Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Case Western Reserve University]On: 23 November 2014, At: 16:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Teacher EducatorPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20
Parent Teacher Education Connection:Preparing Preservice Teachers for FamilyEngagementAmber L. Browna, Mary Harrisb, Arminta Jacobsonb & Judy Trottica Curriculum and Instruction, University of Texas Arlingtonb Curriculum and Instruction, University of North Texasc Curriculum and Instruction, University of Mary-Hardin BaylorPublished online: 25 Mar 2014.
To cite this article: Amber L. Brown, Mary Harris, Arminta Jacobson & Judy Trotti (2014) ParentTeacher Education Connection: Preparing Preservice Teachers for Family Engagement, The TeacherEducator, 49:2, 133-151, DOI: 10.1080/08878730.2014.887169
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2014.887169
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Teacher Educator, 49:133–151, 2014
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0887-8730 print/1938-8101 online
DOI: 10.1080/08878730.2014.887169
PROMISING PRACTICE
PARENT TEACHER EDUCATION CONNECTION: PREPARING
PRESERVICE TEACHERS FOR FAMILY ENGAGEMENT
AMBER L. BROWN
Curriculum and Instruction, University of Texas Arlington
MARY HARRIS and ARMINTA JACOBSON
Curriculum and Instruction, University of North Texas
JUDY TROTTI
Curriculum and Instruction, University of Mary-Hardin Baylor
This article describes the Parent Teacher Education Curriculum, a Web-based curriculum focused
on instructing teachers about best practices in family involvement and assesses its impact on theknowledge and attitudes of preservice teachers related to family involvement. Pre- and post-measures
of preservice teacher candidate knowledge of and attitude toward parent involvement were analyzed
using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and paired-samples t-tests. Findings revealed asignificant multivariate main effect for the time of knowledge assessment administration (pre vs. post):
Wilks’ � D .613, F(6, 449) D 47.308, p < .001, partial eta squared D .387. This suggested that
overall Knowledge increased significantly from pre- to post-administration. In addition, multivariateanalysis for the time of attitude assessment administration (pre vs. post) was Wilks’ � D .982, F(3,
1548) D 9.65, p <. 001, partial eta squared D .018. This suggested that overall Attitude increased
significantly from pre- to post-administration.
In 1996, parent involvement in education became one of the National Education Goals.In 2001, parent involvement was mandated in the No Child Left Behind Act (U.S. Depart-ment of Education, 2001), which cites the National Parent Teacher Association (PTA)standards (1998) based on the work of Joyce Epstein. Research has demonstrated thatparental involvement in children’s education is vitally important for realization of studentsuccess (Cox, 2005; Epstein, 2001; Hill, Baker, & Marjoribanks, 2004/2005). Successfulengagement of families has been found to be a characteristic of high-performing schools(Charles A. Dana Center, 1999; Mayer, Mullins, & Moore, 2000) to the extent that Kerbowand Bernhardt (1993) found that 18.5% of the variance in parental engagement withchildren’s education was related to school practices of parent involvement.
At the heart of any successful parent-involvement program are teachers who not onlyare committed to building family and school relationships but also have the skills and
Address correspondence to Dr. Amber L. Brown, Ed.D., Curriculum and Instruction, University of Texas
Arlington, P.O. Box 19777, Arlington, TX 76262, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
133
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
134 A. L. Brown et al.
knowledge to do it well. To succeed, a teacher must be able to make good use of families’expertise and resources, at the same time reaching out to families to support them. All thewhile, the teacher must also meet the day-to-day challenges of the classroom. Epstein (1992)stated, ‘‘The future of school and family partnerships rests in improving teacher educationand training’’ (p. 1147). However, there is ample evidence that teacher education programsdo not generally address this issue (Chavkin & Williams, 1988; Stamp & Groves, 1994).
To address this need for accessible parent involvement curriculum, professional edu-cators from four universities collaborated in development and implementation of the Web-based Parent Teacher Education Connection (PTE Connect) curriculum. The assumptionmade in curriculum development was that teachers are motivated by their knowledge of thebenefits of parent involvement and by positive attitudes toward partnerships with parentsin supporting children’s learning. The curriculum was based on the framework of theNational PTA Standards (1998). These standards focus on six types of school programmingthat contribute to a comprehensive program for parent involvement (Epstein, 2001).Modules of the curriculum were intended for infusion into existing courses of PreK–12 teacher preparation programs.
The purpose of the current study was to assess the impact of the Parent TeacherEducation Connection curriculum on the knowledge and attitudes of teacher educationcandidates. This article describes the Parent Teacher Education Connection and its nichein the broader curriculum of teacher education. It also presents data and findings toaddress the question of the impact of the curriculum in changing teacher candidateknowledge about and attitudes toward engaging families in the education of their children.
Benefits of Parent Involvement
Generally, parent involvement in school is related to greater academic achievement interms of both grades and standardized test performance (Cheung & Pomerantz, 2011;Fan & Chen, 2001; Froiland, Peterson, & Davison, 2013; Hara & Burke, 1998; Hill et al.,2004/2005; Jeynes, 2007; McWayne, Hampton, Fantuzzo, Cohen, & Sekino, 2004). It also isrelated to improved student motivation as reflected in students’ academic self-confidence,self-regulatory skills, and level of interest in school (Cheung & Pomerantz, 2011; Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems, & Holbein, 2005; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Hara & Burke, 1998).School attendance increases with increased parent involvement (McWayne et al., 2004;Stone, 2006) as reflected in on-time high school completion and the highest grade thatstudents successfully complete (Barnard, 2004). Students show more adaptive and lessdysfunctional behavior when parents are more involved. Students also demonstrated morepositive relationships with peers and adults (McWayne et al., 2004) positive social skills(El-Nokali, Bachman, & Votruba-Drzal, 2010) and decreased problem behaviors (El-Nokali,Bachman, & Votruba-Drzal, 2010). Decreases in problem behavior are particularly salientamong children from single parent homes and high-risk neighborhoods (Kingston, Huang,Calzada, Dawson-McClure, & Brotman, 2013). Children show increased interest in learn-ing and employing effective academic strategies (Ames, Khoju, & Watkins, 1993), devotemore time to schoolwork, and are more invested in academic success overall (Cheung &Pomerantz, 2011), as well as feel a greater sense of belonging to the school community(Kuperminc, Darnell, & Alvarez-Jimenez, 2008) when parents are more involved. Specifi-cally, adolescents from low-income families show higher aspirations for both educationaland career pursuits with increased parent involvement (Hill et al., 2004). Benefits of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Parent Teacher Education Connection 135
parent involvement are especially salient for low achieving children, who show the greatestachievement gains when families focus their involvement on student achievement of clearlydesignated goals (Epstein, 2001). Students and parents also perceive the school climatemore positively when parents are more involved (Greenwood & Hickman, 1991).
Parents benefit from parent involvement in terms of: (a) their interest in and appre-ciation for education, teachers, and learning and (b) their level of respect for the role ofteachers and the impact teachers have on students (Hara & Burke, 1998). Lastly, teachersbenefit, as well, as they feel more positive about teaching and their school when parents aremore involved (Epstein, 1992); experience a greater general sense of efficacy as teacherswhen they feel more efficacious concerning involving parents in school (Ames et al., 1993;Garcia, 2004); and experience closer and less conflicting relationships with their students(Wyrick & Rudasill, 2009).
Schools are positively impacted when parents partner with educators. For example,parents involved in the classroom may make it possible to expand curriculum and increaseits relevance to students. Moreover, parents may broaden the contact base for the school inthe community. This may result in curriculum connections and sometimes in donations ofresources such as technology to the school (Tangri, 1987). Evidence has suggested that co-operation and trust between schools, parents, students, and the larger community is criticalfor high-quality education (Schneider, Teske, & Marschall, 2000). The premise of parentinvolvement rests on persuasive data that strong contributions from parents improve schoolquality (Shartrand, Weiss, Kreider, & Lopez, 1997). In fact, the National PTA (2000) un-equivocally stated that ‘‘high-quality education cannot be successfully achieved without par-ents’ active involvement’’ (p. 15). Schools are the benefactors of parent involvement whenthey receive support from families resulting in increased reputability in the community.
Preparing Preservice Teachers for Parent Involvement
Despite what might be viewed as a societal imperative, development of skills for engagementof parents, families, and communities has not been routinely included in teacher educationprograms (Epstein, 2005; Hiatt-Michael, 2004; Tichenor, 1997). A MetLife Survey (2006)found that novice teachers considered working with parents as their biggest challenge andthe area in which they were least prepared. In addition, only 42% of teachers with less thanfive years of experience felt prepared to partner with parents in supporting the educationof students. Parent involvement is, in fact, relatively new to the mainstream in teacher ed-ucation (Greenwood & Hickman, 1991). In 2005, Epstein found that a majority of teachereducation program leaders perceived coverage of this topic as inadequate. In a 2008 studyby Uludag, preservice teachers generally felt that teacher education programs could betterprepare students for dealing effectively with parents. Unfortunately, many teachers are nottrained on building partnerships between schools, families, and communities (Bartels &Eskow, 2010; Ratcliff & Hunt, 2009). Furthermore, state departments of education havebeen faulted for lack of attention to parent involvement as an emphasis in the teachereducation curriculum. State restrictions on the number of course units allowed in teachereducation programs are one component of this deficiency (Shartrand et al., 1997).
Flanigan (2007) found that faculty in colleges of education highlighted such deficitsin preservice training, as well, despite almost all faculty agreeing that such training isimportant (Epstein & Sanders, 2006). Generally, college of education faculty stressed theneed for parent involvement-specific coursework in preservice training programs as well
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
136 A. L. Brown et al.
as the use of additional training aids such as videos of school personnel working withparents, speakers, and exposure to relevant research. In light of the dearth of adequateparent involvement training in preservice educator training programs, leading scholars inthe field, such as Hiatt-Michael (2006), have recommended that researchers and profes-sional educators ‘‘team together’’ (p. 13) to provide and evaluate a parent involvementcomponent in all preservice teacher education programs.
Alarmingly, such training is often unavailable in preservice training programs for K–12 teachers (although early childhood certification programs do train teachers in skillsfor working with parents) (Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Shartrand et al., 1997). Broussard(2000) surveyed colleges of education (COEs) across the United States and their findingsdemonstrated that 92% of educational degree programs in universities did not have family-friendly language in their missions. In addition, less than 6% of elementary and middleschool teacher preparation programs required students to learn about families throughtheir coursework. Hinz, Clarke, and Nathan (1992) found that only half of the colleges anduniversities in Minnesota offered courses related to parent involvement. Epstein (2005) alsofound that in a sample of 161 leaders in schools and departments of education, althoughthe large majority of those surveyed ‘‘strongly agreed’’ that teachers should be prepared toimplement parent involvement programs, there were not enough courses available to allprospective educators. Leaders felt that overall, their graduates were ‘‘poorly prepared’’(p. 128) to conduct partnerships despite the fact that over half of the respondents statedtheir department or school offered a full course on family involvement (an improvementover research from the 1990s) and 92% had a course that addressed parent involvement inat least one class session (Epstein & Sanders, 2006). In a survey of the 172 teacher educationproviders in Texas, including 78 university and 94 alternative providers, Harris, Jacobson,and Nathans (2012) found Texas teachers generally endorsed the importance of includingparent involvement in teacher education curriculum. They demonstrated knowledge ofspecific ways that parent involvement was important, including (a) facilitation of the child’slearning, (b) helping students succeed, (c) supporting a positive student attitude towardsschool, and (d) improvement in students’ academic achievement. Nevertheless, parents’stress on importance of parent involvement did not translate into easily articulated programpractices. Most programs did not offer a parent involvement course; rather, they addressedparent involvement topics through topical material in an introductory course or module orthrough a final field experience. Training that is provided does not address all issues salientto effective parent involvement in sufficient depth. For example, Epstein and Sandersfound that parent involvement courses stressed some topics significant to facilitating parentinvolvement, such as how to conduct a parent–teacher conference, how to organize andinvolve volunteers, and how to work with parents on school decision-making teams, but noton such important areas as how to design interactive parent–student homework, how tocreate newsletters, or how to conduct parent workshops. Shartrand et al. (1997) noted thatwhen programs do incorporate family involvement issues into coursework, they typicallyutilize discussions and required reading to convey information rather than more in-depthapplication of parent involvement principles to creation of relevant programming. Epstein(2005) stressed the importance of adequate preparation at the preservice level, as inserviceeducators must compensate for this lack of training once teachers begin full-time teachingpositions.
Research has demonstrated that parent involvement can be impacted by trainingteachers in parent involvement techniques. Students who completed parent involvementcoursework in the forms of (a) parent involvement courses, (b) observations, (c) inter-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Parent Teacher Education Connection 137
actions with parents, (d) attendance at parent meetings, or (e) attendance at sessionson the topic feel better prepared and are more confident in their abilities to employsuch strategies in their classrooms (McBride, 1991; Morris, Taylor, Knight, & Wasson,1996; Tichenor, 1997; Uludag, 2008). Parent involvement coursework increases preserviceteachers’ knowledge of how to effectively implement multiple forms of parent involvement,as well. For example, Katz and Bauch (1999) demonstrated that at least two-thirds ofundergraduate preservice teachers who took a parent involvement course felt preparedto implement introductory activities, written and recorded communication, volunteering,parent teacher conferences, phone calls, home visits, committees, and special needs meet-ings after course completion. They also recognized the importance of all of these activitiesin fostering student learning outcomes. Overall, they rated themselves as ‘‘very prepared’’to implement parent involvement strategies more than students who did not take thecourse. Notably, the majority of students still desired more training in parent involvement.Hoover-Dempsey, Walker, Jones, and Reed (2002) conducted parent involvement trainingwith inservice teachers and found that teachers increased both their own sense of efficacyand trust in parents’ efficacy for assisting in learning tasks. In short, parent involvementcoursework can positively impact preservice teachers’ preparation to implement parentinvolvement activities across multiple types of parent involvement.
Barriers to systematic inclusion of parent and family involvement in teacher educationare numerous. In the 1990s, they included the reluctance of the profession to embraceparents as integral to the educative process, viewed by Shartrand et al. (1997) as a vestigeof the struggle for professional autonomy. Another barrier is lack of agreement aboutwhere this content should fit into the highly state-regulated teacher education curricu-lum. Although early childhood and special education faculty, who usually teach parentinvolvement in their curriculum, they often are isolated from other teacher educationfaculty. Faculty who teach courses in the more mainstream elementary or secondary teacherpreparations programs may lack knowledge of models for addressing family engagementin the preservice teacher education curriculum and are often unaware of the research inthis field (Shartrand et al., 1997).
Questions about where content about family engagement should fit in the curricu-lum have begun to be answered. Professional educators commonly raise three questions(Greenwood & Hickman, 1991):
� Should the family engagement content be infused or offered in stand-alone courses?� Should the content or courses be required or elective?� Should the content focus on the general school population or on multicultural or special
populations?
Greene, a respondent in the Harvard Family Research Project (2006), took a stand onthe first of these options, stating that content should be woven throughout the teacherpreparation program. Similarly, Horsch (1997) suggested that training should be availablethrough a number of courses across the curricula.
Parent Teacher Education Connection Curriculum
To address the need for parent involvement curriculum, professional educators from fourdistinctively different universities collaborated in development and implementation of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
138 A. L. Brown et al.
the Web-based Parent Teacher Education Connection (PTE Connect) curriculum. Theassumption made in curriculum development was that teachers are motivated by theirknowledge of the benefits of parent involvement and by positive attitudes toward partner-ships with parents in supporting children’s learning. The curriculum was based on theframework of the National PTA Standards (1998). These standards focus on six types ofschool programming that contribute to a comprehensive program for parent involvement(Epstein, 2001). Modules of the curriculum were intended for infusion into existingcourses of PreK–12 teacher preparation programs. The curriculum won the 2007 AmericanAssociation of Colleges of Teacher Education award for Best Practices in the Use ofTechnology.
The PTE Connection was designed to introduce parental engagement into the preser-vice teacher education curriculum through infusion of content and skill development intoexisting courses. Development of the curriculum began with a grant from the MetropolitanLife Foundation to the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE)in 2002 and continued with a grant from the Fund for the Improvement of PostsecondaryEducation (FIPSE) from 2003 to 2007. An interdisciplinary team of teacher educatorsdeveloped a resource that includes six Web-based modules. Each module was based on oneof the National PTA Standards (1998) representing the types of school programming forparent involvement identified by Epstein (1991): communicating with families, developingparenting skills, learning at home, volunteering in the school, advocacy and decisionmaking on behalf of children, and collaborating with the community. The components ofeach module include: statements of goals and objectives, presentation of content relatedto that particular aspect of family involvement, presentation of cross-cultural case studies,activities suggested to promote discussion and application of content and related skills inreal and simulated settings, and lists of references and teacher-designed resources.
PTE Connect Curriculum Components
Class Discussion
One prevalent instructional method for students in higher education is class discus-sion. It is touted as promoting the intellectual development (Schmoker, 2007) necessaryto advance an argument using evidence (Conley, 2005). Sparks (2005) promoted the useof writing as the most effective discussion tool to advance learner clarification of theirconstruction of knowledge by noting inconsistencies and logical flaws in an argument.
Online discussions, by nature, are presented in written format. Research has shownthat such discussion is useful in promoting interaction, providing real world applications,and deepening understanding course objectives (Edelstein & Edwards, 2002; Palloff &Pratt, 1999; Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2003). Moreover, virtual study groupsencourage learning when technology activities, social interaction, and guided instructionare present (Tu & Corry, 2002). It is the instructor’s responsibility to evaluate the quantityand quality of learning taking place when students are involved in online discussions.A study completed by Wickersham and Dooley (2006) included 30 graduate studentswhose discussions were analyzed using a framework consisting of 10 attributes. Participantswere not aware of the analysis of their discussion postings using the framework. Findingsindicated that all groups were involved in critical thinking within their group discussions,and a high amount of interaction occurred within each group. Furthermore, while eachgroup presented several novel ideas that were convergent, divergent novel ideas also
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Parent Teacher Education Connection 139
advanced the discussions. When divergent topics were presented, the parameters of thetopic were still maintained by groups. The PTE Connect curriculum, particularly the casestudies, was designed to be a catalyst for class discussion that encourages critical thinking.
Case Studies
Case studies are one way problem-based learning can be implemented with preserviceteachers and are an effective way to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Accord-ing to Sudzina (1997), case studies provide access to authentic experiences ‘‘requiringa constructivist, problem-based approach to learning’’ (p. 199). Sudzina suggested thatteachers should provide problems for learners to solve, respect all points of view, andrecognize that substantive learning may take place over time as a result of confusion andconflict.
Case study analysis facilitates preservice teachers’ reflection on teaching. Floyd andBodur (2006) reported that the case study analysis method established a problem-posing,dialogical, and empowering environment by presenting preservice teachers with problem-atic situations that arise in teaching. These situations were embedded contextually withno one right answer. This format allowed preservice teachers to define problems, identifyalternatives, choose a course of action, plan for implementation, and consider the possibleconsequences of a given action. The results of the study showed that preservice teachersconstructed multiple perspectives, considered contextual factors in decision making, andacknowledged and examined beliefs about teaching and learning. The case study approachfacilitated the social construction of knowledge about teaching and learning.
The discussion of case studies encourages students to be active learners. Kreber (2001)proposed that experiential learning using case studies fostered higher-level learning, suchas critical thinking ability and self-direction. Discussions about cases foster meaning makingwith others, transform students’ collective understanding, and generate higher levels ofcognitive reasoning (Llinares & Valls, 2009).
Sudzina and Kilbane (1992) initiated a study of preservice teachers, which resultedin findings that participants were able to assume teacher perspectives in problem solvingafter going through the process of analyzing cases. Sudzina (1997) reported that the casestudy method provided a link between learner’s knowledge of educational theory to theirfield experiences and offered students an opportunity to reach praxis.
Method
Participants and Context
The study involved the use of the Parent Teacher Education Curriculum with undergrad-uate teacher candidates at four public universities located in rural and urban locationsin the middle United States and identified as South-Urban, North, Southwest, and South-Rural. The project included four partner universities whose commitment included helpingto develop and field test the curriculum in ethnically, geographically, and technologicallydiverse contexts. Each site brought to the study a commitment to promote school, family,and community involvement in the curriculum as well as experience working with schoolpartners that served students of diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. Of thefour universities, (a) three were National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education(NCATE) accredited, (b) three were of similar size serving approximately 10,000 students,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
140 A. L. Brown et al.
(c) all involved candidates in field experiences at professional development schools, and(d) all were working to include parent and family involvement in their curricula. The targetaudiences were candidates preparing to teach at any level, elementary, middle school, orhigh school, and in any subject, including the fine arts and physical education as well asthe core academic subjects. The target audience also included candidates for licensure inbilingual, English as a Second Language, or special education. These candidates mightfind themselves teaching in urban, rural, or suburban schools, and they would surely beteaching students from families diverse in ethnicity, culture, religion, country of origin,home language, and in many other ways.
A quasi-experimental research design was used in the study since participants wereselected from intact courses offered as a part of the teacher education program at eachof the four universities. The total number of participants in the study at all four siteswas 1,658. Teacher candidates participating in the study at all sites were identified byethnicity as 6.3% African American, 0.3% Asian, 28.8% Latino, 62.3% White, and 2.1%other. Of the candidates 15.1% were male and 84.9% were female. A majority (60.7%)were preparing to teach grades EC-4, 20.7% grades 4–8 (middle school), 12.5% grades8–12 (high school), and 6% art, music, or physical education at all levels (EC-12). Mostcandidates were working toward initial teacher certification at the baccalaureate level,but 7.5% were post-baccalaureate candidates. Some of the candidates were enrolled inbilingual, English as a Second Language, or special education certification programs.
The Treatment
Partner universities integrated the PTE curriculum modules into their teacher educationprograms in different ways. Sample lesson plans were provided, which included discussionof case studies and cooperative group design of products of learning. Teaching andcurricular practices were documented by monthly telephone conferences by project leadersat each site, site visits of project leaders to each university, and annual written reportsfrom participating faculty. At one of the sites, all teaching of the modules was done by agraduate student who used consistent methods of presentation across classes of candidatesin methods of teaching courses taken the semester before student teaching. At anotheruniversity, the teaching was accomplished mainly online, which assured consistency inpresentation as part of a families, schools, and communities course that was taken earlyin the teacher education program. At the two other universities faculty documented useof the lesson plans but with less consistency than at the first two sites and with greateremphasis on application of learning in the schools. At one of these institutions, thePTE Connect curriculum was used in a methods block preceding student teaching, andstudents were engaged in planning family learning nights that combined knowledge gainedin methods courses with knowledge of family involvement. At the fourth university, thePTE Connect curriculum was presented as part of a seminar that accompanies studentteaching. As a culminating experience of the seminar, candidates presented an outreachnight sponsored by the district’s family outreach center. Goals of the outreach event werebased on an annual needs assessment jointly conducted by school and university. Thesedifferent approaches to use of the PTE Connect curriculum were common in infusionof parent involvement content into the existing teacher education curriculum in spiteof a focus on different grade levels, school situations (rural, urban), and presentingissues.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Parent Teacher Education Connection 141
Assessment Measures
Knowledge of Parent Involvement
Changes in candidate knowledge about the six types of parent involvement were testedwith pre- and post-assessments for each of the six modules. Each assessment consisted of 20multiple choice and true/false items and was developed by project personnel on the basisof module content and objectives. The knowledge assessments were revised after an itemanalysis of assessments of teacher candidates who participated in pilot studies in 2002–2004. Construct validity for the assessment was confirmed by several experts in the fieldof parent involvement and education. Internal consistency reliability of the assessment wasdetermined using the Kuder-Richardson 20 (KR-20) coefficient, which is the special case ofCronbach’s alpha for test items scored ‘‘0’’ or ‘‘1’’ (wrong or right). Each item was scored‘‘0’’ if it was incorrect or ‘‘1’’ if it was correct before computing the KR-20 coefficient. Usingthe standard reliability coefficient of .4, all of the assessments possess at least a reasonablereliability for dichotomous data. Table 1 displays the reliability coefficients for each of thesix knowledge assessments as well as a few sample items. The pre- and post-knowledgeassessment instruments were identical.
TABLE 1 Reliability Coefficients for the Six Knowledge Assessments
MeasureKR-20
coefficient Sample items
Advocacy anddecision making
.64 Teachers can improve parent decision-making practicesby: (a) Keeping parents informed of district policies.(b) Inviting school personnel to address groups ofparents. (c) Encouraging parents to share opinions.(d) All of the above.
Collaborating withthe community
.54 A community partner: (a) must be a non-profit agency,(b) contributes regularly to school programs,(c) provides assistance to unwed mothers, (d) workstoward a common goal with educators.
Communicating .37 E-mail messages solve communication problems becausethey are fast and invite two-way communication. (T/F)
Learning at home .37 Which is the most important benefit of parents helpingtheir children learn at home? (a) Parents are expertson the subject matter. (b) There is a specific place tostudy. (c) The television is off. (d) Parents learnabout their child’s school learning experience.
Parenting .63 Parents from all cultures embrace individualism andexpect an emphasis on individual accomplishments inschool. (T/F)
Volunteering .38 To encourage volunteers, teachers should plan for all ofthe following EXCEPT: (a) Training individuals forworking in schools. (b) Providing flexible scheduling.(c) Creating opportunities for at-home projects.(d) Choosing individuals who only speak English.
Note. Standard KR-20 coefficient D .40.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
142 A. L. Brown et al.
Attitudes About Parent Involvement
Changes in candidate attitude about parent involvement were assessed using theAttitude Towards Parent Involvement Survey, designed by Epstein, Connors-Tadros, and Salinas(1993) for use with inservice teachers. The survey asks teachers to report the importance ofvarious parent involvement activities using a Likert scale with ‘‘1’’ being ‘‘not important’’and ‘‘4’’ being ‘‘very important.’’ The survey questions are divided into two sections.The first section contains 15 items and asks teachers to rate the importance of parentinvolvement activities teachers use with students. The second section also contains 15items, but asks teachers to rate the importance of parent involvement activities they feelparents of children in their classrooms should employ. Reliability for the entire instrumentwas calculated at 0.96. In order to identify the factor structure for the Attitude Towards
Parent Involvement Survey, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed revealingthree distinct factors. Table 2 displays the factor loadings for each of the items on themeasure. Factor I represented attitudes toward activities where the parent and teacherworked together as partners in the child’s learning and was named Parents and Teachersas Partners in Learning (16 items; a D 0.939). Items on Factor II, Teacher InitiatedPartnership Activities, represented attitudes toward activities planned or initiated by theteacher to facilitate parent involvement in the child’s learning (10 items; a D .880). FactorIII, Parent Initiated Community and School-wide Partnership Activities (5 items; a D .851)was based on how important teachers feel it is for parents to engage in partnership activitieswith their child at school and in the community.
Procedure and Data Analyses
During the first week of each of the teacher education courses included in the study,all of the preservice teacher candidates completed the Attitude Towards Parent Involvement
Survey and the knowledge assessment for each of the PTE Connect modules they wouldbe studying during that course. Upon completion of each module, the participants tookthe corresponding post-assessment of knowledge. The average time between pre- and post-administration of the knowledge assessments was 6 weeks. At the end of each semester theparticipants again completed the Attitude Towards Parent Involvement Survey.
Data for the knowledge assessments were analyzed using both univariate and multi-variate approaches. The univariate analysis used paired-samples t-tests to determine if thepre- and post-treatment means for each of the six individual knowledge assessments weresignificantly different. The multivariate approach considered the six knowledge assessmentstaken before or after treatment as one construct called Knowledge. Using the individualknowledge assessments as the dependent variables and time of administration (pre- or post-treatment) as the independent variable, a one-way MANOVA was conducted to determineif there was a significant change in Knowledge.
Data for the Attitude Towards Parent Involvement Survey also was analyzed using bothunivariate and multivariate approaches. The univariate analysis used paired-samples t-tests to determine if the pre- and post-treatment means for each of the three individualattitude factors were significantly different. The multivariate approach considered the threeattitude factors taken before or after treatment as one construct called Attitude. Using theindividual attitude factors as the dependent variables and time of administration (pre-or post-treatment) as the independent variable, a one-way MANOVA was conducted todetermine if there was a significant change in Attitude.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Parent Teacher Education Connection 143
TABLE 2 Factor Structure of Attitudes Toward Parent Involvement Measure
Item description
Partnersin
learning
Teacher-initiatedactivities
Parent-initiatedactivities Communalities
Teacher responsibilitiesOne parent conference .60 .31 .19 .49Include students in conferences .16 .53 .19 .34Attendance at evening events .29 .44 .36 .41Contact parents with problems .72 .30 .13 .63Inform parents of child progress .65 .40 .18 .61Involve parents as volunteers .44 .41 .38 .52Inform parents of required skills .64 .36 .13 .55Inform parents of grading
procedures.52 .27 .00 .35
Teach parents how to discusslearning with child
.41 .65 .21 .64
Specific activities for parents toraise grades
.42 .69 .12 .67
Homework involving family athome
.26 .68 .21 .57
Parent involvement collaboratingwith other teachers
.36 .60 .28 .57
School policy committees withparents
.15 .60 .47 .61
Request info from parents aboutchild skills
.34 .52 .30 .48
Work with community to improvestudent programs
.26 .51 .42 .51
Parent responsibilitiesSet quiet place for home studying .68 .23 .34 .62Know what child expected to learn .71 .30 .26 .66Regularly check homework .75 .23 .28 .70Talk at home about class with
student.69 .31 .32 .67
Encourage class participation .54 .43 .32 .58Ask teachers about how to discuss
homework.40 .55 .34 .59
Attend assemblies and otherschool events
.45 .20 .57 .58
Talk to child about importance ofschool
.73 .21 .32 .68
Monitor progress in each subject .70 .23 .30 .63Help child balance homework
with other activities.69 .18 .35 .63
Volunteer at school .27 .31 .74 .72Join parent
organization/committee.17 .30 .80 .76
Encourage child participation incommunity
.28 .32 .69 .65
Help child plan for future .56 .23 .50 .62
Note. Items in bold loaded for that particular factor.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
144 A. L. Brown et al.
Results
Knowledge
Results of the univariate analysis of knowledge scores indicated significant changes betweenpre- and post-test scores for all six assessments (p < .001). The possible range on each of theknowledge measures was 0–100, with higher scores indicating higher levels of knowledge.Previous to these analyses, tests of skewness and kurtosis indicated no substantial deviationsfrom normality according to the cutoff values of 2 for skewness and 7 for kurtosis (Curran,West, & Finch, 1996). The results for each of the paired-samples t-tests as well as theeffect size are displayed in Table 3. The effect size was calculated using the Cohen’sd in order to convey the strength of the relationship between the pre- and post-testscores.
Preliminary analyses revealed that the assumptions of multivariate normality andequality of variance/covariance matrices were met. A one-way MANOVA revealed a sig-nificant multivariate main effect for the time of the assessment administration (pre- orpost-administration), Wilks’ � D .613, F(6, 449) D 47.308, p < .001, partial eta squared D
.387. This suggested that overall Knowledge increased significantly from pre- to post-administration (see Table 4).
Attitudes
Attitude scores for preservice teacher candidates increased significantly at the .001 levelon Factor II and Factor III and at the .05 level for Factor I. The possible range on theeach of the knowledge measures was 1–4, with higher scores indicating a more positiveattitude. Previous to these analyses, tests of skewness and kurtosis indicated no substantialdeviations from normality according to the cutoff values of 2 for skewness and 7 for kurtosis(Curran et al., 1996). The results for each of the paired-samples t-tests are displayed inTable 5. The effect size was again calculated using the Cohen’s d and is also displayed inTable 5.
TABLE 3 Results of Paired Samples t-tests Between Pre- and Post-Assessments of Knowledge for thePTE Connection Modules
Pre Post
Assessment n M SD M SD t p
Cohen’sd
Advocacy & decision-making 319 76.22 13.43 84.67 13.52 �9.13 <.001 0.63Collaborating with the community 359 66.92 11.15 79.21 16.02 �12.82 <.001 0.89Communicating 465 72.98 12.54 80.21 16.41 �9.03 <.001 0.49Learning at home 441 71.36 13.18 77.96 17.11 �7.56 <.001 0.43Parenting 416 74.00 12.25 83.50 14.31 �11.82 <.001 0.71Volunteering 272 82.11 11.15 85.37 16.02 �3.87 <.001 0.26
Note. PTE D Parent Teacher Education.
The general conventions for the labeling of effect sizes are as follows: .2 is small, .5 is medium, and .8 is large.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Parent Teacher Education Connection 145
TABLE 4 Results of MANOVA for Six Knowledge Assessment Scores by Pre- andPost-Administration
Source df Mean square F �2
Advocacy 1 8,557.26 47.21* .09Time 1 8,557.26 47.21* .09Advocacy � Time 1 2,998,588.84 16,542.93* .97Advocacy � Time error 454 181.26 — —Collaborating 1 41,504.74 206.59* .31Time 1 41,504.74 206.59* .31Collaborating � Time 1 2,733,417.02 13,605.87* .97Collaborating � Time error 454 200.90 — —Communicating 1 5,054.32 29.74* .06Time 1 5,054.32 29.74* .06Communicating � Time 1 2,917,961.82 17,166.42* .97Communicating � Time error 454 169.98 — —Learning 1 19,224.67 137.94* .23Time 1 19,224.67 137.94* .23Learning � Time 1 2,981,146.40 21,390.00* .98Learning � Time Error 454 139.37 — —Parenting 1 17,286.18 103.71* .19Time 1 17,286.18 103.71* .19Parenting � Time 1 3,081,462.50 18,487.56* .98Parenting � Time Error 454 166.68 — —Volunteering 1 4,112.44 31.57* .07Time 1 4,112.44 31.57* .07Volunteering � Time 1 3,406,570.77 26,149.03* .98Volunteering � Time Error 454 130.28 — —
Note. MANOVA D multivariate analysis of variance.
*p < .001.
Preliminary analyses revealed that the assumptions of multivariate normality andequality of variance/covariance matrices were met. A one-way MANOVA revealed a signif-icant multivariate main effect for the time of the assessment administration (pre- or post-administration), Wilks’ � D .982, F(3, 1548) D 9.65, p < .001, partial eta squared D .018.This suggested that overall Attitude increased significantly from pre- to post-administration(see Table 6).
Discussion
This study addressed the need in preservice teacher education for demonstration of theimpact of a systematic curriculum that addresses teacher practices related to parent in-volvement and can be employed flexibly across the curriculum. Four universities thatwere geographically dispersed and served different types of public school communitiesdeveloped the PTE Connect curriculum and employed it over a period of three years in avariety of preservice teacher education programs. Data were collected from 1,658 teachercandidates who completed the module(s) of the curriculum in courses in which theywere embedded. Although a common lesson plan was employed, the means and context
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
146 A. L. Brown et al.
TABLE 5 Results of Independent Samples t-test Between Pre- and Post-Attitude Toward ParentInvolvement Survey Scores by Factors
Pre Post
Factor N M SD M SD t p
Cohen’sd
Factor I 616 3.45 .51 4.48 .51 �2.41 .016 2.02Factor II 616 3.06 .57 3.20 .57 �6.25 <.001 0.25Factor III 616 3.14 .61 3.24 .60 �4.05 <.001 0.17
Note. The general conventions for the labeling of effect sizes are as follows: .2 is small, .5 is medium, and .8 is
large.
of module delivery varied by institution. Results of knowledge and attitude assessmentsadministered before and after use of the modules showed significant improvement inknowledge and attitudes across all settings.
Comparing the findings of this study with earlier work requires separate considerationof candidate attitudes and knowledge. Findings from this study about preservice teachers’confidence in their ability to engage parents (attitude) are consistent with those of Katzand Bauch (1999), McBride (1991), Morris et al. (1996), Tichenor (1997), and Uludag(2008). This study varied from earlier work in its use of Epstein’s attitude assessmentinstrument, originally developed for inservice teachers, and its identification of factorswithin the instrument, each of which was found to be improved to a statistically significantextent by use of the PTE Connect curriculum. Of these three factors, one, Teacher InitiatedPartnership Activities, is believed to be most similar to the measures used in the earlierstudies cited. Earlier studies have not examined the use of a parent involvement curriculumon candidate learning of content, so this is a unique contribution. In this regard, the
TABLE 6 Results of MANOVA for Three Attitude Factors by Pre- andPost-Administration
Source df
Meansquare F �2
Factor 1 1 2.01 8.08* .01Time 1 2.01 8.08* .01Factor 1 � Time 1 17,794.43 71,462.50** .98Factor 1 � Time error 1,550 0.25 — —Factor 2 1 4.36 <.001 <.001Time 1 4.36 <.001 <.001Factor 2 � Time 1 14,526.23 45,046.82** .97Factor 2 � Time error 1,550 0.32 — —Factor 3 1 .07 .18 <.001Time 1 .07 .18 <.001Factor 3 � Time 1 15,318.15 43,519.17** .97Factor 3 � Time error 1,550 0.36 — —
Note. MANOVA D multivariate analysis of variance.
*p < .05, **p < .001.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Parent Teacher Education Connection 147
current study showed that teacher candidates experienced significant knowledge gainsfrom pre- to posttest after studying the PTE Connection Modules as they were embeddedin various courses of their teacher education curricula.
Beyond this, it should be noted that the PTE Connect curriculum took a stand onsome of the issues raised by Shartrand et al. (1997) by its presentation in modules that couldbe embedded into the teacher education curriculum, its use in courses that were requiredin the teacher education programs of which they were a part, and its inclusion in coursesspecifically for regular education teacher candidates, although some of the courses werealso required in special education or bilingual education/English as a Second Language(ESL) programs. These and other parameters of use of the curriculum were acceptedby teacher educators at the pilot university sites. This may be because the curriculumsupported the constructivist view of most teacher education programs through its use ofcase studies and group discussions as a means of student knowledge development. Otherreasons for faculty acceptance of the curriculum may have been its association with theNational PTA Standards and the foundation of the standards on the well-known work ofEpstein and others at the Center for the Social Organization of Schools (Epstein, 1983,1991, 1992, 2001, 2005; Epstein et al., 1993; Epstein & Sanders, 2006).
Like Hiatt-Michael (2001), the Harvard Family Research Study also found that teachereducators committed to inclusion of parent involvement within the teacher educationcurriculum tended to employ as teaching strategies the use of case study, role-play, andvideo. Research indicates that teaching cases studies can offer teacher candidates a varietyof opportunities to expand and extend their teaching skills, problem-solving abilities, andgrasp of contemporary issues in classrooms (Sudzina, 1997). This work also begins toaddress the call of the Harvard Family Research Project for assessment of promising modelsand strategies for addressing parent involvement within the teacher education curriculumand for evaluation of the types of experiences and outcomes that prepare teachers to workwith parents.
A number of questions remain unanswered by our study as reported here. Oneunanswered question is about variation by university. In spite of provision and use of acommon lesson plan for instruction across the universities, there was variation in modesof content delivery, course in the program in which the various modules were presented,and in the context or approach of the various programs to teacher education. At oneof the universities the modules were delivered online. At two of the universities, use ofthe PTE Connect curriculum was supplemented by significant experiential componentsthat involved teacher candidates directly with parents. This study does not look at possiblevariations in knowledge or attitude change related to these factors, nor does it addressthe more important question about how the increased knowledge and improved attitudesof the candidates may be related to the quality of their engagement of parents in theirteaching experience after graduation. There is a need for future research on how preserviceteacher knowledge and attitude gains related to parent involvement translate into futurepractice as teachers.
The examination of skills related to parent involvement is often difficult within thecontext of preservice teacher education due to reluctance of many mentor teachers toinclude student teachers in parent conferences or other interactions with parents. Theconstruct of this study examined changes in knowledge and attitude, but did not followup with an examination of skills.
Additional work needs to be done in developing and evaluating validity and reliabilityof assessments used for examining knowledge and skills of teacher candidates in parental
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
148 A. L. Brown et al.
involvement. Although a published instrument for assessing attitudes was used, its priorapplication was with inservice teachers. Stronger instrumentation and follow-up study ofapplication of knowledge and attitudes by engagement of parents later in the teachingcareer are needed to help teacher educators make the decision to afford this contentattention in an already crowded teacher education curriculum.
Since the initial development of the PTE Connect Curriculum, PTA National Stan-dards for Parent Involvement have been updated (www.pta.org). In response, the PTEConnect curriculum has been updated and can be viewed at www.pte.unt.edu. This cur-riculum, based on scholarship and conclusions of a national dialogue, offers authentictasks and resources for preservice teachers that can be shared with wider professionalcommunities that include inservice teachers and administrations, parents and other familymembers, and representatives of school communities. The current study demonstrates theimpact of the curriculum on candidate knowledge and attitudes when it is integratedwithin the preservice teacher education curriculum. More work is needed to demonstratethe potential of this and similarly constructed curriculum to expand knowledge, skills, andattitudes to promote parent and teacher partnership in a variety of American public schoolsettings. The value of such partnership is amply demonstrated by research, so the need inthis field is more for the will and the resources to assure its construction.
References
Ames, C., Khoju, M., & Watkins, T. (1993). Parent involvement: The relationship between school-to-home
communication and parents’ perceptions and beliefs. Urbana, IL: Center on Families, Communities,Schools, and Children’s Learning. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED362271.pdf
Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment. Chil-
dren and Youth Services Review, 26, 39–62. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2003.11.2002Bartels, S., & Eskow, K. (2010). Training school professionals to engage families: A pilot Univer-
sity/State department of education partnership. The School Community Journal, 20(2), 45–71.Broussard, A. C. (2000). Preparing teachers to work with families: A national survey of teacher
education programs. Equity and Excellence in Education, 33, 41–49.Charles A. Dana Center, University of Texas at Austin (1999). Hope for urban education: A study
of nine high-performing urban elementary schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa-tion, Planning and Evaluation Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED438362).Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/urbanhope/
Chavkin, N. F., & Williams, D. L., Jr. (1988). Critical issues in teacher training for parent involvement.Educational Horizons, 66(2), 87–89.
Cheung, C. S., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2011). Parents’ involvement in children’s learning in theUnited States and China: Implications for children’s academic and emotional adjustment. Child
Development, 82(3), 932–950. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624-2011.015825.xConley, D. (2005). College knowledge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Cox, D. D. (2005). Evidence-based interventions using home-school collaboration. School Psychology
Quarterly, 20(4), 473–497. doi:10.1521/scpq.2005.20.4.473Curran, P. J., West, S. G, & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and
specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29.Edelstein, S., & Edwards, J. (2002). If you build it, they will come: Building learning communities
through threaded discussions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(1). Retrievedfrom http://www.westga.edu/�distance/ojdla/spring51/edelstein51.html
El-Nokali, N. E., Bachman, H. J., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2010). Parent involvement and children’sacademic and social development in elementary school. Child Development, 81(3), 988–1005.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Parent Teacher Education Connection 149
Epstein, J. (1991). Effects on student achievement of teachers’ practices of parent involvement.Advances in Reading/Language Research, 5, 261–276.
Epstein, J. L. (1983). Effects on parents of teacher practices of parent involvement. Baltimore, MD: Centerfor Social Organization of Schools.
Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships (Report No. 6). Baltimore, MD: Center on Families,Communities, and Schools.
Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Epstein, J. L. (2005). Links in the professional development chain: Preservice and inservice educationfor effective programs of school, family, and community partnerships. New Educator, 1(2), 125–141.
Epstein, J. L., Connors-Tadros, L. J., & Salinas, K. C. (1993). Attitude toward parent involvement survey.
Baltimore, MD: Center on Families, Communities, Schools and Children’s Learning.Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school,
family, and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(2), 81–120. doi:10.1027/S15327930pje81025
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1–22.
Flanigan, C. B. (2007). Preparing preservice teachers to partner with parents and communities: Ananalysis of college of education faculty focus groups. The School Community Journal, 17(2), 89–109.
Floyd, D. M., & Bodur, Y. (2006). Using case study analysis and case writing to structure clinicalexperiences in a teacher education program. The Educational Forum, 70(1), 48–60.
Froiland, J. M., Peterson, A., & Davison, M. L. (2013). The long-term effects of early parent involve-ment and parent expectation in the USA. School Psychology International, 34(1), 33–50. doi:10.1177/0143034312454361
Garcia, D. C. (2004). Exploring connections between the construct of teacher efficacy and familyinvolvement practices: Implications for urban teacher preparation. Urban Education, 39(3), 290–315. doi:10.1177/0042085904263205
Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., Willems, P. P., & Holbein, M. F. D. (2005). Examining the relationshipbetween parental involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 99–123. doi:10.1007/s10648-005-3949-7
Greenwood, G., & Hickman, C. (1991). Research and practice in parent involvement: Implicationsfor teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 279–288.
Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: A multidi-mensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65(1), 237–252. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00747.x
Hara, S. R., & Burke, D. J. (1998). Parent involvement: The key to improved student achievement.The School Community Journal, 8(2), 9–19.
Harris, M., Jacobson, A. L., & Nathans, L. (2012). Parent and family involvement: Are teachereducation students in Texas prepared? TAFCS Research Journal, 4(1), 5–6.
Harvard Family Research Project. (2006). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.Retrieved from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/pubs/pubslist.html
Hiatt-Michael, D. (2001). Preparing teachers to work with parents (Report EDO-SP-2001-2). Washington,DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED460123)
Hiatt-Michael, D. B. (2004). Preparing teachers for parental involvement: Current practices andpossibilities across the nation. Thresholds in Education, 30(2), 2–10.
Hiatt-Michael, D. B. (2006). Reflections and directions on research related to family-communityinvolvement in schooling. The School Community Journal, 16(1), 7–30.
Hill, N., Baker, A., & Marjoribanks, K. (2004/2005). Perspectives on family involvement. EvaluationExchange. Retrieved from www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/eval/issue28/expert.html
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
150 A. L. Brown et al.
Hill, N., Castellino, D., Lansford, J., Nowlin, P., Dodge, D., Bates, J., & Petit, G. (2004). Parentacademic involvement as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations: Demographicvariations across adolescence. Child Development, 75(5), 1491–1509. (ERIC Document Reproduc-tion Service No. 14400881)
Hinz, L., Clarke, J., & Nathan, J. (1992). A survey of parent involvement course offerings in Minnesota’s
undergraduate teacher education preparation programs. Minneapolis, MN: Center for School Change.Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M., Jones, K. P., & Reed, R. P. (2002). Teachers Involving Parents
(TIP): An in-service teacher education program for enhancing parental involvement. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 18(7), 843–867.Horsch, K. (1997). HFRP’s research results: Teacher preparation in family involvement. Harvard
Family Research Project. Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/evaluation/the-evaluation-exchange/issue-archive/school-linked-services/hfrp-s-research-results-teacher-preparation-in-family-involvement
Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary schoolstudent academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82–110. doi:10.1177/0042085906293818
Katz, L., & Bauch, J. P. (1999). The Peabody family involvement initiative: Preparing preserviceteachers for family/school collaboration. School Community Journal, 9(1), 49–69.
Kerbow, D., & Bernhardt, A. (1993). Parental intervention in the school: The context of minorityinvolvement. In B. Schneider & J. Coleman (Eds.), Parents, their children, and schools (pp. 115–186).Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Kingston, S., Huang, K. Y., Calzada, E., Dawson-McClure, S., & Brotman, L. (2013). Parent involve-ment in education as a moderator of family and neighborhood socioeconomic context on schoolreadiness among young children. Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3), 265–276.
Kreber, C. (Ed.) (2001). New directions for teaching and learning, scholarship revisited: Perspectives on the
scholarship of teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Kuperminc, G. P., Darnell, A. J., & Alvarez-Jimenez, A. (2008). Parent involvement in the academic
adjustment of Latino middle and high school youth: Teacher expectations and school belongingas mediators. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 469–483. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.09.003
Llinares, S., & Valls, J. (2009). The building of preservice primary teachers’ knowledge of mathematicsteaching: Interaction and online video cases studies. Instructional Science, 37, 247–271.
Mayer, D. P., Mullins, J. E., & Moore, M. T. (2000). Monitoring school quality: An indicators report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED450473). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001030.pdf/
McBride, B. A. (1991). Preservice teachers’ attitudes towards parent involvement. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 18, 57–67.McWayne, C., Hampton, V., Fantuzzo, J., Cohen, H. L., & Sekino, Y. (2004). A multivariate exami-
nation of parent involvement and the social and academic competencies of urban kindergartenchildren. Psychology in the Schools, 41(3), 363–377. doi:10.1002/pits.10163
MetLife Survey of the American Teacher. (2006). Transitions and the role of supportive relationships.
Retrieved from http://www.metlife.com/WPSAssetsMorris, V., Taylor, S., Knight, J., & Wasson, R. (1996). Preparing teachers to reach out to families
and the community. Action in Teacher Education, 18(10), 10–22.National PTA. (1998). Building successful partnerships: A guide for developing parent and family involvement
programs. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.National PTA. (2000). Building successful partnerships: A guide for developing parent and family involvement
programs. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the
online classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Ratcliff, N., & Hunt, G. (2009). Building teacher-family partnerships: The role of teacher preparation
programs. Education, 129(3), 495–505.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Parent Teacher Education Connection 151
Schmoker, M. (2007). Radically redefining literacy instruction: An immense opportunity. Phi Delta
Kappan, 88(7), 488–493.Schneider, M., Teske, P., & Marschall, M. (2000). Choosing schools: Consumer choice and the quality of
American schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Shartrand, A. M., Weiss, H. B., Kreider, H. M., & Lopez, E. M. (1997). New skills for new schools:
Preparing teachers in family involvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2003). Teaching and learning at a distance:
Foundations of distance education (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.Sparks, D. (2005). Leading for results. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Stamp, L. N., & Groves, M. M. (1994). Strengthening the ethic of care: Planning and supporting
family involvement. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 22, 5–9.Stone, S. (2006). Correlates of change in student reported parent involvement in schooling: A new
look at the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
76(4), 518–530. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.76.4.518Sudzina, M. (1997). Case study as a constructivist; Pedagogy for teaching educational psychology.
Educational Psychology Review, 9(2), 199–260.Sudzina, M. R., & Kilbane, C. R. (1992, June). Applications of a case study text to undergraduate teacher
preparation. Paper presented at 9th International Conference of the World Association for CaseMethod Research and Application, Limerick, Ireland. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED350292.pdf
Tangri, S. (1987). Parents and the community. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educator’s handbook:
A research perspective (2nd ed., pp. 519--550). New York, NY: Longman.Tichenor, M. (1997). Teacher education and parent involvement: Reflections from preservice teach-
ers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 24, 233–239.Tu, C., & Corry, M. (2002). eLearning communities. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 207–
218.Uludag, A. (2008). Elementary preservice teachers’ opinions about parental involvement in elemen-
tary children’s education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 807–817.U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/
policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.htmlWickersham, L., & Dooley, K. (2006). A content analysis of critical thinking skills as an indicator of
quality of online discussion in virtual learning communities. Quarterly Review of Distance Education,
7(2), 185–193.Wyrick, A. J., & Rudasill, K. M. (2009). Parent involvement as a predictor of teacher-child rela-
tionship quality in third grade. Early Education and Development, 20(5), 845–864. doi:10.1080/10409280802582803
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cas
e W
este
rn R
eser
ve U
nive
rsity
] at
16:
45 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
