1 / 11

Predictors and Outcomes of Parental Involvement with Students in High School Science Classes

Predictors and Outcomes of Parental Involvement with Students in High School Science Classes. Lee Shumow & Elena Lyutykh Northern Illinois University. Background. Parental involvement (PI) during high school is understudied.

kelsey-douglas
Download Presentation

Predictors and Outcomes of Parental Involvement with Students in High School Science Classes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Predictors and Outcomes of Parental Involvement with Students in High School Science Classes Lee Shumow & Elena Lyutykh Northern Illinois University This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No: HRD-0827526. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

  2. Background • Parental involvement (PI) during high school is understudied. • PI probably differs by subject area. Science is likely to be a particularly important and challenging area for PI. Few prior studies. • PI is a multidimensional construct.

  3. Purposes of Study • Describe PI pertaining to high school students in science classes. • What parent and student characteristics predict PI? • Does PI predict student functioning in science, controlling for characteristics predicting involvement?

  4. Context • Comprehensive high school (grades 9-12). Diverse community on fringe of a large metropolitan area. Enrollment of approximately 3,300 in 2009. The graduation rate was 74%. • Students from 3 general science, 3 biology, 3 chemistry, and 3 physics classrooms (N = 244; n=12 did not complete the year). • Oversampled students in the 9th grade 43 %: 9th grade, 21%:10th grade, 34 %: 11th grade, and 2%: 12th grade. • 53% male and 47% female. 42% White, 37% Latino, 12% African American, 2% Asian, 1% Native American, and 6% multi-racial. • 43% of students in the sample were eligible for free/reduced lunch.

  5. Procedure • Student surveys: student characteristics (grade, age, gender, ethnicity); family background; students’ future academic aspirations; science beliefs and learning; homework completion; and parental involvement in science education. • ESM Experience sampling method: 2 waves of data collection (5 consecutive days each); participants wore a pager, which was used to signal them using a remote transmitter at 2 randomly selected time points during each day’s science class. In response, students recorded their activities and various dimensions of their subjective experience in the Experience Sampling Form. • School Records: school organization and curriculum, students’ science grades, and “free lunch” status.

  6. Description of Parent Involvement • Four factors: PI at-home, PI at-school, PI with educational planning, parent child discussion about science. • This study: PI at-home (check science hw, help science hw, find help science hw, limit tv & video games) & PI at-school (know science teacher, talk science teacher, attend school events, watch students perform at school). • Generally Low PI at-home (.94) and • at-school (.45) on a 4 point scale.

  7. Predicting PI At-Home • R2 = .15 p < .001 • Parents from traditionally marginalized groups were involved at home much to same extent as were parents who were white, native born, and relatively more affluent and educated (e.g. NS). Parents of freshman were slightly more involved at home. Student science interest was the strongest predictor of PI at-home. Maternal educational expectations was also a positive predictor. Gender NS.

  8. Predicting PI At-School • R2 = .34, p <.001. • Higher income, white, native born parents, and those with higher levels of education were more likely to be involved at-school. • Mother’s educational expectations and student science interest (but < at-home) also predicted PI at-school. • Gender was not a predictor.

  9. Does PI matter in high school science? • PI at-school predicted success as measured by science grades , GPA, student’s educational expectations, & science efficacy. • PI at-home was associated positively with ESM ratings of interest, valuing (science class is important to me), and hard work in class, as well as with time doing science homework, & associated negatively • with students’ educational expectations.

  10. Conclusions and Implications • Educators often interpret low PI at-school as lack of engagement or interest. Educators need information about at-home PI and ideas about how to foster PI in high school science education with special focus on those groups not fully involved. Invitations from teachers have considerable impact on PI at-school during the high school years. • Student interest in science is a KEY factor, not struggle as during younger grades. Why? • Good news: Gender no longer predicts PI in science.

  11. Conclusions and Implications • PI at-school was better explained than PI at home – need to follow up. • Although the amount of PI was not extensive, it predicted outcomes; PI type predicted very different outcomes. PI at-school = performance (standardized test scores? conferred advantage or knowledge?) PI at-home = motivation & orientation toward subject. • Connection between PI and motivational factors in class establishes an important empirical association that has previously been assumed but not tested.

More Related