015). This might be due to school personnel who are overworked,
lack cultural sensitivity, or do not speak the parents’ native languages
(Smith, 2014). Researchers showed that when parents thought that their
involvement was not valued by teachers or schools, then they were less likely
to get involved (Hindman et al., 2012). Likewise, when schools are welcoming to
parents it was clear that educators valued parent involvement and developed
more effective parent involvement (Hindman et al., 2012).
In sum,
some school personnel might perceive parents are not interested in or do not
care about their children’s education (Mendez & Westerberg, 2012). These
perceptions might be based on the language issues or cultural misunderstandings
from both parties–parents and school personnel. Also, parents might have extremely
busy lives or a trauma such as an aftermath of war, torture, and associated
symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (Nguyen, 2013). Alternatively, some
schools do not provide a welcoming atmostphere that immigrant and refugee
parents perceive. These barriers become issues that impact parents or
caregivers attending or being involved in school functions (Tichovolsky et al.,
2013). Bracke and Corts (2012) cited a big concern is that without parental
involvement, children’s schools and centers will make less improvement.
Facilitators of Parental
Involvement
Researchers
have proposed an increase in parent involvement would positively correlate to
high achievement of children’s learning activities (Castro et al., 2015).
Despite many challenges that schools, or child centers faced and the barriers
that parents faced, many child center educators strived to make a priority of reaching
out to involve parents (DeLoatche, Bradley-Klug, Ogg, Dromrey, &
Sundman-Wheat, 2015). Researchers found different methods of involving parents
that play a positive role in becoming involved in their children’s school
(Kikas et al., 2014). Castro et al. (2015) conducted a meta-analysis of 37
studies in kindergarten, and primary and secondary schools carried out between
2003 and 2013. They found that there were multiple ways in which families could
be involved in children’s learning, including at home, in the community, and in
the school. At home, a family’s engagement is the most important factor to a
child’s development; for example, these activities included shared book
reading, parent-child conversation, discussion of letters and sounds, and
writing exercises. Hindman, Miller, Froyen, and Skibbe (2012) stressed that
enjoyable at home learning activities might encourage children’s positive
attitudes about learning. In the community, families can help children learn
about the wider world and access resources that might not be readily available
within the household such as visiting the library, attending museums, sport
events, church functions, or other cultural opportunities (Hindman et al.,
2012). School-based involvement includes various activities in which parents
engage, for example, participating in school trips, volunteering in the
classroom or at school events, fundraising, and attending school programs (Castro
et al., 2015; Kikas et al., 2014; McCormick et al., 2013). In school-based
activities, McCormick, Cappella, O’Connor, and McClowry (2013) found that
parents who were involved would likely have positive relationships with
teachers; in turn, teachers might be less liable to perceive problematic
behaviors among the children of highly involved parents. Parents and caregivers
could volunteer in the classroom or staff the office, participating in
decision-making bodies such as the parent policy council, or personal
communication such as parent-teacher conferences (Hindman et al., 2012).
Homeschool
conferencing is communication between parents and school staff on educational
topics related to the specific child (Castro et al., 2015; Kikas et al., 2014).
For school conferences or meetings, where oral communication skills are
essential, parents with limited English language skills can be asked in advance
to bring an adult whom they trust to serve as their translator (Cheatham &
Ostrosky, 2013). If schools or child care centers have trouble locating
translators for written school materials, schools should successfully partner
with community-based organizations and refugee resettlement agencies to provide
translation assistance (Manz et al., 2014). Finally, outreach to families
through informal meeting settings, such as making home visits for young children
below the age of 3 years is a primary means of strengthening the pivotal role
of parents (Manz et al., 2014). Researchers found that although encouraging
parent involvement was politically neutral and rhetorically popular, much of
the research informing policy was occurring in the absence of clarity around
the dimensions of parent involvement and the role of teachers in predictive
relationships of children’s behaviors (McCormick et al., 2013).
Summary
Application of the TPB model to
immigrant and refugee families to more fully understand, identify, explain, and
predict their parental involvement could serve to extend the theory as well as
to inform and distinct strategies needed for this population. The goal of this
study was to explore possible avenues for improving parent involvement in Head
Start and Early Head Start programs. Attitudes
and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control with regard to
their involvement in their children’s education are factors that might affect
parents’ intention and desire to be involved in their children’s education.
However, the characteristics of immigrant and refugee families significantly
contribute to the level of involvement parents have in their child’s school.
This involvement should include people with culturally and linguistically
diverse backgrounds.
The study
targeted a population of immigrant and refugee families because they have
potential barriers and challenges to overcome. Indeed, due to children’s
educational risk in the community and societal contexts, these parents need
supportive programs starting early, at preschool age. Importantly, early
intervention programs also encourage parental involvement early on in children’s
educational journey. Without having positive cooperation with parents in an
early childhood program, it is impossible for them to reach the high standards
set for children’s educational outcomes. The perception of participation as a
social norm might help increase the likelihood of parental involvement;
however, the theoretical models of parents’ participation in learning activities
from toddler to preschooler ages need better development.
Applying
Ajzen’s TPB (1991) in Head Start and Early Head Start might strengthen the
immigrant and refugee family’s positive behaviors; however, to provide the
evidence of the theory’s usefulness, a TPB-based model must be tested. Testing
TPB on parental behavior under the attitudes
and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls might lead to
results that allow Head Start programs and immigrant and refugee parents and
caregivers to perform at a higher level.
When studying the targets of immigrant and refugee families, researchers need
to consider potential barriers and challenges, which include parents’ beliefs
about taking responsibilities in involvement based on their demographic
characteristics of ethnicity, culture, genders, ages, and historical factors.
Finally, it is important to note that the involvement of immigrant and refugee
parents and caregivers have a significant influence on their children’s early
childhood educational success. Thus, considering the change in parental
involvement intention and their behavior, knowledge of parental beliefs,
attitudes, norms, and barriers would be helpful to increase the likelihood of
parental involvement.
Chapter 3: Research Method
The problem addressed in this study
was a lack of immigrant and refugee parent involvement in Head Start and Early
Head Start programs to support their children’s education (Hindman et al.,
2012; Manz et al., 2014). Specifically, this study addressed the lack of knowledge
regarding what variables relate to high and/or low parent involvement and identification
of those that served as barriers to or promoters of parent involvement in this
population. Some of the barriers for immigrant and refugee families were likely
their pre-conceived beliefs about education (Cheatham & Ostrosky, 2013) as
well as differences due to language and culture (Cheatham & Ostrosky,
2013). The variables, as defined within the theory of planned behavior (TPB)
that contribute to parental intentions and were included in the study attitudes
and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991;
Bracke & Corts, 2012; Perry & Langley, 2013). These variables had not
been thoroughly examined in the context of immigrant and refugee parents such
that this knowledge could be applied to help devise parental interventions for
these parents (McGregor & Knoll, 2015) in order to improve parental
intention for involvement in their children’s formal schooling. Without further
understanding of how these variables relate to and predict parental intentions
for involvement, strategies employed by these programs to increase the parental
involvement of immigrant and refugee families may be less effective and the
families may not take full advantage of these programs (Lee & Zhou, 2014). Identifying
determinants of parent involvement, or lack thereof, in immigrant and refugee
populations could subsequently be used to develop interventions (Hindman et
al., 2012).
The purpose of this quantitative, descriptive
and correlational study was to assess key variables, posed in the TPB as
possible determinants of parent intention for school involvement behavior
(i.e., parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived
behavioral control) and ascertain whether they were significantly related to
and could predict the reported intentions of involvement of immigrant and
refugee parents in their children’s early childhood education programs. By
assessing the constructs that were pivotal to TPB, an expansion of this theory
within the context of immigrant and refugee families with children enrolled in
Head Start or Early Head Start programs was fulfilled. Using a survey
instrument to collect data, the goals included the following: (1) identify
parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control,
and parental intentions regarding parent involvement, and (2) investigate how,
if at all, these variables correlated with and served to predict parent
involvement, as TPB would suggest, in this population. The dependent variable
was parental intentions for involvement, and the predictors were the
determinants of behaviors as outlined in TPB (i.e., parent attitudes and
beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) as reported by
immigrant and refugee families with children enrolled in Head Start and Early
Head Start programs.
The target population
was 800-1000 parents/caregivers who were foreign born, i.e., first-generation
immigrants or refugees (Krogstad, 2015; Winsler et al.,
2014), were living in Southern California, and had children enrolled in either
an Early Head Start or Head Start program. A census of this population was
conducted with the goal of obtaining a sample of 122 parents/caregivers whose
children participated in these programs. A power analysis using G-Power
software yielded an estimated sample size of 110 for a linear regression with
three predictors (power of 0.8, type one error of 0.05, and medium size effect)
(Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). Parents were asked to complete
the Parental Involvement Project
(PIP) Parent Questionnaire (Appendix A). It was a 57-item survey that had been
found reliable and valid for measuring attitudes and beliefs (24 items),
subjective norms (6 items), perceived behavioral control (17 items), and
parental intentions (10 items). All items were evaluated using six-point Likert
scales. Data collection provided an opportunity to describe how these variables
presented in immigrant and refugee families and examined their ability to
predict parent intentions towards involvement using the three predictor
variables of attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral
control. The findings serve to further inform the TPB about its applicability
to immigrant and refugee parents who had children attending one of the Head
Start or Early Head Start programs. Step-wise multiple regressions were used to
assess the significance of the contributions of each predictor to explain the
variation of the dependent variable (Field, 2013). Survey methods were employed,
as they were the most appropriate method for collecting quantitative data to
measure study variables in the TPB model to ascertain whether they were significantly
related to and ccould predict the involvement of immigrant and refugee parents
in their children’s early childhood education programs (Girardelli & Patel,
2016). This chapter includes discussion of the research design,
population/sample, materials/instrumentations, operational definations of variables,
study procedures, data collection and analysis, assumptions, limitations,
delimitations, ethical assurances, and ethical guarantees that apply in the
proposed study.
Research
Design
A quantitative, descriptive and
correlational design was employed to answer the research questions. A
quantitative design was the most appropriate method since it generated numerical
data that were analyzed to determine relationships between the multiple
predictor variables in TPB (Park & Park, 2016). A regression model was used
to investigate whether the TPB determinants of behavior were significantly
related to and predicted the parental intentions for involvement of immigrant
and refugee parents in their children’s early childhood education programs. The descriptive and correlational design allowed
for assessing the key variables in TPB such as the determinants of behavior
(i.e., parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral
control, and parental intentions) and determining whether they were
significantly related to and predicted the intentions of immigrant and refugee
parents for being involved in their children’s early childhood education programs.
The approach employed in this study was an appropriate technique for testing
whether TPB constructs fit a model for an observed set of correlations among
the constructs in the model (Girardelli & Patel, 2016).
A cross-sectional design was used
to collect data to assess variables in TPB gathered at a single point in time
using valid and reliable instruments (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). A
cross-sectional survey required less dedication from research participants,
took less time to complete, and did not contain many obstacles related to
finding and maintaining a sample population (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010) as
opposed to a longitudinal study that must take place across at least two waves
of times (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). This method of data collection was
equated with surveys that must be carefully designed prior to the research
occurring (Fowler, 2009). This design allowed collection of data that could
measure variables quantitatively for statistical analyses from a sample that could
be generalized to a target population, while remaining objective, separated
from the subject matter, unbiased, and value-free (Smith, 2015). The
correlational research design sought to control preferences, so those facts,
instances, and phenomena were understood in an objective way (Park & Park,
2016). The strength of this research design was in the information that could be
reported in the form of numbers and could test a formulated hypothesis prior to
the actual collection of data (McCusker & Gunaydin, 2014). McCusker and
Gunaydin pointed out that when using this design, the extraction of information
in a larger volume and emphasis on statistical information rather than
individual perceptions. The weakness of the survey method occurs when the answers
from sampled respondents are not accurately measurable and become erroneous. To
avoid this problem, a reliable and valid survey was used (Fowler, 2009). A
survey designed by Hoover-Dempsey, Walker, Jones, and Reed (2002) was employed.
The validity and reliability of the survey were previously established in
studies by Hoover-Dempsey, Walkers, and Sandler (2002; 2005). The survey
consisted of 57 questions based on a six-point Likert scale assessed the
following variables: attitudes/beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral
control, and parental intentions. The survey takes approximately 30 minutes to
complete and was returned to the researcher in person or by mail to receive a
gift card. By using a survey design, there were some advantages such as
inexpensive unit costs (Fowler, 2009); however, some disadvantages included
that parents did not always submit the surveys via mail within the timeframe given
(Fowler, 2009). The following section describes how the sample was obtained in
this study.
Population and Sample
The population for this study
included all immigrant and refugee parents or caregivers from All Kids Academy
Head Start and Early Head Start programs (AKA-HS/EHS). According to AKA HS/EHS’s
2015 annual reported, a subgroup of immigrant and refugee parents or caregivers
with ethnic and racial diversity for potential generalizability was identified
(Hindman, Miller, Froyen, & Skibbe, 2012). In 2015, AKA Head Start programs
served 1,167 children from low-income families. According to the Poverty
Guidelines published by a federal government, they were eligible for HS and EHS
services. All AKA Head Start centers provided full day and part day child care
services to families year-round for 10.5 hours per day, Monday through Friday
from 7:00 am to 5:30 am, and 3.5 hours per day, Monday through Thursday from
8:15 am to 11:45 am or 1:15 pm to 4:45 pm. Of the enrolled children from 2 to 5
years, 44% of the AKA HS and EHS populations were immigrant and refugee
families consisting of the following demographics: Spanish (34%), Middle
Eastern and South Asian (8%), East Asian (1%), and African (1%). The AKA Early
Head Start program serves 214 children under three years of age of which 43% were
identified as immigrant or refugees—who were Spanish (37%), Middle Eastern and
South Asian (5%), and East Asian (1%) (AKA Head Start/Early Head Start Annual
Report 2014-2015; Appendix J).
A target of 800 to 1000 parents or caregivers who potentially met the
participant criteria were solicited to participate in the survey with the hopes
of obtaining the sample size requirement of 110 completed surveys. To
participate, a parent or caregiver had to be first-generation, foreign born,
and considered an immigrant or refugee. They must have been living in Southern
California and have children enrolled in either an Early Head Start or Head
Start program. A power analysis yielded an estimated sample size of 110 for a
linear regression with four predictors (power of 0.8, type I error of 0.05, and
medium size effect of 0.1) (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009);
however, all attempts were made to obtain the largest possible sample.
This study used a censuses sampling
procedure by attempting to reach all parents that met the criteria for inclusion
in the study. The sample was readily available to obtain in person at the 12
sites of AKA HS/EHS. Individuals were self-selected into the sample by choosing
to complete the survey (Fowler, 2009). The researcher asked the AKA Head Start
executive director and center directors to collaborate with the project to
ensure all immigrant/refugee parents/caregivers had a chance to participate. In
this way, the researcher avoided bias that could affects the relationship
between a sample of respondents and the population (Fowler, 2009). To avoid a
problem of bias, the researcher attempted to gather data from every member of
the sample population or sampling frame as the surveys were distributed at a
center’s gate where parents/caregivers would drop-off their children.
A self-administered paper-based
survey method was used for several reasons. First, the sample in this
population may not have had a computer or Internet access on a regular basis to
do an email survey. Second, the researcher was able to identify and access the
sample population with relative ease in person at AKA Head Start centers.
Third, the participants, the parents or caregivers, could read and interpret
survey questions in their own language and then answer with restricted
selection options, such as circling a number or checking a mark, which
eliminated the need for someone else to read the questions for respondents
(Fowler, 2009). Fourth, parents or caregivers were likely to cooperate with the
researcher by presenting their perceptions about parental involvement using
this method. Finally, some parents or caregivers were usually busy working and
had no time to do a survey or had a little time to be at home with their child.
This self-administered survey allowed them to complete the survey at their own
convenience (Fowler, 2009). The method of the self-administered survey was most
appropriate for this study; however, there were some disadvantages to this
approach. First, printing hundreds of paper surveys were cost the researcher
along with postages and self-addressed stamped envelopes. Second, returning the
surveys from respondents took a longer time than the three to four weeks
expected (Fowler, 2009). The researcher also needed additional time to enter
the responses into an electronic format (Blaxter, Hughes, & Tight, 2014), in
this case the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 22.0.
Furthermore, tracking completed surveys and incentives cost the researcher’s
time (i.e., creating an Excel worksheet listing potential respondents who
completed the survey and whether an incentive was provided to them) (Survey
Administration Guidelines, 2009).
The Parent Involvement Project
(PIP) survey (Appendix A) was the instrument used for data collection.
Permission was obtained prior to using this instrument (Appendix I). The questionnaire
contains 57 items developed by Hoover-Dempsey, Walker, Jones, and Reed (2002).
All items were measured on a six-point Likert scale with subscales of attitudes
and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and parental
intentions for involvement. The Likert response scale ranges from (1) strongly disagree to (6) strongly agree, with the additional
option of I Don’t Know. The options were: 1 indicating Strongly Disagree, 2 indicating Disagree,
3 indicating Don’t Know, 4 indicating
Agree Just a Little, 5 indicating Agree, and 6 indicating Strongly Agree. Parents were asked to
rate each statement based on how much they disagree
or agree. The survey takes
approximately 30 minutes to complete.
The Parental Involvement Project (PIP) questionnaire had established
reliability and validity (Hoover-Dempsey, Sandler, & Walker, 2005) and was
used in this study to assess key variables posed in the TPB model (i.e.,
parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral
control) and ascertain whether they were significantly related to and could predict
the reported intentions of involvement of immigrant and refugee parents in
their children’s early childhood education programs. The survey had five
sections: (1) parental attitudes and beliefs, (2) subjective norms, (3)
perceived behavioral controls, (4) parent’s intention to become involved, and
(5) household demographics information.
The construct of parental attitudes
and beliefs is a learned predisposition
to respond to an object or class of objects in a consistently favorable or
unfavorable way (Kiriakidis, 2015). This variable was measured by using statements
that reflected parental attitudes and beliefs. The goal was to ascertain
individual’s behavioral attitudes and beliefs toward getting involved in
children’s education and the patterns of parental behavior that followed the
beliefs based on parents’ motivations for being involved (Hoover-Dempsey et
al., 2005). This subscale included 24
items (e.g., My child’s learning
is mainly up to the teacher and my child) with responses ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 6 = strongly
disagree. The subscale score for these items ranges from 24 to 144.
The
construct of subjective
norms is an individual’s perception of significant others’ beliefs; how much a
person is influenced by the judgment of significant others such as teachers,
parents, friends, or spouse (Ajzen, 1991). The subscale consisted of six statements constructs to reflect subjective
norms (e.g., I think most parents
at my child’s center are actively involved) with responses ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 6 = strongly
disagree. The subscale score for these items ranges from 6 to 36.
The
construct of perceived
behavioral controls (PBC) represents an individual’s perceived ease or
difficulty of performing a particular behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Any behavior is rarely under complete
volitional control and PBC can only be identified in relation to the
individual. Many external and internal factors could potentially inhibit the
intended execution of any behavior; therefore, the predictive role of PBC would
depend on the degree to which the behavior was under volitional control and the
potential role of external and internal factors to interfere with the behavior
(Kiriakidis, 2015). Thus, the greater the behavior depended on these factors
being enacted, the greater the predictive and explanatory role of PBC would be (Ajzen,
1991). These factors are assumed to reflect experience as well as
anticipated impediments and obstacles. The
subscale included 17 statements regarding parents’ ability to be involved (e.g.,
I have enough time and energy to attend
special events at school) with responses ranging from 1 = strongly
agree to 6 = strongly disagree.
The subscale score for these items ranges from 17 to 102.
The dependent variable of parental
intentions represents an indication of an individual parent’s readiness to
perform a given behavior, in this case parent involvement in schooling (Ajzen,
1991). Parental intentions are determined by attitudes and beliefs towards a
parental behavior, subjective norms or pressures, and perceived control to
perform the behavior and the parents’ motivation to comply (Kiriakidis, 2015). The subscale includes ten
statements (e.g., Your child’s
teacher asks you to schedule a conference to discuss your child’s progress)
with responses ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 6 = strongly disagree. The subscale score
for these items ranges from 10 to 60.
The final
section of the survey included household
demographic questions requesting participants to report their family’s general
information, such as their age, language spoken at home, and confirm their immigration/refugee
status. Demographic data was collected to ensure all participants were at least
18 years and up and met criteria to be eligible for the study. The survey questions
consistently reflected the construct that was measured (Field, 2013). The subscales
have high internal consistency, the reliability of the proportion of variance
attributable to the true score of the latent variable (Field, 2013). The
reliability scale utilized was the Cronbach alpha (α) because the survey
consisted of many Likert items (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). The coefficient
alpha distinguished between the amount of variation, which stemmed from the
latent variable, and the amount attributable to error. The alpha coefficient ranges
in value from 0.0 to 1.0; however, when assessing the internal consistency, a
scale bellowed .60 is unacceptable; between .60 and .65 is undesirable; between
.65 and .70 is minimally acceptable; between .70 and .80 is respectable; and
between .80 and .90 is magnificent (Field, 2013). The reliability of the scale
was reported by Hoover-Dempsey, Sandler, and Walker (2002). The subscale
reliability of the 24 items measuring attitudes and beliefs was acceptable (α =
.77). The subjective norms subscale had a reported subscale reliability that was
respectable (α = .78). The subscale of perceived behavioral control consists of
17 items and had a subscale reliability reported as α = .83. Finally, the
parental intention subscale was composed of ten items with a reported subscale
reliablility of α = .78 (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005).
Field (2013) stated that an
instrument was valid when it measures what it set out to measure. For this
study, the concern was whether the survey accurately measured parental
involvement constructs of attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived
behavioral control, and intentions. Empirical work on developing the constructs
was included in the reports of Hoover-Dempsey and her colleagues (1995; 1997;
2002; 2005). They focused on the three factors of parents’ motivations and
considered them the most useful in the model of parental involvement: (1) an
active role construction of involvement (i.e., parents believe that being
involved in their children’s education wass important to their learning
development); (2) parental perceptions on being invited to be involved through
teachers, school or office staff creating a social norm to encourage parent
involvement; and (3) parents’ life context as critical. Parents’ understanding
of their own skills and knowledge influenced their thinking about the types of
involvement activities they took on. The parents’ perceptions on their
available time and energy for involvement also influenced their decisions. The
family culture played a significant role in their ideas about the ways they
could be and were involved in supporting their child’s learning (e.g., even
when children’s centers invite parents, their culture traditionally limited
parent or caregivers’ role in children’s formal schooling) (Hoover-Dempsey et
al., 2005). The design of this study included three independent variables and
one dependent variable which are operationally defined in the following
section.
Operational
Definitions of Variables
The
investigation included three independent variables considered as predictor
variables and a single dependent variable as an outcome variable. The three
independent variables were (a) attitudes and beliefs, (b) subjective norms, and
(c) perceived behavior control. The single dependent variable was the parent’s
reported intentions for involvement.
Each variable was operationally defined
as follows:
Attitudes/Beliefs. Parental
attitudes and beliefs were measured using 24 items with responses ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 6 = strongly
disagree. The individual items responses were summed for all items on the
subscale to create an interval level measured for this variable. The subscale
score for these items ranged from 24 to 144 with a low score indicating
somewhat negative attitudes and beliefs regarding parent involvement and a high
score indicating relatively positive attitudes and beliefs regarding parent
involvement.
Subjective norms. Subjective
norms were measured using six items constructed to reflect subjective norms. These responses ranged from 1 = strongly
agree to 6 = strongly disagree.
The individual item responses were summed for all items on the subscale to
create an interval level measured for this variable. The subscale score for this
variable ranged from 6 to 36 with a low score indicating somewhat negative
subjective norms regarding parent involvement and a high score indicating
relatively positive subjective norms regarding parent involvement.
Perceived behavioral controls.
Perceived behavioral controls were measured using 17 items regarding the
parents’ ability to get involved.
The responses ranged from 1 = strongly agree to 6 = strongly disagree. The individual item
responses were summed for all items on the subscale to create an interval level
measure for this variable. The subscale score for these items ranged from 17 to
102 with a low score indicating little perceived control regarding parent
involvement and a high score indicating considerable perceived control
regarding parent involvement.
Parental intentions. Parental
intentions was measured using ten items. The responses ranged
from 1 = strongly agree to 6 = strongly disagree. The individual item
responses were summed for all items on the subscale to create an interval level
measured for this variable. The subscale score for these items ranged from 10
to 60 with a low score indicating weak intentions to engage in parent
involvement and a high score indicating strong intentions to engage in parent
involvement.
Study Procedures
The Northcentral University
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the research. The AKA Head Start
executive director and all center directors also granted access and approval to
conduct the study at their sites. The research materials and instruments were
sent to all gatekeepers at the same time within an email. Each contained (a) a
letter of asking permission to conduct the surveys (Appendix E), (b) a cover
letter of an introduction to the research project and information about the
nature and purpose of the study (Appendix D), and (c) a copy of the survey (Appendix
A). The researcher met with the Head Start executive director and each of the
12 center directors, as first and second gatekeepers, to discuss whether the
research inquiry could proceed and the process of how to contact
parents/caregivers and distributed the surveys they would prefer. The final
plan agreed upon for times of soliciting the participants was during the drop-off
and pick-up times at each location. Once all approvals were received, the distribution
of parent surveys began with a pre-notice letter (Appendix F). This pre-notice
letter was put into each child’s mailbox at all 12 Head Start/Early Head Start
centers for parents/caregivers. A few days after passing out the pre-notice
letters, during the drop-off time at each of twelve centers, the researcher met
parents or caregivers and briefly explained the purpose of the study and allowed
them to ask any questions and asked if they would be interested in cooperating
with the research voluntarily (Fowler, 2009). Those interested were given a
survey package with (1) a survey, (2) a consent form (Appendix B), (3) a recruitment
letter (Appendix G), and (4) a self-stamped envelope for participants to return
the survey and consent signature to the researcher’s address if they prefer
this mode. All materials were translated into their home language (i.e.,
Arabic, Spanish, and Vietnamese) to ensure parents/caregivers comprehended
explanations thoroughly.
The recruitment letter communicated
(a) the purpose of this study; (b) a request for their voluntary participation
with no repercussions for not participating; (c) the importance and usefulness
of participation, and (d) requirement of an informed consent document; (e)
information of the risk level of involvement and absolute no-deception; (f)
respondents’ names and information remaining confidential (i.e., names of
respondents are not associated with the results in any reporting) and anonymous
(i.e., names of respondents are not known); (g) the name and contact
information of the research supervisor for this project at the Northcentral
University (NCU) for further questions regarding the survey that respondents could
use to inquire; and (h) a timeline for completing and returning the survey with
an offered incentive for the survey respondents (Fowler, 2009). The researcher offered
a gift card if the survey was completed on the same day or the participants took
the surveys home and returned them within two to three weeks.
The next contact was a reminder
postcard placed in each child’s mailbox that encouraged the participants who had
not completed and returned the survey to do so if they were still interested in
participating (Blaxter, Hughes, & Tight, 2014). The final contact was a thank-you
letter for respondents’ time and consideration, accompanied with a gift card of
ten dollars for those who returned the survey materials within the timeline. A gift
card and a thank-you letter were sent to their home address by post office.
Data Collection and
Analysis
All surveys were completed and
collected within an eight-week timeframe. The survey results were entered into
a spreadsheet. The data from the spreadsheet were entered into the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 22 for final statistical analysis.
A power analysis yielded an estimated sample size of 110 for a linear
regression with three predictors (power of 0.8, type I error of 0.05, and
medium size effect of 0.1) (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009);
however, the researcher would had a goal of collecting data from at least 500
participants to account for missing data or incomplete surveys. The goal was to
achieve a response rates between 30% and 40% (Fowler, 2009). A missing data
rate of 15% to 20% is common in educational studies (Dong & Peng, 2013).
Dong and Peng (2013) found that 36% of studies had no missing data, 48% had
missing data, and about 16% could not be determined. Missing data reduces the
statistical power of a trial and impacts to the quality of statistical
inferences, which refers to the probability that would reject the null
hypothesis (Dong & Peng, 2013; Kang, 2013). The missing rate of 5% or less
was inconsequential; however, if there was more than this rate, then the bias
of statistical analysis could likely happen (Dong & Peng, 2013). Moreover,
the impact of missing data on quantitative research could be serious because there
is loss of information, decreased statistical power, increased standard errors,
and weakened generalizability of findings (Kang, 2013). During the survey
process, missing data can be caused by several factors: (1) respondents refused
or forgot to answer a question because of privacy issues, (2) the person taking
the survey did not understand the question due to a lack of experience or
reading skill, (3) respondents lost interest or did not have enough time to
complete the questionnaire, (4) respondents did not show up on the survey day,
and (5) databases had missing data because there was a mismatch of variables
between databases.
The data was screened for accuracy
to clarify any problems or errors (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). Missing data
was handled by applying the multiple imputation approach (Trochim &
Donnelly, 2008). In this approach, replacing with a set of plausible values was
the strategy for the missing values in which they contain natural variability
and uncertainty of right values (Kang, 2013). The first step before a data set
with missing values is analyzed by statistical procedures is that it needs to
be edited in some ways into a complete data set. Failure to edit the data
properly could make it unsuitable for a statistical procedure and the statistical
analyses were vulnerable to violations of assumptions (Dong & Peng, 2013).
Second, a prediction of the missing data was completed by using the existing
data. Then the missing values were replaced with the predicted values, and a
full data set called the imputed data set was created. This process iterates
the repeatability and creates multiple imputed data sets (Kang, 2013). Kang
stressed each multiple imputed data set produced be analyzed using the standard
statistical analysis procedures for complete data, thereby giving multiple
analysis results. By combining these analysis results, a single overall
analysis result was produced. In addition to restoring the natural variability
of the missing values, it incorporated the uncertainty due to the missing data,
which results in a valid statistical inference (Kang, 2013). Moreover,
restoring the natural variability of the missing data could be achieved by
replacing the missing data with the imputed values using the regression method,
or the predictive mean matching method ccould be used if the missing variables were
continuous (Dong & Peng, 2013). Furthermore, multiple imputations are robust
to the violation of the normality assumption and produces appropriate results
even in the presence of a small sample size or a high number of missing data
(Dong & Peng, 2013). SPSS has a missing value analysis module that allowed
examination of the patterns of data completion in a descriptive way. This test identified
whether the data significantly departed from missing data completely at random
(Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). In general, the mean, standard deviation, and
frequencies were checked on the amount of missing data, and the regression
method was utilized to impute the missing values. Handling the missing data by
using the SPSS Missing Value Analysis was helpful in solving any missing data
problems (Kang, 2013). Cronbach’s alphas were used to compute and determine the
internal consistency reliability of each subscale (Trochim & Donnelly,
2008).
Descriptive summary statistics,
including the calculations of means, standard deviations, and ranges for
attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavior control, and
parental intentions were obtained to answer the first three research questions.
Because this study had one dependent variable and multiple independent
variables, a multiple regression analysis was used to determine the amount of
variation in the dependent variable explained by the independent variables to
answer research question four. The step-wise multiple regression employed had
the following assumptions that must be met: linearity, collinearity,
independence of errors, normality, and homoscedasticity. Statistical SPSS
software was used to test each assumption. These assumptions were tested through
a visual inspection of data plots, skewness, kurtosis, Q-plots, P-plots, and
VIF statistics (Field, 2013). Skewness and kurtosis were checked in the statistical
tables and normality was checked through histograms and plots of the
standardized residuals (Field, 2013). If the assumption of normality was not possible
reasons why were investigated (e.g., the underlying distribution was nonnormal,
outliers or mixed distribution of scores on each of the variables might
contain, a low discrimination gauge was used, skewness was present in the data)
(Foster, Barkus, & Yavorsky, 2006) and then a corrective procedure was
performed, such as transformations if needed. If the assumption of linearity
was not met, then the item correlation matrix was examined to identify any item
that did not correlated with the subscale and eliminate such items was
considered with subscale reliabilities being recomputed (Foster, Barkus, &
Yavorsky, 2006). If the assumption of no multicollinearity was not met, then
the variables with a low value on tolerance would be removed. If the assumption
of homoscedasticity was not met, then a transformation of the variables or use
of a weighed least squares regression was considered (Foster, Barkus, &
Yavorsky, 2006).
Summary statistics of demographics
regarding ages and genders were computed and reported to describe the sample.
To answer research question four, the SPSS analysis resulted in three main
tables: the Model Summary table that reported the R and R^2 and adjusted R^2 and standard error to indicate how
well the data fit the model, the ANOVA table that reported the F-ratio and significance for the overall
regression model, and the Coefficients table that identified the coefficients
for each independent variable and if it was a significant variable in the
regression model (Laerd Statistics, n.d.).
The assumptions in this study included:
(a) the application of the theory of
planned behavior model was appropriate to be utilized in predicting/explaining
and gaining a deeper understanding of immigrant and refugee parents/caregivers’
intentions with regard to parental involvement, (b) participants would
answer all survey questions truthfully and honestly, (c) the variables of
parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control,
and parental intention regarding parent involvement were complex and would be
fully measured by the survey, (d) the survey instrument used was valid
and reliable, and (e) the sampling was unbiased. These assumptions had a
potential effect on the characteristics of data, such as distribution trends,
correlational trends, and variable included.
Limitations
The following limitations were
present in this study. A possible limitation for the immigrant and refugee parent
participants was a language barrier. To compensate for this limitation, the
survey documents were provided in English and in their primary language. Also,
since the surveys were sent home, participants had no opportunity to clarify
their confusion, if there was any, thereby possibly inaccurately interpreting one
or more questions. Also, parental reading levels could impact comprehension of
each question or prevent parents/caregivers from volunteering to take the
survey (Keys, 2015). The researcher’s email address
and phone numbers were provided for participants in case they had inquiries
that arose regarding the survey during the study. Because the scope of
this study included only a sample of immigrant/refugee families, the findings
are limited to the sample obtained from those enrolled in Head Start and Early
Head Start programs in the vicinity. This study was also limited by the use of a convenience sample. These limitations increased the
possibility of common-method bias, which increased the probability that the
characteristics of those who responded were different from those who did not.
Alternatively, anonymity provided through anonymous survey helped counteract
some biases vesus a focus groups of immigrants and refugees that would be
susceptible to cultural correctness.
Delimitations
The
problem of parental involvement in children’s education in Head Start or Early
Head Start programs was the focus of the study. Although there are other
problems within immigrant/refugee families, the findings were delimited to only
those variables being measured in relation to parent involvement and the theory
of planned behavior model. The criteria for participants’ enrollment in this
study were first-generation, foreign-born immigrant and refugee parents, which eliminated
some parents who were not qualified to participate even though they would
consider themselves a part of this population. This study was delimited to those
who lived in a geographic regions in Southern California and whose children
were enrolled in Head Start and Early Head Start programs.
Regarding
parental behavior, Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (TPB) model (1991) was a
useful method to explain and predict parents’ intentional behavior based on
their personal beliefs about the outcomes of behaviors. The TPB was applied to describe
the dynamic and complex nature of parental engagement in their child’s life and
education (Bracke & Corts, 2012). In addition, the TPB based moldel offered
a viable theoretical lens for examining parental involvement, the most
important determinant of parental behavioral dispositions. However, based on
these goals, the theory of planned behavior model may not captured all aspects
of parents/caregivers and their intentions for parent involvement, yet the
study delimited to only the three independent variables included in the model. These
delimitations had a potential effect on the examination of relationships among beliefs/attitudes,
subjective norms, perceived behavioral controls, and parental intentions. Other
variables may contribute to parent involvement or a lack of involvement that
were not measured or were not accounted for in the study; therefore, the
prediction formula is limited.
Given
the study included human participants, ethical assurances were required. There
were minimal elements of risk, and no deception was used in this study. Other
assurances included privacy, informed consent, anonymity, secrecy, being
truthful, and confidentiality (Moreno, Goniu, Moreno, & Diekema, 2013). Federal
regulations defined a human subject as a living individual about whom an
investigator obtained data through interaction with the individual or
identifiable private information (Moreno, Goniu, Moreno, & Diekema, 2013).
Informed consent, confidentiality, and protection of individuals were central
to the guidelines on research ethics and were employed in the study (Blaxter, Hughes,
& Tight, 2014). There was a statement in the recruitment letter for consent
to participate; and the researcher required a signed informed consent form
before collecting data from parents/caregivers and the consent forms and
information were kept confidential and separate from data after collection
(Moreno, Goniu, Moreno, & Diekema, 2013). The researcher’s assurances and
trust included the absence of deception, the voluntary nature of participation,
and the risk involved.
Further, it was critical to protect
the participant identities (Fowler, 2009). Their names, email addresses, postal
address and telephone numbers did not appear on the survey. Data and results
from the survey did not include personal information, and the surveys were not shared
with anyone other than the researcher and the committee at Northcentral
University. Concerning participants’ information on all documents such as a
consent form and demographic information, they will be destroyed after seven
years of being kept in the researcher’s personal locked files (Fowler, 2009).
The collected information was utilized only in support of this study and only
for educational purposes. The final reports of the study contain no personal
information of parents’/caregivers, maintaining their confidentiality.
Summary
To apply
the theory of planned behavior model to predict/explain and gain a deeper
understanding of the immigrant and refugee parents/caregivers’ intentions and
behaviors with regard to parental involvement, it was necessary to utilize a
quantitative method and a cross-sectional survey design. A descriptive and correlational
design was utilized to identify the parents’
intention and behaviors and to answer the research questions. Upon receiving
immigrant and refugee parents’ completed surveys, their responses were
inputted into SPSS. The instrument used to collect data from parents or caregivers
had four sections measuring perceptions of parents or caregivers: parental
attitudes/beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral controls, and
parental intentions. The instrument had sufficient reliability and validity.
Descriptive statistics and inferential data analysis were used within SPSS to
answer the research questions. The analyses included the calculations of means,
standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages of parental intentions of
involvement. Subscale reliabilities and correlations were calculated. A
stepwise multiple regression was used to answer the final research question.
Chapter
4: Findings
The
purpose of this quantitative descriptive and correlational study was to assess
the key variables posed in the TPB model as possible determinants of parent
intention for school involvement behavior (i.e., parental attitudes and
beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls) and to ascertain
whether they are significantly related to and can predict the reported
intentions of involvement of immigrant and refugee parents in their children’s
early childhood education programs. The goal was to examine the constructs that
are pivotal to TPB and a test of this theory within the context of immigrant
and refugee families with children enrolled in Head Start or Early Head Start.
The predictor variables of attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived
behavioral controls were examined in hopes of helping devise interventions in
the immigrant and refugee communities to improve their intention for
involvement in children’s education at an early age as these variables are
hypothesized to contribute to parental intentions to be involved in their
children’s education.
The
Parent Involvement Project (PIP) survey was the instrument used for data
collection. The questionnaire contains 57 items. All items were measured on a
six-point Likert scale with subscales for attitudes and beliefs, subjective
norms, perceived behavioral control, and parental intentions for involvement.
Data obtained from the participants were analyzed through the Statistical
Package for the Social Science (SPSS) program. The parent participants were
Arabic, Hispanic, Vietnamese, and English speaking. While some were English
language learners, some spoke only their native languages. A total of 122
parents participated in the study.
This
chapter presents the findings with regard to the research questions and
hypotheses. First, Cronbach’s alphas were used to compute and determine the
internal consístency reliability of each construct and subscale. The data was
examined to identify missing data and outliers and check all assumptions required
for the inferential statistics to insure they were met prior to running the
required analyses. The results of these first two steps are presented in the
reliability and validity of data section. Next, the results section begins with
descriptive statistics and demographics of the participants, including the
calculations of means, standard deviations, and ranges for attitudes and
beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavior controls, and parental
intentions. Then, the findings for each research question are presented.
Finally, the evaluation of the findings is discussed followed by a brief
summary.
Reliability and Validity of the
Data
Cronbach’s
α provides a measure of the overall reliability of a set of items creating a
subscale; values 0.70 or greater are considered acceptable (Field, 2013). The
previous or original reliability coefficients obtained from the developers of
the subscales were (a) attitudes and beliefs (0.77), (b) subjective norms
(0.88), (c) perceived behavioral controls (0.83), and (d) parental intentions
(0.78) (Hoover-Dempsey, Sandler, & Walker, 2005). The subscale
reliabilities for the present study are in Table 1. All four subscales had
acceptable internal consistency: (a) attitudes and beliefs (α = 0.84), (b)
subjective norms (α = 0.71), (c) perceived behavioral controls (α = 0.91), and
(d) parental intentions (α = 0.79). The current findings align well with
previous estimates.
Table 1
PIP Subscale Reliabilities
Composite Reliability for the
Averaged Constructs Subscale Scores.
|
Subscale |
|
Cronbach's Alpha |
|
||
|
Hoover - Dempsey et
al. |
Current Study |
|
Number of Items |
||
|
Attitudes and Beliefs
Subjective Norms Perceived Behavioral
Controls Parental Intentions |
.770 .880 .830 .780 |
.844 .711 .907 .793 |
24 6 17 10 |
||
The
statistical assumptions of multiple regressions were tested before conducting
the analysis and interpretation of the findings. The normality of the
continuous predictors (Attitudes and Beliefs, Subjective Norms, and Perceived
Behavioral Control) and outcome (Parental Intentions) variables were tested
with skewness and kurtosis statistics. Correlations were run between the
predictor variables to assess multicollinearity, as well as Variance Inflation
Factor (VIF) and Tolerance statistics being computed. Scatterplots of the
predictor variables against the outcome variable were used to assess the
assumption of linearity. Durbin-Watson statistics were used to check for the
assumption of autocorrelation. Normality of residuals was assessed using a
histogram, and homoscedasticity was tested using a P-P plot of the
standardized residuals. When assumptions were met, the predictor variables were
entered into the regression model in a simultaneous fashion. The F test
was used to check for the increase in shared variance (
) associated
with entering the predictor variables into the model. Unstandardized beta
coefficients with standard errors, as well as standardized beta coefficients
were reported and interpreted for the regression model. All analyses were
conducted using SPSS version 22 and statistical significance was assumed at an
alpha value of 0.05.
A
Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p > .05) and a visual inspection of histogram, normal P-P,
Q-Q, and box-plots showed that the value scores were normally
distributed for the samples. Univariate normality was met for the three
predictor variables and the outcome variable. Correlations between the
predictor variables were acceptable. Scatterplots shows linear relationships
with the outcome. The Durbin-Watson statistic was 2.024, meaning that an
autocorrelation was not likely. VIF and Tolerance statistics were in an
acceptable range. Interpretation of them was therefore undertaken. All of the
subscales were normally distributed as per the skewness and kurtosis statistics
being below an absolute value of 2.0 (Field, 2013).
Table 2
The
Shapiro-Wilk Test of Normality
|
Tests of
Normality |
|
|||||||
|
|
Kolmogorov-Smirnova |
Shapiro-Wilk |
|||||
|
Statistic |
Df |
Sig. |
Statistic |
df |
Sig. |
||
|
Attitudes and Beliefs (AB) |
.219 |
24 |
.200* |
.925 |
24 |
.542 |
|
|
Subjective Norms (SN) |
.199 |
6 |
.200* |
.916 |
6 |
.475 |
|
|
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) |
.223 |
17 |
.200* |
.931 |
17 |
.586 |
|
|
Parental Intentions (PI) |
.200 |
10 |
.200* |
.926 |
10 |
.546 |
|
|
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance. |
|||||||
|
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction |
|||||||
The results of
Shapiro-Wilks test for normality in Table 2 indicate that all variables had
probability values greater than 0.005 (p > .05) (Field, 2013); thus,
the measured variables in this sample were not significantly different from a
normal distribution with attitudes and beliefs scores, AB
(24) = 0.219, p =.542; subjective norm, SN (6) = 0.199, p = .475;
perceived behavioral control, PBC (17) = 0.223, p = .586; and the
parental intentions, PI (10)=0.200, p = .546.
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics of Predictors
and Dependent Variable
|
|
N |
Mean |
Std.
Deviation |
Skewness |
Kurtosis |
||
|
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std.
Error |
Statistic |
Std.
Error |
|
|
Attitudes & Beliefs |
122 |
107.0164 |
14.04066 |
.046 |
.219 |
.572 |
.435 |
|
Subjective Norms |
122 |
30.9754 |
3.51023 |
-.902 |
.219 |
1.825 |
.435 |
|
Perceived Behavioral Control |
122 |
88.3361 |
9.12956 |
-.676 |
.219 |
.783 |
.435 |
|
Parental Intentions |
122 |
50.9426 |
5.54366 |
-.371 |
.219 |
.080 |
.435 |
|
Valid N (listwise) |
122 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table
3 shows all the subscales were normally distributed as per the skewness
(AB=.046, SN=-.902, PBC=-.676, PI=-.371) and kurtosis (AB=.572, SN=1.825,
PBC=.783, PI=.080) statistics being below an absolute value of 2.0 (Field,
2013). All the subscales were normally distributed as per the skewness and
kurtosis statistics being below an absolute value of 2.0.
Figure 1. Parental
Intentions: Normality of Residuals
The data was examined
for normality of residuals. Figure 1 shows the residuals are normally distributed.
Figure 2. Parental
Intentions: P-P Plot of Residuals
Figure 2 is the P-P plot constructed for the residual of
the variable of Parental Intentions. The P-P plots were generated to
test the assumption of normality (Field, 2013). Assumption of normality is met
when points on the plot fall closely to the diagonal line. As observed, the P-P
plot met the assumption of normality; therefore, an adequate level of normality
was assumed for the sample taken for this study.
Q-Q
plots were also generated for checking the assumption of normality. Figure 1,
2, 3, and 4 in Appendix L provide the output. The assumption of normality is
met when points on the plot fall closely to the diagonal line of the variables.
An adequate level of normality was assumed for this study’s sample.
Figure
3. Boxplots of AB, SN, PBC, and PI
Figure 3 displays boxplots of the
four variables (Attitudes and Beliefs, Subjective Norms, Perceived Behavioral
Control, and Parental Intentions). There was one univariate outlier (circular
point) in perceived behavioral control; however, this univariate outlier is not
considered as troublesome and might be ignored as assessed by inspection
(Field, 2013). There were no other univariate outliers in the data as assessed
by inspection of a boxplot for values greater than 2.5 box-lengths from the
edge of the box. Thus, this assumption was met.
For
the planned analyses, the data must meet a number of assumptions (Field, 2013).
By design, the independent and dependent variables were measured on a
continuous interval scale of measurement. To test the independence of residuals
assumption, the Durbin-Watson statistic was computed and assessed (Field,
2013).
Table 4
Model Summary: Predictors and
Dependent Variable
|
Model
Summary |
||||||||||
|
Model |
|
|
Adjusted |
Std. Error of the
Estimate |
Change Statistics |
Durbin-Watson |
||||
|
|
F Change |
df1 |
df2 |
Sig. F Change |
||||||
|
1 |
|
|
.495 |
.027 |
.507 |
40.529 |
3 |
118 |
.000 |
2.024 |
|
b. Dependent Variable: Parental Intentions |
||||||||||
In Table 4, the entry
of the predictor variables accounted for a significant increased in , F (3, 118) =
40.53, p < 0.05. The Durbin-Watson statistic shows there was no
autocorrelation. D = 2.024. Field (2013) suggested that the values less than 1
or greater than 3 is a cause for concern. A value of 2 indicates the assumption
has certainly been met.
The next assumption tested was for
linear relationships between the dependent variable and each of the independent
variables; scatterplots were generated for examination.
Figure 4. Scatterplot for
Combinations of Variables Model
The 12 scatterplots in Figure 4
indicates symmetrical distribution of data points around a diagonal line, thus
confirming the assumption of linearity (Field, 2013).
Figure 5. Partial Regression
Attitudes and Beliefs Model
Figure 5 shows a linear relationship
exists between the parental intentions and attitudes and beliefs. There were no
outliers observed in the plot that could invalidate the assumption of linearity
(Field, 2013); thus, the assumption of linearity was met.
Figure 6. Partial Regression Subjective
Norms Model
Figure 6 shows a linear
relationship exists between the parental intentions and subjective norms. There
were no outliers observed in the plot that could invalidate the assumption of
linearity (Field, 2013); thus, the assumption of linearity was met.
Figure 7. Partial Regression
Perceived Behavioral Control Model
Figure 7 shows a linear
relationship exists between the parental intentions and perceived behavioral
control. There were no outliers observed in the plot that could invalidate the
assumption of linearity (Field, 2013); thus, the assumption of linearity was
met. Figure 8 shows
homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of standardized
residuals versus standardized predicted value (Field, 2013).
Figure 8. Testing for
Homoscedasticity
To check for the assumption that
the data must not show multicollinearity, diagnostics were examined. Multicollinearity occurs
when the sample has two or more independent variables that are correlated with
each other (Field, 2013). In Table 6 as below, all the Tolerance values were
greater than 0.10 (the lowest is 0.585) and the VIF values were all below 10,
so this assumption was met (Field, 2013).
Table 5
Checking for Multicollinearity
|
Model 1 |
Unstandardized
Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
Sig. |
95.0% Confidence
Interval for B |
Correlations |
Collinearity Statistics |
||||||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
Lower Bound |
Upper Bound |
Zero-order |
Partial |
Part |
Tolerance |
VIF |
|||
|
|
(Constant) |
9.765 |
3.864 |
|
.013 |
-18.060 |
25.168 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB |
.120 |
.029 |
.304 |
.000 |
-1.526 |
.729 |
-.415 |
-.732 |
-.659 |
.756 |
1.323 |
|
|
SN |
.037 |
.133 |
.023 |
.037 |
-1.895 |
4.019 |
.425 |
.738 |
.670 |
.585 |
1.711 |
|
|
PBC |
.308 |
.051 |
.507 |
.000 |
-4.183 |
3.349 |
-.011 |
-.319 |
-.207 |
.585 |
1.708 |
|
Results
Upon
approval from Northcentral University’s IRB and the AKA Head Start centers,
parents were invited to participate through the distribution of the survey
packets at each center’s gate where parents/caregivers dropped-off their
children. Attempts were made to recruit parent participants during the pick up
and drop off times in order to reach the goal of a maximum number of parents
who met the criteria for inclusion in the study. The AKA Head Start executive
director and center directors collaborated on this project by allowing access
to distribute the survey packets. Twelve sites gave permission for parents to
participate. Participants received a survey package with (1) a PIP survey, (2)
a consent form, (3) a recruitment letter, and (4) a self-stamped envelope for them
to return the survey and consent form to the researcher’s address. All surveys
were completed and collected within an eight-week time-frame.
Sample
demographics. A total of 500 surveys was
distributed, and 122 parents who met the criteria for inclusion successfully
completed and returned the surveys and consent forms within the timeframe as requested.
Table 6 provides the domographics of
Table 6
Demographic Characteristics
|
Variable n Percentage |
Variable n Percentage |
Age of Participants Schooling Parents
Completed
18 – 65 122 100% Some High School
17 13.9%
Early
Head Start 22 18.0% High
School Diploma 31 25.4%
Head
Start 98 80.3% Some College 31 25.4%
Gender
of Participants College Degree 25 20.5%
Male 19 15.6%
Graduate Degree 8 6.6%
Female 103 84.4%
Vocational School 6 4.9%
Gender
of Children None 3
3.3%
Boys 56 45.9% Marital
Status of Parents
Girls
66 54.1%
Married 64
52.5%
Parents
Described as Divorced/Separated 13 10.7%
Immigrant 92 75.4% Never Married 39 32.0%
Refugee
17 13.9%
Missing 6 4.9%
Missing:
13 10.7% Relationship
to the Child
Time
of Living in the USA Mother 96 78.7%
Two years 4 3.3% Father
18 14.8%
Four years 3 2.5% Grandmother 6 4.9%
Five years 6 4.9% Grandfather 1 0.8%
More than five years 101 82.8% Other
1 0.8%
Missing 8 6.6%
Home
Language of Participants
Arabic 15 12.3%
English 50 41.0%
Hispanic 50 41.0%
Vietnamese 7 5.7%
parents who completed the surveys.
All parents were between 18 and 65 years old. There were 22 parents (18.0%) who
had a child enrolled in Early Head Start and 98 parents (80.3%) with a child in
Head Start. Nineteen participants were male (15.6%) and 103 were female
(84.4%). The genders of their children were 56 boys (45.9%) and 66 girls
(54.1%). Ninety-two parents described themselves as immigrants (75.4%) and 17
as refugee (13.9%). Out of 122 parents, four parents (3.3%) had lived in the
USA for two years; three parents (2.5%) for four years; six parents (4.9%) for
five years; 101 parents (82.8%) for more than five years; and eight parents
(6.6%) who did not respond. Among those who participated in the study, 17
parents (13.9%) completed some high school; 31 parents (25.4%) had a high
school diploma; 25 parents (20.5%) obtained a college degree; six parents
(4.9%) attended vocational school; 31 parents (25.4%) attended some college;
eight parents (6.6%) held a graduate degree; and three parents (3.3%) did not
report their education status. With regard to marital status, 64 parents
(52.5%) were married; 13 parents (10.7%) were divorced or separated; 39 parents
(32.0%) were never married; and six parents (4.9%) did not report. The
participants’ relationship to a child included 96 mothers (78.7%), 18 fathers
(14.8%), six grandmothers (4.9%), one grandfather (0.8%), and one other (0.8%).
The overwhelming majority of participants spoke English (41.0%), Spanish
(41.0%), 15 speaking Arabic (12.3%), and 7 Vietnamese (5.7%).
Research
questions 1 through 4. The first four research questions
posed were descriptive questions and asked the levels of (1) attitudes and
beliefs (AB), (2) subjective norms (SN), (3) perceived behavioral controls
(PBC), and (4) parental intentions (PI) of immigrant/refugee parents/caregivers
regarding parent involvement in AKA Head Start and Early Head Start programs.
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics of
Predictors and Dependent Variable
|
|
N |
Mean |
Std.
Deviation |
Skewness |
Kurtosis |
||
|
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std.
Error |
Statistic |
Std.
Error |
|
|
Attitudes & Beliefs |
122 |
107.0164 |
14.04066 |
.046 |
.219 |
.572 |
.435 |
|
Subjective Norms |
122 |
30.9754 |
3.51023 |
-.902 |
.219 |
1.825 |
.435 |
|
Perceived Behavioral Control |
122 |
88.3361 |
9.12956 |
-.676 |
.219 |
.783 |
.435 |
|
Parental Intentions |
122 |
50.9426 |
5.54366 |
-.371 |
.219 |
.080 |
.435 |
|
Valid N (listwise) |
122 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 7 presents descriptive
statistics for all variables across all participants. The mean scores derived
for independent variables were attitudes and beliefs (M=107.02, SD=14.04),
subjective norms (M=30.98, SD=3.51), perceived behavioral control
(M=88.34, SD=9.13) and parental intentions in their actual
behaviors (M=50.94, SD=5.54). Given the possible range for
attitudes and beliefs from 24 to 144;
the mean score is considered moderate. Given the possible range for subjective
norm is from 6 to 36; the mean score is considered moderately high. Given the
possible range for perceived behavioral control is from 17 to 102; the mean
score is considered moderate. Given the possible range for parental intentions
from 10 to 60; the mean score is considered moderately high (Field, 2013).
Research question 5.
The final research question posed was: What
is the relationship of measures of attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and
perceived behavior control, and how well, if at all, do they predict parental
intentions for parental involvement by parents in AKA Head Start and Early Head
Start programs?
Table 8
Correlation Coefficients
|
Correlation
Matrix |
|||||
|
|
Attitudes and Beliefs |
Subjective Norms |
Perceived Behavioral
Controls |
Parental Intentions |
|
|
Spearman’s rho |
Attitudes and Beliefs |
|
|
|
|
|
Subjective Norms |
.982** (.000) |
|
|
|
|
|
Perceived Behavioral Controls |
.861** (.000) |
.948** (.002) |
|
|
|
|
Parental Intentions |
.837** (.001) |
.980** (.000) |
.950** (.002) |
|
|
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
Table
8 provides the results of the correlational analysis for the variables. The
subscale of attitudes and beliefs was significantly and positively correlated
with subjective norms (r=0.982, p=0.000), perceived behavioral
control (r=0.861, p=0.000), and parental intentions (r=0.837,
p=0.001). Subjective norms and perceived behavioral controls were significantly
and positively correlated (r=0.948, p=0.002) as were subjective norms
and parental intentions (r=0.980, p=0.000). Perceived behavioral
control was positively and significant correlated with parental intentions (r=0.950,
p=0.002). Given the significant correlations, the null hypothesis was
rejected.
Results of the Multiple Regression
Analyses Predicting Parental Intentions
|
Variables t p β Intentions A&B 4.318
.000 .304 SN 9.832
.037 .023 PBC 6.006 .000 .507
|
F
df p adj. |
|
|
|
||||||
|
40.529 |
3, 118 |
0.013 |
0.495 |
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Note: A & B =
Attitudes and Beliefs, SN = Subjective Norms, PBC = Perceived Behavioral
Control
The
results of the multiple regression analysis in Table 9 demonstrate significant
predictive capacity F(3, 118) = 40.529, p < 0.013 with the predictor
variables accounting for 50 % of the variance in parental intentions. All three
variables contributed significantly to the prediction model: attitudes and
beliefs (t=4.318, p=0.000, b=0.304),
subjective norms (t=9.832, p=0.037, b=0.023),
and perceived behavioral control (t=6.006, p=0.000, b=0.507).
The null hypothesis was rejected.
Based
on the results of correlational and regression analyses, the null hypothesis
for research question five was rejected because significant positive
correlations were found among the variables and all three variables were
statistically significant in predicting variation in parental intentions for
involvement. It is important to note that the measure for parental intentions
is moderately high for parent involvement and there were significant and high
correlation with parental intention. This finding is not surprising because it
is consistent with the finding revealed by Hoover-Dempsey et al. (2005) who
pointed to the importance of social norms in their study of parental
involvement. Perry and Langley (2013) also found the attitudes and beliefs and
subjective norms were the two strongest predictors of parental intentions.
Additionally, results from this study are consistent to that of Kiriakidis
(2015) who reported that perceived behavioral control is significant and
contribution to the prediction of intentions above of attitudes and subjective
norms. Kiriakidis (2013) also reported the theory of planned behavior model is
superior to the theory of planned action model in predicting and understanding
parent behavior after testing the two theories in ten different behaviors. This
study fits with the extensive work they have done. The findings are also
aligned with prior research by Bracke and Corts (2012) who yielded several
outcomes: (a) affirmed parents’ positive attitudes and beliefs for their
children’s education, (b) offered support for a long-term, collaborative
relationship between Early Head Start and Head Start programs and the local
community.
The
findings from this study revealed that immigrant and refugee parents’
involvement in EHS/HS programs could be predicted by their reported attitudes
and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls with regard to
their involvement in their children’s education. All three variables should be
considered important aspects in which teachers and administrators may affect parents’
intentions and desires to be involved in their child’s schooling. The findings
support that the theory of planned behavior model can be applied to explaining
parent involvement of immigrant and refugee parents whose children are enrolled
in Head Start and Early Head Start programs, thereby expanding the theory to
encompass people with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
This study was guided by the theory
of planned behavior that stipulates the more favorable parents’ intentions to
engage in their child’s education, based on their attitudes and beliefs,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, the more likely they will
actually engage in the intended behaviors (Ajzen, 2011). This finding is
particularly encouraging because it suggests that the relatively high parental
intentions are likely to have a strong effect, influencing not only their
child’s education but also leading to parents’ level of involvement in EHS/HS
programs.
Summary
A
quantitative, descriptive and correlational study was employed to assess key
variables posed in the TPB based model as possible determinants of parent
intention for school involvement behavior, i.e. parental attitudes and beliefs,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls, within the immigrant and
refugee population. They were significantly related to each other and predicted
the reported intentions of involvement of immigrant and refugee parents in
their children’s early childhood education programs. By assessing the
constructs that were pivotal to TPB, a test of this theory within the context
of immigrant and refugee families with children enrolled in Head Start or Early
Head Start was accomplished. In terms of age group, parents were between 18 to
65 years old. Twenty-two parents had a child in Early Head Start and 98 parents
had a child in Head Start; 19 were males and 103 were female parents. The
genders of children were 56 boys and 66 girls. The parents described themselves
as immigrants (92 parents) or refugees (17 parents).
A
correlation analysis was used to measure the degree of association among the variables,
and a multivariate regression analysis was used to assess the magnitude and
intentions of a relationship of the predictor variables to the criterion
variables of parental intentions for involvement. The measures of attitudes and
beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control perceptions, and
intentions of immigrant and refugee parents were significantly related to each
other and predicted parents’ intentions for involvement in AKA Head Start and
Early Head Start programs resulting in rejection of the null hypothesis. The findings are consistent with the
theory of planned behavior model and can be applied to explaining parents’
involvement for those with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Chapter 5: Implications,
Recommendations, and Conclusions
The problem addressed in this study was the limitation of immigrant
and refugee parent involvement in Head Start and Early Head Start to support
their children’s education (Hindman et al., 2012; Manz et al., 2014). The
variables defined in the theory of planned behavior (TPB) that contribute to
parental intentions include attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and
perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991; Bracke & Corts, 2012; Perry
& Langley, 2013) and provided a framework from which to explore the views
of immigrant and refugee parents with regard to parent involvement in their
children’s early childhood education. The purpose
of this quantitative descriptive and correlational study was to assess key
variables posed in TPB as possible determinants of parental intention for
involvement behavior (i.e., parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms,
and perceived behavioral control) and ascertain whether they were significantly
related to and predictive of the reported intentions for involvement of immigrant and refugee parents in
their children’s early education programs. By assessing these constructs
pivotal to TPB, an expansion of this theory within the context of immigrant and
refugee families with children enrolled in Head Start or Early Head Start was
accomplished.
Using a survey instrument to collect data, the goals were to (1)
identify parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, parental intention,
and perceived behavioral control regarding parent involvement, and (2)
investigate how, if at all, these variables are correlated to and serve to
predict parent involvement, as TPB suggests, in this population. The dependent
variable was reported as parental intentions for involvement, and the predictors were the determinants of behaviors,
outlined in TPB, i.e., parent attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and
perceived behavioral control, as reported by immigrant and refugee families
with children enrolled in Head Start and Early Head Start programs. The
predictor variables were examined in hopes of identifying possible factors that
might hinder or promote parent involvement in order to utilize the information
to create interventions for parents of immigrant and refugee communities in and
increase their intention for involvement in children’s education at an early
age.
Survey methods were employed, as they were the most appropriate
method for collecting quantitative data, to measure study variables posed in
TPB and to ascertain whether they were significantly related to and could
predict the involvement of immigrant and refugee parents in their children’s
early childhood education programs (Girardelli & Patel, 2016). The
population targeted was parents/caregivers who were immigrants and refugees
with children enrolled in either an Early Head Start or Head Start program. A
census of a population of immigrant and refugee parents at twelve Head Start
and Early Head Start Centers was conducted and a final sample of 122
parents/caregivers whose children participated in these programs completed
surveys. Parents were asked to complete the
Parental Involvement Project (PIP) Questionnaire (see Appendix A), a
57-item survey measuring attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived
behavioral control, and parental intentions. All ethical standards for
conducting research were followed. All analyses were conducted using the 0.05
level of significance and with the statistical software SPSS version 22. In
brief, this quantitative correlational study utilized correlation analysis, to
measure the degree of an association between two or more variables, and a
multivariate regression analysis, to assess the magnitude and intentions of a
relationship of the predictor variables to the criterion variables.
The attitudes and beliefs of immigrant/refugee parents regarding
parental involvement in AKA Head Start and Early Head Start programs was
measured and the mean scores for this variable was moderate (M=107.02).
The variable of attitudes and beliefs was also significantly and positively
correlated to subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and parental
intentions. The subjective norms of immigrant/refugee parents regarding
parental involvement in AKA Head Start and Early Head Start programs was
measured and the mean scores for this variable was moderate high (M=30.98).
The subjective norms was significantly and positively correlated to parental
intentions. The perceived behavioral control of immigrant/refugee parents
regarding parental involvement in AKA Head Start and Early Head Start programs
was measured and the mean scores was moderate (M=88.34). This variable was
significantly and positively correlated to parental intentions. The parental
intentions of immigrant/refugee parents regarding parental involvement in AKA
Head Start and Early Head Start were measured and the mean scores derived for
this dependent variable was moderately high (M=50.94). These intentions
were significantly and positively correlated to attitudes and beliefs,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. The findings of the
multiple regression analysis were that the three independent variables were
significant predictors of parental intentions and accounted for 50%, of the variance of parental intentions for
their children’s education. The null hypothesis was rejected.
In this study, the participant selection of immigrant and refugee
families was limited to only those who voluntarily completed the survey and
whose children attended one of twelve Early Head Start or Head Start centers in
a particular geographic area. These limitations increased common-method bias,
which increased the probability that the characteristics of those parents who
responded were different from those who did not. However, the anonymity of the
survey may have been helpful to counteract some biases as a focus group of
immigrant and refugee population would have been susceptible to other
limitations. One possible limitation was the potential for a language barrier.
To compensate for this limitation, the survey documents were distributed in
English along with a translation in the parents’ primary language. Parents’
reading levels could also affect their comprehension of each question or
prevent them from voluntarily taking the survey (Keys, 2015). Because the scope
of this study counted only immigrant and refugee parents, findings were limited
to the sample obtained from those enrolled in Head Start and Early Head Start
programs in the vicinity. Further, this study was also limited by the use of a
convenience sample. Alternatively, anonymity helped counteract some biases
because focus groups of immigrants and refugees would be susceptible to
cultural correctness. Another limitation was participants responded to only
survey questions without the opportunity to elaborate on their responses.
Discussion of implications and recommendations for practice and future
research, along with conclusions are the focus of this chapter.
Implications
The objective of this study was to assess key variables posed in TPB
as possible determinants of parental intention for involvement behaviors and
ascertain whether they were significant related to and could predict the
reported intentions of involvement of immigrant and refugee parents in their
children’s early childhood education programs. Perry and Langley (2013)
revealed that parental attitudes/beliefs and subjective norms were the two
strongest predictors of parental intentions in their children’s education
involvement. These determinants are also important factors for immigrants and
refugees’ families with low-income or at-risk status (DeLoatche et al., 2014;
Perry & Langley, 2015). For example, a recent special issue of Early
Childhood Education was dedicated to examining the influence of the parent
involvement relationship on various family outcomes and interventions to
improving parent involvement among Head Start families (DeLoatche et al.,
2015).
For research question one, the attitudes and beliefs parents
reported was moderate (M=107.02). This level implies that parents from
an immigrant and refugee populations hold generally negative attitudes about
becoming involved in the early education of their children and believe that
parent involvement is important for their children’s success in school. These
parents are likely to be engaged with teachers who should encourage this
involvement by providing and explaining information on the child’s learning
goals, requesting attendance for special programs, asking for volunteers, and
sharing students’ academic progress.
For question two,
the subjective norms parents reported were moderately high (M=30.98).
This level implies that parental involvement may be an area in which parents
from immigrant and refugee communities are concerned with regard to making sure
they are following cultural or community norms. They may be likely to succumb
to social pressure to increase their involvement in their child’s education.
Because when considering parent involvement in education, parents may want to
support their children but their practices might differ in approach depending
on their cultural background (Garbacz et al., 2016). For example, Latino
immigrant parents were likely to stress social values and concerned about
children’s social development rather than their cognitive development and
individual school accomplishments (Kikas, Tulviste, & Peets, 2014). Parents
who emphasized social values might consider that teachers were the main
educators of children and thus might be less engaged in children’s education
(Fung & Fox, 2014). However, parents who gave priority to self-direction
values, such as independence, creativity, and self-confidence, might consider
cooperation and sharing of responsibilities with teachers as inappropriate
(Kikas et al., 2014). Thus, it is more directly the relationships built with
the teachers that might increase parent involvement rather than directing
reasons to be involved as something that all parents in the U.S. should do.
Activities providing greater levels of collaboration between teachers and
parents would be a better focus. Teachers and parents might build partnerships
with: (a) a school-focused on school climate for parents to feel welcome and
teachers are interested and cooperative when they discuss a child with his or
her parents, (b) an empowerment-focused school climate in which teachers
discuss concerns with parents about their child’s problem promptly, and (c)
culture may play a significant role in parents’ ideas about the ways they can
and should be involved in supporting their child’s learning and this may not be
swayed by simply engaging them by suggesting it is a cultural norm in the U.S.
(Hoover-Dempsey, Sandler, &
Walker, 2005).
For question three, the perceived behavioral control, parents
reported was moderate (M=88.34). This level implies that these parents
do believe they have some degree of control over their ability to become
involved in their child’s education. This would influence parents’ thinking
about the kinds of involvement activities they can take on or choose to engage
in. When teachers’ requests for involvement fit parents’ knowledge and skill,
they are more likely to participate (Hoover-Dempsey,
Sandler, & Walker, 2005).
For some immigrant and refugee parents, their language is a barrier; they may
not feel they understand enough English to attend a meeting with teachers or
staff, so they choose not to come. The data collected do not specifically
indicate what might be perceived as barriers to involvement; nevertheless,
these parents do not seem to report low control of their own behavior and
ability to be involved, which indicates they are more likely than not to choose
to be involved when the opportunity presents itself.
For research question four, the parental intentions reported were
moderately high (M=50.94). This implies that parents from immigrant and
refugee populations appear to indicate they do have some level of intentions to
become involved in their child’s early education. While these intentions might
not be as high as teachers want, their intentions are certainly not as low as
they could be. Researchers found that when family members took the lead and
made decisions for their children’s learning, they were truly engaged
(McCormick et al., 2013). Researchers
showed that Head Start programs did not affect all children in the same way
because the fit between what the program provides and what the family provides
to a child was likely to differ across families and programs (Miller et al.,
2014).
The null hypothesis for research question five was rejected because
statistically significant positive correlations were found among the variables.
These positive correlations imply that the theory of planned behavior operates
similarly within this sample of immigrant and refugee parents in comparison
with other demographically different samples examined by Hoover-Dempsey et al.
(2005), Perry and Langley (2013), and Kiriakidis (2015). Interestingly, the
finding was that subjective norms had the strongest correlation among the
predictors. The finding of this study provided continued support for the wide
application of this theory across populations that have rarely been examined.
Immigrant and refugee parents’ involvement in HS/EHS programs can
be predicted by their reported attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and
perceived behavioral controls with regard to their involvement in children’s
education. This finding implies that all three variables should be considered
important aspects by which teachers, center directors, and administrators may
affect parents’ intentions and desire to be involved in their child’s
schooling. The findings of the multiple regression suggested that attitudes and
beliefs and subjective norms were the two strongest predictors of parental
intentions for involvement. Some prior researchers also found all three
variables to be significant predictors of parental intentions for involvement
(Kiriakidis, 2015; Tipton, 2014), while others have had findings that support
only one or two of these variables (Case, Spark, & Pavey, 2016). The
findings supported that the theory of planned behavior can be applied to
explaining parent involvement of immigrants and refugees whose children are
enrolled in HS/EHS, thereby expanding the theory to encompass people with
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
This study was guided by the theory of planned behavior that
stipulates the more favorable parents’ intention to engage in their child’s
education, based on their attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and
perceived behavioral control, the more likely they will actually engage with
their intended behaviors (Ajzen, 2011). The findings of this study revealed the
implications of improving current parent involvement policies for engaging
immigrants and refugees, and they may be able to overcome the barriers of
involvement if the schools can improve their programs. Regarding
parental behavior, Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (TPB) model (1991) was a
useful method to explain and predict parents’ intentional behavior based on
their personal beliefs about the outcomes of behaviors. It was used to describe
the dynamic and complex nature of parental engagement in their child’s life and
education (Bracke & Corts, 2012). In addition, the TPB based moldel offers
a viable theoretical lens for examining parental involvement, the most
important determinant of parental behavioral dispositions. The findings from this study are aslo particularly encouraging in that
they reported to have relatively moderate parental intentions, and this will likely
have a positive effect on their child’s education if teachers and center
directors lead parents to increase their level of involvement in a program.
Recommendations for Application
By assessing the
constructs that were pivotal to TPB, an expansion of this theory––within the
context of immigrant and refugee families with children enrolled in Head Start
or Early Head Start—was accomplished. There was a lack of proper application of
TPB highlighted in the literature review about both of school personnel and key
variables in this study (Dean, Stewart, & Debattista, 2017). The aspects of
parental involvement included attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms,
perceived behavioral control, and subsequent parental intentions. First, parents or caregivers need the provision of resources to
change their attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral
control toward their children’s education in early development. Second, increasing parent involvement is positively
correlated with higher achievement of children’s learning activities (Castro et
al., 2015). Thus, teachers and center directors must outweigh the challenges
that they encounter with involving parents. Any barrier
identified by parents should be resolved and educators should strive to make a
priority of reaching out to involve parents (DeLoatche, Bradley-Klug, Ogg,
Dromrey, & Sundman-Wheat, 2015).
Researchers have reported on different
methods of involving parents that play a positive role in becoming involved in their
children’s school (Kikas et al., 2014). Castro et al. (2015) conducted a
meta-analysis and found multiple ways in which families could be involved in
children’s learning at home, in the community, and in school. At home, a
family’s engagement is the most important factor to a child’s development; for
example, the activities include shared book reading, parent-child conversation,
discussed letters and sounds, and writing exercises. Hindman, Miller, Froyen,
and Skibbe (2012) stressed that enjoyable at-home learning activities may
encourage children’s positive attitudes about learning. In the community,
families can help children learn about the wider world and access resources
that may not be readily available within the household such as visiting
libraries, attending museums, sport
events, church functions, or other cultural opportunities (Hindman et al.,
2012). School-based involvement includes various activities in which parents
engage, for example, participating in school trips, volunteering in the
classroom or at school events, fundraising, and attending school programs
(Castro et al., 2015; Kikas et al., 2014; McCormick et al., 2013). In
school-based activities, McCormick, Cappella, O’Connor, and McClowry (2013)
found that parents who were involved would likely have positive relationships
with teachers; in turn, teachers might be less liable
to perceive problematic behaviors among the children of highly involved
parents. Parents and caregivers could volunteer in the classroom or staff the
office to participate in decision-making bodies such as the parent policy
council or personal communication such as parent-teacher conferences (Hindman
et al., 2012).
Homeschool conferencing is a
communication between parents and school staff on educational topics related to
a specific child (Castro et al., 2015;
Kikas et al., 2014). For school conferences or meetings, where oral
communication skills are essential, parents with limited English language skills can be asked in advance to bring an
adult whom they trust to serve as their translator
(Cheatham & Ostrosky, 2013). If centers have
trouble-locating translators for written school
materials, schools should successfully collaborate with community-based
organizations and refugee resettlement agencies to provide translation
assistance (Manz et al., 2014). Finally, centers should outreach to families
through informal meeting settings. For example, making home visits for young
children below the age of three years is a primary means of strengthening the
pivotal role of parents (DeLoatche et al., 2015; Manz et al., 2014). Although
encouraging parent involvement was politically neutral and rhetorically popular, much of the research informing policy
was occurring in the absence of clarity around the dimensions of parent involvement and the role of teachers in
predictive relationships of children’s behaviors (McCormick et al., 2013).
Researchers found that preschool
educators and staff should be trained to communicate with parents or caregivers
regarding giving their engagement in home-school learning activities, as well
as in the communities (DeLoatche et al., 2015).
Positive attitudes and beliefs of parents and caregivers toward
participation in Head Start and Early Head Start programs have benefited them.
Parental involvement and acceptance of these family characteristics are
important aspects of research and can always be improved for these actions
ultimately can affect immigrant and refugee parents’ perspectives about their
child’s education (Leyendecher et al., 2018). When dealing with immigrant and
refugee families with different characteristics, Head Start faculties may not
understand the difficulties the young children and families have been through
(DeLoatche et al., 2015) and may not always able to address specific needs that
families wants. Hence, knowledge of parent involvement is crucial to Head Start
staff who should be well-trained (Edberg et al., 2017).
For parental involvement, attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms,
and perceived behavioral control play a crucial role in parental intentions to
be involved and, subsequently, the development of their children. Of all the
variables that were considered important, parental involvement was considered
to have the greatest impact on preschoolers’ education (Dean, Stewart, &
Debattista, 2017). There is evidence that parents strongly believe they should
be involved in helping their children succeed in school. Therefore, administrator
or center directors should share this same regard for involvement and set the
tone for a school culture that has high expectations for parental involvement.
Collaboration will be needed between parents and teachers to maintain the
expectation in the Head Start and Early Head Start centers. Teachers and center
directors should consider the theory of planned behavior to account for
parental intentions to become and remain involve with their child. Chiefly,
teachers and center directors should communicate clearly that all parents have
an important role to play in children’s learning success.
Recommendations for Future Research
Continued research on parental involvement is needed to further
support a significant correlation with and contribution to the prediction of
parental involvement by immigrant/refugee parents in AKA Head Start and Early
Head Start programs. The problem of
parental involvement in children’s education in Head Start or Early Head Start
programs was a primary focus in the study, although other problems arise in immigrant/refugee
families. Findings were delimited to only those variables being measured in
relation to parent involvement and the theory of planned behavior. The criteria
for participants’ enrollment in this study were immigrants and refugees, which
eliminated some families from participating even though they would consider
themselves a part of this population. This study delimited the population to only
the geographic regions in southern California being sampled and whose children
were enrolled in Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Expansion to a wider geographic region, other programs that serve
the early childhood population and more diverse parent populations would serve
to further validate the current findings.
The current study has only focused on the three factors
contributing to parent intentions for involvement as defined by TPB, but other
factors may affect parental intentions for involvement. This
delimitation had a potential effect on the examination of relationships among
beliefs/attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral controls, and
parental intentions. One effect was that other variables could contribute to
parent involvement or a lack of involvement that were not measured or not
included in TPB and so were not accounted for in the study; therefore, the
prediction formula would be limited. Future research should attempt to identify additional factors that
might be particular to one people group. Researcher seeking to gain a better
understanding of demographic characteristics that may conflict with parental
involvement and parental intention outcomes would serve to further inform TPB
(DeLoatche et al., 2015).
Another recommendation would be for studies to examine the effect
of biases and prejudices based on languages, races, religions, and
socioeconomic statuses. Including a wider sample of a diverse demographic
population, such as Chinese, Somalians, or Iranians for more findings would
also be worthwhile. Investigations of both immigrant and non-immigrant
families’ educational involvement practices in Head Start programs might also
serve to reveal differences that may need to be addressed by program directors
to further increase involvement (Sibley & Brabeck, 2017). More research is
needed to explore teacher-parent relationships that are developed within the
programs, particularly with the immigrant and refugee populations, and in which
teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of the program. Research on the
teacher-parent relationship could advance understanding of the benefit of
having positive intentions related to parents’ involvement in the HS/EHS
programs (DeLoatche et al., 2015; Perry & Langley, 2013).
Conclusions
This
quantitative correlational study utilized a correlation analysis to measure the
degree of an association among the variables and a multivariate regression
analysis to assess the magnitude with which TPB variables could predict
parental intentions for involvement in schooling. The measures of attitudes and
beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control perceptions, and
intentions of immigrant and refugee parents were significantly related to each other
and predicted 50% of the variance in parents’ intentions for involvement in AKA
Head Start and Early Head Start programs resulting in rejection of the null
hypothesis. The findings are consistent
with the theory of planned behavior applied to explain parent
involvement for parents with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
The variables examined significantly predicted the reported intentions of
parental involvement in early childhood education programs. The findings of
this study would support the theory of planned behavior as applied to parent
involvement of immigrant and refugee parents whose children are enrolled in
HS/EHS. Information collected in the study is useful for training for Head
Start educators in order to meet the needs of immigrant and refugee families
and involve parents. Competence training should be provided in HS/EHS programs.
Future research on parental involvement in the HS/EHS programs
should continue. The most effective efforts for improving parental involvement
must be reinforced and built in early childhood education by a program
executive director, a center director, educators, and policy-makers. These
professionals always wish to increase parental involvement in the programs to
be successful; however, the number of immigrants and refugees’ families is
rapidly growing each year, which affects the way HS/EHS programs operate.
Finding an appropriate method of increasing parental intentions to participate
in their children’s education helps address the centers’ responsibility of
increasing parent involvement and the immigrant and refugee family would
benefit. An important task to promoting children’s early education is getting
parents involved in their programs.
References
Acar, S., & Akamoglu, Y. (2014). Practices for parent participation in early intervention/early childhood special
education. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 6(1),
80-101. Retrieved from www.int-jecse.net/assets/upload/pdf/20150930191519_intjecse.pdf
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2),
179-211. Retrieved from http://www.niu.edu/user/tj0bjs1/psyc624/Ajzen%20(1991).pdf
Ajzen, I. (2006). Behavioral
interventions based on the theory of planned behavior. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245582784_Behavioral_Interventions_Based_on_the_Theory_of_Planned_Behavior
Ajzen, I. (2011). Behavior
interventions: Design and evaluation guided by the theory of planned behavior.
Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264038348_Behavioral_interventions_Design_and_evaluation_guided_by_the_theory_of_planned_behavior
Ajzen,
I., & Klobas, J. (2013). Fertility intention: An approach based on the
theory of planned behavior. Demographic
Research, 29(8), 203-232. doi:104054/DemRes.2013.29.8
AKA Head Start program, Inc. Head Start/Early Head Start, annual report
2014-2015. Retrieved from https://www.akaheadstart.org/pdf/Annual_Reports/2016/Annual%20Report%202014-2015%2001-4-16.pdf
Alghazo,
Y. (2013). The theory of planned behavior and parental involvement: A
theoretical framework for narrowing the achievement gaps. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 5(4),
570-572. Retrieved from www.ijsr.net/archive/v5i4/NOV162664.pdf
Auclair,
G., & Batalova, J. (2013). Middle Eastern and North African immigrants in
the United States. The Online Journal of
the Migration Policy Institute, Spotlight. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/middle-eastern-and-north-african-immigrants-united-states
Berger,
E. H. & Riojas-Cortez, M. (2012). Parents as partners in education: Families and schools working
together (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Berry, D., Blair, C., Willoughby, M., Garrett-Peters, P., Vernon-Feagans,
L., & Mills-Koonce, W. R. (2016). Household chaos and children’s cognitive
and socio-emotional development in early childhood: Does childcare play a
buffering role? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 34,115-127.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.09.003
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2014). How to research (4th ed.). Open University Press. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Bracke, D., & Corts, D. (2012). Parental involvement and the theory of
planned behavior. Education, 133(1), 188-201. Retrieved from https://morganearnold.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/parental-involvment-and-the-theory-of-planned-behavior.pdf
Bulotsky-Shearer, R., Wen, X., Faria, A.-M., Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., &
Korfmacher, J. (2012). National profiles of classroom quality and family
involvement: A multilevel examination of proximal influences on Head Start
children’s school readiness. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly 27, 627-639. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.02.001
Caesar, L. G., & Nelson, N. W. (2014). Parental involvement in language
and literacy acquisition: A bilingual journaling approach. Child Language
Teaching & Therapy, 30(3), 317-336. doi.10.1177/0265659013513028
Cardona, B., Jain, S.,
& Canfield-Davis,
K. (2012). Home-school relationships: A qualitative study with diverse
families. The Qualitative
Report, 17(35), 1-20. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss35/2
Case, P., Sparks, P., Pavey, L. (2016). Identity
appropriateness and the structure of the theory of planned behavior. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(1),
109-125. doi:10.1111/bjso.12115
Castro,
M., Exposito-Casas, E., Lopez-Martin, E., Lizasoain, L., Navarro-Asencio, E.,
& Gaviria, J. L, (2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A
meta-analysis. Educational Research
Review 14, 33-46. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2015.01.002
Caughy, M. O., & Owen, M.
T. (2015). Cultural socialization and school readiness of African American and
Latino preschoolers. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(3),
391-399. doi:10.1037/a0037928
Cheatham, G. A.
& Ostrosky, M. M. (2013). Goal setting during early childhood
parent-teacher conferences: A comparison of three groups of parents. Journal
of Research in Childhood Education, 27(2), 166-189.
doi:10.1080/02568543.2013.767291
Connor P.
(2016). International migration: Key findings from the U.S., Europe and the world. PewResearchCenter.
Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/15/international-migration-key-findings-from-the-u-s-europe-and-the-world/
Decker, C., Decker, J., Freeman, N., & Knopf, H. (2009). Planning
and administering early childhood programs (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson.
Dean, J., Mitchell, M.,
Stewart, D., & Debattista, J. (2017). Intergenerational variation in sexual
health attitudes and beliefs among Sudanese refugee communities in
Australia. Culture, health & sexuality, 19(1),
17-31. doi:10.1080/13691058.2016.1184316
DeLoatche, K.
J., Bradley-Klug, K. L., Ogg, J., Kromrey, J. D., & Sundman-Wheat, A. N.
(2015). Increasing parent involvement among Head Start families: A randomized
control group study. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43(4),
271-279. doi:10.1007/s10643-014-0660-7
Demircan, Ö.,
& Erden, F. T. (2015). Parental involvement and developmentally appropriate
practices: A comparison of parent and teacher beliefs. Early Child
Development and Care, 185(2), 209-225.
doi:10.1080/03004430.2014.919493
Dove, M. K.,
Neuharth-Pritchett, S., Wright, D. W., & Wallinga, C. (2015). Parental involvement
routines and former Head Start children’s literacy outcomes. Journal of
Research in Childhood Education, 29(2), 173-186.
doi:10.1080/02568543.2015.1011360
Dubeau, D.,
Coutu, S., & Lavigueur, S. (2013). Links
between different measures of mother/father involvement and child social
adjustment. Early Child Development and Care, 183(6), 791-809. doi.10.1080/03004430.2012.723442
Edberg, M. C., Cleary, S.
D., Andrade, E. L., Evans, W. D., Simmons, L. K., & Cubilla-Batista, I.
(2017). Applying ecological positive youth development theory to address
co-occurring health disparities among immigrant Latino youth. Health promotion
practice, 18(4), 488-496. doi:10.1177/1524839916633802
Epstein, J. L.
(1995). School, family, and community partnerships: Caring for the children we
share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712.
Retrieved from www.oecd.org
Esposito, G.,
van Bavel, R., Baranowski, T., & Duch-Brown, N. (2016). Applying the model
of goal-directed behavior, including descriptive norms, to physical activity intentions:
A contribution to improving the theory of planned behavior. Psychological
Reports, 119(1), 5-26. doi:10.1177/0033294116649576
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. (2009). Statistical
power analyses using G-Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression
analyses. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.
41(4), 1149-1160. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics
(4th ed.). SAGE. New Delhi, India.
Forry, N.,
Bromer, J., Chrisler, A., Rothenberg, L., Simkin, S., & Daneri, P. (2012). Family-provider relationship quality: Review
of conceptual and empirical literature of family-provider relationships.
Issue Brief OPRE 2012-46. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for
Child and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Foster, J., Barkus,
E., & Yavorsky, C. (2006). Understanding
and using advanced statistics. SAGE Publications, Inc. CA:
Thousand Oaks.
Fowler, F. J.
(2009). Survey Research Methods. (4th
ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc., CA: Thousand Oaks.
Fry, D., McCoy, A., &
Swales, D. (2012). The consequences of maltreatment on children’s lives: A
systematic review of data from the East Asia and Pacific region. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 13(4), 209.
doi:10.1177/1524838012455873
Fung, M. P., & Fox, R. A.
(2014). The culturally-adapted early-pathways program for young Latino children
in poverty: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Latina/O Psychology,
2(3), 131-145. doi:10.1037/lat0000019
Garbacz, S. A.,
McIntosh, K., Eagle, J. W., Dowd-Eagle, S. E., Hirano, K. A., & Ruppert, T.
(2016). Family engagement within schoolwide positive behavioral interventions
and supports. Preventing School Failure, 60(1), 60-69.
doi:10.1080/1045988X.2014.976809
Girardelli, D.,
& Patel, V. K. (2016). The Theory of Planned Behavior and Chinese ESL
students' in-class participation. Journal of Language Teaching &
Research, 7(1), 31-41. doi:10.17507/jltr.0701.04
Han, M., &
Osterling, K. L. (2012). Characteristics and factors
impacting reunification outcomes among Vietnamese immigrant families in the
child welfare system. Children and Youth Services Review, 34103-111.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.09.005
Hilado, A. V.,
Kallemeyn, L., & Phillips, L. (2013). Examining understandings of parent
involvement in early childhood programs. Early Childhood Research &
Practice, 15(2), 1-9. Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v15n2/hilado.html
Hindman, A. H.,
Miller, A. L., Froyen, L. C., & Skibbe, L. E. (2012). A portrait of family
involvement during Head Start: Nature, extent, and predictors. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 654-667.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.11.002
Hoover-Dempsey,
K. V., Sandler, H. M., Walker, J. M. (2002). Parent Involvement Project (PIP) Parent and Teacher Questionnaires:
Study 2. Department of Psychology and Human Development. Vanderbilt
University, TN 37203.
Hoover-Dempsey,
K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins, A.
S., Closson, K. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and
implications. The Elementary School
Journal, 106(2), 105-130. doi:10.1086/499194
Hornby, G., & Lafaele, R. (2011). Barriers to parental involvement
in education: An explanatory model. Educational
Review 63(1), 37-52. doi:10.1080/00131911.2010.488049
Jacob, J.,
Gray, B., & Johnson, A. (2013). Article: The Asian American family and
mental health: Implications for child health professionals. Journal of
Pediatric Health Care, 27180-188. doi:10.1016/j.pedhc.2011.08.006
Keys, A.
(2015). Family engagement in rural and urban Head Start families: An
exploratory study. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43(1),
69-76. doi:10.1007/s10643-014-0643-8
Kikas, E., Tulviste, T.,
& Peets, K. (2014). Socialization values and parenting practices as
predictors of parental involvement in their children's educational process. Early
Education & Development, 25(1), 1-18.
doi:10.1080/10409289.2013.780503
Kim, S. W.,
& Hill, N. E. (2015). Including fathers in the picture: A meta-analysis of
parental involvement and students’ academic achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 107(4), 919-934. doi:10.1037/edu0000023
Kiriakidis, S.
(2015). Theory of planned behavior: The intention-behavior relationship and the
perceived behavioral control (PBC) relationship with intention and behavior. International
Journal of Strategic Innovative Marketing, 03, 40-51.
doi.10.15556/IJSIM.02.03.004
Kocyigit, S. (2015). Family involvement in preschool education:
Rationale, problems, and solutions for
the participants. Educational Sciences:
Theory and Practice, 15(1), 141-157.
doi.10.12738/estp.2015.1.2474
Koury, A. S.,
& Votruba-Drzal, E. (2014). School readiness of children from immigrant
families: Contributions of the region of
origin, home, and childcare. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1),
268-288. doi:10.1037/a0034374
Krogstad J. M. (2015). What Americans, Europeans think of immigrants. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/09/24/what-americans-europeans-think-of-immigrants/
Lee, J., &
Zhou, M. (2014). The success frame and achievement paradox: The costs and
consequences for Asian Americans. Race & Social Problems, 6(1),
38. doi:10.1007/s12552-014-9112-7
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design (9th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Lin C. (2012). The effects of policy knowledge on attitudes
and behaviors towards participation in educational policy-making among parents:
A structural equation modeling approach. Education,
132(3), 1-15. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-283945584/the-effects-of-policy-knowledge-on-attitudes-and-behaviors
Manz, P. H.,
Gernhart, A. L., Bracaliello, C. B., Pressimone, V. J., & Eisenberg, R. A.
(2014). Preliminary development of the parent involvement in early learning
scale for low-income families enrolled in a child-development-focused home
visiting program. Journal of Early Intervention, 36(3), 171-191.
doi:10.1177/1053815115573077
McCormick, M.
P., Cappella, E., O'Connor, E. E., & McClowry, S. G. (2013). Parent
involvement, emotional support, and behavior problems: An ecological approach. Elementary
School Journal, 114(2), 277-300.
McCusker, K., & Gunaydin, S. (2015). Research using qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods and choice based on the research. Perfusion, 30(7), 537-542. Doi:
10.1177/0267659114559116
McGregor, S.
A., & Knoll, M. A. (2015). The Theory of Planned Behavior as a framework
for understanding parental experiences with homework. Educational Psychology
in Practice, 31(4), 335. doi:10.1080/02667363.2015.1065472
McWayne, C.,
Downer, J., Campos, R., & Harris, R. (2013). Father involvement during early childhood and its association with
children's early learning: A Meta-analysis. Early Education and Development,
24(6), 898-922. doi:1080/10409289.2013.746932
Mendez, J. L.,
& Westerberg, D. (2012). Implementation of a culturally adapted treatment
to reduce barriers for Latino parents. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 18(4), 363-372. doi:10.1037/a0029436
Miller, E. B.,
Farkas, G., Vandell, D. L., & Duncan, G. J. (2014). Do the effects of Head
Start varying by parental pre-academic stimulation? Child Development, 85(4),
1385-1400. doi:10.1111/cdev.12233
Montaño, D. E., Kasprzyk, D.
(2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory
of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. Social Science and Medicine, 2015, 67-96. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Theory+of+reasoned+action,+theory+of+planned+behavior,+and+the+integrated+behavioral+model.&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikg4T6hrLSAhVFRiYKHZB7C-8QgQMIGDAA
Moreno, M. A., Goniu, N.,
Moreno, P. S., & Diekema, D. (2013). Ethics of social media research: Common concerns and practical
considerations. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 0(0), 1-6. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0334
Morrison, G. S.
(2012). Early childhood education today (12th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Motano, D. E.,
Kasprzyk, D. (2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory
of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. Social Science and Medicine, 2015, 67-96. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Theory+of+reasoned+action,+theory+of+planned+behavior,+and+the+integrated+behavioral+model.&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikg4T6hrLSAhVFRiYKHZB7C-8QgQMIGDAA
Muldoon, O. T., & Lowe, R. D. (2012). Social Identity, groups, and
post-traumatic stress disorder. Political Psychology, 33(2),
259-273. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00874.x
Multiple regression analysis
using SPSS Statistics (n.d.). Laerd
Statistics. Retrieved from https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/multiple-regression-using-spss-statistics.php
Neuhauser, A.
(2014). A closer look at the effectiveness of early childhood education in
at-risk families. Mental Health & Prevention, 243-57.
doi:10.1016/j.mhp.2014.09.002
Nganga, L. (2015). Multicultural curriculum in rural early
childhood programs. Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, 9(1),
29-49. doi:10.9741/2161-2978.1073
Nguyen, N. C.
(2013). War and diaspora: The memories of
South Vietnamese soldiers. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 34(6),
697. doi:10.1080/07256868.2013.846895
Nino, M. D.
(2014). Linguistic services and parental involvement among Latinos: A help or
hindrance to involvement? The Social
Science Journal, 51, 483-490.
doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2014.05.001
Ntuli, E., Nyarambi, A. and
Traore, M. (2014), Assessment in early childhood education: threats and
challenges to effective assessment of immigrant children. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 14: 221–228.
doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01256.x
Osman, A. &
Månsson, N. (2015). "I go to teacher conferences, but I do not understand
what the teacher is saying": Somali parents' perception of the Swedish
school. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(2),
36-52. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1104913.pdf
Paat, Y.
(2013). Working with immigrant children and their families: An application of
Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory. Journal of Human Behavior in the
Social Environment, 23(8), 954-966. doi:10.1080/10911359.2013.800007
Park, J., & Park, M. (2016). Qualitative versus quantitative research methods: Discovery or justification? Journal of Marketing Thought, 3(1), 1-7.
doi: 10.15577/jmt.2016.03.01.1
Perry, A. R.,
& Langley, C. (2013). Even with the best of intentions: Paternal
involvement and the theory of planned behavior. Family Process, 52(2),
179-192. doi:10.1111/famp.12013
Porumbu, D., & Necşoi, D. V. (2013). The relationship between parental involvement/attitude and children's school achievements. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 76(5), 706-710.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.191
Poureslami, I., Nimmon, L.,
Ng, K., Cho, S., Foster, S., & Hertzman, C. (2013). Bridging immigrants and
refugees with early childhood development services: partnership research in the
development of an effective service model. Early Child Development & Care,
183(12), 1924. doi:10.1080/03004430.2013.763252
Pratt, M. E.,
Lipscomb, S. T., & Schmitt, S. A. (2015). The effect of Head Start on parenting outcomes for children living
in non-parental care. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(10),
2944-2956. doi:10.1007/s10826-014-0098-y
Rasmussen, A.,
Chu, T., Akinsulure-Smith, A. M., & Keatley, E. (2013). The social ecology
of resolving a family conflict among West
African immigrants in New York: A grounded theory approach. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 52(1-2), 185-196. doi:10.1007/s10464-013-9588-0
Rosa, E., &
Tudge, J. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner's theory of human development: Its
evolution from ecology to bio-ecology. Journal of Family Theory & Review,
5(4), 243-258. doi:10.1111/jftr.12022
Sabol, T. J.,
& Chase‐Lansdale, P. L. (2015). The influence of low‐income children's
participation in Head Start on their
parents’ education and employment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,
34(1), 136-161. doi:10.1002/paum.21799
Salas-Wright,
C. P., Kagotho, N., & Vaughn, M. G. (2014). Mood, anxiety, and personality
disorders among first and second-generation immigrants to the United States. Psychiatry
Research, 2201028-1036. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2014.08.045
Sibley, E., & Brabeck, K. (2017). Latino immigrant students' school experiences
in the United States: The importance of family-school-community collaborations. School
Community Journal, 27(1), 137-157. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Smith, S. C. (2014). Parental engagement in a Reggio Emilia inspired
Head Start program. Early Childhood Research
& Practice, 16(1). Retrieved from
https://experts.illinois.edu/en/publications/parental-engagement-in-a-reggio-emilia-inspired-head-start-program
Smith, T. (2015). Qualitative and quantitative research. Research Starters: Education (Online Edition).
Retrieved from http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ers&AN=89164394&site=eds-live
Steinmetz, H., Knappstein, M., Ajzen, I., Schmidt, P. & Kabst, R. (2016).
How effective are behavior change interventions based on the theory of planned
behavior? Zeitschrift fur Psychologie,
224(3), 216-233. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000255
Stevens, S., & Patel, N. (2015). Viewing
generativity and social capital as underlying factors of parent involvement. School Community Journal 25(1), 157-174.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1066211.pdf
Sullivan, A. L., &
Simonson, G. R. (2016). A Systematic review of school-based social-emotional interventions for
refugee and war-traumatized youth. Review of Educational Research, 86(2),
503. doi:10.3102/0034654315609419
Survey Administration
Guidelines (2009). Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/aaccprograms/Documents/5_SurveyAdministration.pdf
Tichovolsky, M. H., Arnold,
D. H., & Baker, C. N. (2013). Parent predictors of changes in child
behavior problems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34(6),
336-345. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2013.09.001
Tingvold, L.,
Hauff, E., Allen, J., & Middelthon, A. (2012). Seeking a balance between the past and the present:
Vietnamese refugee parenting practices and adolescent well-being. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36563-574.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.03.004
Tipton, J. A. (2014). Using the theory of
planned behavior to understand caregivers’ intention to serve sugar-sweetened
beverages to non-Hispanic black preschoolers. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 29(7), 564-575.
doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2014.07.006
Trochim W. M. K., & Donnelly, J. P. (2008). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.). Mason,
OH: Cengage Learning
Turkan, S & Iddings, A. C. D. (2012) That
child is yellow: New immigrant children's
conceptions of English language, literacy, and learners' identities in the NCLB
era. Theory
into Practice, 51(4), 273-280. doi:10.1080/00405841.2012.726055
United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2007). The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ Comprehensive Annual
Statistical Publication (New York: UNHCR).
Washington, DC:
Office of Planning, Research, and
Evaluation, Administration for Child and Families, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.
Willems, P. P., & Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R. (2012). School-community partnerships: Using authentic contexts to academically motivate students. School Community Journal, 22(2), 9-30. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1001611.pdf
Winsler, A., Kim, Y. K., & Richard, E. R. (2014). Socio-emotional
skills, behavior problems, and Spanish competence predict the acquisition of
English among English language learners in poverty. Developmental Psychology,
50(9), 2242-2254. doi:10.1037/a0037161
Youngblom, R. K., &Houlihan, D. (2015). Family involvement in the
schools of Belize. Journal of Education
and Training Studies, 3(1), 1-6. doi:10.11114/jets.v3i1.601
Zhai, F.,
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Waldfogel, J. (2014). Head Start’s impact is contingent
on alternative type of care in comparison group. Developmental Psychology,
50(12), 2572-2586. doi:10.1037/a0038205
Appendices
Appendix A: Parent Survey
Instructions:
All items in the scale use a strongly disagree to strongly agree response
format. Please refer to the following scale for your response:
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = I don’t know
4 = agree just a little
5 = agree
6 = strongly agree
For each statement below, please
circle one answer that most closely matches your opinion. If you do not know or
you do not have enough information to answer, please select “I don’t
know”.
I.
Parent’s Role Construction (Attitudes/Beliefs) 24 Items:
1.
It’s my job to explain continuity of care assignment to my child.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
2. It’s my job to make sure my child understands
his or her self-care.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
3. I make it my business to stay on top of
things at children center.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
4. I assume my child is doing all right when I
don’t hear anything from his or her teacher.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
5. The teacher must let me know about a problem
before I can do something about it.
1 2
3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
6. I get most
of my information about my child’s progress from my teachers.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
7. My child’s learning is mainly up to the
teacher and my child.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
8. I
like to spend time at my child’s school when I can.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
9. It’s important that I let the teacher know
about things that concern my child.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
10. I find it helpful to talk with the teachers.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
11.
My child’s teachers know me.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
12. Your child’s teacher asks you to help your
child study at home.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
13.
Your child’s teacher asks you to talk with your child about his/her
school day.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
14.
Your child’s teacher asks you to work with your child on specific home
activities.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
15. Your child’s teacher asks you to look over
your child’s approach learning.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
16. Your child’s teacher asks you to schedule a
conference to discuss your child
progress.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
17.
Your child’s teacher sends home a note asking you to send supplies for a
class party.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
18.
Your child’s teacher asks you to send supplies for an educational
activity in the classroom.
1 2
3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
19.
Your child’s teacher asks you to attend a children program at the school
in the evening or weekend.
1 2
3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
20. Your child’s teacher asks for parents to
volunteer a few hours of time to the classroom.
1 2
3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
21.
Your child’s teacher asks for parents to help organize a day at the school.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
22. Your child’s teacher asks for volunteers to
chaperone a class trip.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
23.
Your child’s teacher asks you to come to school to talk about your work
or a special interest of yours.
1 2
3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
24. Your child’s teacher asks you to help out in
the classroom (for example, read to children).
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
II.
Parent’s perceptions of Invitations for Involvement (Subjective
Norms) 6 Items:
1.
Teachers at this school are interested and
cooperative when they discuss my child.
1
2
3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
2.
I feel welcome at this children center.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
3.
Most parents at my child’s center are able or willing to
be actively involved with the center.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
4.
Parent activities are scheduled at this children center
so that I can attend.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
5.
This children center lets me know about meetings and
special school events.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
6.
This children center’s staff contacts me promptly about
any problem involving my child.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
III.
Parent’s knowledge
and skills for involvement (Perceived Behavioral Controls) 17 Items:
1.
I know about volunteering opportunities at my child’s
school.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
2. I
know how to communicate effectively with my child about the school day.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
3.
I know how to explain things to my child about continuity
of care assignment.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
4.
I know about special events at school.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
5.
I know enough about the subjects of my child’s education
to help him or her.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
6.
I know how to communicate effectively with my child’s
teacher.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
7.
I know how to supervise my child’s playing as learning.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
8.
I have the skills to help out at my child’s school.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
9.
I know effective ways to contact my child’s teacher.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
10. I have what I need (for example, telephone,
internet, email) to communicate effectively with my child’s teacher.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
11. I have the materials I need to help my child
with playing at home.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
12. I have enough time and energy to
communicate effectively with my child about the school day.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
13. I have enough time and energy to help out
at my child’s center.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
14. I have enough
time and energy to communicate effectively with my child’s teacher.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
15. I have enough time and energy to attend
special events at my child’s center.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
16. I have enough time and energy to help my
child with playing as a learning at home.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
17. I have enough time and energy to supervise my
child’s play at home.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree
IV. Types of Involvement (Parental Intentions) 10
Items:
1.
I kept an eye on my child’s progress.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
2.
I got advice from the teacher.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
3.
I contacted the teacher with questions about schoolwork
or activities.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
4.
I helped my child with reading at home.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
5.
I communicated with my child’s teacher.
1
2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
6.
I talked with my child about the school day.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
7.
I supervised my child’s playing at home.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
8.
I helped out at my child’s school.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
9.
I attended special events at my child’s center.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
10. I spent time at my child’s center.
1 2 3 4 5 6
strongly disagree disagree
I don’t know agree just a
little agree strongly agree
Your Family. Please mark answer for each item.
a.
Your child at this
school is a girl___ a boy ___ a girl and a boy ___ two girls ___
two boys ___
b.
When your child was
born (please pick one child if you have two): Month _____ Year _____
c.
What is your
relationship to the child?
___ Mother ___ Stepmother ___ Grandmother
___ Father ___ Stepfather ___ Grandfather
___ Other (please
describe) __________________
d.
What is your current
age? _________ years old
e.
How much formal
schooling have you completed?
___ Some high
school ___ High school diploma ___ College degree
___ Vocational
school ___ some college ___ Graduate degree
f.
How do you describe
yourself? Immigrant ____ Refugee ____
g.
How long have you
been living in the United States? 1 year
___ 2 years ___ 3 years ___ 4 years ___ 5 years ___ more than 5 years ___
h.
Marital Status:
Married____ Divorced or separated____
Never married____
i.
What language do you
speak at home?
Arabic ___
English ___ Spanish ___ Russia ___ Hmong ___ Vietnamese ___
Other (please describe)
_____________
Thank you for taking the time to complete these
questionnaires. Your assistance in providing information is very much
appreciated.
Certificate of Translation
I,
Nazeer Nakhlah, am fluent in English and Arabic and have translated the
attached document in its entirety. I also certify that this translation is a
complete and accurate translation to the best of my ability of the original
document provided to me.
Nazeer Nakhlah
December 15,
2017
استبيان
ولي الأمر
التعليمات:
تَستخدم كافة بنود الاستبيان صيغة
الردود التي تتدرج مقاييسها من غير موافق بشدة إلى موافق بشدة. الرجاء الإشارة إلى
المقاييس التالية في إجاباتك.
1 = غير موافق بشدة
2 = غير موافق
3 = لا أعرف
4 = موافق نسبياً
5 = موافق
6 = موافق بشدة
الرجاء وضع دائرة حول الإجابة
الأقرب إلى رأيك لكل جملة أدناه. إذا كنت لا تعرف الإجابة أو ليس لديك المعلومات
الكافية، الرجاء اختيار "لا أعرف".
II.
هيكلية دور ولي الأمر (المواقف / المعتقدات)
24 عنصر:
1. مهمتي
أن أشرح لطفلي استمرارية مهمة الرعاية.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
2. يجب على التأكد أن طفلي /
طفلتي يفهم / تفهم الرعاية بذاته / بذاتها.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
3. أهتم دائماً بفهم كافة الأمور
في مركز الأطفال.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
4. أفترض
أن طفلي يبلي بلاءً حسناً عندما لا أسمع شيئاً من مدرسه أو مدرسته.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
5. يجب على المدرس أن يخبرني عن المشكلة قبل أن أتصرف بشأنها.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
6. أحصل على كافة معلوماتي عن سير تقدم طفلي
من مدرسيه.
1 2 3 4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
7. يرجع تعلّم طفلي في الأساس إلى المدرس وطفلي.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
8. أحب أن أقضي بعض الوقت في مدرسة طفلي كلما سنحت لي الفرصة.
1 2 3 4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
9. من المهم أن أخبر المدرس عن المخاوف بشأن طفلي.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
10. أرى أن الحديث مع المدرسين مفيد.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
11. مدرس طفلي يعرفني.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
12. يطلب المدرس منك مساعدة طفلك في المذاكرة في المنزل.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
13. يطلب المدرس منك أن تتحدث مع طفلك عن يومه أو يومها في
المدرسة.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
14. يطلب منك مدرس طفلك في الفصل أن تعمل مع طفلك على بعض الأنشطة
الخاصة في المنزل.
1 2 3 4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
15. يطلب منك مدرس طفلك إلقاء نظرة على طريقة تعلم طفلك.
1 2 3 4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
16. يطلب منك مدرس طفلك الترتيب لموعد مقابلة لمناقشة سير تقدم
طفلك.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
17. يرسل
مدرس طفلك ملاحظة إلى المنزل طالباً إرسال بعض اللوازم لحفلة المدرسة.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
18. يطلب
منك مدرس طفلك إرسال لوازم لنشاط تعليمي في حجرة الدراسة.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
19. يطلب
منك مدرس طفلك حضور برامج الأطفال في المدرسة في المساء أو عطلة نهاية الأسبوع.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق
موافق
بشدة
20. يطلب
مدرس طفلك من أولياء الأمور التطوع لساعات قليلة للمشاركة في أعمال حجرة الدراسة.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
21. يطلب
مدرس طفلك من أولياء الأمور المساعدة في تنظيم يوم في المدرسة.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
22. يطلب مدرس طفلك التطوع لمرافقة رحلة للفصل.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
23. يطلب
منك مدرس طفلك الحضور إلى المدرسة للحديث عن عملك أو أحد اهتماماتك الخاصة.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
24. يطلب
منك مدرس طفلك المساعدة في أعمال حجرة الدراسة (على سبيل المثال القراءة للأطفال).
1 2 3
4
5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
V.
تصورات ولي الأمر عن دعوات
المشاركة (المعايير الشخصية) 6 عناصر:
7.
يبدي المدرسون في هذه المدرسة
اهتمامهم ويظهرون تعاونهم عند المناقشة بشأن طفلي.
1 2 3 4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
8.
أشعر بالترحيب في مركز الأطفال.
1 2 3 4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
9.
معظم أولياء الأمور في مركز طفلي
قادرين على أو يرغبون في المشاركة بفاعلية في المركز.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
10.
تم جدولة أنشطة أولياء الأمور في
مركز الأطفال حتى يمكنني الحضور.
1
2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
11.
يبلغني مركز الأطفال بالاجتماعات
والمناسبات المدرسية الخاصة.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
12.
يتصل بي موظفي مركز الأطفال على
الفور في حالة تورط ابني في أية مشكلة.
1 2 3 4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
VI.
معلومات أولياء الأمور ومهاراتهم في
المشاركة (ضوابط السلوك الملموسة) 17 عنصر:
18.
أنا على علم بالفرص التطوعية في
مدرسة طفلي.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
19.
اعرف كيف أتواصل بفاعلية مع طفلي بشأن اليوم المدرسي.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
20.
أعرف كيف أشرح لطفلي الأمور
المتعلقة باستمرار مهمة الرعاية.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
21.
أنا على علم بالمناسبات الخاصة في
المدرسة.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
22.
أنا على علم تماماً بالمواد
الدراسية التي يدرسها طفلي كي أساعده فيها.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
23.
أعرف كيف أتواصل بفاعلية مع مدرس
طفلي.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
24.
أعرف كيف أشرف على لعب طفلي
كعملية تعليمية.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
25.
لدي المهارات التي تؤهلني
للمساعدة في مدرسة طفلي.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
26.
أعرف طرق فعالة للتواصل مع مدرس
طفلي.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
27.
لدي ما أحتاجه (على سبيل المثال
الهاتف والإنترنت والبريد الإلكتروني) للتواصل بفاعلية مع مدرس طفلي.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
28.
لدي المواد التي أحتاجها لمساعدة طفلي على اللعب في المنزل.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
29.
لدي ما يكفي من الوقت والطاقة
للتواصل بفاعلية مع طفلي عن اليوم المدرسي.
1 2 3 4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
30.
لدي ما يكفي من الوقت والطاقة
للمساعدة في مركز طفلي.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
31.
لدي ما يكفي من الوقت والطاقة للتواصل بفاعلية مع مدرس طفلي.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
32.
لدي ما يكفي من الوقت والطاقة
لحضور المناسبات الخاصة في مركز طفلي.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
33.
لدي ما يكفي من الوقت والطاقة
لمساعدة طفلي على اللعب كجزء من العملية التعليمية في المنزل.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
34.
لدي ما يكفي من الوقت والطاقة
للإشراف على لعب طفلي في المنزل.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
VII.
أنواع المشاركة (نوايا أولياء
الأمور) 10 عناصر:
11.
راقبت سير تقدم طفلي.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
12.
تلقيت نصيحة من المدرس.
1 2 3 4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
13.
تواصلت مع المدرس بشأن بعض
الأسئلة عن الأعمال المدرسية أو الأنشطة.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
14.
ساعدت طفلي في تعلًم القراءة في
المنزل.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
15.
تواصلت مع مدرس طفلي.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
16.
تحدثت مع طفلي عن يومه المدرسي.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
17.
أشرفت على لعب طفلي في المنزل.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
18.
قدمت يد العون في مدرسة طفلي.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
19.
حضرت مناسبات خاصة في مركز طفلي.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
20.
قضيت وقتاً في مركز طفلي.
1 2 3
4 5 6
غير موافق بشدة غير
موافق لا أعرف
موافق نسبياً موافق موافق بشدة
عائلتك: الرجاء الإجابة عن كل سؤال أدناه.
j.
طفلك في المدرسة فتاة _____ ولد ____ فتاة وولد ____
فتاتين____ولدين
k.
متى ولد طفلك. (الرجاء اختيار طفل واحد إن كان لديك
اثنين) الشهر ____ السنة____
l.
ما هي صلة قرابتك للطفل؟
____ الأم ____
زوجة الأب ____الجدة
____الأب ____زوج
الأم ____الجد
____أخرى (الرجاء التحديد) ____________
m.
كم عمرك حالياً؟ _________ عام
n.
ما هي أعلى مرحلة تعليمية قد أتممتها؟
____ بعض السنوات في المدرسة الثانوية ____ شهادة الثانوية العامة
____ شهادة كلية ____
مدرسة مهنية
____ بعض السنوات في الكلية ____ شهادة دراسات
عليا
o.
كيف تصف نفسك؟ مهاجر ____ لاجئ ____
p.
منذ متى تعيش في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية؟ 1 سنة ____ 2
سنة ____ 3 سنة ____ 4 سنة ____ 5
سنة
____ أكثر من 5 سنوات.
q.
الحالة الزوجية: متزوج ____ مطلق أو منفصل ____ لم يسبق لي
الزواج ____
r.
ما هي اللغة التي تتحدثها في المنزل؟ العربية ____
الإنجليزية ____ الإسبانية ____ الروسية ____
الهونجية
____الفيتنامية ____ أخرى (الرجاء التحديد) ________
شكراً لإتمامك هذا الاستبيان. نقدر جداً مساعدتك
في تقديم المعلومات المطلوبة.
Certificate of Translation
I, Antonio Aguilar Urbano, hereby certify that I am
competent to translate from the English language into Spanish and that the
documents “Formulario de Consentimiento” and “Encuesta de Padres” are true and
accurate translations of the original documents “Consent Form_Recruitment” and
“Parent Survey” provided to me.
_____________________
Antonio
Aguilar Urbano
Encuesta de Padres
Instrucciones:
Todas las preguntas utilizan
un formato de respuesta que emplee muy en
desacuerdo a muy de acuerdo. Por
favor, refiérase a la siguiente escala para su respuesta:
1 = muy en
desacuerdo
2 = en desacuerdo
3 = No lo sé
4 = ligeramente de acuerdo
5 = de acuerdo
6 = muy de acuerdo
Para cada frase de abajo,
marque con un círculo la respuesta que mejor se corresponda con su opinión. Si
no sabe o no tiene suficiente información para responder, favor de seleccionar
¨No lo sé¨.
Construcción del Rol del Padre (Actitudes/Creencias) Parent’s Role Construction
(Attitudes/Beliefs) 24 Items:
1.
Es mi trabajo explicar la continuidad de la asignación de cuidado a mi
hijo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en desacuerdo
No lo sé
ligeramente de acuerdo de acuerdo muy de acuerdo
2. Es mi trabajo asegurar que mi hijo entiende
su autocuidado.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
3. Yo me hago
responsable de estar al tanto de todo en el centro de niños.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
4. Yo asumo que a
mi hijo le va bien cuando no escucho nada de su maestro.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
5. El maestro debe de hacerme saber de un
problema antes que pueda hacer algo sobre el asunto.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
6. Consigo la
mayor parte de mi información sobre el progreso de mi hijo de sus maestros.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
7. El aprendizaje de mi hijo
depende principalmente del maestro y de mi hijo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
8. Me
gusta pasar tiempo en la escuela de mi hijo cuando puedo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
9. Es importante que informe al maestro sobre asuntos
que conciernen a mi hijo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
10. Me ayuda hablar con los maestros.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
11. Los maestros de mi hijo me conocen.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
12. El maestro de su hijo le pide ayudarle a
estudiar en casa.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
13. El maestro de su hijo le pide hablar con su
hijo sobre su día escolar.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacue do en desacuerdo
No lo sé
ligeramente de acuerdo de acuerdo muy de acuerdo
14. El
maestro de su hijo le pide trabajar con su niño en actividades específicas en
casa.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
15. El maestro de su hijo le pide repasar el modo
de aprendizaje que utiliza su niño.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
16. El maestro de su hijo le pide programar una
conferencia para hablar sobre el progreso de su niño.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
17. El maestro de su hijo le envía una nota a
casa pidiéndole que envíe suministros para una fiesta en clase.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
18. El maestro de su hijo le pide que mande
suministros para una actividad educativa en el aula.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
19. El maestro de su hijo le invita asistir a un
evento de niños en la escuela por la noche o el fin de semana.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
20. El maestro de su hijo pide a los padres que
presten unas horas de su tiempo al servicio del aula.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
21. El maestro de su hijo pide que los padres
ayuden a organizar un día en la escuela.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
22.
El maestro de su hijo pide voluntarios para acompañar a una excursión.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
23. El maestro de su hijo le pide que venga a la
escuela para hablar sobre su trabajo o sobre un interés especial que usted tiene.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
24. El maestro de su hijo le pide ayuda en el
aula (por ejemplo, leyendo a los niños).
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
VIII.
Percepciones de los Padres
de las Invitaciones para Participar (Normas Subjetivas) Parent’s perceptions of
Invitations for Involvement (Subjective Norms) 6 Items:
13.
Los maestros
en esta escuela se muestran interesados y cooperativos cuando hablan de mi
hijo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
14. Me siento bienvenido en este centro de niños.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
15. La mayoría de los padres en el centro de niños de mi hijo
son capaces o están dispuestos a estar involucrados activamente en el centro.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
16. Las actividades de padres son programadas en este centro
de niños de manera que yo pueda asistir.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
17. Este centro de niños me informa sobre las reuniones y
eventos especiales de la escuela.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
18. La personal de este centro de niños enseguida se pone en
contacto conmigo sobre cualquier problema que involucre a mi hijo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en desacuerdo
No lo sé
ligeramente de acuerdo de acuerdo muy de acuerdo
IX.
Los conocimientos y habilidades para
participar de los Padres (Controles de Comportamiento Percebidos) 17 Items:
35. Conozco las oportunidades de voluntariado en la escuela
de mi hijo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
36.
Sé
comunicarme eficazmente con mi hijo sobre el dia escolar.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
37. Sé explicarle a mi hijo sobre la continuidad de
asignación de cuidado.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
38. Tengo conocimiento de los eventos especiales en la
escuela.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
39. Conozco lo suficiente sobre las asignaturas de la
educación de mi hijo como para poder ayudarle.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
40. Sé cómo comunicarme eficazmente con el maestro de mi
hijo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
41. Sé cómo supervisar el juego de mi hijo como forma de
aprendizaje.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de acuerdo muy de acuerdo
42. Tengo las habilidades necesarias para ayudar en la
escuela de mi hijo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
43. Conozco maneras eficaces para contactar con el maestro de
mi hijo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
44. Tengo lo que
necesito (por ejemplo, teléfono, internet, email) para comunicarme eficazmente
con el maestro de mi hijo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
45. Tengo la materia
que necesito para ayudar a mi hijo a jugar en casa.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
46. Tengo
suficiente tiempo y energía para comunicarme eficazmente con mi hijo sobre el
día escolar.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
47. Tengo
suficiente tiempo y energía para prestar ayuda en el centro de mi hijo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
48.
Tengo
suficiente tiempo y energía para comunicarme eficazmente con el maestro de mi
hijo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
49. Tengo
suficiente tiempo y energía para asistir a eventos especiales en el centro de
mi hijo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
50. Tengo
suficiente tiempo y energía para ayudar a mi hijo a jugar como forma de
aprendizaje en casa.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
51. Tengo suficiente
tiempo y energía para supervisar el juego de mi hijo en casa.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en desacuerdo
No lo sé
ligeramente de acuerdo de acuerdo muy de acuerdo
X.
Tipos de Participación (Intenciones
Parentales) 10 Items:
21. Seguía de cerca el progreso de mi hijo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
22.
Recibía consejos del maestro.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
23. Contactaba con el maestro con preguntas sobre los
trabajos o actividades.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
24. Ayudaba a mi hijo con la lectura en casa.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
25. Me comunicaba con el maestro de mi hijo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
26. Hablaba con mi hijo sobre el día escolar.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
27. Supervisaba el juego de mi hijo en casa.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
28. Prestaba ayuda en la escuela de mi hijo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
29. Asistía a eventos especiales en el centro de mi hijo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en
desacuerdo No lo
sé ligeramente de acuerdo de
acuerdo muy de acuerdo
30. Pasaba
tiempo en el centro de mi hijo.
1 2 3 4 5 6
muy en desacuerdo en desacuerdo
No lo sé
ligeramente de acuerdo de acuerdo muy de acuerdo
Su Familia. Por favor, marque su respuesta para cada item.
s.
Su hijo en esta escuela es una niña ____
un niño _____ una niña y un niño
_____ dos niñas ___ dos niños
____
t.
Cuándo nació su hijo (favor de elegir uno de ellos si tiene dos): Mes ____
Año ____
u.
¿Cuál es su relación con el niño?
___ Madre ___
Madrasta ___ Abuela
___ Padre ___ Padrastro ___ Abuelo
___ Otro (por favor describe) __________________
v.
¿Cuántos años tiene?
_________ años
w.
¿Qué nivel educativo ha terminado?
___ Parte de secundaria
(high school) ___ Diploma de secundaria (high school) ___ Título
universitario ___ Escuela de formación profesional ___ Algún curso
universitario
___ Título Posgrado
x.
¿Cómo se describe? Inmigrante ____ Refugiado ____
y.
¿Cuánto tiempo ha vivido en Estados Unidos?
1 año ___ 2 años ___ 3 años ___ 4 años ___ 5 años ___ más de 5 años ___
z.
Estado Civil: Casado____ Divorciado o separado ____ Nunca casado ____
aa.
¿Qué idioma habla en casa?
Árabe ___ Inglés ___ Español
___ Ruso ___ Hmong ___ Vietnamita___
Otro (por favor describe)
_____________
Gracias por tomarse el tiempo para completar estos
cuestionarios. Su ayuda al proporcionar esta información es muy apreciada.
Certification of Translation 
Bản Câu Hỏi Thăm Dò Phụ Huynh
Hướng dẫn:
Tất cả các mục
trong quy mô thăm dò này, sử dụng mức độ định dạng từ không đồng ý cách
mạnh mẽ tới đồng ý
mạnh mẻ. Vui lòng tham khảo theo bản dưới đây cho đáp ứng của bạn:
1 =
hoàn toàn không đồng ý
2 = không đồng ý
3 = tôi không biết
4 = đồng ý chỉ một ít
5 = đồng ý
6 = hoàn toàn đồng ý
Theo sự phát biểu dưới đây, xin vui lòng khoanh tròn câu trả lời phù hợp
với ý kiến của bạn nhất. Nếu bạn không biết hoặc không có đủ thông tin để trả
lời, bạn hãy chọn "tôi không biết".
I. Xây dựng vai trò của cha mẹ (Thái độ/niềm
tin) 24 mục:
1. Nó là công việc
của tôi để giải thích sự liên tục của nhiệm vụ chăm sóc cho con của tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không
đồng ý không biết
đồng ý một ít đồng
ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
2. Nó là công việc của tôi để đảm bảo rằng
con của tôi hiểu được tự chăm sóc mình.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không
đồng ý không đồng ý không biết đồng ý một ít đồng
ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
3. Doanh nghiệp hàng đầu của tôi là
quan tâm tới trẻ em.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
4. Tôi giả định rằng con tôi vẫn học
tốt, khi tôi không nghe thấy bất cứ điều gì từ giáo viên của nó.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
5. Giáo viên phải báo cho tôi biết sự khó
khăn của con tôi, trước khi tôi có thể làm điều gì đó về nó.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
6. Tôi nhận được hầu hết
các thông tin của tôi về sự tiến bộ của con tôi từ giáo viên của tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
7. Sự học vấn của con của tôi chủ yếu
là tùy thuộc vào giáo viên và con của tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
8. Tôi thích dành thời gian cho trường-học
của con tôi, khi tôi có thể.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
9. Giáo viên quan tâm đến con của tôi là
một điều quan trọng.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
10. Tôi thấy hữu ích khi nói chuyện với
giáo viên về con của tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
11. Giáo viên của con tôi hiểu biết tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
12. Giáo viên yêu cầu bạn nên giúp con học
thêm ở nhà.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
13. Giáo viên yêu cầu bạn tâm tình với con
em mình về ngày học.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
14. Giáo viên yêu cầu bạn cùng làm với con
những hoạt động cụ thể ở tại nhà.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
15. Giáo viên yêu cầu bạn hãy theo dõi
phương cách học tập của con bạn.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
16. Giáo viên yêu cầu bạn ghi tên vào một
cuộc họp để thảo luận về sự tiến bộ của con.
1
1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
17. Giáo viên gửi một thư ngắn yêu cầu bạn
hổ trợ cho buổi tiệc party của con bạn.
1
1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
18. Giáo viên yêu cầu bạn cung cấp học cụ
cho hoạt động giáo dục trong lớp học.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
19. em giáo viên yêu cầu bạn tham dự một
chương trình trẻ em tại các trường học trong các buổi tối hoặc cuối tuần.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
20. Giáo viên yêu cầu các phụ huynh tình
nguyện một vài giờ thời gian đến giúp lớp học.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn
toàn đồng ý
21. Giáo viên yêu cầu
phụ huynh đến giúp giữ trật tự tại trường một ngày.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
22. Giáo viên yêu cầu bạn tình nguyện để giúp
các trẻ em trong lớp học đi du thám như đi sở thú hay nông trại .
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
23. Giáo viên yêu cầu bạn đến trường để nói
chuyện về công việc của bạn hoặc một quan tâm đặc biệt của bạn.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
24. Giáo viên yêu cầu bạn đến giúp đỡ
trong lớp học (ví dụ, đọc sách cho trẻ em).
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
II. Sự nhận thức của Phụ Huynh về Các Lời Mời
Tham Gia Cộng Tác (Quy tắc Chủ quan) 6 Mục:
1. Giáo viên ở trường này
đã quan tâm và hợp tác khi họ thảo luận về con tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
2. Tại trường này tôi cảm thấy được hoan
nghênh.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
3. Hầu hết cha mẹ tại trường của con tôi có
thể sẵn sàng để được tích cực tham gia với nhà trường.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
4. Cha mẹ hoạt động theo lịch trình tại
trường này vì vậy mà tôi có thể tham dự.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
5. Trường này cho phép tôi biết về các cuộc
họp và các sự kiện đặc biệt của trường.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
6. Nhân viên trường này liên hệ với tôi ngay
lập tức về bất kỳ vấn đề gì liên quan đến con tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
III. Kiến thức và năng khiếu của phụ huynh để
tham gia (Điều Khiển Hành Vi Theo Nhận Thức) 17 Mục:
1. Tôi ý thức về sự tình nguyện là cơ hội cho
trường học của con tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
2. Tôi biết làm thế nào để
giao tiếp hiệu quả với con tôi về ngày học.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
3. Tôi biết làm thế nào để giải thích nhiều
điều với con của tôi về việc tiếp tục chăm sóc học hành.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
4. Tôi biết về các sự kiện đặc biệt tại trường
của con tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
5. Tôi biết đầy đủ về các chủ đề giáo dục
cho con em của tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
6. Tôi biết làm thế nào để giao tiếp hiệu quả
với giáo viên của con tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
7. Tôi biết làm thế nào để giám sát con em của
tôi chơi như học.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
8. Tôi có khả năng để giúp đỡ tại trường học
của con tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
9. Tôi biết nhiều cách hiệu quả để liên lạc
với giáo viên của con tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
10. Tôi có những gì tôi cần (Ví dụ, điện thoại,
internet, email) để giao tiếp hiệu quả với giáo viên của con tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
11. Tôi có các tài liệu tôi cần để giúp con của
tôi đang chơi ở nhà.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
12. Tôi có đủ thời gian và sức lực để giao
tiếp hiệu quả với con tôi về ngày học.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
13. Tôi có đủ thời gian và khả năng để giúp cho trường của con tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
14. Tôi có đủ thời gian và
khả năng để giao tiếp hiệu quả với giáo viên của con tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
15. Tôi có đủ thời gian và khả năng để tham dự
các sự kiện đặc biệt tại trường của con tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
16. Tôi có đủ thời gian và khả năng để giúp
con em của tôi chơi như một cách học tập ở nhà.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
7. Tôi có đủ thời gian và khả năng để giám
sát con tôi chơi trò chơi trẻ con ở nhà.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
IV. Các Loại của Sự Tham Gia (Ý muốn của cha
mẹ) 10 Mục:
1. Tôi đã và đang theo dõi về sự tiến bộ
của con tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
2. Tôi đã nhận lời khuyên từ các giáo viên.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
3. Tôi đã liên lạc với giáo viên và đặt câu
hỏi về hoạt động của nhà trường, schoolwork.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
4. Tôi đã giúp con tôi tập đọc ở nhà.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
5. Tôi trao đổi và đối thoại với giáo viên
của con tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
6. Tôi đã nói chuyện với con tôi về ngày học.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
7. Tôi đã giám sát con em của tôi khi đang
chơi ở nhà.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
8. Tôi đã giúp con tôi học.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
9. Tôi đã tham dự các sự kiện đặc biệt tại
trường của con tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
10. Tôi dành thời gian cho nhà trường của con
tôi.
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mạnh mẽ không đồng ý không đồng ý không
biết đồng ý một ít
đồng ý hoàn toàn đồng ý
Gia Đình của Bạn. Xin vui lòng
đánh dấu câu trả lời cho mỗi mục.
a. Con của bạn ở trường này là một con gái___
con trai ___ một gái và một trai ___ hai con gái ___ hai con trai ___
b. Đứa con của bạn được sinh ra khi nào? (xin vui lòng chọn một trong
những đứa trẻ nếu bạn có hai): ___ tháng ___ năm
c. Mối quan hệ của bạn với trẻ em là gì?
Mẹ___ Mẹ ghẻ
___ Bà ngoại
Cha___ Cha ghẻ
___ Ông nội____
Là ai khác (xin
vui lòng mô tả) ________________
d. Tuổi hiện tại của bạn là gì? ___ tuổi
e. Cấp bậc bạn học khi hoàn tất?
Một số trường trung học ___ High school diploma ___ Bằng cấp đại học___
Trường Dạy Nghề____ Tốt nghiệp đại học____
f. Có phải bạn là: người nhập cư? ___ hay
tị nạn ?___
g. Bạn sống ở Hoa Kỳ đã được bao lâu? 1 năm
___ 2 năm ___ 3 năm ___ 4 năm ___ 5 năm ___ hơn 5 năm ___
h. Tình trạng hôn nhân: Đang là vợ chồng___
ly dị___
ly hôn___ chưa bao giờ lập gia
đình____
i. Ngôn ngữ nói ở nhà là gì?
Tiếng Ả Rập ___
tiếng Anh___ Tây Ban Nha ___ Hmong ___ Việt Nam ___
Hay một ngôn
ngữ khác (xin vui lòng mô tả) ___________
Cảm ơn bạn đã
dành thời gian để hoàn thành những câu hỏi. Hoan nghênh sự hỗ trợ của bạn
trong việc cung cấp thông tin rất được đánh giá cao.
Appendix B: Informed Consent Form
Introduction:
My
name is Anthony Tran. I am a doctoral student in Northcentral University. I am
conducting this research in order to study parental involvement and parent
attitudes towards school and community. The findings will help me learn about
involvement in
your child’s education. It is a part of my Doctor of Philosophy program; I
would like to invite you to take a survey.
Activities:
If
you join in this research, you will be asked to complete the survey with 57 questions. The
questions will take 30 minutes.
Conditions:
You
are eligible to participate in this study if you:
•
Are parents or caregivers who are foreign born (i.e., first-generation
immigrants or refugees)
•
Have at least one child enrolled in either Early Head Start or Head Start
program
•
Live in East San Diego, California
•
Are between 18 and 65 years old
•
Can read and interpret survey questions in your own language and answer
with restricted selection options.
You
are not eligible to participate in this study if you:
•
Are a Native American
•
Cannot read and interpret survey questions in your own language and
answer with restricted selection options
•
Are under 18 or over 65 years old
•
Have children not enrolled in either Early Head Start or Head Start
program
•
Do not live in East San Diego, California
This
survey will provide four languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, and Vietnamese. I
hope to include you on a sample of 110 people in this research.
Risks:
There
is a minimum of risk in this study. Some risks may include a disclosure of the
parent responses. To reduce the impact of this risk, you can skip any questions
or stop at any time if you feel discomfort at answering some questions.
Benefits:
If
you participate in this research, there is no benefit to you. However, parents
and adults who are for children’s education will be able to help children
succeed by understanding about increasing parent involvement.
Privacy:
I
will keep your identity confidential. Your name will be separated from your responses.
Some people, who will have access to your information, may include my Chair or
dissertation Committee. The NCU Institutional Review Board may view my data and
your information.
Your
information will be protected by being locked in a cabinet. The papers will be
kept in a locked case while transporting them. After keeping data for 7 years,
they will be destroyed.
Confidentiality:
The
information you provide will be kept confidential to the extent allowable by
law. There are some steps I will take to keep your identity confidential. I
will not ask for your name; however, if you wish to provide your name, I will
keep your name separate from your answers.
The
Institutional Review Board may review my data and your information. Your
information will be secured by being locked in a filing cabinet and on a
computer file with a password. While transporting it, the papers will be
secured in a locked case. Your data will be kept for 7 years. Afterward, I will
delete electronic data and destroy paper data.
Contact information:
If
you have questions or concerns, you may contact me at A.Tran0440@email.ncu.edu
or call me at (619) 212 – 3486. My dissertation chair’s name is Dr. Leslie
Curda. She works at Northcentral University and she is supervising my research
project. You can contact her at Lcurda@ncu.edu or call her at (850) 712 – 2074.
If you have any questions or any problems, please contact the NCU Institutional
Review Board at irb@ncu.edu or (888) 327 – 2877 Ext. 8014.
Voluntary Participation:
Your
participation in this survey is voluntary. You are not required to participate
or provide answers if you are not comfortable before or after you start taking
the survey. There is no penalty whether you choose to participate. You will not
lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You will receive a gift card worth
ten dollars for the time you spent on the survey.
Identifying Information:
1. Would you like to participate
in the research? Yes ____ No _____
2. If “Yes”, do you want to fill
out the identifying information linked to the survey?
Yes____ No ____
If
“Yes”, please enter your name: ____________________________________
3. Have you read and agreed to the
terms of the informed consent? Yes ___
No ____
If
“Yes”, you are welcome to take the survey. If “No”, I wanted to thank you for
your interest, and you may not move on to complete the survey because you have
not read and agreed to the terms of the informed consent. You are not required
to provide a signature if you decide not to participate, but you can
participate if you choose to sign.
Researcher
Signature Printed Name Date
_______________________ ______________ ___________
Certificate of Translation
I,
Nazeer Nakhlah, am fluent in English and Arabic and have translated the
attached document in its entirety. I also certify that this translation is a
complete and accurate translation to the best of my ability of the original
document provided to me.
Nazeer Nakhlah
December 15,
2017
نموذج الموافقة المبلغ
مقدمة:
اسمي أنتوني تران. أنا
طالب في مرحلة الدكتوراه في جامعة نورث سينترال. أنا اجري هذا البحث بغية إجراء
دراسة مشاركة الوالدين ومواقف الوالدين تجاه المدرسة والمجتمع. النتائج سوف
تساعدني على التعلم عن المشاركة في التعليم
الخاص بطفلك. انه جزء من فلسفة برنامج بروفيسوري ؛ وأود أن أدعوكم إلى المشاركة في هذا الاستبيان.
الأنشطة:
إذا تشارك في هذا
البحث، سوف يطلب منك إكمال 57 سؤال. الأسئلة سوف تأخذ من وقتك 30 دقيقة.
الشروط:
أنت مؤهل للمشاركة في هذه الدراسة إذا كنت:
•
أهلك او المعتنين بك مهاجرين او لاجئين ( الجيل الاول).
•
لديك على الأقل طفل واحد مسجل في برنامج Early Head Start أو برنامج Head Start.
•تعيش في شرق سان دييغو، كاليفورنيا.
•عمرك ما بين 18 و 65 عاماً.
• لديك مهارات قراءة جيدة بلغتك الام والجواب بالخيارات
المحددة المقيدة.
انت غير مؤهل للمشاركة في هذه الدراسة إذا كنت:
· أمريكي الاصل.
· لا تستطيع القراءة والكتابة بلغتك الام ولا الجواب بالخيارات المحددة
المقيدة.
· سنك تحت 18 وفوق 65 عاما
·
طفلك غير مسجل في برنامج Head Start Early او برنامج Head Start.
·
لا تعيش في
شرق سان دييغو, كاليفورنيا.
سوف
يقدم هذا الاختبار بأربع لغات: الانكليزية, الاسبانية, العربية, والفيتنامية.
أتمنى أن تكون ضمن عينة يصل عددها إلى 110 شخص في هذا البحث.
المخاطر:
مخاطر هذه الدراسة قليلة. قد تتضمن بعض المخاطر
الكشف عن اجابات الوالدين. للحد من آثار هذه المخاطر، يمكنك تخطي أي أسئلة أو توقف
في أي وقت إذا كنت تشعر بالانزعاج في الإجابة على بعض الأسئلة.
الفوائد:
إذا كنت تشارك في هذا
البحث، ليس هناك اي فوائد لك. غير أن اولياء الامور والكبار سوف يكونون قادرين على
مساعدة الأطفال على النجاح عن طريق فهم زيادة مشاركة الوالدين.
الخصوصية:
سوف أبقي هويتك سرية. سيتم فصل اسمك من الاستجابات الخاصة بك. بعض
الناس الذين سيكون لديهم إمكانية الوصول إلى المعلومات الخاصة بك هم المسؤول عني و
لجنة الاطروحة. أيضا ال NCU قد يراجع مجلس المراجعة المؤسسية بياناتي
و معلوماتك.
ان معلوماتك سوف تحفظ في خزانة مغلقة, والاوراق سوف تحفظ في حقيبة مغلقة عند
التنقل. وستبقى البيانات الخاصة بك لمدة 7 سنوات، وبعد ذلك ستحذف وتدمر.
السرية:
ان المعلومات التي تقدمها
ستبقى سرية إلى الحد المسموح به بموجب القانون. وهناك بعض الخطوات التي سوف اقوم
بها للحفاظ على سرية هويتك. سوف لن اسألك عن اسمك؛ ومع ذلك، إذا كنت ترغب في اعطاء
اسمك، سأبقي اسمك منفصل عن إجاباتك. ان مجلس المراجعة المؤسسية
قد يستعرض بياناتي والمعلومات الخاصة بك. سيتم تأمين المعلومات الخاصة بك بحبسهم
في خزانة ملفات، وفي ملف جهاز كمبيوتر باستخدام كلمة مرور. أثناء التنقل سيتم
تأمين الأوراق في حقيبة مؤمنة. سيتم الاحتفاظ بالبيانات الخاصة بك لمدة 7 سنوات.
وبعد ذلك، سوف حذف البيانات الإلكترونية وتدمير ورقة البيانات.
معلومات الاتصال:
إذا كان لديك أسئلة أو
مخاوف، يمكنك مراسلتي على A.Tran0440@email.ncu.edu أو الاتصال بي على
(619) 2123486. ان المسؤول عن
أطروحتي الدكتورة ليزلي كوردا. تعمل في جامعة نورث سينترال وأنها تشرف على مشروعي
البحثي. يمكنك مراسلتها على Lcurda@ncu.edu أو الاتصال بها على 850-7122074. إذا كان لديك أي
أسئلة أو أي مشكلة الرجاء الاتصال بمجلس
المراجعة المؤسسية على irb@ncu.edu أو 888-3272877 تحويل, 8014.
المشاركة الطوعية:
ان المشاركة في هذا
الاستفتاء طوعي تماما. أنت غير مرغم على المشاركة أو تقديم إجابات إذا كنت غير
مرتاح قبل أو بعد بدء أخذ الدراسة
الاستفتائية. ليس هناك عقوبة إذا اخترت المشاركة. خلاف ذلك لن تفقد أية فوائد التي
تحق لك . سوف تتلقى بطاقة هدية قيمته عشرة دولارات للوقت الذي تقضيه في هذه
الدراسة الاستفتائية.
معلومات التعريف:
1-هل ترغب في المشاركة في البحث؟
نعم ____ لا ___
2-إذا كانت الاجابة "نعم"، هل تريد ملئ المعلومات
التعريفية التي ترتبط بالدراسة الاستفتائية ؟
نعم ___ لا ___
إذا كانت الاجابة "نعم"، يرجى كتابة اسمك:
________________________________.
3-هل قرأت ووافقت على شروط الموافقة المستنيرة؟ نعم ____ لا ___
إذا كانت
الاجابة "نعم"، أنكم مدعوون إلى اتخاذ الاستفتاء. إذا "لا"،
شكرا على اهتمامك و لا تستطيع الانتقال إلى إكمال الدراسة الاستقصائية نظراً لأنك
قد لا قرأت ولا وافقت على شروط الموافقة المستنيرة. لا يتم مطالبتك بتوفير توقيع
إذا قررت عدم المشاركة، ولكن يمكنك المشاركة إذا اخترت.
توقيع
الباحث الاسم
التاريخ
______________ Anthony Tran __ March 28, 2018
Certificate of Translation
I, Antonio Aguilar Urbano, hereby certify that I am competent to
translate from the English language into Spanish and that the documents
“Formulario de Consentimiento” and “Encuesta de Padres” are true and accurate
translations of the original documents “Consent Form_Recruitment” and “Parent
Survey” provided to me.
_____________________
Antonio Aguilar Urbano
Formulario de consentimiento informado
Introducción:
Mi nombre es Anthony Tran. Soy un estudiante de doctorado en la Universidad
Northcentral. Estoy llevando a cabo esta investigación con el fin de estudiar
la participación de los padres y las actitudes de los padres hacia la escuela y
la comunidad. Los resultados me ayudarán a aprender acerca de participación en la educación de su hijo. Es una parte de mi doctor en el programa de
filosofía; Me gustaría invitarle a que una encuesta.
Actividades:
Si te unes en esta investigación, se le pedirá para completar el encuesta con 57 preguntas. Las preguntas
llevará 30 minutos.
Condiciones de:
Usted es elegible para participar en este estudio si usted:
• Son los padres o cuidadores que son
extranjeros nacidos (es decir, los inmigrantes de primera generación o
refugiados)
• Tiene al menos un niño inscrito en programa de Head Start o Early Head
Start
• Vivo en East San Diego, California
• Son entre 18 y 65 años de edad
• Pueden leer e interpretar las preguntas de la encuesta en su propio idioma
y respuesta con opciones de selección restringida.
Usted no es
elegible para participar en este estudio si usted:
• Es un nativo americano
• No se puede leer e interpretar las preguntas de la encuesta en su propio
idioma y respuesta con
opciones de
selección restringida
• Son menores de 18 años o mayores de 65 años
• No tiene niños en el programa de Head Start o Early Head Start
• No viven en East San Diego, California
Este estudio proporcionará cuatro idiomas: Inglés, Español, Árabe y Vietnamita.
Espero que te incluyen en una muestra de 110 personas en esta investigación.
Riesgos:
Hay un mínimo de riesgo en este estudio. Algunos riesgos pueden incluir la
divulgación de las respuestas de los padres. Para reducir el impacto de este
riesgo, puede saltar cualquier pregunta o detener en cualquier momento si
sientes molestias en contestar algunas preguntas.
Beneficios:
Si usted participa en esta investigación, no hay ningún beneficio para
usted. Sin embargo, los padres y adultos para la educación de los niños serán
capaces de ayudar a los niños a tener éxito por la comprensión sobre la
creciente participación de los padres.
Privacidad:
Mantendré su identidad confidencial. Su nombre se separarán de sus
respuestas.
Algunas personas,
que tendrán acceso a su información, pueden incluir mi presidir o Comité de
tesis. La Junta de revisión institucional de NCU puede ver mis datos y la
información.
Tu información estará protegida por estar encerrados en un armario. Los
documentos se mantendrán en caso cerrado al transporte. Después de guardar
datos de 7 años, será destruidas.
Confidencialidad:
La información que proporcione se mantendrá confidencial en la medida
permitida por la ley. Hay algunos pasos a tomar para mantener su identidad
confidencial. No pediré por tu nombre; sin embargo, si desea proporcionar su
nombre, mantendré su nombre separado de tus respuestas.
La Junta de revisión institucional puede revisar mis datos y la
información. La información será garantizada por estar encerrados en un archivador
y un archivo de computadora con una contraseña. Mientras se transporta, se
asegurará a los papeles en una caja cerrada. Sus datos se mantendrán durante 7
años. Después, borrare datos y voy a destruir los datos de papel.
Información de
contacto:
Si usted tiene preguntas o inquietudes, puede comunicarse conmigo a
A.Tran0440@email.ncu.edu o llamarme al (619) 212-3486. Nombre de presidir de mi
tesis es el Dr. Leslie Curda. Ella trabaja en la Universidad Northcentral y
ella está supervisando mi proyecto de investigación. Puede contactarla en
Lcurda@ncu.edu o llame al (850) 712-2074. Si usted tiene alguna pregunta o
algún problema, póngase en contacto con la Junta de revisión institucional de
NCU en irb@ncu.edu o (888) 327-2877 ext. 8014.
Participación voluntaria:
Su participación en este estudio es totalmente voluntaria. No están
obligados a participar o dar respuestas si no están cómodo antes o después de
empezar a tomar la encuesta. No hay ninguna pena si decide participar. Usted no
perderá los beneficios a que tiene derecho en caso contrario. Usted recibirá
una tarjeta de regalo de valor de diez dólares por el tiempo que on la encuesta.
Información de identificación:
1. ¿Te gustaría participar en la investigación? Sí _____ No _____
2. Si "Sí", ¿desea completar la información de identificación
vinculada a la encuesta?
SI____ No ____
Si "Sí", escriba su nombre: __________________________________________
3. ¿ Has leído y acordado los términos del consentimiento
informado? Sí _____ No _____
Si "Sí", eres Bienvenido a participar en la encuesta. Si
"No", quería darle las gracias por su interés y no puede ir a
completar la encuesta porque no han leído y aceptado los términos del
consentimiento informado. No es necesario proporcionar una firma abajo si usted
decide no participar, pero se puede participar si desea firmar.
Firma de investigador Impreso Nombre Fecha
Certification of Translation
Hình Thức Chấp Thuận
Giới thiệu: Tôi tên là Anthony Trần. Tôi là một sinh
viên tiến sĩ tại trường đại học Northcentral. Tôi tiến hành việc nghiên cứu
này về sự tham gia của phụ huynh cho thái độ đang có đối với nhà trường và
cộng đồng. Những phát hiện quan trọng có liên quan đến sự học của con bạn
và điều này có thể dự đoán cho những báo cáo về sự tham gia giáo dục của quý
vị. Nó là một phần của chương trình tiến sĩ triết học của tôi. Tôi kính mời
bạn tham dự vào cuộc nghiên cứu này.
Hoạt động: Nếu bạn chọn tham gia, bạn sẽ được yêu cầu
để hoàn thành 57 câu hỏi. Các câu hỏi sẽ tốn 30 phút.
Điều kiện: Để tham gia vào nghiên cứu này nếu bạn là:
• Cha mẹ hoặc người chăm sóc được sinh ra từ bên ngoài nước Mỹ (ví
dụ, di dân hay tị nạn)
• Có ít nhất một đứa con đã ghi danh vào học trong chương trình Head
Start • Sống ở San
Diego, California
• Từ 18 đến 65 tuổi
• Có
thể đọc và giải thích các câu hỏi và câu trả lời với sự chọn lựa riêng của
bạn. Quý vị không đủ điều
kiện để tham gia nếu bạn:
• Là một người Mỹ bản địa
• Không thể đọc và giải thích các câu hỏi trong ngôn ngữ riêng của bạn • Dưới 18 tuổi
hoặc trên 65 tuổi
• Trẻ em không có đăng ký trong chương trình Head Start
• Không sống ở San Diego, California
Cuộc khảo sát này sẽ cung cấp bốn ngôn ngữ: Anh, Tây Ban Nha, Ả Rập, và
Việt Nam. Tôi hy vọng sẽ có bạn là một trong 110 người trong việc nghiên
cứu này.
Rủi ro: Có một số rủi ro tối thiểu trong
nghiên cứu này. Một số rủi ro có thể bao gồm là sự tiết lộ các phản ứng trả
lời của bạn. Để giảm tác động của sự rủi ro này, bạn có thể bỏ qua bất kỳ
câu hỏi nào hoặc ngưng bất cứ lúc nào nếu bạn cảm thấy khó chịu.
Lợi ích: Nếu bạn tham gia vào nghiên cứu này thì
phụ huynh và cả những người giáo dục trẻ em sẽ có thể giúp trẻ em thành công
bởi vì sự hiểu biết về sự tham gia của phụ huynh ngày càng tăng.
Kín Đáo: Tôi sẽ giữ danh tính của bạn được hoàn
toàn kín đáo. Tên của bạn sẽ được tách ra từ bản trả lời của bạn. Một số
người, có quyền truy cập vào thông tin của bạn, bao gồm chủ tịch ủy ban luận
án của tôi. Ban tổ chức luận án có thể xem dữ liệu của tôi và thông tin của
bạn. Thông tin của bạn sẽ được bảo vệ bởi việc cẩn thận khóa kín trong mọi
trường hợp. Sau 7 năm, những tài liệu này sẽ bị tiêu hủy.
Bảo mật: Thông tin bạn cung cấp cho tôi, sẽ được bảo
mật trong phạm vi pháp luật. Tôi sẽ giữ kín danh tính của bạn. Nếu bạn muốn
cung cấp tên của bạn, tôi sẽ giữ tên của bạn riêng biệt từ bản câu trả lời.
Thông tin liên hệ: Nếu bạn có câu hỏi, bạn có thể liên hệ với
tôi tại A.Tran0440@email.ncu.edu hoặc gọi cho tôi tại (619) 212-3486. Chủ
tịch luận án của tôi là tiến sĩ Leslie Curda. Cô làm việc tại trường đại học
Northcentral. Cô ấy giám sát các dự án nghiên cứu của tôi. Bạn có thể liên hệ
với cô ấy tại Lcurda@ncu.edu hoặc gọi cho cô tại (850) 712-2074. Ngoài ra,
nếu bạn có thắc mắc vấn đề gì liên quan tới cuộc nghiên cứu này, xin vui
lòng liên hệ với NCU tại irb@ncu.edu hoặc (888) 327-2877 Ext. 8014.
Tham gia tự nguyện: Bạn tham gia vào cuộc khảo sát này là hoàn
toàn tự nguyện. Bạn không cần cung cấp câu trả lời nếu bạn cảm thấy không
thoải mái. Bạn cũng sẽ không mất bất kỳ phúc lợi nào bạn đang hưởng. Bạn sẽ
nhận được một thẻ quà tặng có giá trị mười đô la vì bạn đã dành thời gian cho cuộc khảo sát này.
Thông tin nhận thực:
1. Bạn có muốn tham gia vào nghiên cứu này không? Có ____ Không ____
2. Nếu "Có", bạn có muốn điền vào thông tin nhận dạng liên kết
với cuộc khảo sát này?
Có____
Không ____
Nếu "Có", xin vui lòng viết tên
của bạn: _________________________________
3. Bạn đã đọc và đồng ý với các điều khoản của thông báo này? Có __ Không ___
Nếu "Có", bạn được hoan nghênh
vào cuộc khảo sát này. Nếu "Không", tôi xin cảm ơn bạn đã quan tâm
đọc và không đồng ý với các điều khoản của thỏa thuận. Bạn sẽ không bị
ràng buộc ký tên hay đề tên khi bạn tham gia không tham gia. Xin chân thành
cám ơn bạn.
Nghiên cứu sinh Tên
Ngày
_______________________ Tran Anthony
___________
Appendix C: Parent
Demographic Data
The following questions
will help me plan the activities to meet your survey. Please mark the answer
for each item. Thank you.
1.
How do you describe
yourself?
Immigration ____
Refugee ____ Native American ____
2.
What language do you
speak at home?
Arabic ___
English ___ Spanish ___ Russia ___ Hmong ___ Vietnamese ___
Other
_____________
3.
What is your current
age? _________ years old
4.
Your child at this school is a girl _____ a boy ______ a girl and a boy ____
two boys _____ two girls _____
5.
Your child was born:
Month _____ Year _____ (If you
have two children, please pick one).
6.
What is your relationship
to the child?
___ Mother ___ Grandmother
___ Father ___ Grandfather
___
Stepmother
___ Stepfather
___ Other
(please describe) __________________
Appendix D: Cover
Letter
Dear parents/guardians,
My name is
Anthony Tran. This study aims to consider a parent's intention for involvement
in children's education. The purpose of this study is to find out the immigrant
and refugee parents’ influence on their involvement in Head Start and Early
Head Start. You will answer 57 questions related to parent involvement. It will
take 20 minutes. You will receive a gift card worth ten dollars to make up for
the time you spend. By participating in this survey, you will support knowledge
related to parent participation in education.
There is minimal
risk in this study. Some questions may make you feel uncomfortable; you are
free to not answer any question. The information obtained from you will remain
confidential. The data will be identified by a number. All records and data
will be shredded or deleted after seven years. The information obtained in this
study will be reported as aggregate data.
If you have
questions regarding this study or your rights as a participant, please contact
me at the phone number (619) 212 – 3486. If you want more information, please
contact Northcentral at email address irb@ncu.edu or call 1 – 888 – 327 – 2877
Ext. 8014.
I will happy to
answer your questions relate to this research. Please direct questions or
comments to me at A.Tran0440@email.ncu.edu, or Professor Dr. Leslie Curda (928)
541-7777.
Please remember
that this is an independent study and it is not funded by nor administered by
the Office of Head Start. Your child’s enrollment in Head Start or Early Head
Start, or any other social service program you are enrolled will not be
affected by participating in this study.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Anthony Tran
Certificate of Translation
I,
Nazeer Nakhlah, am fluent in English and Arabic and have translated the
attached document in its entirety. I also certify that this translation is a
complete and accurate translation to the best of my ability of the original
document provided to me.
Nazeer Nakhlah
December
15, 2017
خطاب
توظيف
السادة أولياء الأمور/ الأوصياء،
أسمي أنتوني تران، تهدف هذه
الدراسة الى النظر في نية احد الوالدين للمشاركة في تعليم اطفالهم. ان الغرض من
هذه الدراسة البحث عن تأثير مشاركة الاهل اللاجئين والمهاجرين في تعليم اطفالهم فيHead Start وEarly Head Star. سوف يطلب منك الاجابة عن 57 سؤال ذات صلة بمشاركة الاهل. وتستغرق الإجابة عن هذه الأسئلة
20 دقيقة. ستقدم لك هدية عشرة دولارات كتعويض لك عن الوقت الذي تقضيه في إتمام
الاستبيان. بمشاركتك في هذه الدراسة ستقوم بدعم المعارف المتصلة بمشاركة الوالدين
في التعليم.
لا يوجد اي مخاطر من المشاركة في هذه الدراسة. بعض من
هذه الاسئلة سوف تجعلك غير مرتاح وانت حر في عدم الاجابة على اي سؤال. ان
المعلومات التي تم الحصول عليها منك سوف تبقى سرية. البيانات سوف تعرف برقم. كل
السجلات والبيانات سوف يتم تمزيقها او مسحها بعد سبع سنين من الدراسة.ان المعلومات
التي تم الحصول عليها من هذه الدراسة سوف تقدم كتقارير لتجميع البيانات. إذا كان لديك أي أسئلة تخص هذه
الدراسة او حقوقك الرجاء الاتصال على (619)
212 – 3486 . واذا تريد اي معلومة اخرى اتصل على جامعة نورث
سنترال على البريد الالكتروني irb@ncu.edu او اتصل على الرقم 888 – 327 – 2877 Ext. 80141 . سوف اكون مسرورا
للجواب على اسئلتكم وتعليقاتكم التي تخص هذا البحث الرجاء اتصل بي على A.Tran0440@email.ncu.edu,او Professor
Dr. Leslie Curda (928) 541-7777.
الرجاء التذكر ان هذه الدراسة هي دراسة مستقلة وهي ليست ممولة من قبل ادارة
او مكتب ال Head
Start.
سوف لن يؤثر اشتراكك في هذه الدراسة على التحاق
طفلك بمدرسة Head Start و Early Head Start او
اي برنامج خدمة اجتماعية انت مشترك به.
المخلص لك،
أنتوني تران
Certificate of Translation
I, Antonio Aguilar Urbano, hereby certify that I am competent to translate
from the English language into Spanish and that the documents “Formulario de
Consentimiento” and “Encuesta de Padres” are true and accurate translations of
the original documents “Consent Form_Recruitment” and “Parent Survey” provided
to me.
_____________________
Antonio Aguilar Urbano
Carta de Reclutamiento
Queridos Padres/Guardianes,
Mi nombre es
Anthony Tran. Quiero presentarme como estudiante de doctorado en la
Northcentral Universito. Estoy estudiando Educación Temprana con enfoque en la
participación parental y resultados infantiles en los programas AKA Head Start
y Early Head Start.
Escribo esta
carta para explicar porque quiero invitarle a participar en mi estudio de
investigación. Mientras muchos padres tienen gran influencia en los resultados
educativos de sus hijos, existen barreras y problemas que limitan la
participación parental en los distintos niveles de Head Start. Este estudio le
proporcionará cuestionarios que cubren actitudes parentales y creencias, normas
subjetivas, control de comportamiento percibido, y disposición de los padres en
cuanto a su participación parental para beneficiarle a Ud. y al estilo de vida
de su familia. Estoy estudiando si la participación parental en la educación de
sus hijos puede ayudar a aumentar el compromiso de la familia en los años
preescolares, lo cual se está ligado al éxito infantil en el nivel de
kindergarten y más allá. El estudio de investigación solo incluye padres
cualificados inmigrantes/refugiados quienes tienen niños en Head Start y Early
Head Start. Con su permiso, le pediré contestar 57 preguntas en la encuesta.
Tomaría unos 20 minutos de su tiempo. La encuesta y la información se
proporcionarán en inglés, español, árabe y vietnamita. Su participación en este
estudio es completamente voluntaria y no está asociada a AKA Head Start ni
Early Head Start y no le afectará a Ud. ni a sus derechos de ninguna forma.
Usted
puede abandonar este estudio en cualquier momento, simplemente escribiendo en
la encuesta: “No deseo participar”. El estudio se llevará a cabo comenzando el…
de enero de 2018 hasta el… de febrero de 2018.Favor de devolver la documentación
de la encuesta directamente a Mr. Anthony Tran o a las oficinas de Head Start
antes del… de febrero de 2018.
Este estudio
será utilizado sólo para propósitos educativos dado que busco entender mejor la
participación parental en el contexto de familias inmigrantes y refugiados. No
hay ningún riesgo por su participación en este estudio. Para proteger su
confidencialidad, su nombre no aparecerá en la encuesta. Sólo usaré los datos y
resultados de la encuesta, sin incluir su nombre. Esta encuesta no será
compartida con nadie más que conmigo, Anthony Tran, como investigador y con mi
Profesora Dr. Leslie Curda, en Northcentral Universito. Si tiene más preguntas
o quiere recibir una copia final de este estudio después de su finalización, no
dude en contactar conmigo en el (619) 212-3486.
Esta carta
servirá como material de reclutamiento para su participación, así que favor de
guardarlo en sus archivos personales. Si tiene preguntas referentes a esta
investigación, por favor contacte con la Dr. Leslie Curda, mi supervisora de
investigación para este proyecto, en el (850) 712-2074 o la Escuela de
Educación de la Northcentral Universito en el (928) 541-7777. Por favor recuerde que este es un estudio independiente y
no está financiado por ni administrado por la oficina de Head Start.
Inscripción del niño en Head Start o Early Head Start o cualquier otro programa
de servicio social que están inscritos no afectará al participar en este
estudio.
Atentamente,
Anthony Tran
Certification of Translation
Thư Giới Thiệu
Thưa quý phụ huynh/giám hộ,
Tôi tên là Anthony Trần. Sự nghiên cứu này nhằm làm sáng tỏ ý định
của phụ huynh cho việc thực hiện của sự tham gia vào trong giáo dục trẻ em.
Mục đích của nghiên cứu này là để tìm ra sự ảnh hưởng của sự tham gia
của các phụ huynh trong diện di dân và tị nạn đến việc thành tựu của
trẻ em trong chương trình giáo dục Head Start và Early Head Start. Bạn sẽ
trả lời 57 câu hỏi liên quan đến sự tham gia của phụ huynh. Nó sẽ tốn mất
thời gian là 20 phút. Bạn sẽ nhận được một món quà trị giá mười đô la để
bồi hoàn thời gian bạn tiêu tốn cho cuộc khảo sát.
Có chút ít rủi ro trong nghiên cứu này. Một số câu hỏi có thể làm cho bạn
cảm thấy khó chịu; bạn được tự do để không trả lời bất kỳ câu hỏi nào bạn
muốn. Thông tin thu được từ bạn sẽ giữ kín. Dữ liệu sẽ được nhận diện bằng số
mật mã. Tất cả hồ sơ và tin tức sẽ được tiêu hũy sau bảy năm. Những dữ
liệu này sẽ được báo cáo như là một dữ liệu tổng hợp.
Nếu bạn có câu hỏi nào liên quan đến việc nghiên cứu này hay quyền lợi
của bạn như là một người tham gia nghiên cứu, xin vui lòng liên hệ với tôi tại
số điện thoại (619) 212 - 3486. Nếu bạn muốn tìm hiểu thêm, xin vui lòng liên
hệ với trường đại học Northcentral tại địa chỉ điện thư irb@ncu.edu hoặc
gọi 1-888-327-2877 ext. 8014.
Tôi sẽ sung sướng trả lời những câu hỏi
của bạn có liên quan đến việc nghiên cứu này. Xin vui lòng trực tiếp đưa ra
câu hỏi hoặc ý kiến cho tôi tại A.Tran0440@email.ncu.edu, hoặc giáo sư tiến sĩ, Leslie Curda (928) 541-7777. Xin ghi nhớ rằng việc nghiên cứu này là hoàn toàn độc lập với chương
trình Head Start. Nó không được tài trợ bởi họ hay cũng không được quản lý bởi
văn phòng Head Start. Con của bạn đang ghi danh học ở Head Start hoặc
Early Head Start, hay bất cứ dịch vụ nào mà bạn đang hưởng trong chương
trình đều không bị ảnh hưởng bởi sự tham gia trong việc nghiên cứu này.
Cảm ơn bạn thật nhiều.
Anthony Tran
Appendix E: Head Start Executive Director
and Center Directors Letters of Consent
Anthony
Tran
4019
Marron Street
San
Diego, CA 92115
Dear Head Start Executive
Director:
My name is Anthony Tran. I am a doctoral student in Early Childhood
Education Program at Northcentral University, Arizona. I
am conducting a study about parent involvement in early childhood education. I
am writing the letter to request the executive
center and center directors to allow me to distribute the survey papers to
parents or caregivers when they are dropping off or picking up their children.
Your centers are invited to be part of a research study regarding parent
involvement in children’s education. Please read this form and bring any
questions you may have before agreeing to have children’s
parents to be part of the study. If you agree, your centers would allow me to distribute the surveys at your preschools. Only
for parents who have signed consent forms, the study includes:
Compensation: Upon
completion of the survey questionnaires, each parent will receive the gift of
ten dollars for their participation.
Confidentiality: The records
of this study will be kept confidentially to the extent permitted by law. In publications,
I will not include any information that will make it possible to identify, for
example, the preschool centers, classrooms, teachers, children or family members.
Research records will be stored securely in a locked file cabinet in my office, and only researchers will have access
to the records for a period of seven years.
Afterward, the records will be shredded to ensure confidentially to all
participants.
There are no risks in this
study. The results of this study may be published, but center
director/teachers’ name will not be used.
Voluntary participation: Participation
in this study is voluntary. The consent
form will be sent to parents with self-stamped envelope.
Contact information for
questions: I
would be glad to answer your questions that may arise regarding the study. Please direct
me with your questions or comments via email at tranthonytran@gmail.com, by phone at (619) 212-3486 or reach my chair Dr. Curda at (850)-712-2074.
Thank you for your cooperation
Anthony Tran
Northcentral University
Head Start Center Director’s
Permission for Recruitment Letter
Dear
Center Directors:
I am writing this letter to
introduce myself. My name is Anthony Tran. I am a doctoral student from
Northcentral University, Arizona. I am also a substitute teacher at your AKA
Head Start programs. I will conduct research to evaluate important variables in
the theory of planned behavior to find possible determinants of parent
intention for school involvement, such as parental attitudes and beliefs,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. These findings will help me
to determine whether they are significantly relating to and use them to predict
the reported intentions of parent involvement in children’s centers.
According
to the permission that was signed by the Executive Director, Ms. Yolanda Perez
on December 22, 2017. I would like to ask if I could put the Recruitment Letter
and Pre-Notice Letter into children’s mailboxes at your center. These will be
distributed sometimes starting from February through March. I appreciate you would
allow me to do those. After a few days of sending out the recruitment letters,
please allow me to distribute survey packages at the center’s gate during the
time of drop-off or pick-up. Please help me conduct the survey and authorize me
to do so by signing your name below.
I am glad to have this form with
your signature to be submitted to the Northcentral University Institutional
Review Board (IRB). With your permission, the IRB will send an approval letter,
which grants me to recruit participants or start to collect data.
Thank you for your consideration
regarding the research opportunity.
Sincerely,
Anthony
Tran
Appendix F: Pre-Notice
of Parent Survey
Dear parents/guardians:
My
name is Anthony Tran. I am a doctoral student in Northcentral University,
Arizona. I would like to invite you to complete a survey because you are the
parent of a child in a Head Start program. As a parent or caregiver, your
involvement in your child's education is valuable and important for preschool
in AKA Head Start or Early Head Start.
The
following information is to help you decide to join. This research aims to
examine your intentions to join in your child’s school activities. The number
of parents I
hope to have in this study is 110. Your participation is appreciated.
The purpose of this survey is to learn how the
participation of immigrant and refugee parents' involvement is influenced by
different variables. I will ask you to complete 57 questions related to parent
involvement. The questions will take 20 minutes. You will receive a gift card
of ten dollars. It is to compensate for the time you spend in the survey. There
are minimal risks for
you in this study. Some questions may make you feel uncomfortable. You are free
to not answer any question.
Any information obtained in this study will remain
confidential. Seven years after the study has concluded all records will be
destroyed.
You can ask any question to relate this research or
questions that you may have about the study. I am available to answer your
questions. Please contact me at A.Tran0440@email.ncu.edu or my cell phone at
(619) 212-3486. Please remember that this research is completely independent from the Head Start
program. It is not funded by nor being administered by the office of Head
Start. Your child’s enrollment in Head Start or Early Head Start, or any other
social service program you are enrolled will not be affected by participating
in this study.
Thank you for considering this research opportunity.
Anthony Tran
Certificate of Translation
I,
Nazeer Nakhlah, am fluent in English and Arabic and have translated the
attached document in its entirety. I also certify that this translation is a
complete and accurate translation to the best of my ability of the original
document provided to me.
Nazeer Nakhlah
December 15, 2017
ملاحظة
اولية لاختبار الاهل
السادة أولياء الأمور/ الأوصياء،
اسمي أنتوني تران، أنا طالب أعد
رسالة دكتوراه في برنامج التعليم في مرحلة الطفولة المبكرة في جامعة نورثسنترال
بولاية أريزونا. أود أن أدعوك للمشاركة في هذه الدراسة لأنك ولي أمر طفل صغير له
بعض الاحتياجات التعليمية. وبصفتك ولي أمر أو متعهد رعاية، تكون مشاركتك في
احتياجات طفلك التعليمية ذات قيمة ومهمة لطفلك في مرحلة ما قبل المدرسة في برامجHead
Start وEarly Head Star.
يتم توفير المعلومات التالية لمساعدتك على اتخاذ قرار
مستنير بشأن المشاركة في هذه الدراسة. وتهدف هذه الدراسة البحثية إلى دراسة ما هي نيتك
السلوكية للمشاركة كولي أمر في تعليم الطفل. اتمنى ان يبلغ عدد المشاركين في هذه
الدراسة 110 أفراد. ان مشاركتك مقدرة.
الغرض من هذه الدراسة هو معرفة كيفية تأثير مشاركة أولياء الأمورالمهاجرين واللاجئين
في مختلف التغييرات.
سيُطلب
منك إتمام استبيان من 57 بند بشأن مشاركة أولياء الأمور. وتستغرق الإجابة عن هذه
الأسئلة 20 دقيقة. ستقدم لك هدية عشرة دولارات كتعويض لك عن الوقت الذي تقضيه في
إتمام الاستبيان. لا توجد مخاطر مرتبطة بهذا البحث. بعض الأسئلة قد تجعلك تشعر
بعدم الارتياح، ولك حرية الاختيار في عدم الرد على أي منها.
سيتم الاحتفاظ بأي معلومات تم الحصول
عليها في هذه الدراسة في سرية تامة. بعد سبع سنوات من إتمام الدراسة، سيتم تدمير كافة
السجلات.
يحق لك أن تطرح أي أسئلة تتعلق بهذا البحث وبحقوقك كمشارك في البحث. الرجاء الاتصال
بالبريد الالكتروني A.Tran0440@email.ncu.edu او على رقمي الخاص (619) 212-3486.
الرجاء التذكر ان هذه الدراسة هي دراسة مستقلة
وهي ليست ممولة من قبل ادارة او مكتب ال Head Start.
سوف لن يؤثر اشتراكك
في هذه الدراسة على التحاق طفلك بمدرسة Head Start و Early Head Start او اي برنامج خدمة اجتماعية انت مشترك به.
شكراً لتعاونكم،
أنتوني تران
Certificate of Translation
I, Antonio Aguilar Urbano, hereby certify that I am competent to
translate from the English language into Spanish and that the documents
“Formulario de Consentimiento” and “Encuesta de Padres” are true and accurate
translations of the original documents “Consent Form_Recruitment” and “Parent
Survey” provided to me.
_____________________
Antonio Aguilar Urbano
Preaviso de Encuesta de Padres
Estimados
padres/tutores:
Mi nombre es Anthony Tran. Soy un estudiante de doctorado en Universidad de
NCU, Arizona. Me gustaría invitarle a que complete una encuesta porque eres el
padre de un niño en un programa Head Start. Como padre o cuidador, su participación
en la educación de sus hijos es valiosa e importante para preescolar en AKA
Head Start o Early Head Start.
La siguiente información es para ayudarle a decidir. Esta investigación
tiene como objetivo examinar sus intenciones de participar en las actividades
escolares de su hijo. El número de padres espero en este estudio es 110. Se
agradece su participación.
El propósito de
esta encuesta es aprender cómo la participación de inmigrantes y la
participación de los padres de refugiados está influenciada por diferentes
variables. Les pido para completar 57 preguntas relacionadas con la
participación de los padres. Las preguntas llevará 30 minutos. Usted recibirá
una tarjeta de regalo de diez dólares. Es para compensar el tiempo que pasa en
la encuesta. Hay riesgos mínimos para usted en este estudio. Algunas preguntas
pueden hacer sentir incómodo. Eres libre de no contestar cualquier pregunta.
Cualquier información obtenida en este estudio se mantendrá confidencial.
Siete años después de que el estudio ha concluido todos los expedientes serán
destruidos.
Puede hacernos
cualquier pregunta relacionada con esta investigación. Estoy disponible para
contestar sus preguntas. Por favor comuníquese conmigo al
A.Tran0440@email.ncu.edu o mi celular en (619) 212-3486. Por favor recuerde que
esta investigación es totalmente independiente del programa Head Start. No está
financiado por o ser administrado por la oficina de Head Start. Inscripción del
niño en Head Start o Early Head Start o cualquier otro programa de servicio
social que están inscritos no afectará al participar en este estudio.
Gracias por considerar esta oportunidad de la investigación.
Anthony Tran
Universidad Northcentral
Certification of Translation
Tiền Thông Báo Khảo Sát Phụ Huynh
Thưa quý phụ huynh/người giám hộ:
Tôi tên là Anthony Trần. Tôi là một sinh
viên tiến sĩ tại Đại học Northcentral, Arizona. Tôi muốn mời bạn để hoàn thành
bản khảo sát phụ huynh vì bạn là phụ huynh của đứa trẻ học ở chương trình
Head Start. Là cha mẹ hoặc người chăm sóc, sự tham gia của bạn trong nhu cầu
giáo dục của con bạn là có giá trị và quan trọng cho trẻ mầm non tại chương
trình AKA Head Start hoặc Early Head Start.
Các thông tin sau đây là để giúp bạn quyết
định tham gia. Nghiên cứu này nhằm vào sự kiểm tra ý định của bạn trong việc
tham gia vào hoạt động giáo dục của trẻ em. Tôi hy vọng số cha mẹ tham gia
trong nghiên cứu này là 110. Sự tham gia của bạn thì được quý trọng.
Mục đích của cuộc khảo sát này là để tìm
hiểu làm thế nào sự tham gia của phụ huynh thuộc người di dân và tị nạn ảnh
hưởng đến những biến số học tập. Tôi sẽ xin bạn hoàn tất 57 câu hỏi liên
quan đến sự tham gia của phụ huynh. Các câu hỏi sẽ mất 30 phút để trả lời. Bạn
sẽ nhận được một thẻ quà là mười đồng. Nó bồi hoàn thời gian bạn
tiêu tốn cho việc trả lời của bạn. Có một số rủi ro trong sự nghiên
cứu này. Vài câu hỏi, nếu bạn cảm thấy không tiện trả lời, bạn bỏ
nó qua bên.
Bất kỳ tin tức nào kiếm được trong sự
nghiên cứu này đều sẽ giữ kín. Sau bảy năm tất cả những văn kiện
này sẽ được hũy bỏ.
Bạn có thể hỏi bất kỳ câu hỏi nào
có liên quan tới sự nghiên cứu này. Tôi
sẵn sàng trả lời câu hỏi của bạn liên quan đến việc nghiên cứu này. Xin
vui lòng liên lạc với tôi tại A.Tran0440@email.ncu.edu hoặc điện thoại di động
của tôi tại (619) 212-3486. Xin nhớ là sự nghiên cứu này hoàn toàn độc
lập với chương trình của Head Start và nó cũng không được trợ giúp
tài chánh hay được bảo trợ bởi Head Start. Con của bạn đang ghi danh
học ở Head Start hoặc Early Head Start, hay bất cứ dịch vụ nào mà bạn
đang hưởng trong chương trình đều không bị ảnh hưởng bởi sự tham gia trong
việc nghiên cứu này.
Cảm ơn bạn thật nhiều.
Anthony Trần
Northcentral University
Appendix
G: Recruitment Letter
The day of ____________ 2018
Dear parents/guardians:
My name
is Anthony Tran. I am a doctoral student in Northcentral University, Arizona. I
am studying early childhood education, focused on parental involvement in the
AKA Head Start program.
I am
writing this letter to explain why I invite you to participate in my research.
While many parents have significant influence on their children’s education,
there are some problems and barriers restricting parents’ participation in
children’s school program. I will ask you some questions on attitudes and
beliefs, norms, and behaviors about being involved in your child’s education. I
am researching parental involvement in children’s education that should be able
to help children succeed when they are transferred to a higher level.
This
study will include parents who are immigrants or refugees and who have children
enrolled in AKA Early Head Start or Head Start. With your permission, I will
ask you to answer 57 questions. It will take 30 minutes of your time. This
survey will be provided with four languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, and
Vietnamese. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and not
combined with AKA Head Start programs and will not affect your rights in any
way. You may decline to join in the study or to withdraw by writing on the
survey: "I don't want to participate" or by not returning the survey.
The study
will start from April 2, 2018 to May 11, 2018. If you choose to participate, you are provided
with a stamped envelope for the survey that can be mailed to me. Or, you seal
the envelopes and send them with your child to school.
This
study will be used for education’s purpose. This study has a minimal risk to
you. Your name will not be placed on the survey and I will not use any name. I
will use only data and results from this survey as group data. This data will
only be shared with my dissertation chair and committee members at my
university. If you request a copy of this study, please contact me at
A.Tran0440@email.ncu.edu or (619) 212-3486. If you have more questions related
to research, please contact Dr. Leslie Curda at (850) 712-2074, or the Office
of Northcentral University at (928) 541-7777.
You will receive a gift card worth ten
dollars for the time you spent on the survey. In order to receive the gift card, please
mail or email the information contact sheet to me at tranthonytran@gmail.com.
Please mail two separate self-stamped envelopes. One is for the Informed
Consent form and survey, and another one is for the Contact Information sheet. Please
remember this is an independent study. It is not funded by or administered by
the Office of Head Start. By participating in this study, your child’s
enrollment in Head Start or Early Head Start, or any other social service
program you are enrolled in will not be affected.
Best regards,
Anthony Tran
Northcentral University
(Please
keep this letter in your record)
Certificate of Translation
I,
Nazeer Nakhlah, am fluent in English and Arabic and have translated the
attached document in its entirety. I also certify that this translation is a
complete and accurate translation to the best of my ability of the original
document provided to me.
Nazeer Nakhlah
December 15, 2017
يوم 28 مارس 2018
رسالة التعيين
السادة أولياء الأمور/ الأوصياء،
اسمي أنتوني تران، أنا طالب دكتوراه في برنامج التعليم
في مرحلة الطفولة المبكرة في جامعة نورث سنترال بولاية أريزونا. اركز
دراستي على مشاركة الاهل في برنامج ال Head Start. أكتب إليك هذه الرسالة لأشرح لك سبب دعوتي لك إلى دراستي البحثية. في حين
أن العديد من الآباء لديهم قدر كبير من التأثير على النتائج التعليمية لأطفالهم،
إلا أن هناك بعض العوائق والمشكلات التي تحد من مشاركة أولياء الأمور في مختلف
مستويات برنامج المدرسة. سوف اسئلك بعض
الاسئلة تخص بعض السلوك والمعتقدات, المبادئ, والتصرفات بما يخص المشاركة في تعليم
طفلك. ان البحث يخص مشاركة الاهل في تعليم اطفالهم ليكونوا قادرين على مساعدة نجاح
اطفالهم عندما يتم تحويلهم الى مرحلة اعلى.
هذه الرسالة سوف تشمل الاهل المهاجرين واللاجئين الذين
لديهم اطفال مشاركين في Early Head Start and Head Start. مع
موافقتك سوف يتطلب منك الاجابة على 57 سؤال, سوف تأخذ من وقتك 20 دقيقة فقط. ان
هذا الاختبار سيقدم باربع لغات: الانكليزية, الاسبانية, العربية, والفيتنامية.ان
مشاركتك هي تطوعية وليست مرتبطة مع برنامج ال Head
Start. وسوف لن تؤثر على حقوقك في اي شكل من الاشكال. يمكنك عدم الاشتراك
او الانسحاب من الاختبار بكتابة " لا
اريد الاشتراك".
الدراسة سوف تبدأ في شهر كانون الاثاني/May
11, 2018 الى شهر شباط/April 21,2018 . اذا ما
قررت المشاركة, استعمل الظرف المزود وارسل الموافقة الخطية والاختبار الي انثوني تران. أو بأمكانك اغلاق الظرف وارساله مع
طفلك الى المدرسة.
هذه الدراسة ستستخدم لغرض
التعليم وليس لها مخاطر عليك. اسمك سوف يكتب على الاختبار لكن الموافقة الخطية سوف
تحفظ مفصولة عن اجابات الاختبار. سوف لن استخدم اي اسم.
سوف استخدم البيانات والنتائج
من هذا الاختبار كمجموعة بيانات. هذه البيانات سوف تكون مشتركة بين المسؤول الاعلى
واعضاء اللجنة في جامعتي فقط. أذا ما كنت ترغب بنسخة من هذه الدراسة الرجاء
الاتصال بي على البريد الالكتروني
A.Tran0440@email.ncu.edu او على الرقم (619) 212-3486. اذا
لديك اي اسئلة تخص البحث الرجاء الاتصال بدكتورة ليزلي كوردا على الرقم (850) 712-2074 او مكتب جامعة نورث سنترال على الرقم (928) 541-7777.
الرجاء التذكر ان هذه الدراسة هي دراسة مستقلة وهي ليست ممولة من قبل ادارة
او مكتب ال Head
Start.
سوف لن يؤثر اشتراكك في هذه الدراسة على التحاق
طفلك بمدرسة Head Start و Early Head Start او
اي برنامج خدمة اجتماعية انت مشترك به.
مع تحياتي,
Tran
Anthony
Northcentral University
(يرجى إبقاء هذه
الرسالة في السجل الخاص بك)
Carta de Contratación
El día de 1 Abril de 2018
Estimados padres/tutores:
Mi nombre es Anthony Tran. Soy un estudiante de doctorado
en Universidad de Northcentral, Arizona. Estoy estudiando educación infantil, centrada en la
participación de los padres en el programa AKA Head Start.
Estoy escribiendo esta carta para explicar por qué los
invito a participar en mi investigación. Mientras que muchos padres tienen una
influencia significan en la educación de sus hijos, hay algunos problemas y
barreras que restringen la participación de los padres en el programa de la
escuela de los niños. Les pido algunas preguntas sobre las actitudes y
creencias, normas y comportamientos acerca de ser involucrados en la educación
de su hijo. Estoy investigando la participación de los padres en la educación
de los niños que debe ser capaces de ayudar a los niños a tener éxito cuando se
transfieran a un nivel superior.
Este estudio incluirá a los padres que son inmigrantes o
refugiados y que tienen niños matriculados en AKA Early Head Start o Head
Start. Con su permiso, les pido responder a 57 preguntas. Tendrá 30 minutos de
su tiempo. Este estudio proporcionará cuatro idiomas: Inglés, español, Árabe y
vietnamita. Su participación en este estudio es completamente voluntaria y no
combina con programas de Head Start AKA y no afectará a sus derechos en
cualquier forma. Usted puede negarse a participar en el estudio o retirar por
escrito sobre la encuesta: "Quiero participar" o por no devolver la
encuesta.
El estudio comenzará 02 Abril de 2018 al 11 Mayo de
2018. Si usted decide participar, se proporcionan con un sobre pre dirigido
para la encuesta que puede enviarse por correo a mí. O sellar los sobres y
enviarlos con su hijo a la escuela.
Este estudio se utilizará para fines de la educación.
Este estudio tiene un riesgo mínimo para usted. Su nombre no será colocado en
la encuesta y no voy a utilizar cualquier nombre. Voy a utilizar sólo datos y
resultados de esta encuesta como datos del grupo. Estos datos sólo se
compartirán con mis miembros de Presidente y Comité de tesis en mi universidad.
Si usted solicita una copia de este estudio, por favor comuníquese conmigo al
A.Tran0440@email.ncu.edu o (619) 212-3486. Si tienes más preguntas relacionadas
con la investigación, póngase en contacto con el Dr. Leslie Curda en (850)
712-2074, o la oficina de la Universidad Northcentral en (928) 541-7777.
Usted recibirá una tarjeta de regalo de 10
dólares por su tiempo en la encuesta. Con el
fin de recibir la tarjeta de regalo, por favor, por correo o email la hoja de
información contacto a mí. Por favor enviar por correo dos sobres uno
mismo-sello independientes. Uno es para la encuesta y formulario de consentimiento
informado, y otra es para la hoja de información de contacto. Por favor, recuerde este es un estudio independiente. No es financiado por
o administrado por la oficina de Head Start. Al participar en este estudio, no
será afectada la inscripción del niño en Head Start o Early Head Start o
cualquier otro programa de servicio social está inscrito en.
Saludos
Anthony Tran
(Por favor, mantenga esta carta en su expediente)
Thư Tuyển Dụng
Ngày _____________ 2018
Thưa quý phụ
huynh/giám hộ:
Tôi tên là Anthony Tran. Tôi xin giới thiệu tôi là một sinh viên
tiến sĩ tại Đại học Northcentral, tiểu bang Arizona. Tôi đang nghiên cứu giáo
dục trẻ em thời thơ ấu, tập trung vào sự tham gia của cha mẹ trong các chương
trình Early Head Start và Head Start.
Tôi viết thư này để giải thích lý do tại sao tôi mời các bạn cùng tham dự
vào sự nghiên cứu của tôi. Trong khi nhiều bậc cha mẹ có rất nhiều ảnh hưởng
đến kết quả giáo dục con cái của họ, họ bị một số rào cản và những vấn đề hạn
chế sự tham gia của họ vào chương trình giáo dục của nhà trường với
nhiều mức độ khác nhau. Nghiên cứu này sẽ cung cấp cho bạn những câu hỏi cho
liên quan đến: thái độ và niềm tin, quy tắc, hành vi có kiểm soát, và dự
định tham gia của bạn. Điều này sẽ có lợi cho gia đình và con cái bạn.
Tôi đang nghiên cứu về sự tham gia của cha mẹ vào trong giáo dục trẻ em để
có thể giúp các trẻ em thành công khi chuyển tiếp lên cấp mẫu giáo và
những cấp độ cao hơn. Nghiên cứu này sẽ bao gồm những người có đủ điều
kiện như: di dân và tị nạn có trẻ em đang ghi danh học ở AKA Early Head
Start và Head Start. Với sự cho phép của bạn, tôi sẽ xin bạn trả lời 57 câu
hỏi. Bạn sẽ tốn mất thời gian là 30 phút. Cuộc khảo sát này sẽ được
cung cấp bốn ngôn ngữ: Anh, Tây Ban Nha, Ả Rập, và Việt Nam. Việc tham gia
vào nghiên cứu này là hoàn toàn tự nguyện và không liên kết với các chương
trình của AKA Head Start và Early Head Start. Nó sẽ không ảnh hưởng đến quyền
lợi của bạn trong bất cứ cách nào. Bạn có thể từ chối tham gia việc nghiên
cứu này. Đơn giản là không cần gởi trả lại bản câu hỏi này.
Cuộc nghiên cứu sẽ bắt đầu tiến hành từ ngày 2 tháng Tư cho đến 7
tháng Năm, năm 2018. Xin vui lòng gởi lại các tập giấy với những câu trả
lời cho tôi là Anthony Tran theo phong bì đã dán stem sẵn, hoặc gởi
trực tiếp đến văn phòng Head Start, nơi con bạn đang học.
Nghiên cứu này sẽ được sử dụng cho mục đích giáo dục. Sẽ có chút ít rủi
ro xảy ra cho bạn khi bạn tham gia vào sự nghiên cứu này. Để bảo vệ bạn,
tên của bạn sẽ không xuất hiện trên các văn kiện nào cả. Tôi sẽ sử dụng dữ
liệu và kết quả từ cuộc khảo sát này nhưng chắc chắn không tiết lộ tên của
bạn. Cuộc khảo sát này sẽ không chia sẻ với bất cứ ai khác ngoài vị giáo sư
tiến sĩ hướng dẫn của tôi là Leslie Curda tại đại học Northcentral. Nếu bạn
muốn có một bản sao của cuộc nghiên cứu này thì xin vui lòng liên hệ với tôi
tại email của tôi A.Tran0440@email.ncu.edu hoặc điện thoại di động của tôi tại (619)
212-3486.
Lá thư này như là một thông báo cho bạn nắm rõ vấn đề cho sự tham
gia của bạn. Nếu bạn có thắc mắc liên quan đến cuộc nghiên cứu, xin vui lòng
liên lạc với tiến sĩ Leslie Curda, người giám sát nghiên cứu của tôi cho dự án
này là (850) 712-2074, hoặc ở đại học Northcentral College (928) 541-7777. Xin được nhắc nhở là sự nghiên cứu này hoàn toàn
độc lập với chương trình Head Start và nó cũng không được sự trợ
giúp tài chánh hay được bảo trợ bởi chương trình Head Start. Con của
bạn đang ghi danh học ở Head Start hoặc Early Head Start, hay bất cứ
dịch vụ nào mà bạn đang hưởng trong chương trình đều không bị ảnh
hưởng bởi sự tham gia trong việc nghiên cứu này.
Trân trọng,
Anthony Tran
(Xin giữ lại lá thư này trong hồ sơ
của bạn)
Appendix H: Permission
of Using the Parent Involvement Project (PIP) Letter
August 25, 2017
Anthony Tran
4019 Marron Street
San Diego, CA 92115
(619) 212-3486
tranthonytran@gmail.com; A.Tran0440@email.ncu.edu
Darlene Whetsel
Department of Psychology
Box 512, Peabody College,
Vanderbilt University, TN 37203
(615) 343-4962
Dear Dr. Darlene
Whetsel,
I am pursuing a doctoral
degree from Northcentral University in Prescott Valley, Arizona. My research
will include the Parent Involvement Project (PIP) questionnaires, (prepared by
you, 2002). I anticipate using these questionnaires to test the theory
of planned behavior to explaining parental involvement of immigrant and refugee
populations in Head Start and Early Head Start programs, San Diego, California.
This letter is requesting your permission to use your archival questionnaires
that are total 57 items of the Parent’s role Construction of beliefs and
behavior. I very appreciate that if you can let me have your opinion by e-mail
to me at tranthonytran@gmail.com
or reach
me at (619) 212-3486. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this
request.
Sincerely,
Appendix
I: The Evidence of Permission Was Granted to Use the Instrument
From: anthony tran [tranthonytran@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2017 10:24 AM
To: Parker, Darlene Linzenbold
Subject: Asking Permission to use PIP
|
Anthony
Tran <tranthonytran@gmail.com> |
Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 8:24 AM |
|
|
||
|
Parker,
Darlene Linzenbold <darlene.l.parker@vanderbilt.edu> |
Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 8:25 AM |
|
To:
anthony tran tranthonytran@gmail.com Anthony- you do not need permission to use the questionnaire. |
|
Appendix J: Table —
Head Start & Early Head Start Enrollment, 2015
|
|
HS |
EHS |
|||
|
|
Population (Language) |
# of participants |
% of participants |
# of participants |
% of participants |
|
|
Spanish |
397 |
34% |
80 |
37% |
|
|
Southeast
Asian American |
16 |
1% |
2 |
1% |
|
|
Southwest
Asian American |
98 |
8% |
11 |
5% |
|
|
English |
637 |
55% |
119 |
56% |
|
|
African
American |
14 |
1% |
1 |
0% |
|
|
European
and Slavic |
2 |
0% |
1 |
0% |
|
|
Pacific
Island |
3 |
0% |
0 |
0% |
|
Appendix K:
Table Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables |
||||||||
|
|
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Variance |
Range |
Minimum |
Maximum |
|
|
Valid |
Missing |
|||||||
|
Attitudes & Beliefs 1. It’s my job to explain continuity of care assignment to my
child. |
122 |
100 |
5.14 |
1.047 |
1.096 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
2. It’s my job to make sure my child understands his or her
self-care. |
122 |
100 |
5.52 |
.774 |
.599 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
3. I make it my business to stay on top of things at children
center. |
122 |
100 |
5.09 |
1.128 |
1.273 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
4. I assume my child is doing all right when I don’t hear
anything from his or her teacher. |
122 |
100 |
4.46 |
1.312 |
1.721 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
5. The teacher must let me know about a problem before I can do
something about it. |
122 |
100 |
4.83 |
1.290 |
1.664 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
6. I get most of my information about my child’s progress from
my teachers. |
122 |
100 |
4.94 |
1.086 |
1.178 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
|
7. My child’s learning is mainly up to the teacher and my child. |
122 |
100 |
2.87 |
1.574 |
2.479 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
8. I like to spend time at my child’s school when I can. |
122 |
100 |
4.79 |
1.014 |
1.029 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
9. It’s important that I let the teacher know about things that
concern my child. |
122 |
100 |
5.52 |
.518 |
.268 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
|
10. I find it helpful to talk with the teachers. |
122 |
100 |
5.53 |
.729 |
.532 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
11. My child’s teachers know me. |
122 |
100 |
5.32 |
.836 |
.699 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
12. Your child’s teacher asks you to help your child study at
home. |
122 |
100 |
5.01 |
.983 |
.967 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
13. Your child’s teacher asks you to talk with your child about
his/her school day. |
122 |
100 |
4.79 |
1.187 |
1.409 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
14. Your child’s teacher asks you to work with your child on
specific home activities. |
122 |
100 |
4.98 |
1.106 |
1.223 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
15. Your child’s teacher asks you to look over your child’s
approach learning. |
122 |
100 |
4.64 |
1.165 |
1.356 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
16. Your child’s teacher asks you to schedule a conference to
discuss your child progress. |
122 |
100 |
5.28 |
.956 |
.913 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
17. Your child’s teacher sends home a note asking you to send
supplies for a class party. |
122 |
100 |
3.36 |
1.850 |
3.423 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
18. Your child’s teacher asks you to send supplies for an
educational activity in the classroom. |
122 |
100 |
3.16 |
1.764 |
3.113 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
19. Your child’s teacher asks you to attend a children program
at the school in the evening or weekend. |
122 |
100 |
4.30 |
1.487 |
2.210 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
20. Your child’s teacher asks for parents to volunteer a few
hours of time to the classroom. |
122 |
100 |
3.75 |
1.581 |
2.501 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
21. Your child’s teacher
asks for parents to help organize a day at the school. |
122 |
100 |
3.30 |
1.594 |
2.540 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
22. Your child’s teacher asks for volunteers to chaperone a
class trip. |
122 |
100 |
3.78 |
1.629 |
2.653 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
23. Your child’s teacher asks you to come to school to talk
about your work or a special interest of yours. |
122 |
100 |
3.41 |
1.660 |
2.756 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
24. Your child’s teacher asks you to help out in the classroom
(for example, read to children). Subjective Norms |
122 |
100 |
3.52 |
1.692 |
2.863 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
1.Teachers at this school are interested and cooperative when
they discuss my child. |
122 |
100 |
5.20 |
.979 |
.958 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
2. I feel welcome at this children center. |
122 |
100 |
5.52 |
.718 |
.516 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
3. Most parents at my child's center are able or willing to be
actively involved with the center. |
122 |
100 |
4.68 |
1.100 |
1.211 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
4. Parent activities are scheduled at this child center so that
I can attend. |
122 |
100 |
4.87 |
1.068 |
1.140 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
|
5. This children center lets me know about meetings and special
school events. |
122 |
100 |
5.43 |
.704 |
.496 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
|
6. This children center's staff contacts me promptly about any
problem involving my child. Perceived Behavioral Control |
122 |
100 |
5.34 |
.879 |
.773 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
1. I know about volunteering opportunities at my child's school. |
122 |
100 |
4.80 |
1.155 |
1.333 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
2. I know how to communicate effectively with my child about the
school day. |
122 |
100 |
5.26 |
.736 |
.542 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
|
3. I know how to explain things to my child about continuity of
care assignment. |
122 |
100 |
5.11 |
.920 |
.846 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
|
4. I know about special events at school. |
122 |
100 |
5.28 |
.753 |
.566 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
|
5. I know enough about the subjects of my child's education to
help him or her. |
122 |
100 |
5.27 |
.853 |
.728 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
6. I know how to communicate effectively with my child's
teacher. |
122 |
100 |
5.47 |
.563 |
.317 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
|
7. I know how to supervise my child's playing as learning. |
122 |
100 |
5.41 |
.627 |
.393 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
|
8. I have the skills to help out at my child's school. |
122 |
100 |
5.16 |
.872 |
.761 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
|
9. I know effectively ways to contact my child's teacher. |
122 |
100 |
5.27 |
.803 |
.645 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
|
10. I have what I need (for example, telephone, internet, email)
to communicate effectively with my child's teacher. |
122 |
100 |
5.34 |
.821 |
.674 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
|
11. I have the materials I need to help my child with playing at
home. |
122 |
100 |
5.40 |
.789 |
.622 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
12. I have enough time and energy to communicate effectively
with my child about the school day. |
122 |
100 |
5.25 |
.775 |
.600 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
13. I have enough time and energy to help out at my child's
center. |
122 |
100 |
4.64 |
1.179 |
1.390 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
14. I have enough time and energy to communicate effectively
with my child's teacher. |
122 |
100 |
5.30 |
.679 |
.461 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
|
15. I have enough time and energy to attend special events at my
child's center. |
122 |
100 |
4.85 |
1.065 |
1.135 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
16. I have time and energy to help my child with playing as a
learning at home. |
122 |
100 |
5.30 |
.810 |
.656 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
17. I have time and energy to supervise my child's play at home. Parental Intentions |
122 |
100 |
5.28 |
.865 |
.748 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
1. I kept an eye on my child’s progress. |
122 |
100 |
5.53 |
.578 |
.334 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
|
2. I got advice from the teacher. |
122 |
100 |
5.20 |
.959 |
.920 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
3. I contacted the teacher with questions about schoolwork or
activities. |
122 |
100 |
4.98 |
1.094 |
1.198 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
|
4. I helped my child with reading at home. |
122 |
100 |
5.43 |
.615 |
.379 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
|
5. I communicated with my child's teacher. |
122 |
100 |
5.46 |
.577 |
.333 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
|
6. I talked with my child about the school day. |
122 |
100 |
5.43 |
.691 |
.478 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
|
7. I supervised my child's playing at home. |
122 |
100 |
5.47 |
.619 |
.383 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
|
8. I helped out at my child's school. |
122 |
100 |
4.36 |
1.438 |
2.067 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
9. I attended special events at my child's center. |
122 |
100 |
4.87 |
1.240 |
1.536 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
10. I spent time at my child's center. |
122 |
100 |
4.31 |
1.260 |
1.588 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
Appendix L: Q-Q
Plot of Attitudes and
Beliefs, Subjective Norms, Perceived Behavioral Control, and Parental
Intentions
Figure
1. Q-Q Plot of Attitudes and Beliefs
Figure
2. Normal Q-Q Plot of Subjective Norms
Figure
3. Normal Q-Q Plot of Perceived Behavioral Controls
Figure 4. Normal Q-Q Plot of
Parental Intentions
Figure 1, 2, 3, and 4 show the
assumption of normality is met when points on the plots fall closely to the
diagonal line of the variables (Field, 2013). An adequate level of normality
was assumed for the sample taken for this study.
