![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
This meta-analysis of 28 studies examines the relationship between parental involvement and the academic achievement and school behavior of Latino pre-kindergarten-college-age children. Analyses determined the effect sizes for parental involvement overall and specific categories of involvement. Results indicate a significant relationship between parental involvement and academic achievement and overall outcomes, but not for school behavior. This relationship between involvement and academics existed both for younger (grades K-5) and older (secondary school and college freshman) students, as well as for certain specific components of parental involvement. Parental involvement, as a whole, was associated with better school outcomes by .52 of a standard deviation unit. The significance of these results is discussed.
Parent involvement has become one of the most debated facets of education today (Ferrara, 2009; Gibson & Jefferson, 2006; Mapp, Johnson, Strickland, & Meza, 2008). The discussion over parental support for children’s studies has not been limited to educators, but has also become a salient topic among parents, social scientists, and politicians (Cowan, Cowan, Pruett, Pruett, & Wong, 2009; Hoover-Dempsey, Walker & Jones, 2002; McKenzie, 2008). Although a myriad of educators have focused on the importance of parental involvement, if children are to excel in school, no meta-analysis that focuses totally on the influence of this involvement specifically on the academic achievement and behavior of the Latino student population has ever been published in an academic journal. This reality largely contributes to a limited body of knowledge that exists regarding which aspects of parental involvement help Latino student education and just what components of this involvement are most important (Davalos, Chavez, & Guardiola, 2005; Davis-Kean, 2005; Jeynes, 2005c; McKenzie, 2008).
A growing number of studies have been done that examine the impact of parental involvement on the general population (Epstein, 2001; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Jeynes, 2005a). A large number of these studies, however, have certain shortcomings such as focusing only on the general student population, addressing only certain components of parental engagement, or having sample sizes that are too small from which people can generalize to specific population groups such as Latinos (Gniewosz & Noack, 2012; Jasis & Ordonez-Jasis, 2012; Root & Rubin, 2010; Skalotis, 2010).
As delineated by the United Code of Law (USCS 7801(32)), parental involvement is defined as “the participation of parents in regular, two-way, and meaningful communication, involving student learning and other school activities.” Joyce Epstein (2001) has defined six different types of parental involvement that include parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision-making, and collaborating with the community. Nevertheless, subsequent research has indicated that Epstein’s rubric is probably too simplistic (Jeynes, 2007b, 2010; Mapp et al., 2008; McDonald & Robinson, 2009).
Beyond undertaking a meta-analysis that assesses the overall impact of parental engagement, it is also essential to address which aspects of that emotional and psychological support are most important (Borruel, 2002; Jeynes, 2011a; Rapp & Duncan, 2012; Stacer & Perrucci, 2013). Over the last 15 years, social scientists have more specifically sought to identify the various components of parental involvement (Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler, 2007; Kaplan-Toren, 2013; Jeynes, 2007a, 2011b). Enough studies have now been done examining the specific components of parental engagement, so that is now possible to examine this issue in a meta-analysis, with reference to Latinos specifically. A previous meta-analysis (Jeynes, 2003) conducted over a decade ago examined specific components of parental involvement for students of color, that is, minority students generally, but due to the small number of studies, not much could be concluded regarding its effects on Latinos specifically. With this background in mind, the following questions emerge. First, to what degree is parental involvement associated with higher levels of academic achievement and better personal behavior among Latino students? Second, what aspects of parental involvement help those students the most? Third, do school-based programs of parental involvement help students? Fourth, are the effects of parental involvement greater for certain ages of students? Given the importance of education and the potential that parental involvement has to help scholastic outcomes, it is vital to ascertain the extent to which aspects of parental involvement can raise Latino student achievement and which expressions can help the most.
Four Research Questions Addressed in This Study
Four research questions, therefore, emerge. More specifically, four issues are especially pertinent to parents and educators. First, is parental involvement for Latino students associated with stronger academic and behavioral outcomes? Second, are there any differences in the effects of parental involvement for these students, by grade level. Third, are school-based parental involvement programs helpful for Latino students? Fourth, what types of parental involvement expressions appear to help those students the most? The types of parental involvement are defined on the basis of those used most frequently by Epstein (2001) and other researchers, to help obtain insight about whether particular kinds of parental engagement appear to work better than others. To answer these four key questions, it is imperative to know what the overall body of research indicates. A meta-analysis is the best method for addressing this question. A meta-analysis statistically combines all the relevant existing studies on a given subject to determine the aggregated results of said research. This study utilizes meta-analysis to examine the effects of parental involvement on kindergarten through college freshman young people, addressing each of the four research questions listed.
Methods
Analytical Approach
Research methods and data analysis plan for the meta-analysis on the relationship between parental involvement and academic outcomes for Latino students
This meta-analysis examined the relationship between parental involvement in Latino youth and kindergarten to college freshman school student achievement. This meta-analysis first (Research Question 1) addressed whether there is a statistically significant relationship between parental involvement in Latino youth and kindergarten to college student achievement. A second question assessed whether the effects of parental involvement differed by the age of the student (Research Question 2). The third analysis (Research Question 3) determined if parental involvement programs help Latino students. The final analysis addressed the effects of specific expressions of parental involvement on Latino youth (Research Question 4).
The procedures employed to conduct the meta-analysis are outlined under the heading “Analytical Approach” and the following headings are listed below: Data Collection Method, Statistical Methods, Study Quality Rating, Effect Size Statistics, and Defining of Variables.
Each study included in this meta-analysis met the following criteria:
It needed to examine parental involvement in a way that could be conceptually and statistically distinguished from other primary variables under consideration. For example, if a Latino family practiced parental involvement and its influence could not be statistically isolated from the other features, the study was not included in the analysis.
It needed to include a sufficient amount of statistical information to determine effect sizes. That is, a study needed to contain enough information so that test statistics, such as those resulting from a t test, analysis of variance, and so forth, were either provided in the study or could be determined from the means and measures of variance listed in the study.
If the study used a control group, it had to qualify as a true control group and therefore be a fair and accurate means of comparison. Moreover, if the research utilized a control group at some times but not others, only the former comparisons were included in the meta-analysis.
The study could be a published or unpublished study. This was to reduce the likelihood of publication bias.
Due to the nature of the criteria listed above, qualitative studies were not included in the analysis. Although qualitative studies are definitely valuable, they are difficult to code for quantitative purposes and any attempt to do so might bias the results of the meta-analysis.
Data collection method (coding and rater reliability)
To obtain the studies used in the meta-analysis, a search was performed using every major social science research database (e.g., Psych Info, ERIC, Dissertation Abstracts International, Wilson Periodicals, Sociological Abstracts, and so forth), totaling 60 data bases, to find studies examining the relationship between parental involvement and the academic achievement of youth from grades kindergarten to college freshman. The search terms included parental involvement, parents, schools, family, education, parental support, partnership, programs, communication, expectations, reading, attendance, homework, household, rules, parental style, and several other terms. Reference sections from journal articles on parental involvement were also examined to find additional research articles. Emails were also sent to each of the Education department chairs of the over 100 Research 1 universities in the United States asking them if there were any faculty in their department who had either recently completed or was just about to complete a study examining the effects of parental involvement. Although this comprehensive search yielded hundreds of articles and papers on parental involvement, nearly all of these articles were not quantitative in nature. The research team obtained a total of 41 studies that addressed the relationship under study and found 28 studies that had a sufficient degree of quantitative data to include in this meta-analysis. Among the 28 studies that possessed a sufficient degree of quantitative data to include in this meta-analysis, the total number of subjects was approximately 25,417.
A number of different characteristics of each study were included for use in this study. These characteristics included (a) report characteristics, (b) sample characteristics, (c) intervention type, (d) the research design, (e) the grade level or age of the students, (f) the outcome and predictor variables, (g) the length (in weeks) of the parental involvement program, (h) the attrition rate, and (i) the estimate of the relationship between parental involvement and academic achievement. Two coders, who had been coding for at least 10 years, coded the studies on these characteristics and had 96% agreement on their coding of the following study characteristics.
Each study entry began with the name of the author of the study. Then the year the study was recorded, followed by the type of research report. Research reports were defined either as a journal article; book; book chapter; dissertation; master’s thesis; government, school, or private report; conference paper; or other type of report.
Sample characteristics included the number of students sampled, their locations, and how they were selected, for example, via random selection, stratified random selection, or via advertisement.
The experimental or procedural manipulation used, if any, was recorded to determine the effects of parental involvement with Latino youth on student achievement.
The studies in this meta-analysis were categorized into three basic types of designs. The first type employed some type of manipulations to assess the effects of parental involvement.
The second type of design included studies that took cross-sectional measures of the effect of a parental involvement without utilizing any type of manipulation. The third type of design involved the calculation of a correlation coefficient between parental involvement and student educational outcomes.
For studies that employed a manipulation to measure the effects of parental involvement, the following were recorded: (a) the length, frequency, duration, and total number of training sessions; (b) the method of training (workshop, individual meetings, phone calls, videotape, email communication, newsletter); (c) the type of behavioral or achievement-related outcome measure (e.g., standardized achievement test, non-standardized achievement test, or class grades); (d) the unit of analysis (individual student or classroom) at which the effect size was calculated; and (e) the magnitude of the relationship between parental involvement and student achievement.
For the cross-sectional studies and correlation studies, if it was available, the following were also recorded: (a) the socio-economic status of participants in the sample and (b) the types of behavioral and academic measures that were used.
This was particularly important because secondary analyses were performed to determine if there was a relationship between the length of parental involvement and the effects that emerged in various studies.
This was coded including means and standard deviations when they were available.
The outcome and predictor variables from each study were coded to include the different ways that achievement was measured.
When available, the attrition rate of each study was coded.
The process of the effect size estimation is described in the next section.
Statistical methods and the effect size statistic
Effect sizes were computed from data in such forms as t tests, F tests, p levels, frequencies, and r values via conversion formulas provided by Glass and his colleagues (Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981). When results were not significant, studies sometimes reported only a significance level. In the unusual case that the direction of these not significant results was not available, the effect size were calculated to be zero.
For studies with manipulations, we used the standardized mean difference to estimate the effect of parental involvement. The d-index (Cohen, 1988) is a scale-free measure of the separation between two group means. Calculating the d-index for any comparison involved dividing the difference between the two group means by either their average standard deviation or by the standard deviation of the control group. In the meta-analysis, we subtracted the experimental group mean from the control group mean and divided the difference by their average standard deviation. As a supplement to these analyses, the Hedges’ “g” measure of effect size was used (Hedges, 1981). As it employed the pooled standard deviation in the denominator, it customarily provided a more conservative estimate of effect size. Hedges’ g also provided a correction factor that helped to adjust for the impact of small samples.
For studies that involved cross-sectional measures of the relationship between parental involvement and achievement, the following procedures were undertaken. For those studies that attempted to statistically equate students on other variables, the preferred measure of relationship strength was the standardized beta weight, β. These parameters were determined from the output of multiple regression analyses. If beta weights could not be obtained from study reports, the most similar measures of effect (e.g., unstandardized regression weights) were retrieved.
For studies that involved cross-sectional measures but included no attempt to statistically equate students on third variables, the results from the t tests, F tests, and correlation studies provided by the researchers in the study were used. Probability values were used as a basis for computation only if the researchers did not supply any of information on the test statistics just mentioned.
A weighting procedure was used to calculate average effect sizes across all the comparisons. First, each independent effect size was first multiplied by the inverse of its variance. The sum of these products was then divided by the sum of the inverses. Then, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. As Hedges and Vevea (1998) recommend, all the analyses were conducted using fixed-error assumptions in one analysis and applied random-error assumptions in the other.
If there was more than one effect size presented in the results section, the effect size that was chosen was based on that which referred to (a) the overall sample and (b) the purest measure of parental involvement. In the case of results that included clear statistical outliers, the presence of these outliers was acknowledged and then supplemental analyses were run without such an outlier to estimate the degree to which the presence of an outlier might have affected the results.
Tests of homogeneity were completed on the parental involvement programs to gain a sense of the consistency of specific parental involvement measures across studies.
Study quality rating
Two researchers coded the studies independently for quality, the presence of randomization, and whether both the definitional criteria for parental involvement and specific aspects of parental involvement were met. Study quality and the use of random samples were graded on a 0 (lowest) to 3 (highest) scale. Quality was determined using the following: (a) Did it use randomization of assignment? (b) did it avoid mono-method bias? (c) did it avoid mono-operation bias? (d) did it avoid selection bias? (e) did it use a specific definition of parental involvement?
We calculated inter-rater reliability by computing percentage of agreement on the definition of parental involvement, the specific components examined in each study, issues of randomization, and quality of the study. Inter-rater reliability was 100% on whether a study examined parental involvement, 93% for the specific components of parental involvement examined in a given study, and 93% for the quality of the study. For the specific components of quality, inter-rater agreement percentages were 95% for randomization, 90% for avoiding mono-method bias, 93% for avoiding mono-operation bias, 93% for avoiding selection bias, and 97% for using a specific definition of parental involvement.
Two supplementary analyses were done to include first, only those studies with quality ratings of 3 and second, only those studies with quality ratings of 2 to 3. Another supplementary analysis was also undertaken to examine only those studies that were clearly non-segregated overall, that is, nationwide data sets. This was done because it was anticipated that some of the studies might be done in highly segregated environments, which based on past research could possibly exert downward pressure on the results.
Defining of variables
For the purposes of this study, parental involvement was defined as parental participation in the educational processes and experiences of their children.
Results
Summary of the Results
Overall, the results of the meta-analysis indicated that there is a relationship between parental involvement for kindergarten through college freshmen youth as expressed in academic and behavioral outcomes combined. The results presented here used analyses based on random-error assumptions. The rationale for presenting these results rather than those using fixed-error assumptions is to utilize analyses that yielded more conservative effect sizes. As one would expect, the analyses based on fixed-error assumptions yielded somewhat larger effect sizes.
The results of this study indicate the overall parental involvement variable yielded a statistically significant outcome of .52 (p < .01), 95% CI [.15, .89], of a standard deviation. Table 1 lists the effects sizes of the 28 studies in descending order. All but one of the effect sizes were in the positive direction, and that one had a small effect in the negative direction. The range of the effects sizes was from 1.90 to −0.12. There were a considerable number of studies undertaken at the Grades K-5 and 6-12 levels. The studies with the smallest samples produced the most extreme effect sizes on either end, consistent with the “funnel” pattern ideal in effect sizes (Greenhouse & Iyengar, 1994).
|
Table 1. Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis Listed by Author, Year of Study, Type of Document, Sample Size, and a Variety of Other Characteristics.
Table 2 summarizes the studies by average year of the study, sample size, quality of study, and the quality of the definition of parental involvement. The average year of the study was 2005.3. Exactly 75% (21 of 28) of the studies took place from 2000 and afterward. The average sample size was 907.8. Among the categories listed, the largest number of studies (12) had a sample size of 1,000 or higher, although an almost equal number of studies had sample sizes of between 100 and 499 (8). The average quality of the study and the definition of parental involvement in each of the studies were each a good deal higher than the middle of the mid-point of the range of ratings allowable, 0 to 3. The mean quality of the studies was 2.07, with most (75%) of the studies being rated either 2 or 3. The mean quality of definition for parental involvement for the studies was 2.71, with most (over 90%) of the studies being rated either 3 or 2. Table 3 lists the most important correlations between key variables included in the study. In the vast majority of cases, statistically significant differences did not emerge between the variables examined: date of study, effect size, quality of study, quality of study’s definition of parental involvement, and whether or not the sample was randomly selected. The effect size of the study was not related to any of the other variables examined. The quality of the study was related to the correlation with quality of study’s definition of parental involvement and whether a random sample was used.
|
Table 2. Means for Measures Assessing the Quality of Study, Whether a Random Sample Was Used, Year of Study, and Sample Size for the 28 Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis.
|
Table 3. Correlations Between Measures Assessing the Quality of Study, Whether a Random Sample Was Used, Year of Study, and Sample Size for the 42 Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis.
Effect sizes for parental involvement overall (Research Question 1)
Table 4 lists the effect sizes that emerged for parental involvement as a whole, addressed under Research Question 1. The outcomes examined included both academic and behavioral ones combined. Statistically significant effect sizes emerged for parental involvement. The effect size for the overall parental involvement variable was .52 (p < .01), 95% CI [.15, .89], of a standard deviation, which was statistically significant at the .01 level of probability, when no sophisticated controls were used. The effect size was also statistically significant when sophisticated controls were used (.22, p < .05), 95% CI [.01, .43].
|
Table 4. Effect Sizes for Parent Involvement With 95% Confidence Intervals in Parentheses.
Effects of parental involvement by student age (Research Question 2)
When parental involvement at the K-5 grade levels was examined when sophisticated controls were not used, the effect size, .50 (p < .01), 95% CI [.08, .92], was statistically significant. Nevertheless, when these controls were used, the effect size was in the expected direction (.19), but was not statistically significant (.05, p = n.s.). For parental involvement at the secondary (and college freshmen) school level, when sophisticated controls were not used, the effect size, .53 (p < .01), 95% CI [.10, .96], was statistically significant. The effect size was also statistically significant when sophisticated controls were used, (.23, p < .05), 95% CI [.01, .45]. When parental involvement was examined only at the secondary school level (not including college freshmen), the effect size, .48 (p < .05), 95% CI [.06, .90], was statistically significant. When sophisticated controls were used, the results were also statistically significant (.23, p < .05), 95% CI [.01, .45].
Parental involvement programs (Research Question 3)
When the relationship between parental involvement programs for Latinos and academic achievement was examined, the effect size, (.37) was in the expected direction, but did not yield statistically significant results (.05, p = n.s.). There were no such studies that utilized sophisticated controls.
Supplementary analyses on research question #1
An additional analysis was also undertaken to examine only those studies that were clearly non-segregated overall, that is, nationwide data sets (see Table 3). This was done because it was anticipated that some of the studies might be done in highly segregated environments, which based on past research could possibly exert downward pressure on the results. The effect size for the overall parental involvement variable was .42 (p < .05), 95% CI [.06, .78], of a standard deviation, which was statistically significant at the .01 level of probability, when no sophisticated controls were used. The effect size was also statistically significant when sophisticated controls were used, (.20, p < .05), 95% CI [.02, .38].
Table 4 also lists the effect sizes that emerged for parental involvement’s relationship with academic achievement. Statistically significant effect sizes emerged for parental involvement. The effect size for the overall parental involvement variable was .52 (p < .01), 95% CI [.15, .89], of a standard deviation, which was statistically significant at the .01 level of probability, when no sophisticated controls were used. The effect size was also statistically significant when sophisticated controls were used (.24, p < .01), 95% CI [.03, .45]. The different types of academic outcomes showed somewhat different patterns in effect sizes. The result for non-standardized results, such as GPA and teacher ratings, was (1.28, p < .001), 95% CI [.40, 2.16], when no sophisticated controls were used. The effect size for non-standardized outcomes was also statistically significant when sophisticated controls were used (.33, p < .05), 95% CI [.04, .62]. The effect size for the overall parental involvement variable for standardized tests was .31 (p < .01), 95% CI [.05, .57], of a standard deviation, when no sophisticated controls were used. The effect size for standardized tests was also statistically significant when sophisticated controls were used, (.21, p < .01), 95% CI [.02, .40].
The effects for parental involvement with respect to school behavior showed somewhat of a different pattern in that the effect size when sophisticated controls were utilized was in the expected direction (.16), but did not yield statistically significant results. There were no studies that qualified for this meta-analyses that sought to examine the relationship between parental involvement and student behavior that did not use sophisticated controls.
Another set of analyses focused on (a) those analyses that specifically identified certain subjects as Mexican American and (b) studies rated high in quality (see Table 5). Regarding the first point, it is important to acknowledge that Latinos are not a monolithic group. It is also true that Mexican Americans are the largest population of people among Latinos in the United States. Therefore, it is wise to see if the results of Mexican Americans are similar to the general Latino population. The effect sizes were similar to those found for the Latinos generally. The results were a little bit smaller than for Latinos when sophisticated controls were not in place, .42 (p < .05), 95% CI [.04, .80], and they were larger when these controls were in place, .31. However, the latter number was not statistically significant.
|
Table 5. Effect Sizes for Parent Involvement With 95% Confidence Intervals in Parentheses.
The effect sizes for the high-quality studies were nearly the same as when no quality adjustments were made. When only those studies rated 3 (on a 0-3 scale) were included, the effect size was .42 (p < .01), 95% CI [.12, .72], for those studies that did not use sophisticated controls. When sophisticated controls were used, the results fell just short of statistical significance at .19. When those studies rated 2 to 3 (on a 0-3 scale) were included, the effect size was .42 (p < .01), 95% CI [.12, .72], for those studies that did not use sophisticated controls and .20 (p < .05), 95% CI [.01, .39], when they did use sophisticated controls.
For the analyses that focused on particular subjects, the effect size for reading was .47 (p < .05), 95% CI [.08, .86], for those studies that did not use sophisticated controls and .40 (p < .05), 95% CI [.06, .74], when they used the sophisticated control model. Similarly, the effect size for math was .47 (p < .05), 95% CI [.08, .86], for those studies that did not use sophisticated controls and .32 (p < .05), 95% CI [.05, .59], when they used the sophisticated control model. For science, the effect size was .47 (p < .05), 95% CI [.05, .89], for those studies that did not utilize sophisticated controls. The results in were in the expected direction (.27) when sophisticated controls were used, but these findings did not reach the level of statistical significance. For social studies, the result in standard deviation units was .47 (p < .05), 95% CI [.05, .89], for those studies that did not utilize sophisticated controls. The effects were in the expected direction (.27) when sophisticated controls were used, but were not statistically significant.
Specific aspects of parental involvement (Research Question 4)
Table 6 addresses Research Question 4 and lists the effect sizes for studies that examined the various components of parental involvement.
|
Table 6. Effect Sizes for Parent Involvement With 95% Confidence Intervals in Parentheses.
Two of the components of parental involvement yielded statistically significant results when sophisticated controls were not used. They included effect sizes for parental style, .31 (p < .05), 95% CI [.03, .59], and communication, .34 (p < .05), 95% CI [.03, .65]. When sophisticated controls were not utilized, three other components of parental involvement yielded effect sizes that were in the expected direction, but because of the small number of studies included, a meta-analysis for each of these specific components was not undertaken. These aspects of parental involvement included parental expectations (.36), participation (.56), and checking homework/monitoring (.62). For studies that utilized sophisticated controls for these measures, with the exception of the communication variable, which yielded a statistically insignificant effect size of .17, there were not enough studies that examined the other components of parental involvement to conduct a meta-analysis in these cases.
Tests of homogeneity for parental involvement indicated that the measures were relatively homogeneous when sophisticated controls were used (χ2 = 3.15, p = n.s.) and when sophisticated controls were not included (χ2 = 3.62, p = n.s.).
Discussion
Limitations of Study
The primary limitation of this meta-analysis, or any meta-analysis, is that it is restricted to analyzing the existing body of literature. Therefore, even if the researcher conducting the quantitative integrations sees ways the studies included could have been improved, there is no way to implement those changes. A second limitation of a meta-analysis is that the social scientist is limited to addressing the same research questions addressed in the aggregated studies. For example, it would be advisable to have parental expectations measures from all the studies included, but one can only aggregate the existing results.
Effect sizes for parental involvement overall and by age groups (Research Questions 1 and 2)
The results of meta-analysis suggest that parental involvement is related to positive outcomes among Latino youth. This is true generally and although analyses limiting the studies to high-quality ones yielded somewhat lower effect sizes, the results very similar. Those analyses that used sophisticated controls usually produced statistically significant results. The general results for Latino youth also held when studies that specifically identified Mexican American youth were analyzed separately.
It should be noted that the association between parental involvement and the outcomes under study were greater for academic outcomes than they were for behavioral outcomes. Moreover, the effects were greater for academic outcome measures that were non-standardized than those that were standardized. The effects for non-standardized tests, without the use of sophisticated controls, were especially high at slightly more than 1¼ standard deviation units.
The result that emerged for behavioral outcomes was .16 when sophisticated controls were used, which was not statistically significant. Therefore, the results suggest that parental involvement appears related to academic measures than they are behavioral ones. There is no question that when most social scientists examine the effects of parental involvement, they tend to focus most on its relationship with academic outcomes much more so than behavioral measures (Epstein, 2001; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Jeynes, 2002, 2006). It is quite possible that this emphasis may also be one of the reasons why parental engagement is more strongly related to school achievement than it is to student behavior. The fact that this meta-analysis is concerned with academic outcomes, especially, reflects this emphasis in the body of literature.
One of the most interesting findings in this meta-analysis is that the effects for parental involvement at the elementary and secondary school level are almost identical. This result contrasts with previous meta-analyses covering a broad cross section of students that indicates that parental involvement had a greater impact at the elementary school level rather than the secondary school level. There are several possibilities why this may be the case and they are worthy of further investigation in future research. First, it may be that Latino parents, on average, are more persistent than others in their involvement through the life span of a child from youth until adulthood. A number of family scientists and educational researchers have hypothesized that parental engagement becomes more difficult as children age (Day & Padilla-Walker, 2009; Lee & Bowen, 2006; Palmer, 2004). A great deal of this phenomenon, they argue, is due to increased resistance to parents that emerges during a youth’s adolescent years (Day & Padilla-Walker, 2009; Dumka, Gonzales, Bonds, & Millsap, 2009; Wallerstein & Lewis, 1998). It may be that involved Latino parents are more determined to be engaged than those of other backgrounds, even as the child gets older.
Second, it could also be that Latino parents are less likely than other groups to be involved in a child’s schooling when their offspring are young. When compared with other meta-analyses, the effects of parental involvement at the elementary school level are a bit lower than those that emerged in the broader population. It is conceivable that the strain to make ends meet, family dissolution, and time constraints may make it more difficult for Latino parents to be as involved as they would ideally like. Third, some research suggests that a lot of the parental involvement by Latino parents and others of color may be subtler than one typically finds in White and Asian American families (Jeynes, 2010, 2015b). Quantitative research indicates that this more subtle involvement is more effective as children become older (Jeynes, 2007b). To the extent that this is true, the fact that there is no real decline in the effectiveness of parental involvement among Latinos over the length of the child’s upbringing could reflect the fact that real tangible benefits are emerging from this more subtle approach during a student’s secondary school years.
Effect sizes for parental involvement programs (Research Question 3)
The relationship between parental involvement programs and academic and behavioral outcome was less certain. Although the effect size was .37, the result fell slightly short of statistical significance. Although the effect size was a pretty good size, one cannot draw any real conclusions because the result was not statistically significant. This result, as one would expect based on previous studies, was not as large as those one typically finds in other studies that examine voluntary parental involvement (Jeynes, 2003, 2005b, 2012). This is because parents already enthusiastic about supporting the educational progress of their children will, on average, tend to help their children more than parents whose participation is fostered by the presence of a particular program.
It is very interesting to note that the effects of parental involvement programs for Latino students found in this study (.37) are similar to the effect size that emerged for a meta-analysis done on a broad cross section of students (.30) (Jeynes, 2012).
Effect sizes for specific components of parental involvement (research questions 4)
The results of the study indicate that parental style and strong parental–child communication were associated with higher levels of academic achievement. These two types of parental involvement are what are typically called subtle aspects of involvement. Research suggests that these components of engagement are generally some of the most prominent. Moreover, these results are consistent with the burgeoning view of many that Latino parents are strongest in the subtle aspects of parental involvement (Drummond & Stipek, 2004; Jeynes, 2010, 2015a). Further research is needed to confirm the notion that Latino parents may be especially adept at the more subtle aspects of parental engagement.
Recommendations for further research
Parental involvement among any specific population, including Latinos, is naturally going to be a less developed area of research than one finds for parental engagement generally. Therefore, the need for further research in this discipline is at least as great as for parental involvement as a whole. Three lines of Latino parental involvement research are particularly important. First, the vast majority of research that has been done on parental participation has focused on the influence of parental participation in its more easily measured forms. It is only in the last few years that social scientists have begun to embrace the possibility that the subtle aspects of parental involvement may be more puissant than the more tangible components. Given that various researchers believe that Latinos are especially strong in their practice of the subtle aspects of parental engagement, understanding the place of the subtle aspects of involvement appears especially important.
Second, additional longitudinal studies on Latino parental involvement are also necessary. Although some researchers have undertaken a longitudinal approach, American society would benefit by knowing more about what specific benefits of parenting accrue at specific points in children’s lives. Third, as more studies on parental involvement become available over the years, it will be helpful for additional meta-analyses on parental involvement to be done that focus on other minority groups, especially African Americans.
Conclusion
The association between parental involvement and the academic achievement of Latinos is quite consistent and reasonably strong. These findings may provide both some guidance and hope for those desiring to see school outcomes improve for all American children. It is possible, therefore, that parental involvement could potentially play a role in reducing the achievement gap.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
|
*Altschuh, I. (2011). Parental involvement and the academic achievement of Mexican American youths, What kinds of involvement in youth’s education matter most? Social Work Research, 35, 159-170. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
*Bermudez, A. B., Padron, Y. N. (1990). Teachers’ perceptions of errors in second language learning and acquisition. Journal of Education Issues of Language Minority Students, 6, 33-43. Google Scholar | |
|
Borruel, T. W. (2002). The ten p’s of parent communication. A strategy for staff development. Child Care Information Exchange, 143, 54-57. Google Scholar | |
|
*Busco, R. A. (1991). The impact of a Hispanic parental involvement literacy program on limited-English-proficient students in grades, 1, 2, and 3. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(11-A), 3743. Google Scholar | |
|
*Cardenas-Rivera, N. G. (1994). A study of acculturation, parenting style, and adolescents’’ academic achievement in a group of low socioeconomic status Mexican American families. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(2-A), 0491. Google Scholar | |
|
*Chun, H., Dickson, G. (2011). A psychoecological model of academic performance among Hispanic students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 581-594. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar | |
|
Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Pruett, M. K., Pruett, K., Wong, J. J. (2009). Promoting fathers’ engagement with children: Preventive interventions for low-income families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 663-679. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Davalos, D. B., Chavez, E. L., Guardiola, R. J. (2005). Effects of perceived parental school support and family communication on delinquent behaviors in Latinos and white non-Latinos. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11, 57-68. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | |
|
Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement: The indirect role of parent expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 294-304. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Day, R. D., Padilla-Walker, L. M. (2009). Mother and father connectedness and involvement during early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 900-904. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Drummond, K. V., Stipek, D. (2004). Low income parents’ beliefs about their role In children’s academic learning. Elementary School Journal, 104, 197-213. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Dumka, L. E., Gonzales, N. A., Bonds, D. D., Millsap, R. E. (2009). Academic success of Mexican origin adolescent boys and girls: The role of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting and cultural orientation. Sex Roles, 60, 588-599. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
*Durand, T. M. (2011). Latino parental involvement in kindergarten: Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 33, 469-489. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Epstein, J. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Google Scholar | |
|
*Estrada-Martinez, L. M., Caldwell, C. H., Schulz, A. J., Diez-Roux, A. V., Pedraza, S. (2013). Families, neighborhood socio-demographic factors, and violent behaviors among Latino, white, and black adolescents. Youth & Society, 45, 221-247. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Ferrara, M. M. (2009). Broadening the myopic vision of parental involvement. School Community Journal, 19, 123-142. Google Scholar | |
|
*Gault-Sherman, M. (2012). It’s a two-way street: The bidirectional relationship between parenting and delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 121-145. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Gibson, D. M., Jefferson, R. N. (2006). The effect of perceived parental involvement and the use of growth-fostering relationships on self-concept in adolescents participating in gear up. Adolescence, 41, 111-125. Google Scholar | Medline | |
|
Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | |
|
Gniewosz, B., Noack, P. (2012). What you see is what you get: The role of the early adolescent’s perceptions in the intergenerational transmission of academic values. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 70-79. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Green, C. L., Walker, M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Sandler, H. M. (2007). Parents’ motivations for involvement in children’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 532-544. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Greenhouse, J. B., Iyengar, S. (1994). Sensitivity analysis and diagnosis. In Cooper, H., Iyengar, S. (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis (pp. 383-398). New York, NY: Russell Sage. Google Scholar | |
|
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107-128. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Hedges, L. V., Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed and random effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486-504. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Google Scholar | |
|
*Henry, C. S., Plunkett, S. W., Sands, T. (2011). Family structure, parental involvement, and academic motivation in Latino adolescents. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 52, 370-390. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M., Jones, K. P. (2002). Teachers involving parents (TIP): Results from an in-service teacher education program for enhancing parental involvement. Teacher and Teacher Education, 18, 843-867. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
*Huang, D. Y. C. (2011). Parental monitoring during early adolescence deters adolescent sexual initiation: Discrete-time survival mixture analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20, 511-520. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Jasis, P. M., Ordonez-Jasis, R. (2012). Latino parental involvement: Examining commitment and empowerment in the schools. Urban Education, 47, 65-89. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Jeynes, W. (2002). Divorce, family structure, and the academic success of children. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Jeynes, W. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education & Urban Society, 35, 202-218. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Jeynes, W. (2005a). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40, 237-269. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Jeynes, W. (2005b). Effects of parental involvement and family structure on the academic achievement of adolescents. Marriage and Family Review, 37, 99-117. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Jeynes, W. (2005c). The effects of parental involvement on the academic achievement of African American youth. Journal of Negro Education, 74, 260-274. Google Scholar | |
|
Jeynes, W. (2006). Standardized tests and Froebel’s original kindergarten model. Teachers College Record, 108, 1937-1959. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Jeynes, W. (2007a). American educational history: School, society & the common good. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | |
|
Jeynes, W. (2007b). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42, 82-110. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Jeynes, W. (2010). The salience of the subtle aspects of parental involvement and encouraging that involvement: Implications for school-based programs. Teachers College Record, 112, 747-774. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Jeynes, W. (2011a). Help families by fostering parental involvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 93, 38-39. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Jeynes, W. (2011b). Parental involvement & academic success. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis/Routledge. Google Scholar | |
|
Jeynes, W. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47, 706-742. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Jeynes, W. (2015a). A meta-analysis on the factors that best reduce the achievement gap. Education & Urban Society, 47, 523-554. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Jeynes, W. (2015b). A meta-Analysis: The relationship between father involvement and student academic achievement. Urban Education, 50, 387-423. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Kaplan-Toren, N. (2013). Multiple dimensions of parental involvement and its links to young adolescent self-evaluation and academic achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 634-649. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
*Keith, P. B., Lichtman, M. (1992, April). Testing the influences of parental involvement on Mexican-American eighth grade students’ achievement: A structural equations analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Google Scholar | |
|
*Keith, P. B., Lichtman, M. (1994). Does parental involvement influence the academic achievement of Mexican American eighth graders? Results from the National Education Longitudinal Study. School Psychology Quarterly, 9, 256-272. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
*Kugler, T. (2010). The relationship of parental involvement in student academic achievement in Latino middle school students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 70(70-A), 2305. Google Scholar | |
|
Lee, J., Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 193-218. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
*LeFevre, A. L., Shaw, T. V. (2012). Latino parental involvement and school success: Longitudinal effects of formal and informal support. Education and Urban Society, 44, 707-723. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., Strickland, C. S., Meza, C. (2008). High school family centers: Transformative spaces linking schools and families in support of student learning. Marriage & Family Review, 43, 338-368. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
*Marrero, C. (2009). Immigration status, parental involvement, and educational achievement among Puerto Ricans. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(12-A), 4631. Google Scholar | |
|
McDonald, L. G., Robinson, P. (2009). A colossal failure of common sense. New York, NY: Crown. Google Scholar | |
|
McKenzie, B. (2008). Reconsidering the effects of bonding social capital: A closer look at black civil society institutions in America. Political Behavior, 30, 25-45. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
*Mena, J. A. (2008). Parental involvement as predictor of 9th grade Latino students’ intention to complete high school mediated by student school beliefs after a one year follow-up. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(1-B), 660. Google Scholar | |
|
*Mireles-Rios, R., Romo, L. F. (2010). Maternal and teacher interaction and student engagement in math and reading among Mexican American girls from a rural community. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32, 456-469. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
*Niemeyer, A. E., Wong, M. M., Westerhaust, J. (2009). Parental involvement, familismo, and academic performance in Hispanic and Caucasian students. North American Journal of Psychology, 11, 613-632. Google Scholar | |
|
Palmer, D. L. (2004). The structural of maternal and paternal involvement and adolescent well-being. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 614-620. Google Scholar | |
|
*Pearson, J., Muller, C., Trisco, M. L. (2006). Parental involvement, family structure, and adolescent sexual decision making. Sociological Perspectives, 49, 67-90. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
*Pong, S., Hao, L., Garocher, E. (2005). The roles of parenting styles and social capital in the school performance of immigrant Asian and Hispanic students. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 928-950. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
*Powell-Smith, K. A., Stoner, G., Shinn, M. R. (2000). Parent tutoring in reading using curriculum and reading materials: Impact on student reading achievement. School Psychology Review, 29, 5-27. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Rapp, N., Duncan, H. (2012). Multi-dimensional parental involvement in schools: A principal’s guide. International Journal of Education Leadership Preparation, 7, 1-14. Google Scholar | |
|
Root, A. K., Rubin, K. H. (2010). Gender and parents’ reaction to children’s reaction to children’s emotion during the preschool years. In Root, A. K., Denham, S. A. (Eds.), Focus on gender: Parent and child contributions to the socialization of emotional competence (pp. 51-64). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar | |
|
*Ruiz, Y. (2009). Predictors of academic achievement for Latino middle schoolers. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19, 419-433. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
*Ryce, P. (2013). The role of family involvement in predicting student-teacher relationships and academic and behavioral outcomes for children of immigrants. Dissertation Abstracts International, 74(3-A)(E). Google Scholar | |
|
Skalotis, E. (2010). Changes in parental involvement in secondary education: An exploration study using the longitudinal study of young people in England. British Educational Research Journal, 36, 975-994. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
*St. Clair, L., Jackson, B., Zwelback, R. (2012). Six years later: Effect of family involvement training on the language Skills of children from migrant families. School Community Journal, 22, 9-20. Google Scholar | |
|
Stacer, M., Perrucci, R. (2013). Parental involvement with children at school, home, and Community. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 34, 340-354. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
United Code of Law (USCS 7801(32)) . Google Scholar | |
|
*Unkenholz, C. L. (2008). Parent perceptions of parental involvement and its relationship to student achievement in minority and non-minority families living and not living in poverty. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(7/8), 2821. Google Scholar | |
|
Wallerstein, J. S., Lewis, J. (1998). The long-term impact of divorce on children: A first report from a 25-year study. Family Court Review, 36, 368-383. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
*Yan, W., Lin, Q. (2005). Parent involvement and mathematics achievement: Contrast across racial and ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 116-127. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
*Zellman, G. L., Waters, J. M. (1998). Understanding the impact of parent school involvement on educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 360-370. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
*Zuniga, K. M. (2005). The influence of individual of individual characteristics and parenting behaviors on adolescent academic performance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(9-A). 3591. Google Scholar |
Author Biography
William H. Jeynes is a Senior Fellow at Princeton’s Witherspoon Institute and a Professor of Education at California State University, Long Beach. He specializes in conducting meta-analyses on parental involvement. He has given speeches for the White House and several U.S. Government departments. He graduated first in his class from Harvard University and has advised a number of U.S. and foreign leaders.