Early school-based parent involvement, children’s self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An Australian longitudinal study

Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 168–177

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

Early school-based parent involvement, children’s self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An Australian longitudinal study Graham R. Daniel a,∗ , Cen Wang a , Donna Berthelsen b,1 a b

Research Institute for Professional Practice, Learning and Education, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW 2795, Australia Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 29 June 2015 Received in revised form 9 November 2015 Accepted 22 December 2015 Keywords: School-based parent involvement Self-regulated learning Academic achievement Early years education Longitudinal research

a b s t r a c t Parent involvement is widely accepted as being associated with children’s improved educational outcomes. However, the role of early school-based parent involvement is still being established. This study investigated the mediating role of self-regulated learning behaviors in the relationship between early school-based parent involvement and children’s academic achievement, using data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (N = 2616). Family socioeconomic position, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status, language background, child gender and cognitive competence, were controlled, as well home and community based parent involvement activity in order to derive a more confident interpretation of the results. Structural equation modeling analyses showed that children’s self-regulated learning behaviors fully mediated the relationships between school-based parent involvement at Grade 1 and children’s reading achievement at Grade 3. Importantly, these relationships were evident for children across all socio-economic backgrounds. Although there was no direct relationship between parent involvement at Grade 1 and numeracy achievement at Grade 3, parent involvement was indirectly associated with higher children’s numeracy achievement through children’s self-regulation of learning behaviors, though this relationship was stronger for children from middle and higher socio-economic backgrounds. Implications for policy and practice are discussed, and further research recommended. © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The term parent involvement has been used to refer to home, school and community-based activities in which parents engage to support their children’s education and development (Epstein, 1995; Seginer, 2006). Extensive research over several decades has documented a broad range of academic and socio-emotional benefits for children associated with parent involvement (Emerson, Fear, Fox, & Sanders, 2012; Wilder, 2014). Although the ongoing involvement and interest of parents provides students with support throughout their education, parent involvement is particularly effective in the earlier years of schooling, (Avvisati, Besbas, & Guyon, 2010; Borgonovi & Montt, 2012; Cheadle, 2009; Fan & Williams, 2010; Pomerantz, Moorman, & Litwack, 2007). These benefits are evident regardless of family social and economic background (Dearing, Kreider, Simpkins, & Weiss, 2006; Wilder, 2014). In recent times there has been renewed policy interest in the poten-

∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +61 2 6338 4417. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (G.R. Daniel), [email protected] (C. Wang), [email protected] (D. Berthelsen). 1 Fax: +61 7 31383989. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.016 0885-2006/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

tial of parent involvement to contribute to school improvement and to promote equity in schooling outcomes(Borgonovi & Montt, 2012; Bull, Brooking, & Campbell, 2008; DEEWR, 2008; World Bank, 2008). A limitation of research in the field of parent involvement research has been the inconsistent application of fundamental terms, restricting the establishment of a rigorously developed foundation to support different parent involvement practices (Baker & Soden, 2005; Mattingly, Prislin, McKenzie, Rodriguez, & Kayzar, 2002). Parent involvement in general terms is defined as representing “. . .parents’ active commitment to spend time to assist in the academic and general development of their children” (Borgonovi & Montt, 2012, p. 20). Researchers have posited different forms of parent involvement, the most recognized of these being a typology developed by Epstein (1987; 1995) that includes parents’ involvement in parenting, communicating with schools, volunteering in school activities, supporting learning at home, involvement in school decision making processes and engagement with community resources. Pomerantz et al. (2007) proposed that the broad distinction between home-based and school-based parent involvement offers a useful conceptualization for investigating the processes and outcomes of parent involvement. In this paper, we focus specifically on parent involvement in school-based activities.

G.R. Daniel et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 168–177

169

Extensive research has established that parent involvement in general is associated with improved academic outcomes for children (Emerson et al., 2012; Wilder, 2014). In a comprehensive meta-analysis of a large range of educational interventions, Hattie (2009) found an effect size for the association between parent involvement and student academic outcomes of d = .51 (p < .05). A meta-analysis of 41 studies of parent involvement in urban elementary schools by Jeynes’ (2005) found a medium effect size of d = .40 (p < .05) for this association. When Jeynes (2005) included only those studies with sophisticated controls, this relationship was still evident, though the effect size reduced to d = .21 (p < .05). Although a great deal is known about the academic benefits associated with parent involvement in general, the role of schoolbased parent involvement in student’s academic outcomes is still being investigated.One important limitation of current research is that few studies have examined potential mediating variables in this relationship. Drawing on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) that proposes contextual and personal factors may jointly affect students’ academic achievement, the present study considers the role of children’s self-regulated learning behaviors in the relationship between school-based parent involvement and student academic outcomes in the early years of school. Self-regulated learning (SRL) refers to children’s ability to manage their learning behaviors for goal attainment (Wolters, 2003) and has received increasing recognition as an important factor linked to student academic achievement. However, its relationship with school-based parent involvement has rarely been investigated.The purpose of the present study was to investigate if SRL mediates the relationship between school-based parent involvement and academic achievement in the early years of schooling, while controlling for a number of contextually important demographic variables. The exploration of this model can contribute new understandings of how parent involvement might impact on student academic achievement, and the importance of family-school partnerships to improve student learning outcomes. Identifying these child-related mediators provides theorists and practitioners with a deeper understanding of the complexities of the relationship between parent involvement and student outcomes.

Other studies that have included statistical controls for socio-economic status, cultural background, and initial school performance have reported no statistically significant relationship between school-based parent involvement and academic achievement (Domina, 2005; El Nokali, Bachman & VotrubaDrzal, 2010). Furthermore, meta-analyses by Avvisati et al., 2010; Jeynes (2007), and Wilder (2014) found no significant relationship betweenschool-based parent involvement and academic achievement when standardized test scores rather than school-based assessments were analysed. Jeynes (2010, 2011) suggested that parent involvement is more complex than originally envisioned and that the more subtle forms of parent involvement, such as quality of communication between parents and their children, parenting style, and higher educational expectations, may be more salient in supporting improved student outcomes. Jeynes (2011) suggests that the next step in parent involvement research is to rigorously establish the efficacy of particular strategies of parent involvement in different socio-cultural contexts, and to investigate the mechanisms by which different strategies are effective. In investigating the mechanisms between general parent involvement and children’s academic achievement, some mediators have been examined. Dotterer and Wehrspann (2015) identified the mediating role of student school engagement variables, such as school bonding, school self esteem and school trouble, in the relationship between parent involvement and student perceived academic competence with a group of adolescents. In relation to school-based parent involvement, Hill and Craft (2003) found kindergarten children’s academic skills to be a mediator between school-based parent involvement and math performance among African American kindergarten children. Choi, Chang, Kim, and Reio (2015) found that school-based parent involvement predicted math achievement among 10th graders through the pathway of math efficacy. However, self-regulated learning (SRL) as a mediator in parent involvement research has rarely been examined. In this study, we focus on the mediating role of SRL in the specific relationship between school-based parent involvement and children’s academic achievement.

1.1. School-based parent involvement

1.2. Children’s self-regulated learning as a mediator

As a form of parent involvement, school-based parent involvement can be defined as encompassing a range of “practices on the part of parents that require their making actual contact with schools” (Pomerantz et al., 2007, p. 374), and represents one of the most visibly identifiable forms of parent involvement in children’s education. These activities include visiting the classroom, volunteering in school activities, attending concerts and performances involving their children, and communicating informally and formally with the teacher. A number of studies have identified positive associations between higher school-based parent involvement and improved student success, particularly in the earlier years of schooling (Englund, Luckner, Whaley, & Egeland, 2004; Fan & Chen, 2001; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Hill & Craft, 2003; SuiChu & Willms, 1996). Dearing et al. (2006) for example found school-based parent involvement in the early years of children’s education predicted higher literacy skills in later years of elementary school, controlling for children’s literacy skills during kindergarten. Jeynes’ (2005) meta-analysis reported that attendance and participation in school-based parent involvement activities had an effect size on academic standardized test results of d = .22 (p < .05). However, only two studies that met the required statistical rigor for inclusion were available for Jeynes’ review, reporting a wide range in findings (d = .2 and d = .42). Neither study included sophisticated statistical controls.

Self-regulated learning (SRL) refers to students’ active participation in their own learning by setting goals, monitoring and controlling their cognition, and motivation and behavior to appropriately transform their mental abilities into actual performance for goal attainment (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2002, 2008; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011). In general, self-regulated learners have been characterized as reflective individuals who possess a repertoire of strategies, and who have the ability to purposefully manage their learning behaviors (Wolters, 2003). SRL comprises the processes of self-motivation, self-control and self-evaluation (Xu, Kushner Benson, Mudrey-Camino, & Steiner, 2010). It has been shown to have positive links to students’ motivation and academic achievement (Bodovski & Youn, 2011; Pintrich, 2000; Pintrich & de Groot, 1990; Xu et al., 2010; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988). Individual intrinsic motivation plays an important role in the initiation and maintenance of SRL strategies (Paris Lipson & Wixson, 1983; Pintrich, 1988, 1989; Pintrich, Cross, Kozma, & McKeachie, 1986). School-based parent involvement is thought to provide children with a demonstration of their faith in, and support of, the child through their investment of time in the school context, increasing children’s confidence and demonstrating the availability of encouragement and support for the child (Haynes, Comer, & Hamilton-Lee, 1989; Parr, McNaughton, Timperley & Robinson, 1993). Based on an adaption of the expectancy-value theory of motivation (Eccles, 1983), Pintrich and de Groot (1990) theorized

170

G.R. Daniel et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 168–177

that parent involvement increases students’ intrinsic motivation in academic tasks by supporting students’ positive competence beliefs in themselves (expectancy) and enhancing their perceptions of the intrinsic, utility and attainment value of the tasks. Similarly, Pomerantz, Grolnick and Price (2005) proposed that parent involvement promotes student academic success by supporting the development of a “positive approach to achievement” (p. 260) and contributing to the satisfaction of children’s psychological needs for self belief, autonomy, a sense of relatedness to others and purpose (Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998). School-based parent involvement is also thought to contribute to children’s motivation to learn and commitment to school activities through an inferred parental affirmation of the validity of the school site, staff, and the tasks experienced in the learning environment (Hill & Taylor, 2004; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Pomerantz et al., 2007; Xu et al., 2010). In a study of 825 younger adolescents in America and China, Cheung and Pomerantz (2015) found that parents’ demonstration of values through parent involvement was associated with students’ adoption of values about schooling through a perception-acceptance pathway (Cheung & Pomerantz, 2015, p. 309). Together, these affirmations and building of educational social capital promote children’s intrinsic motivation, promoting higher student engagement, and improved school success (Avvisati, Gurgand, Guyon, & Maurin, 2010; Fan & Williams, 2010; Grolnick & Slowiazczek, 1994; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Pomerantz et al., 2007). Some studies have identified a direct relationship between home-basedparent involvement and children’s SRL (see GonzalezDeHass, Willems, & Holbein, 2005 for a review). To the best of our knowledge,only two studies have examined SRL as a mediator in the relationship between parent involvement and children’s academic outcomes with only one including an investigation of school-based parent involvement in this relationship.. In a study among U.S. high school students, Wong (2008) found student self-regulation to mediate the effects of parent involvement and autonomy support on students’ academic performance. In another study investigating a range of parent involvement strategies with Grade 5 students using data from the ECLS-K study, Xu et al. (2010) found that school-based parent involvement, along with higher parent expectations, provided the strongest support for students’ Grade 5 reading outcomes, and these relationships were mediated through student SRL. Both of these studies were cross sectional analyses, with a focus on older elementary and high school students. Furthermore, the studies by Wong (2008) and Xu et al. (2010) did not account for the influence of important demographic information, such as social economic status, or personal factors, such as cognitive competence, to lend stronger confidence in the pattern of results. Xu et al. (2010) identified the need for future research to clarify the effects of different forms of parent involvement on SRL and student academic achievement across the school grades in order to improve our understanding and practices of parent involvement. Research has shown the emergence and increase of selfregulatory ability during 5–7 years (Bronson, 2000) and has established the link between self-regulation and academic achievement among young children (i.e., kindergarteners) (Howse, Lange, Farran, Boyles, 2010; Matthews, Pointz, & Morrison, 2009). However, it is not clear whether there is an ongoing (longitudinal) relationship between early school-based parent involvement and academic development through the mediating variable of SRL once other control variables are included. Establishing the relationships among self-regulation, parent involvement, and academic achievement in the early years of schooling while controlling for these demographic variables may have important early intervention implications when children begin school. These understandings can also contribute to the foundations in the development of robust

and responsive parent involvement policies and practices that best meet the needs of individual families. 1.3. The present study The present study takes the conceptual framework of social cognitive self-regulated learning theory (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000) and examines the validity of a mediation model. Specifically, we examine the mediating role of children’s SRL at Grade 1 in the relationship between school-based parent involvement at Grade 1 (a retrospective measure of parent involvement during the current and/or previous school terms) and children’s academic achievement (i.e., reading and numeracy) at Grade 3. Based on the theoretical and empirical evidence, we hypothesize that (1) schoolbased parent involvement is positively linked to students’ SRL, (2) students’ SRL is positively associated with their academic achievement and (3) SRL serves as a mediator between school-based parent involvement and students’ academic achievement. This study extends previous research in four ways. First, we focus particularly on school-based parent involvement to gain greater understanding in this area of research given existing inconsistent findings in previous studies. Second, we focus on younger children in the early school years compared to examining parenting involvement on the achievement of older elementary students and high school students. Third, the analyses in this paper include a range of important demographic variables and a measure of student cognitive competence to control for important influences that may impact on the findings to address limitations in current research. Finally, these analyses examine relationships between the important variables across two time points, rather than in a cross-sectional study, to achieve a better understanding of possible longitudinal effects of school-based parent involvement on children’s academic achievement. These analyses respond to the need for further research in this area, identified by Jeynes (2011) and the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (Borgonovi & Montt, 2012) in order to establish a clearer understanding of the effects of different forms of parent involvement on student outcomes and increase the evidence of the importance of family-school partnerships on children’s learning across the school years. 2. Method 2.1. Participants and procedure The data for the analyses in this paper were drawn from Growing up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) for the Kindergarten (K) cohort (AIFS, 2012). LSAC is a nationally representative longitudinal study of child development funded by the Australian Government Department of Social Services (formerly the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs). This is the first nationally representative database to comprehensively record the development of Australian children and adolescents. The sampling frame for participation in LSAC was the Medicare Australia enrollment database (national scheme for universal health cover). A two-stage clustered design was used through which postcodes were randomly selected and then proportionally numbers of children were randomly selected within each postcode, according to population statistics. Stratification was implemented to ensure that the number of selected children was proportionate to the total number of children within each Australian state or territory. LSAC Kindergarten cohort data collection (N = 4983) began in 2004 when children were 4–5 years old and subsequent waves of data have been collected every two years.

G.R. Daniel et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 168–177

For the purpose of the current study that focuses on the early years during school, only children who were in Grade 1 (age 6–7 years) at Wave 2 and Grade 3 (age 8–9 years) at Wave 3 of data collection were included in the analyses. While the original recruitment to LSAC was age-based, the analyses in this paper are drawn on a selected sample of children by school grade across the Australian states. This resulted in a sample of N = 2877 (48.5% girls; mean age = 6.22, SD = .40). Some of the children were identified by their parents as Indigenous Australians (2.5%), or as being from a language background other than English (10.7%). 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. School-based parent involvement School-based parent involvement was measured using both parent report for a count of parent involvement in school-based activities by binary responses for each activity (0 = No; 1 = Yes). School-based parent involvement is a retrospective measure collected at Grade 1 but teachers and parents were asked to think in regards to the current and/or previous school terms. The items were designed by the LSAC team based on content adapted from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Cohort of 1998–1999 (US Department of Education; Spring Teacher Questionnaire) and the US National Household Educational Survey (NCES, The US National Centre for Educational Statistics 1998–1999) (AIFS, 2012). Parents responded to five items (e.g., “Visited Child’s class”; “Contacted the teacher about study child”; “Talked to parents of other children at study child’s school”; “Attended a school event in which study child participated”; “Volunteered in study child’s class or helped with a class excursion”) and teachers responded to eight items (e.g., “Parent contacted teacher”; “Visited classroom”; “Attended a school event in which the child participated”; “Volunteered in child’s class or helped with a class excursion”; “Helped elsewhere in the school”; “Attended a meeting of the parent-school committee”; “Helped with fundraising”; “Participated in other activities”). A sum of responses for each of parent-reported and teacher-reported activities captured a variety of forms of parent engagement in school-based activities during the previous school term. The sum scores provided two indicators of a latent variable for ‘school-based parent involvement’. Utilizing both parent-report and teacher-report data reduced the potential of a social desirability bias if only a parent self-report measure was used (Bakker & Denessen, 2007; Morsbach & Prinz, 2006). 2.2.2. Self-regulated learning (SRL) In the LSAC teacher questionnaire for Grade 1, a six-item measure of student SRL was used that drew on the scale used in the U.S. Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten (ECLS-K) (NCES, 1998–1999). Items included reflected self-motivation (e.g., shows eagerness to learn new things), self-control (e.g., persists in completing tasks) and self-evaluation (e.g., easily adapts to changes in routine) (Xu et al., 2010), rated on a 4-point scale (1 = Never; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often; 4 = Very Often). This scale has shown high internal consistency in Xu et al. (2010) with the split-half reliability of .91. In the current study, the measure also yielded good reliability (Cronbach’s ˛ = .92). 2.2.3. Academic achievement Students’ Grade 3 reading and numeracy achievement outcomes were drawn from data collected for the national Australian basic skills standardized tests—the National Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) that are available through data linkage in LSAC. NAPLAN is a bi-annual assessment initiated by the Australian Government in 2008. These tests are completed by all students in Australia in Years 3, 5, 7, and 9, including students

171

attending private and Catholic schools, with parents having the right to opt-out. NAPLAN results are calculated as standardized scores (from 1 to 1000) and individual students scores are reported against the school and national averages for the tests. Literacy skills are reported in the areas of Reading, Writing, Spelling, and Grammar and Punctuation. In Mathematics students are provided with one overall numeracy score, reflecting a range of mathematical skills based on the national curriculum, including the areas of number, space, measurement, data and thinking mathematically. Schools and individual teachers are also provided with a range of data to analyze student, classroom and school performance to support program development. NAPLAN data are available through data linkage for 84.8% of the children in the LSAC K-cohort who were recruited at Wave 1 (2004). Daraganova, Edwards, and Sipworth (2013) reported that NAPLAN data is more likely to be available for children from more highly educated families, and for children from families in which at least one parent or the participant child speaks a language other than English at home. School starting age varies by state jurisdictions across Australia and LSAC children who entered school at a younger age compared to their peers are less likely to be represented in Year 3 NAPLAN data because they did not complete the Year 3 national tests in the same year as the majority of the LSAC cohort. 2.2.4. Covariates As is clear from previous research, differences in the level of parent involvement and academic outcomes for children is influenced by socio-demographic characteristics. The covariates in our analyses include: child gender (0 = Boy; 1 = Girl), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (ATSI) (0 = No; 1 = Yes), and language background (LB) (0 = Non English; 1 = English). We also controlled for family socio-economic position (SEP) which is an LSAC derived variable that combines measures of total household income, mother’s and father’s education, and mother’s and father’s occupational prestige (Blakemore, Gibbings, & Strazdins, 2006). It has a mean of zero and standard deviation of one. We also attempted to control for the possibilities of a selection effect in increased parent involvement related to student performance. However, NAPLAN testing is not available for students prior to Year 3. To control for children’s prior cognitive competence at T1 we applied the results of the WISC IV Matrix Reasoning (Wechsler, 2003). Scores on this measure in the LSAC dataset are standardized on age norms given in the WISC-IV manual. 2.3. Data analyses To test the proposed model for the relationships between variables, structural equation modeling was used and conducted with Mplus Version 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012). To account for potential non-normality in the data, we used the robust maximum likelihood estimator (MLR), which produces maximum likelihood estimation accounting for standard errors and the chi-square test statistic for non-normality (Muthén & Muthén, 2012). To evaluate model fit, we followed Hu and Bentler’s (1999) recommendations for adequate model fit: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) >.90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) <.08, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) <.08, and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) >.90. 2.3.1. Missing data There were no missing data for parent school involvement. Missing data for the SRL measure was less than .4%. We conducted Maximum likelihood EM imputation to replace missing value to reduce potential bias in the estimates identified (Enders, 2013; Shin, Davison, & Long, 2009). Children with missing data on both math and reading NAPLAN (9%) were excluded from the

172

G.R. Daniel et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 168–177

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables (N = 2616). 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

School involvement parent report School involvement teacher report Approach to learning NAPLAN reading NAPLAN numeracy Socioeconomic position Cognitive competence Mean Standard deviation

.36** .04 .08** .06** .18** .04* 3.81 1.14

2

.19** .13** .10** .19** .09** 4.14 1.75

3

.35** .30** .17** .19** 3.31 .61

4

5

6

.68** .33** .40**

.31** .42**

.18**

427.44 84.56

422.10 74.53

.08 .99

7

10.50 2.94

Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

study, resulting in a sample size of N = 2616. There were no significant differences in child gender and ATSI status between the selected and the excluded sample. However, the selected sample children were more likely to have a higher socio-economic position, t(2874) = −4.39, p < .001 and less likely to speak a main language other than English, 2 = 12.83, p < .001. Therefore, the current sample was no longer representative of Australian children. 3. Results

3.1. Structural equation modeling Two structural equation models were estimated: to test mediation, a direct path model (Fig. 1) and a mediation model (Fig. 2) were estimated and their model fit indices were compared. Both models were good fit to the data: Satorra and Bentler (2001) scaled (mean-adjusted) chi-square test indicated the mediation model, 2 (62) = 299.82, 2 /df = 4.84, RMSEA = 04; CFI = .98, TLI = .97; SRMR = .04, was a significantly better fitting model than the direct path model, 2 = 281.86, df = 54, p < .001.

Means, standard deviations, zero order correlations among variables are presented in Table 1.

Fig. 1. The direct path model. All path coefficients are standardized. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Paths from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, Language Background to NAPLAN reading and numeracy scores are present but are not shown due to non-significance.

G.R. Daniel et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 168–177

173

Fig. 2. The mediation model with SRL as a mediator. All path coefficients are standardized. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Paths from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, Language Background to NAPLAN reading and numeracy scores and the path from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander to approach to learning are present but are not shown due to non-significance.

Table 2 Standardized total, direct and indirect effects between parent school-based involvement and NAPLAN scores with SRL as a mediator. Paths

Direct effects

Indirect effects

Parent school-based involvement .07** NAPLAN reading

Total effects

.02(ns)

.05***

Parent school-based involvement NAPLAN numeracy .03(ns)

−.03(ns)

.05***

Note. Due to rounding, the total effects may not necessarily be the sum of indirect and direct effects. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

3.1.1. School-based parent involvement, SRL and academic achievement As shown in Fig. 2, after controlling for various covariates, including children’s prior cognitive competence, school-based parent involvement positively predicted students’ SRL (beta = .21, p < .001), which in turn, linked to higher NAPLAN scores on reading (beta = .26, p < .001) and numeracy (beta = .24, p < .001). That is, for one SD increase in school-based parent involvement, student SRL increased by .21 SD. Similarly, for one SD increase in student SRL, student NAPLAN reading and numeracy scores increased by .26 and .24 SD, respectively. The total effects, direct effects and indirect effects between school-based parent involvement and NAPLAN scores are reported in Table 2. Total effects are the effects between school-based parent involvement and NAPLAN scores without the

mediator. Direct effects are the direct pathway between parent school-based involvement and NAPLAN scores after including the mediator of SRL and indirect effects are reflected in the pathways between school-based parent involvement and NAPLAN through the SRL measure as the mediator. As shown in Fig. 1, school-based parent involvement had a small significant total effect with children’s NAPLAN reading scores two years later (beta = .07, p < .01). As shown by the non-significant direct effects in the mediation model, the effect of school-based parent involvement on NAPLAN reading scores was fully mediated. Although there was no direct relationship between school-based parent involvement and NAPLAN numeracy score, they were linked indirectly through student SRL. The mediation model (Fig. 2) explained 14% of the variance in SRL and 28% of the variance of NAPLAN reading and numeracy scores.

3.1.2. Family and child characteristics Consistent with the literature, higher SEP was related to a greater range of school-based parent involvement activities, better children’s SRL and higher NAPLAN scores in reading and numeracy. There was no significant difference in SRL for children from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background, although these families were engaged in fewer forms of school-based parent involvement. Families of non-English speaking background participated in fewer school-based involvement strategies, although these children had higher scores on the measure of SRL. Girls had higher SRL and NAPLAN reading scores and boys had higher numeracy scores.

174

G.R. Daniel et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 168–177

3.2. Supplemental analyses 3.2.1. Controlling for home and community based parent involvement To examine whether the associations between school-based parent involvement and students’ SRL and academic achievement are still true when other types of parent involvement are included, we included parent home and community based parent involvement in the model. Both parent home and community involvement are retrospective measures. At Wave 2 (6–7 years), parents responded to a seven-item scale on home involvement, asking them in the past week, on how many days have they, or someone else in the family, engaged in the following activities with their child: read to the child from a book; told child a story; drawn pictures or did other art or craft activities with child; played music, sang songs; played with toys or games indoors; involved child in everyday activities at home; played a game outdoors or exercised together. Parents also responded to a five-item scale on community involvement, asking whether in the past month, the child had done any of the following with them or another family member:gone to a playground/pool; gone to concert, museum etc.; gone to movies/sporting event; attended a religious service; visited library etc.. This model also yielded adequate fit to the data, 2 (78) = 4.63, 2 /df = 6.88, RMSEA = 04; CFI = .98, TLI = .97; SRMR = .04. Importantly, the role of school-based parent involvement still held true and standardized path coefficients were very similar to that of the previous model. In the new model, schoolbased parent involvement still positively predicted students’ SRL (beta = .20, p < .001), which in turn, linked to higher NAPLAN scores on reading (beta = .26, p < .001) and numeracy (beta = .24, p < .001). 3.2.2. Multigroup analyses To understand whether the pattern of relationships among variables in the mediation model is similar for children from from different socio-economic backgrounds, we divided the sample into three subgroups: lower SEP quartile (lowest 25%) (N = 649), middle 50% (N = 1313) and high SEP quartile (highest 25%) (N = 653). We then conducted the same mediation model (including parent home and community involvement) for each of the three subgroups. Due to the low number of children from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status in the whole sample, we were not able to include it as a covariate for the subgroup analyses (only two children from ATSI background for the highest SEP quartile). Multigroup analyses showed that there were no significant differences in the relationships between school-based parent involvement and SRL and the relationships between SRL and NAPLAN reading scores across the three SEP subgroups. However, the path between SRL and NAPLAN numeracy was significantly higher in the middle SEP group (beta = .27, p < . 001) and the high SEP group (beta = .29, p < . 001) than that in the low SEP group (beta = .18, p < . 001), Wald’s tests ≥6.74, df = 1, ps < .01. There were no differences between the middle and high SEP group in the standardized path coefficients between SRL and NAPLAN numeracy. 4. Discussion This study expands understanding about the associations between school-based parent involvement and children’s academic achievement in the early years of schooling and of the role of student SRL as a mediator in this relationship. In the analyses, school-based parent involvement was directly linked to higher reading achievement, but not to numeracy achievement. Higher levels of SRL mediated the association between parent school involvement and higher achievement in both reading and numeracy. These mediated and longitudinal associations between early

parent school involvement and achievement were statistically strong. These relationships were evident even while taking account of family socio-economic position, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status, and whether a language other than English was spoken at home. The supplemental analyses further showed that these relationships were also evident after controlling for home and community parent involvement and largely similar for children from families of different socio-economic status. While these are correlational associations, the findings of positive associations between school-based parent involvement and student SRL have implications for schools, parents and policy makers and for those involved in the professional development of teachers, by indicating the potential value in enhancing opportunities for school-based parent involvement and recognizing the importance of children self-regulatory skills to later achievement. While these findings imply that school-based parent involvement influences achievement through children’s capacity for SRL, it must also be acknowledged that parenting influences prior to school that support the development of children’s SRL may underpin these relationships. Children, whose parents understand the importance of supporting children’s early behavioral and emotional self-regulatory skills prior to school, are more likely to begin school with skills that support engagement in learning and which, in turn, lead to higher school achievement. Parents who provide greater support for children’s self-regulatory skills are also more likely to be invested in their children’s school learning that leads to higher involvement with their child’s school. It must also be acknowledged that children’s self-regulatory cognitive skills, such as persistence and attendance, may make it more likely that parents of those children will involve themselves in school activities because of the reinforcement that this offers to those parents to be more involved compared with parents of children who have low self-regulatory skills and are not highly engaged in learning and school. The findings support current policy initiatives aimed at increasing parent involvement in family-school partnerships to support student development, and caution practitioners and researchers not to disregard the potential importance of school-based parent involvement as important to school practice. Knowledge of effective strategies to support children’s learning can contribute to family involvement (Harris & Goodall, 2008). Harris and Goodall asserted that this requires commitment and ongoing efforts by schools to ensure that all parents know how important their involvement in these activities is to support children school engagement. Teachers and school leaders, however, do not always feel well prepared to involve parents and acknowledge that involving families is one of the top three challenges in their profession (McKenzie, Rowley, Weldon, Murphy, & McMillan; Metlife, 2009, 2013). This is particularly the case when working with families from minority and disadvantaged backgrounds (Kim 2009). Establishing an understanding of the value of parent involvement is one way to enhance the outreach practices of teachers and school leaders (Katz & Bauch, 1999). Disseminating the findings of research evidence such as those demonstrated in our models, can contribute to the development of this knowledge. Parents may also face a range of barriers that limit their engagement in school-based activities (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011; Williams & Sanchez, 2011). This is particularly true for families from minority or disadvantaged backgrounds, where specific or multiple barriers restrict parent availability for school-based activities (Feiler, 2009). These findings confirm international research indicating differences in parent involvement in relation to family background are also relevant in the Australian context. Lower engagement in school-based parent involvement activities was related to socio-economic disaadvantage, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status and speaking a language other than English

G.R. Daniel et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 168–177

at home. The provision of opportunities for school-based parent involvement is important in order to improve access to a range of benefits for children from diverse backgrounds. When children are engaged in school learning there is likely to be improvements in self-regulation, as well as better learning outcomes. Exploring and evaluating alternative ways in which families can engage in school-based activitieshave been advocated as directions for further research (Baquedana-Lopez, Alexander, & Hernandez, 2013; Borgonovi & Montt, 2012; Daniel, 2011, 2015a, 2015b; Feiler, 2009; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011, Jeynes, 2011). Our findings confirm calls for more research activity to investigate the potential mechanisms by which school-based parent involvement is linked to children’s achievement. This would include more well-designed intervention studies that deliver programs to parents and children that support the development of children skills for cognitive, behavioral and emotional regulation in the early years of school. The associations between school-based parent involvement and children’s later achievement mediated by self-regulation for learning warrant further investigation about school practices to support parent involvement. Further investigation of strategies that promote student SRL are also important in exploring the associations between SRL and later academic achievement.

4.1. Limitations and future research directions There are a number of limitations in relation to the current findings. The current analyses are correlational in nature and cannot be used to make causal inference. Although the results indicate statistically significant associations between school-based parent involvement and student SRL, the directionality of this relationship is not established, that is whether parent school involvement impacts on children’s self-regulatory development or whether children with higher levels of self-regulation make it more likely that their parents will have greater involvement in their schooling. These findings are indicative of a relationship and further research is required to investigate directionality. The context of this research also limits the generalisability of the findings. Australia has a long history of minimal parent involvement (Marsh, 2010), with a highly centralized curriculum and school policy management structure that limits opportunities for involvement (Dimmock & Hattie, 1994). In addition, although the measure of parent school involvement used in this research is widely used in international longitudinal studies of children, it measured the variety of school-based involvement activities during a school term in which parents engaged rather than the frequency with which they engaged in these activities. It is possible that parents might be intensively involved in only one or two activities resulting in a lower score in the measure. Future studies need to develop and utilize measures of school-based parent involvement that capture intensity of parent involvement as well the forms of involvement in which parents engage.

5. Conclusions This study identifies positive associations between school-based parent involvement and student SRL in the early years of schooling, and the role or SRL in mediating the relationship between school-based parent involvement and student reading and numeracy achievement. These associations between parent involvement and SRL required further research on how parent involvement contributes to SRL development and children’s subsequent engagement in school and their school achievement through the school years. These findings contribute to a more complex and nuanced

175

understanding of the role of parent involvement and family-school partnerships in children’s achievement at school.

Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Excellence in Research in Early Years Education Collaborative Research Network project. This paper uses data from Growing Up in Australia, the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children is conducted in partnership between the Department of Social Services (DoSS) (previously Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, FaHCSIA), the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). The findings and views reported in this paper are those of the authors and should not be attributed to DoSS, AIFS or the ABS.

We had originally used APA as the referencing system recommended by ECRQ. Is this layout just for the online version? First time I have checked proofs in this system, thanks.References AIFS. (2012). Growing up in Australia: the longitudinal study of Australian children. Canberra: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Avvisati, F., Besbas, B., & Guyon, N. (2010). Parent involvement in school: a literature review. Revue d’Economie Politique, 120, 759–778. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3917/redp.205.0759 Baker, A. J. L., & Soden, L. M. (2005). The challenges of parent involvement research: reading for child and youth care people. Cyc-online: Reading for Child and Youth Care People, 77. Bakker, J., & Denessen, E. (2007). The concept of parent involvement: some theoretical and empirical considerations. International Journal About Parents in Education, 1, 188–199. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Baquedana-Lopez, P., Alexander, R. A., & Hernandez, S. J. (2013). Equity issues in parent and community involvement in schools: what teacher educators need to know. Review of Research in Education, 37, 149–182. http://dx.doi.org/10. 3102/0091732X12459718 Blakemore, T., Gibbings, J., & Strazdins, L. (2006). Measuring the socioeconomic position of families in HILDA and LSAC. In Paper presented at the Australian Consortium for Social and Political Research Incorporated (ACSPRI) social science methodology conference. Bodovski, K., & Youn, M. (2011). The long term effects of early acquired skills and behaviors on young children’s achievement in literacy and mathematics. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 9, 4–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1476718X10366727 Borgonovi, F., & Montt, G. (2012). Parent involvement in selected PISA countries and economies. In OECD education working papers, No. 73. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Bronson, M. B. (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood: nature and nurture. New York: The Guilford Press. Bull, A., Brooking, K., & Campbell, R. (2008). Successful home-school partnerships. New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Cheadle, J. E. (2009). Parent educational investment and children’s general knowledge development. Social Science Research, 38, 477–491. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.12.002 Choi, N., Chang, M., Kim, S., & Reio, T. G. (2015). A structural model of parent involvement with demographic and academic variables. Psychology in the Schools, 52, 154–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.21813 Cheung, C. S. S., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2015). Value development underlies the benefits of parents’ involvement in children’s learning: a longitudinal investigation in the United States and China. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 309–320. Daniel, G. R. (2011). ‘Family-school partnerships: towards sustainable pedagogical practice’. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 165–176. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/1359866X.2011.560651 Daniel, G. R. (2015a). Patterns of parent involvement: a longitudinal analysis of family-school partnerships in the early years of school in Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 40, 119–128. Daniel, G. R. (2015b). Parents’ experiences of teacher outreach in the early years of schooling. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 02188791.2015.1005051 Daraganova, G., Edwards, B., & Sipthorp, M. (2013). Using National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) data in the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2008). Family-school partnerships framework: a guide for schools and families. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

176

G.R. Daniel et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 168–177

Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., & Weiss, H. B. (2006). Family involvement in school and low-income children’s literacy performance: longitudinal associations between and within families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 653–664. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.653 Dimmock, C., & Hattie, J. (1994). Principals’ and teachers’ reactions to school restructuring. Australian Journal of Education, 38, 36–55. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/000494419403800103 Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: assessing the effectiveness of parent involvement in elementary school. Sociology of Education, 78, 233–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003804070507800303 Dotterer, A. M., & Wehrspann, E. (2015). Parent involvement and academic outcomes among urban adolescents: examining the role of school engagement. Educational Psychology, (October) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 01443410.2015.1099617. Advance online publication Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75–146). San Francisco: Freeman. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personality development (Vol. 3) (5th Ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley. El Nokali, N. E., Bachman, H. J., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2010). Parent involvement and children’s academic and social development in elementary school. Child Development, 81, 988–1005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010. 01447.x Emerson, L., Fear, J., Fox, S., & Sanders, E. (2012). Parent engagement in learning and schooling: lessons from research. A report by the Australian research alliance for children and youth. Canberra: Family-School and Community Partnerships Bureau. Enders, C. K. (2013). Dealing with missing data in developmental research. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 27–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12008 Englund, M. M., Luckner, A. E., Whaley, G. J. L., & Egeland, B. (2004). Children’s achievement in early elementary school: longitudinal effects of parent involvement, expectations, and quality of assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 723–730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.723 Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 703–707. Epstein, J. L. (1987). Towards a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement. In K. Hurrelmann, F. X. Kaufmann, & F. Lasel (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and Constraints (pp. 121–136). New York: Walter de Gruyter. Fan, X. T., & Chen, M. (2001). Parent involvement and students’ academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1–22. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009048817385 Fan, W., & Williams, C. M. (2010). The effects of parent involvement on students’ academic self-efficacy, engagement and intrinsic motivation. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 30, 53–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410903353302 Feiler, A. (2009). Engaging ‘hard to reach’ parents: teacher-parent collaboration to promote children’s learning. West Sussex, UK: Wiley. Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., Willems, P. P., & Holbein, M. F. D. (2005). Examining the relationship between parent involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 99–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3949-7 Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: a multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65, 237–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994. tb00747.x Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2008). Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning. Educational Research, 50, 277–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00131880802309424 Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge. Haynes, N. M., Comer, J. P., & Hamilton-Lee, M. (1989). School climate enhancement through parent involvement. Journal of School Psychology, 27(1), 87–90. Hill, N. E., & Craft, S. A. (2003). Parent-school involvement and school performance: mediated pathways among socioeconomically comparable African American and Euro-American families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 74–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.74 Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004). Parent school involvement and children’s academic achievement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 161–164. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00298.x Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. (2009). Parent involvement in middle school: a meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45, 740–763. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015362 Hornby, G., & Lafaele, R. (2011). Barriers to parent involvement in education: an explanatory model. Educational Review, 63, 37–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00131911.2010.488049 Howse, R. B., Lange, G., Farran, D. C., & Boyles, C. D. (2010). Motivation and self-regulation as predictors of achievement in economically disadvantaged young children. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 151–174. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/00220970309602061 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parent involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40, 237–269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085905274540 Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parent involvement and urban secondary school student achievement. Urban Education, 42, 82–110. http://dx. doi.org/10.1177/0042085906293818 Jeynes, W. H. (2010). The salience of the subtle aspects of parent involvement and encouraging that involvement: Implications for school-based programs. Teachers College Record, 112, 747–774. Jeynes, W. H. (2011). Parent involvement research: moving to the next level. The School Community Journal, 21, 9–18. Katz, L., & Bauch, J. P. (1999). The Peabody family involvement initiative: preparing preservice teachers for family/school collaboration. School Community Journal, 9, 49–69. Kim, Y. (2009). Minority parent involvement and school barriers: moving the focus away from deficiencies of parents. Educational Research Review, 4, 80–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.003 Marsh, C. J. (2010). Becoming a teacher: knowledge, skills and issues. Sydney: Pearson Australia. Matthews, J. S., Ponitz, C. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Early gender differences in self-regulation and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 689–704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014240 Mattingly, D. J., Prislin, R., McKenzie, T. L., Rodriguez, J. L., & Kayzar, B. (2002). Evaluating evaluations: the case of parent involvement programs. Review of Educational Research, 72(4), 549–576. McKenzie, P., Rowley, G., Weldon, P., Murphy, M., & McMillan, J. (2014). Staff in Australia’s schools 2013: main report of the survey. Canberra: Department of Education. Metlife. (2009). The MetLife survey of the American teacher: collaborating for student success. New York: Metlife Inc. Metlife. (2013). The Metlife survey of the American teacher: challenges for school leadership. New York: Metlife Inc. Morsbach, S. K., & Prinz, R. J. (2006). Understanding and improving the validity of self-report of parenting. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 9, 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10567-006-0001-5 Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (6th Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1998–1999). Early childhood longitudinal study. Washington: United States Department of Education. Parr, J., McNaughton, S., Timperley, H., & Robinson, V. (1993). Bridging the gap: practices of collaboration between home and the junior school. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 18(3), 35–42. Paris Lipson, S. M., & Wixson, K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293–316. Pintrich, P. R. (1988). A process-oriented view of student motivation and cognition. In J. S. Stark, & L. Mets (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning through research. New directions for institutional research (pp. 55–70). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. Pintrich, P. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom. In C. Ames, & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Motivation enhancing environments (Vol. 6) (pp. 117–160). Greenwich: JAI Press. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pintrich, P. R., Cross, D. R., Kozma, R. B., & McKeachie, W. J. (1986). Instructional psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 611–651. Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33 Pomerantz, E. M., Grolnick, W. S., & Price, C. E. (2005). The role of parents in how children approach achievement. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 259–278). New York: Guilford Publications. Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, D. D. (2007). The how, whom and why of parents involvement in children’s academic lives: more is not always better. Review of Educational Research, 77, 373–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/ 003465430305567 Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/BF02296192 Seginer, R. (2006). Parents’ educational involvement: a developmental ecology perspective. Parenting, 6, 1–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0601 1 Shin, T., Davison, M. L., & Long, J. D. (2009). Effects of missing data methods in structural equation modeling with nonnormal longitudinal data. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 70–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705510802569918 Sui-Chu, E. H., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parent involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69, 126–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 2112802 Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children-fourth edition (WISC-IV). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Association. Wilder, S. (2014). Effects of parent involvement on academic achievement: a meta-synthesis. Educational Review, 66, 377–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00131911.2013.780009 Williams, T. T., & Sanchez, B. S. (2011). Identifying and decreasing barriers to parent involvement for inner-city parents. Youth & Society, 45, 54–74. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0044118X11409066

G.R. Daniel et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 (2016) 168–177 Wolters, C. (2003). Regulation of motivation: evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self- regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 189–205. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3804 1 Wong, M. M. (2008). Perceptions of parent involvement and autonomy support: their relations with self-regulation, academic performance, substance use and resilience among adolescents. North American Journal of Psychology, 10, 497–518. World Bank. (2008). What do we know about school-based management? Washington DC: The World Bank. Xu, M., Kushner Benson, S. N., Mudrey-Camino, R., & Steiner, R. P. (2010). The relationship between parent involvement, self-regulated learning, and reading achievement of fifth graders: a path analysis using the ECLS-K database. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 13, 237–269. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s11218-009-9104-4

177

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: theory, research, and applications (pp. 13–29). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory Into Practice, 41, 64–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102 2 Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/ 0002831207312909 Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.284 Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. New York: Taylor & Francis.