Parent Teacher Involvement on Child’s Academic Achievement

ABSTRACT:

The impact of parent teacher involvement on a child’s academic achievement has been researched for years with aims to improve the educational system. This dissertation study aims to investigate parent teacher involvement and the impact it has on a child’s academic achievement. This study involved 72 children with the mean age of 53 month. The children participated in a numeracy screener, while parents completed two questionnaires Parent Teacher Involvement (PTI) and Socioeconomic Status (SES). The results found that there was no significant correlation between Academic Achievement and Parent Teacher Involvement. Further analysis to the socio-economic status data found there to be a moderate correlation between parent qualification and symbolic academic achievement.

INTRODUCTION:

This dissertation study aims to investigate parent teacher involvement and the impact it has on a child’s academic achievement. Previous research suggests that there is a growing concern about the degree of which parents are involved in their child’s education (Bempechat, 1992; Fan & Chen, 2001; Hill et al, 2004; Hill & Taylor 2004; Jeynes 2003, Lee & Bowen, 2006; McIntyre et al, 2007; Muir, 2012; Sui-Chu & Willms 1993; Wilder, 2014). For example, Garbarino et al (1992) suggest that a strong home–school system is significant to a child’s achievement at school and overall development.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

Over the past two decades the idea that positive parental involvement may positively influence a student’s academic achievement has been greatly researched. Teachers, administrators and policy makers consider parental involvement to be one of the fundamental parts of new educations reform (Wilder, 2014). Warren and Young (2002) also believe that parental participation should be the foundation of school policy in order to create and maintain seamless links between home and school contexts.

According to research by Fan and Chen (1999) the majority of literature on the subject of parental involvement has not been clear and consistent. As Ho Sui-Chu and Willms (2000) explained parental involvement is multidimensional construct with multiple definitions. The operationally defined parental involvement has being parental aspirations for their children’s academic achievement, parents discussing such aspirations to their child, parent’s participation in school activities and communication with the school teachers about their child (Fan and Chen 2000). With this being said, there is evidence (Lee & Bowen, 2010; Jeynes 2003; Hill & Taylor 2004; Bempechat 1992) indicating that some dimensions of parental involvement have more noticeable effects on children’s academic achievement than others.

Fan and Chen conducted a meta-analysis across 25 studies that spanned over a 10-year period about the relationship between parental involvement and student’s academic achievement. Findings revealed a positive moderate relationship between academic achievement and parental involvement. Using moderator analysis found that the weakest relationship was found to be parental home supervision and the strongest relationship to be parental aspirations for their children’s education.Consistent with Fan and Chen (1999), Wilder (2014) found the relationship between parental involvement and academic achievement was positive. Showing the strongest relationship as parental expectations for academic achievement for their children. Parental expectations reflect the parent’s attitudes towards school, subjects and education in general, as children are likely to have similar attitudes as their parents. Therefore, having high parental expectations appears essential for academic achievement in children. The most surprising relationship was the weak relationship with homework assistance, as it’s the most commonly practiced at home involvement (Pezdek, Berry & Renno, 2002).

Fan and Chen (1999) also explained there are different indicators of academic achievement, from school Grade Point Average, to more specific indicators such as a standardized test scores in specific academic area such as maths.

Research by Muir (2012) investigated the perceptions held by parents in relation to mathematics educations and used an intervention program to encourage parents to engage in numeracy activities with their child. Results indicated that parents were not necessarily familiar with contemporary numeracy classroom practices. But they were able to describe and evaluate their children’s mathematic understanding. 79% of parents commented they were regularly engaged in numeracy-related activities with their child and 97% agreed that activities and games were an easy way to help their children learn mathematics. This study is important to show the necessary ways parents can support their child’s mathematical education at home through encouragement within the home-school partnership.

A study by Carmichael, MacDonald and McFarland-Piazza (2014) found that in relation to parent and child interactions, there was an impact on children’s academic outcomes. For example, Burchinal et al (2006) found that positive parent interactions were moderately associated with mathematic achievement in Grade 3.

Previous findings on the impact of parental support with homework has revealed mixed findings. For example, supporting a children’s influence to complete their homework was related to higher test scores and overall class grades. Whereas, direct involvement is related to lower test scores and overall class grades (Cooper et al., 2000; Patall et al., 2008). Indirect parent involvement in terms of homework supports academic achievement by encouraging parent’s communication of educational expectations for their children. This involvement in homework may support academic achievement by helping children with the ability to develop effective homework routines including time management, planning and setting goals (Zimmerman, 2000; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001).

Interestingly, Patall et al. (2008) found a positive association with academic outcomes in relation to  homework in verbal subjects; however, found a negative association in mathematics subjects, perhaps being a more difficult content area for parents to grasp.

A study by Warren and Young (2002) explain that there is little literature regarding numeracy development in children and parental involvement. Although the link between children’s numeracy, school and home is seen as significant (Kokoski & Downing-Leffer, 1995). Warren and Young (2002) state that parents commonly believe that mathematics teaching should come from a professional and the success is based on accuracy and speed. Newman and Goldin (1990) describe children perceive mathematics as more difficult than reading, which increased with grade level. As children get older, they seek help with mathematics from a teacher rather than a parent. This could be due to parent’s lack of confidence with mathematics or their understanding. Thus, the role parents play within their children’s learning changes according to the child’s maturity and discipline in the subject.

Carmichael et al (2014) found links between parental socio-economic status and children’s academic outcomes, particularly in relation to numeracy scores. Rimm-Kaufman et al. (2003) found that higher family socio-economic status was related to higher numeracy ratings for kindergarten children, as reported by teacher. Sirin (2005) also reported a moderate relationship with children’s academic achievement and socio-economic status in mathematics. Carmichael et al (2014) found the socio-economic position of the family was positively related with mathematic outcome.

A meta-analysis by Sirin (2005) found that there was a medium level of association between Socio-Economic Status and academic achievement. Overall findings from Sirin (2005) study tend to agree with Lipsey and Wilson’s (1993) meta-analysis which found that family SES at the student levels is one of the strongest correlates of academic achievement. School level proved to be even stronger. Overall findings suggest that parental SES had a high impact on student’s academic achievement. Parental SES sets a basis for student academic achievement both directly, for example by providing resources at home and indirectly providing social capital within school. Previous research compared higher-SES and lower-SES schools and found differences such as the quality of relationship between school and parents (Watkins, 1997), ratio to student and teacher and instructional agreements (Wenglinsky, 1998). Therefore, SES does not only reflect the effects of resources at home but also effect of social capital on academic achievement.

Hill and Castellino (2004) found that among the higher SES parental groups, parent academic involvement was related to fewer behavioural problems, which were related to achievement and aspirations. For lower SES parent’s academic involvement was related to aspirations but not to behaviour or achievement. Although, Bempechat (1992) explained there was no philosophical differences between high and low SES mothers in terms of their learning strategies they have development for fostering their children’s achievement. Albeit, higher SES mothers were more likely to implement the strategies than lower SES mothers. Bempechat (1992) also stated that as long as schools viewed parents as background support for example, shelter and providing food, the current relationship between parents and teachers will remain unequal based on assumption of power.

This research study aims to investigate parent teacher involvement and the impact it has on a child’s academic achievement. As mathematic scores are used as an indicator of achievement success in previous research, we will be using numeracy as an indicator of academic success. In terms of the involvement, we will examine this by using the parent teacher involvement (PTI) questionnaire. Due to SES being a moderating variable throughout previous research, we will also examine SES. To do so we have created a Socioeconomic Status (SES) questionnaire. Based on previous research on the subject there is two possible hypotheses; Firstly, that there will be a significant correlation between parent teacher involvement and academic achievement. Secondly, that socioeconomic status may be a significant moderator in this relationship.

METHODS:

The data described below is part of a larger international study called the SAND (Schooling Across Neurocognitive Development) project. The data was collected by the SAND project team in the summer; June, July and August 2018 to study the effects of schooling on early and late schoolers.

As part of the SAND project, the participants in this study were asked to complete a variety of tasks and questionnaires. However, for this study we are only interested in the data collected from the child regarding the numeracy screener and the data from the parents regarding the Parent Teacher Involvement (PTI) and Socioeconomic Status (SES).

As the data in the present study was provided by the SAND Project, I was responsible for scoring and analysing the socio-economic status scale (SES) and doing my own analysis on the data provided.

PARTICIPANTS:

There were 95 children recruited; of those children, 23 were excluded from the sample. 11 were removed as they refused to participate in the numeracy screener. Children became tired, as they had to complete 4 to 6 tasks before the numeracy screener.The remaining 12 children were excluded due to parents misinterpreting the requirements of the parent teacher involvement questionnaire. For example, some parents left answers blank, because they thought because they aren’t enrolling their child into school yet that they did not have to complete the PTI section.

Therefore, this resulted in a sample of N = 72 children, the mean age of these children was 53 months, SD = 1.271 broken down to 34 females and 38 males. The children were all from a British/Scottish population.

The researcher phoned kindergartens and nurseries and asked whether they had children born in January/February 2014. If they said yes, we posted an information pack to the nursery and they gave it to the respective parent. If parents were interested in the study, they contacted the SAND Project Team on the email address provided. The child had to fit the criteria of being born either January/February 2014.

Ethics was gained by the University of Stirling ethics committee, GUEP 375. The researcher had a script they had to adhere to as best possible [Appendix 1]. Written consent was gained from parents prior to/at home visit. Parents could withdraw their child at any point during this study, by contacting the SAND Project Team. Children were asked for verbal consent before the session continued. If the children said no, another date was rescheduled. If the child kept refusing, they were removed from study.

MATERIALS AND DESIGN:

NUMERACY SCREENER: [Appendix 2]

To measure academic achievement, we used standardised tests to assess numeracy from Early Years to Primary 2. The numeracy screener is a test of children’s ability to judge which number is larger. Numbers are presented in a booklet with symbolic (Arabic numerals; 1, 2, 3, etc) and non-symbolic (dots). The numeracy screener was introduced as a game with numbers. The numeracy screener contained 56 questions which was broken down into two sections. Each section contained one practice page which had three sample questions and nine practice questions, then four pages containing 14 numeracy questions which indicated where to start and where to finish. The minimum score would be 1 and the maximum would be 56. The numeracy screener was scored by adding up the total number of correct answers.

In order to counterbalance, the numeracy screener was provided in different orders, for example some children completed 6 tasks prior to doing the numeracy screener and other completed 4 tasks prior.

PTI: [Appendix 3]

The Parent and Teacher Involvement Questionnaire was produced from the Conduct Problem Prevention Research Group (2011). The 26-item questionnaire was developed to assess the facets of parent and teacher involvement.

Parent Teacher Contact had 10 statements, for instance, ‘In the past year, you have been invited to attend a parent-teacher conference’ and ‘In the past year, your child’s teacher has called you’. Answers were on a scale, with 5 possible answers to choose from; never, once or twice a year, almost every month, almost every week or more than once per week. Parents were to indicate which answer best completed the statement. The higher the score the more contact between the child’s teacher and parent.

Parent Teacher Relationship Quality had 4 statements. Such as ‘You enjoy talking with your child’s teacher’ and ‘You feel welcome to visit your child’s school’. Answers were not at all, a little, some, a lot or a great deal. The higher the score, the more comfortable the parent is talking to the child’s teacher.

Parent Involvement had 8 statements. Samples of statements are, ‘You help your child at home with subjects that he/she is having difficulty with’ and ‘You send things to class like story books and other things’. Answers were not at all, a little, some, a lot or a great deal. The higher the score indicated the higher amount of parental involvement in the child’s education.

Parent Endorsement to School had 4 statements, such as ‘Your child’s school is a good place for your child to be’ and ‘You have confidence in the people at your child’s school’. Answers were strongly disagree, disagree, not sure, agree and strongly agree. In terms of scoring, the higher the score, the higher parental satisfaction with the school.

SES: [Appendix 4]

The socio-economic status questionnaire has 44 questions including ethnicity, employment, relationship to child, parental qualification and annual income. Of the 44 questions, 8 required written explanations, which were not quantitively analysed. 36 questions were answered on a scale indicating which answer is most accurate. This questionnaire also has marked sections containing 14 questions which are directed towards the spouse, but as not all participants had spousal information, this data was not analysed.

Due to the large variety of data collected from this questionnaire, we are only focusing on 3 main questions for this study: Parental qualification, the parental qualification hope for their child and parental income.

For parental qualification, parents were asked ‘Which of the following qualifications do you have?’. Answers were on a scale, with 11 possible answers to choose from; 1. Clerical or Commercial Qualifications (e.g. typing/book-keeping/commerce) 2. Recognised Trade Apprenticeship completed 3. Secondary Education (GCSE/Standard Grade) 4. Post-secondary Education (A-levels/Higher School Certificate) 5. HNC/HND, BEC/TEC Higher, BTEC Higher/SCOTECH Higher 6. Nursing qualification 7. Teaching qualification 8. Undergraduate Degree (BA, BSc, etc) 9. Postgraduate Degree (MA, MSc, etc) 10. Doctorate (PhD) 11. None of the above/Other. Parents were to indicate which answer best completed the statement. The higher scoring for parental qualification means the more skilled the profession.

For Parental qualification hope for their child, parents were asked ‘Which is the highest qualification you would like your child that is taking part in the study to achieve?’ Answers were on a scale, with 11 possible answers to choose from; 1. Clerical or Commercial Qualifications (e.g. typing/book-keeping/commerce) 2. Recognised Trade Apprenticeship completed 3. Secondary Education (GCSE/Standard Grade) 4. Post-secondary Education (A-levels/Higher School Certificate) 5. HNC/HND, BEC/TEC Higher, BTEC Higher/SCOTECH Higher 6. Nursing qualification 7. Teaching qualification 8. Undergraduate Degree (BA, BSc, etc) 9. Postgraduate Degree (MA, MSc, etc) 10. Doctorate (PhD) 11. None of the above/Other. Parents were to indicate which answer best completed the statement, the higher the score indicated the higher aspiration for their child.

For Parental income, parents were asked ‘Which kind of income do you receive?’  Answers were on a scale, with 12 possible answers to choose from; 1. Earning from employment or self-employment 2. State retirement pension 3. Pension from former employer 4. Child benefit 5. Job-Seekers allowance 6. Income Support 7. Family Credit 8. Housing benefit 9. Other state benefits 10. Interest from savings and investments (e.g. stocks & shares) 11. Other kinds of regular allowance from outside your household (e.g. maintenance, student’s grants, rent) 12. No source of income. Parents were to indicate where which answers best completed the statement. The scoring for parental income explained the higher the score the wealthier the parent.

PROCEDURE:

NUMERACY SCREENER:

The child was sat down with the researcher that explained to the children they were going to play a game with numbers. The researcher then provided the booklet, which was separated into two sections, symbolic (Arabic numerals; 1, 2, 3, etc) and non-symbolic (dots).

For the symbolic section, the researcher told the child to look at some numbers and decide which of the numbers is bigger. If the child did not understand the term ‘bigger’ or compared the physical size of the stimulus they would rephrase and tell the child to decide which number means the most things. The researcher then told the child to look at the sample provided; they would state the two numbers then ask which was bigger. The researcher would then explain that one number was bigger than the other and show that they have put a line through it. For the second set of numbers this process was repeated, pausing for the child’s response. This process was repeated through the sample and practice questions.

For the non-symbolic section, the researcher explained to the child they had to look at the dots and decide which had more. Ensuring not to count the dots just to guess which side had the most dots. The researcher then told the child to look at the sample provided; they would show the two images of dots then ask which had more. The researcher would then explain that image of dots had more than the other and show that they have put a line through it. For the second set of images this process was repeated, pausing for the child’s response. This process was repeated through the sample and practice questions.

Before each section the child was told if they made a mistake and wanted to change their answer, they were to cross it out, which the researcher demonstrated by marking and ‘X’ in one of the practice items. The child was told not to erase the wrong answer only to make sure the marks were easy to see. The child was told to work through the question as quickly as possible without making any mistakes. Researchers told the child when they completed all the rows on the page to turn to the next page, not to skip any questions and that there was a total of 4 pages.

The researcher then explained to the child that they had one minute to do as many as possible but reminded them to pay attention to make sure they do not make any mistakes. The child was told when they were finished, they would get a sticker. The researcher instructed the child when to start the test session, with each session being timed with a stopwatch. The child had to turn pages on their own and ensure they do not skip any. When the time was finished, researchers recorded the time in the area provided in the booklet, this includes if the child finished before the one-minute limit. The researcher then congratulated the child with enthusiasm and rewarded the child was a sticker.

PTI:

The SAND Project Team provided the parents with a Parental Questionnaire Workbook. Parents were asked to fill in all the questionnaires contained in this workbook which would take no longer than 60 minutes. The parents were informed that at the start of the questionnaire there was a short paragraph that contains a description of what the questionnaire and instructions on how to complete it.

For this questionnaire, statements were provided to assess the facets of parental involvement. Parents were informed to check the box that best completed each statement.

Parent Teacher Contact had statements such as ‘In the past year, you have been invited to attend a parent-teacher conference’ and ‘In the past year, your child’s teacher has called you’. This examined the amount and type of contact between child’s teacher and parent.

Parent Teacher Relationship Quality investigates how comfortable the parent is talk to the child’s teacher. With statements such as ‘You enjoy talking with your child’s teacher’ and ‘You feel welcome to visit your child’s school’.

Parent Involvement explores the amount of parental involvement in the child’s education. With statements such as, ‘You help your child at home with subjects that he/she is having difficulty with’ and ‘You send things to class like story books and other things’.

Parent Endorsement to School had statements, such as ‘Your child’s school is a good place for your child to be’ and ‘You have confidence in the people at your child’s school’. To explore the overall parental satisfaction with the school.

SES:

The socio-economic status questionnaire was within the Parental Questionnaire Workbook. The parents were informed to read each question and indicate which answer accurately completed the question.

For parental qualification, parents were asked ‘Which of the following qualifications do you have?’. There were 11 possible answers to choose from, parents were to indicate which answer best completed the statement.

For Parental qualification hope for their child, parents were asked ‘Which is the highest qualification you would like your child that is taking part in the study to achieve?’ with 11 possible answers to choose from. Parents were to indicate which answer best completed the statement.

For Parental income, parents were asked ‘Which kind of income do you receive?’  with 12 possible answers to choose from. Parents were to indicate where which answers best completed the statement.

After the SES questionnaire there is a short feedback form which was made up of 7 questions to gain a consensus of how parents believed the data collection session went.

RESULTS:

The numeracy screener Symbolic the mean result was 14.51, SD = 8.5333 and the range of 29. The maximum score possible was 56, however the children in this study achieved a maximum of 29. 

For Non-Symbolic the mean result was 18.79, SD = 6.815 and the range of 40. The maximum score possible was 56, with the children in this study achieving a maximum of 40.

Table 1: Academic Achievement Means

Academic Achievement Symbolic

Academic Achievement Non-Symbolic

Mean

14.51

18.79

Standard Deviation

6.815

8.533

Range

29

40

Table 2 demonstrates the data from Parent Teacher Involvement, in order to statistically analyse these results answers we coded into number format. For example, 1 was never/not at all/strongly disagree, 2 was once or twice a year/a little/disagree, etc. The numbers were then totalled for each parental involvement facet.

For Parent Teacher Contact the mean results was 19.68, SD = 6.178, range of 50 as the maximum score was 61 and minimum 11. The Parent Teacher Relationship Quality had a mean of 17.18, SD = 2.754, with the maximum score being 20 and the minimum 10 having a range of 10.

Parent Teacher Involvement had a mean score of 28.12, SD = 9.984, with a range of 83 as the maximum score was 93 and the minimum was 10. The Parent Endorsement of School had a mean score of 18.42, SD = 2.206 and a range of 12 with the maximum score being 24 and the minimum score being 12.

Table 2: Parent Teacher Involvement Means

Parent Teacher Contact

Parent Teacher Relationship Quality

Parent Teacher Involvement

Parent Endorsement of School

Mean

19.68

17.18

28.12

18.42

Standard Deviation

6.178

2.754

9.984

2.206

Range

50

10

83

12

Table 3 demonstrates the data from Socio-Economic Status, Parent Annual Income had a mean of 3.28, SD = 1.756 and a range of 9. With the maximum score being 10, Over 100k and minimum score being 1, Under 100k.

For Parent Qualification mean results were 7.96, SD = 1.657 and a range of 8. With the maximum score being 11, None of the above/Other and minimum being 3, Secondary Education (GCSE/Standard Grade).

Parent Hope of Child Qualification had a mean of 8.07, SD = 1.839 and a range of 9. With the maximum score being 11, None of the above/Other and the minimum score being 2, Recognised Trade Apprenticeship Completed.

Table 3: Socio-Economic Status Means

SES Parental Annual Income

SES Parent Qualification

SES Parent Hope for Child Qualification

Mean

3.28

7.96

8.07

Standard Deviation

1.756

1.657

1.839

Range

9

8

9

The data was then subjected a Pearson’s Correlation; Parent Teacher Contact with both Symbolic and Non-Symbolic Academic Achievement was found to have a non-significant relationship. Parent Teacher Relationship Quality with both Symbolic and Non-Symbolic Academic Achievement had a non-significant relationship.

Parental Involvement with both Symbolic and Non-Symbolic Academic Achievement had a non-significant relationship. Parental Endorsement to the School with Symbolic and Non-Symbolic Academic Achievement had a non-significant relationship.

Therefore, the results of this study do not support the hypothesis that there will be a significant relationship between parental involvement and academic achievement.

Table 4: PTI and AA Pearson’s Correlation

Academic Achievement Symbolic

Academic Achievement Non-Symbolic

Parent Teacher Contact

r = -.080. n =72, p =.504

r = -.122, n =72, p =.309

Parent Teacher Relationship Quality

r = -.034, n =72, p =.780

r = -.170, n =72, p =.153

Parental Involvement

r = -.084, n =72, p = -.481

r = -.155, n =72, p = .193

Parental Endorsement to school

r = .055, n=72, p =.647

r = -.048, n =72, p =.686

As there was no significant correlation between Academic Achievement and Parent Teacher Involvement, Socio-economic status could not be used as a moderating variable that was initially hypothesized. However, the Socio-economic status data was analysed using a Pearson’s Correlation.

Parental Annual Income and Parental Hope for Child Qualification was found to have a non-significant relationship with both Symbolic and Non-Symbolic Academic Achievement.

However, Parental Qualification was found to have a moderate correlation with Symbolic Academic Achievement, but a non-significant relationship with Non-Symbolic Academic Achievement. Thus, meaning that higher Parental Qualifications influence Symbolic Achievement.

Table 5: SES and AA Pearson’s Correlations

Academic Achievement Symbolic

Academic Achievement Non-Symbolic

SES Parental Annual Income

r = -.084, n =69, p =.491

r = -.116, n =69, p =.343

SES Parental Qualification

r =.289, n=72, p =.014

r =.223, n =72, p =.060

SES Parental Hope for Child Qualification

r =.217, n=71, p =.069

r =.173, n=71, p =.149

Parental Annual Income, Parental Qualification and Parental Hope for Child Qualification was found to have a non-significant relationship with Parent Teacher Contact, Parent Teacher Relationship Quality, Parental Involvement and Parental Endorsement of School.

Table 6: SES and PTI Pearson’s Correlation

Parent Teacher Contact

Parent Teacher Relationship Quality

Parental Involvement

Parental Endorsement of School

SES Parental Annual Income

r = .234, n =69, p =.53

r = .152, n=69, p =.212

r = .117, n=69, p =.338

r =.159, n=69, p =.191

SES Parental Qualification

r =.224, n=72, p =.058

r =.026, n=72, p =.826

r =.042, n=72, p =.726

r =.144, n=72, p =.229

SES Parental Hope for Child Qualification

r =-.190, n=71, p =.113

r =-.050, n=71, p =.679

r = -.184, n=71, p =.124

r =.133, n=71, p =.267

 

In summary, results found that there was no significant correlation between academic achievement and parent teacher involvement. Further analysis to the socio-economic status data found there to be a moderate correlation between Parental Qualification and Symbolic Academic Achievement.

DISCUSSION:  ** NEED TO ADD MORE***

Maternal education is a powerful predictor of children’s cognitive functioning and academic achievement (Downer & Pianta, 2006) in both literacy and numeracy (Sammons et al., 2008). Although the relation between maternal education and children’s academic outcomes is consistent, underlying process variables, such as an enriched home learning environment, higher quality interactions and higher parental educational expectations could explain this relation (Burchinal et al., 2006; Magnuson, 2007).

The results show there was no significant relationship between parent teacher involvement and academic achievement, which was hypothesized although there was a link between symbolic academic achievement and parental qualifications. For future analysis, I would consider looking at some methodological issues. Based on a plethora of research (Bempechat, 1992; Grolnick, Wendy and Slowiaczek, 1994; Kokoski & Downing-Leffler, 2005 ; Jeynes, 2003; Newman & Goldin, 1990; Lehrer & Shumow, 1997 Sui-Chu & Willms 1996; Peters, 1998) there is multiple definitions of parent teacher involvement.

The results show a moderate correlation between parental qualification and symbolic academic achievement. I believe this could be down to parent knowledge or confidence, for example more highly qualified parents may have a better understanding of mathematics or may be better at explaining to the children based on information they understand. Another possibility could be parents with higher qualifications may understand more clearly the importance of educational games or activities which help the children retain the information.

In future studies I would consider making a couple changes to see if there was a significant result. Some of these would include a having a mixed-race sample group, I would examine the data from multiple cultural backgrounds to see if ethnic or religions differences influenced results. I would also look at the age range of the participant making sure that there was a wide age range which would let me see if there was an interaction between particular group of older or younger people, which could essentially provide me with a more varied result to help narrow down at which point parent involvement affects achievement.

While examining the data of this study, I believe the time duration of the session may have influenced the overall results. To help counteract this I would look to arrange shorter sessions to last, for example to have two 1.5-hour sessions to ensure the participants never grew bored or uninterested. I would try to arrange that the sessions were done in a separate room within the family home if applicable. This would help the child becoming distracted and ensure they are paying attention to the study.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion the data in this study did not support the hypothesis that parent teacher involvement was significantly correlated to a child’s academic achievement. Although, these results indicate that socio-economic status cannot be a moderator, it showed an interesting link between parental qualifications and a child’s academic achievement when looking into socio-economic status. The results show a moderate correlation between symbolic academic achievement and parental qualifications, this could be due to home environment, for example parents may discuss the importance of school or parents discuss their job. If this study was to be replicated, a more varied population and sample age would be of interest, for example do children of other religions or age range have varying results.

REFERENCES:

Battle, J., & Lewis, M. (2002). The increasing significance of class: The relative effects of race and socioeconomic status on academic achievement. Journal of poverty, 6(2), 21-35.

Bempechat, J. (1992). The role of parent involvement in children’s academic achievement. The school community journal, 2(2), 31-41.

Bollen, K., Glanville, J. A., & Stecklov, G. (2001). Socioeconomic status and class in studies of fertility and health in developing countries. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 153–185

Bornstein, M. C., & Bradley, R. H. (Eds.). (2003). Socioeconmic status, parenting, and child development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carmichael, C., MacDonald, A., & McFarland‐Piazza, L. (2014). Predictors of numeracy performance in national testing programs: Insights from the longitudinal study of Australian children. British Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 637-659.

Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2011). The effects of the Fast Track preventive intervention on the development of conduct disorder across childhood. Child Development, 82(1), 331-345.

Daniel, G. R., Wang, C., & Berthelsen, D. (2016). Early school-based parent involvement, children’s self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An Australian longitudinal study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 168-177.

Duncan, G., J. Brooks-Gunn, & P. Klebanov. (1994). Economic deprivation and early childhood development. Child Development 65(2), 296–318.

Duncan, O. D., Featherman, D. L., & Duncan, B. (1972). Socio-economic background and achievement. NY: Seminar Press.

El Nokali, Nermeen E., Heather J. Bachman, and Elizabeth Votruba-Drzal. 2010. “Parent Involvement and Children’s Academic and Social Development in Elementary School.” Child Development 81 (3): 988–1005.

Entwisle, D. R. & Astone, N. M. (1994). Some practical guidelines for measuring youth’s race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Child Development, 65(6), 1521–1540.

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational psychology review, 13(1), 1-22.

Goos, M., & Jolly, L. (2004). Building partnerships with families and communities to support children’s numeracy learning. Mathematics education for the third millenium: Towards 2010, 279-286.

Gottfried, A. (1985). Measures of socioeconomic status in child development research: Data and recommendations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 31(1). 85–92.

Grissmer, D. W., Kirby, S. N. Berends, M., & Williamson, S. (1994). Student achievement and the changing American family. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation

Grolnick, Wendy S., and Maria L. Slowiaczek. 1994. “Parents’ Involvement in Children’s Schooling: A Multidimensional Conceptualization and Motivational Model.” Child Development 65 (1): 237–252.

Hauser, R. M. (1994). Measuring socioeconomic status in studies of child development. Child Development, 65(6), 1541–1545.

Hauser, R. M. & Huang, M. H. (1997). Verbal ability and socioeconomic success: A Trend Analysis. Social Science Research, 26, 331–376.

Hill, N. E., Castellino, D. R., Lansford, J. E., Nowlin, P., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (2004). Parent academic involvement as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence. Child development, 75(5), 1491-1509.

Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children’s academic achievement: Pragmatics and issues. Current directions in psychological science, 13(4), 161-164.

Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban education, 42(1), 82-110.

Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education and urban society, 35(2), 202-218.

Kohl, Gwynne O., Liliana J. Lengua, and Robert J. McMahon. 2000. “Parent Involvement in School Conceptualizing Multiple Dimensions and Their Relations with Family and Demographic Risk Factors.” Journal of School Psychology 38 (6): 501–523.

Kokoski, T.M. & Downing-Leffler, N. (1995) Boosting your science and math programs in early childhood education: making the home–school connection, Young Children, 50(5), 35–39.

Larocque, Michelle, Ira Kleiman, and Sharon M. Darling. 2011. “Parental Involvement: The Missing Link in School Achievement.” Preventing School Failure 55 (3): 115–122

Lee, J. S., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children. American educational research journal, 43(2), 193-218.

LeFevre, J. A., Skwarchuk, S. L., Smith-Chant, B. L., Fast, L., Kamawar, D., & Bisanz, J. (2009). Home numeracy experiences and children’s math performance in the early school years. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 41(2), 55.

Lehrer, R. & Shumow, L. (1997) Aligning the construction zones of parents and teachers for mathematical reform, Cognition and Instruction, 15, 41–83.

McIntyre, L. L., Eckert, T. L., Fiese, B. H., DiGennaro, F. D., & Wildenger, L. K. (2007). Transition to kindergarten: Family experiences and involvement. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(1), 83-88.

McLoyd, V. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53, 185–204

Mueller, C.W., & Parcel, T.L. (1981). Measures of socioeconomic status: Alternatives and recommendations. Child Development, 52, 13–30.

Muir, T. (2012). It’s in the bag: Parental involvement in a numeracy at-home program. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(2), 27-33.

Newman, R.S. & Goldin, L. (1990) Children’s reluctance to seek help with schoolwork, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 92–100.

Patall, E., Cooper, H. & Robinson, J. (2008) Parent involvement in homework: A research synthesis, Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1039–1101.

Peters, S. (1998) Playing games and learning mathematics: the results of two intervention studies, International Journal of Early Years Education, 6, 49–58.

Pezdek, K., Berry, T., & Renno, P. A. (2002). Children’s mathematics achievement: The role of parents’ perceptions and their involvement in homework. Journal of educational psychology, 94(4), 771.

Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of educational research, 75(3), 417-453.

Skwarchuk, S. L. (2009). How do parents support preschoolers’ numeracy learning experiences at home?. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(3), 189-197.

Sui-Chu, E. H., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of education, 126-141.

Thompson, I., & Thompson, F. I. (Eds.). (2010). Issues in teaching numeracy in primary schools. Berkshire: Open University Press.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). The Condition of Education 2000, NCES 2000-602.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Walker, D., Greenwood, C., Hart, B., & Carta, J. (1994). Prediction of school outcomes based on early language production and socioeconomic factors. Child Development, 65(2), 606–621.

Warren, E., & Young, J. (2002). Parent and school partnerships in supporting literacy and numeracy. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30(3), 217-228.

Webster-Stratton, C. (1998). Preventing conduct problems in Head Start children: strengthening parenting competencies. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 66(5), 715.

White, K. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 461–481.

Wilder, S. (2014). Effects of parental involvement on academic achievement: A meta-synthesis. Educational Review, 66(3), 377-397.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 1: NUMERACY SCREENER

APPENDIX 2: PARENT TEACHER INVOLVEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX 3: SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX 4: PROCEDURE – SCRIPT