u3QtN

Recommendations

Info

Form of Parental Involvement program for 1stgraders (book reading with parents adapting PI to increasing skill; support for writing, enjoyable home activities complementing teaching) Citation Giasson, J. (2005). Effects of a family literacy program adapting parental intervention to first graders’ evolution of reading and writing abilities. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 5, 253-278. Age of Sample / Study Design Longitudinal, intervention, control group ANOVA Type of Study / Number in Sample (N) Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome Overall / Other Results (53 in workshops, 55 in control group) 96% Caucasian students from French-speaking homes in Montreal and Quebec City significantly higher levels of sentence structure, vocabulary, spelling, and length of text. They also performed significantly better on the reading (F [1, 107] = 7.61; p = < 0.01) and writing tests (F [1, 107] =14.13; p = < 0.001). Treatment was for 1 year and involved 9 workshops, lasting 90 minutes, on topics of book reading and school success, book reading even in grade 1, library visit, playing with letters, functional reading and writing, writing plays, and so on. importance of interventions with both writing and reading elements and the utility of programs that adapt with children’s changing knowledge. LH Meta-Analyses, 2001-2012 (8 Studies) Form of Parental Involvement Aspirations, communications, home supervision, participation at school C Citation Fan, X., and Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement in students’ academic achievement: A metaanalysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-21. Age of Sample / Study Design Various ages Effect sizes Type of Study / Number in Sample (N) Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome Overall / Other Results Meta-analysis of 25 studies representing over 130,000 students Positive relationship between PI and academic achievement (r = +0.25). Lower relationships with math (r = 0.18) and reading (r = 0.18). Specific types of involvement had more significant relationships than others. For example: Aspirations for education, r = 0.39 Communication, r = 0.19 Supervision, r = 0.09 Participation, r = 0.32 Strongest effects resulted when GPA (or a global Specific types of family involvement)have different relationships to different outcomes. In this study, aspirations for education had the strongest relationship with achievement, while supervision (for example, rules about TV viewing) had the weakest relationship. Appendix Table A.1 121
Form of Parental Involvement Citation Age of Sample / Study Design Type of Study / Number in Sample (N) Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome Overall / Other Results achievement measure) was used, rather than a subjectspecific measure. Shared reading programs, partnership programs, homework checking, communication between parents and teachers, Head Start, English as a Second Language (ESL) Jeynes, W. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706-742. PK to grade 12 Effect sizes Meta-analysis of 51 studies between 1964 and 2006 Results demonstrated many positive results for different forms of PI and overall achievement. For example: Overall achievement and PI, d = 0.30** Younger students, d = 0.29** Shared reading, d = 0.51** Partnership programs, d = 0.35* Homework check, d = 0.27* Communication between parents and teachers, d = 0.28* ESL and Head Start and ESL, d = 0.22 (not significant) Significant and positive evidence for the efficacy of family involvement programs relating to positive achievement; notably, shared reading and partnership programs were the strongest forms. LH, FIS Parenting programs, parent home learning, communicating, volunteering, community support C Mattingly, D. J., Prislin, R., McKenzie, T. L., Rodriguez, J. L., and Kayzar, B. (2002). Evaluating evaluations: The case of parent involvement programs. Review of Educational Research, 72, 549- 576. K to grade12 PI programs Review of 41 studies At least half the studies are longitudinal. The analysis did not suggest that PI programs are an effective means of improving student achievement. However, the authors’ table summarizing results for literacy-related programs indicates that about 75% of them (21 of 28) had some benefits for students and/or parents in literacy-related outcomes or behaviors. Most programs were multidimensional and included an average of 3.4 intervention components. Most included help for parents to support student learning at home or improving parenting skills. Few studies had pre- or posttests and matched control groups. Little demographic information was collected, and outcome measures were not great. Many studies The analysis did not suggest that PI programs are an effective means of improving student achievement. Serious design, methodological, and analytical errors inherent in studies prevent definite conclusions. Later studies tend to do a better job of linking PI to appropriate outcomes. Appendix Table A.1 122
Page 1:
Frances L. Van Voorhis Michelle F.
Page 4 and 5:
This literature review is being fun
Page 7:
Overview List of Exhibits Preface A
Page 10:
Box 3.3 Feature Study: Nonintervent
Page 14:
Acknowledgments This literature rev
Page 17 and 18:
lies’ engagement in activities th
Page 19 and 20:
Similarly, when parents and their c
Page 21 and 22:
learning and development. We need m
Page 23 and 24:
percent). Although family poverty l
Page 25 and 26:
The intensive search for studies th
Page 27 and 28:
Family Involvement Literature Revie
Page 29 and 30:
There were interesting differences
Page 31 and 32:
Research Findings: Reading and Lite
Page 33 and 34:
A final, sizable meta-analysis expl
Page 35 and 36:
Researchers found that migrant chil
Page 37 and 38:
Box 2.2 Feature Study: Effects of P
Page 39 and 40:
Box 2.3 Feature Studies: Parent-Chi
Page 41 and 42:
et al., 2010). The study may have b
Page 43 and 44:
Box 2.5 Feature Study: Effects of F
Page 45 and 46:
experiences and many measures of pr
Page 47 and 48:
Research Findings: Family Involveme
Page 49 and 50:
Box 2.6 Feature Study: Effects of F
Page 51 and 52:
• More direct family-school conta
Page 53 and 54:
kindergarten, and focused on one go
Page 55 and 56:
• Invite parents and children to
Page 57 and 58:
Summary: School Outreach to Engage
Page 59 and 60:
with student achievement and that p
Page 61 and 62:
general measure of involvement at h
Page 63 and 64:
Research Findings: Supportive Paren
Page 65 and 66:
in grade 1 and had indirect effects
Page 67 and 68:
• Preschool Bayley Mental Develop
Page 69 and 70:
epertory of such studies would guid
Page 71 and 72:
• Guide parents’ on learning ac
Page 73 and 74:
studies) examined data over a singl
Page 75 and 76:
generated more correct math respons
Page 77 and 78:
teach their children math in presch
Page 79 and 80:
Box 3.2 features the pilot study of
Page 81 and 82:
Box 3.3 Feature Study: Nonintervent
Page 83 and 84:
The nonintervention studies also co
Page 85 and 86:
measure, based on teachers’ views
Page 87 and 88:
evaluations by researchers and not
Page 89 and 90:
which, in turn, may help improve ch
Page 91 and 92: for new research include (1) studie
Page 93 and 94: Summary and Reflections: Family Inv
Page 96 and 97: Chapter 4 Summary, Reflections, and
Page 98 and 99: outcomes of students should end lin
Page 100 and 101: eliefs and attitudes about family i
Page 102 and 103: Well-Designed, Rigorous Studies Tha
Page 104 and 105: Scale-up studies can take intervent
Page 106: third-grade Test of Language Develo
Page 110 and 111: Family Involvement Literature Revie
Page 112 and 113: Form of Parental Involvement LH Cit
Page 114 and 115: Form of Parental Involvement Citati
Page 116 and 117: Form of Parental Involvement autono
Page 118 and 119: Form of Parental Involvement parent
Page 122 and 123: Form of Parental Involvement emotio
Page 128 and 129: Studies of Kindergarten (9 studies)
Page 132 and 133: Form of Parental Involvement home l
Page 134 and 135: Form of Parental Involvement of FI
Page 136 and 137: Studies of Kindergarten and Above (
Page 138 and 139: Form of Parental Involvement LH, P,
Page 140 and 141: Form of Parental Involvement networ
Page 146: Form of Parental Involvement involv
Page 155 and 156: Studies of Kindergarten Children (1
Page 173 and 174: International Studies (10 Studies)
Page 179 and 180: Form of Parental Involvement Age of
Page 181 and 182: Form of Parental Involvement LH Cit
Page 186 and 187: Based on research to date, which ov
Page 188: customize its activities to meet it
Page 191 and 192: Title of Activity (Alphabetically)
Page 194 and 195:
Family Involvement Literature Revie
Page 196:
Appendix Table B.2 (continued) Titl
Page 199 and 200:
Appendix Table B.3 (continued) Titl
Page 202:
Appendix C Glossary
Page 205 and 206:
tionships impacting children’s ex
Page 207 and 208:
nonexperimental study: a research d
Page 209 and 210:
Institute of Education Sciences. (2
Page 211 and 212:
Weiss, H., Caspe, M., and Lopez, M.
Page 213 and 214:
*Crosnoe, R., and Cooper, C. E. (20
Page 215 and 216:
McBride-Chang, C. (2012). Shared-bo
Page 217 and 218:
138 in J. Flood and P. Anders (eds.
Page 219 and 220:
References for Chapter 3 Family Inv
Page 221 and 222:
Eccles, J. S., and Harold, R. D. (1
Page 223 and 224:
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M
Page 225 and 226:
National Council of Teachers of Mat
Page 227 and 228:
Zellman, G., and Waterman, J. M. (1
show all

u3QtN

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?