Examining Relationships Between Teacher

Behaviors and Parent Engagement

Allison Osborn, Kelly Rasmussen, Kathryn Woods, Susan Sheridan & Lisa KnocheUniversity of Nebraska – Lincoln

National Association of School Psychologists Annual Meeting, 2009

Importance of Early Environments

• Parent’s are a child’s first teachers and the importance of parent involvement in a child’s education is well-documented (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Sheridan, Clarke, Knoche, Edwards, 2006).

• The earliest environments experienced by children are significant in how young children view relationships and in turn, how they relate with peers and adults (Dunst & Bruder, 1999; Guralnick & Neville, 1997).

• Among the developmental contexts that predict outcomes for young children, those related to the family and child-rearing environment are most critical (Englund et al., 2004; Lamb-Parker et al., 1999; Molfese et al., 2001).

Parent Engagement• For the purpose of this study, we are defining Parent

Engagement as:

• Actively displays an interest in participating in educational activities

• Discusses meaningful issues concerning the child and family with educational professionals

• Initiates and elaborates on topics of discussion

• Asks questions or provides information to the teacher, or early childhood professional (ECP) related to the topic of discussion

• Engagement also includes the level to which parents display enthusiasm, effort, and satisfaction with an intervention experience.

Parent Engagement

• When parents are engaged in intervention services, improvements are observed in parenting skills and knowledge, parent-child interactions, and beliefs about one’s ability as a caregiver (Charlop-Christy & Carpenter, 2000; Swick & Hassel, 1990).

• Linking engagement strategies to the delivery of high quality treatments has been shown to increase the potential long-term impact of effective treatments for children and families (Dishion & Stormshak, 2007; Hoagwood, 2005).

Parent-Child Relationships

• Quality parent-child interactions have also been shown to lead to positive parent-child relationships.

• A positive parent-child relationship includes parental display of warmth, encouragement, support, positive reinforcement and support for children’s autonomy (Parker et al, 1999; Hirch-Pasek & Burchinal, 2006).

• Numerous studies have highlighted how a mother’s interaction style promotes child development.– Sensitive mothers are more likely to have babies that form

secure attachments (Bus & van ljzendoorn, 1988, 1992, 1997, as cited in Clingenpeel & Pianta, 2007).

– Infants with responsive mothers are able to explore their environment independently, requesting parental assistance when needed (Coyl, Roggman, & Newland, 2002).

Parent-Teacher Relationships

• Parent-teacher relationships consist of strong, committed, reciprocal, trusting interactions over time between parents and teachers.

• Relationships between parents and other adults responsible for the child’s learning and development are important for establishing experiences that are consistent, coherent, and coordinated as children move between home and community (school) settings.

(Christenson & Sheridan, 2001)

Parent-Teacher Relationships

• Triadic (McCollum & Yates, 1994) and collaborative consultation (Sheridan & Kratochwill, 2008) are two models that promote parent engagement.

• Each model has a specific set of strategies used by teachers to:

– Promote parent-child engagement (triadic)– Promote parent-teacher engagement

(collaborative)

Intervention for Families At-Risk

• Given the importance of parent engagement for parent, teacher and child relationships, and child outcomes, early intervention is a critical step for at-risk families– Head Start

Getting Ready Project• The Getting Ready Project is a five-year, federally funded, longitudinal

study which is designed to promote triadic/collaborative partnerships between parents and early childhood teachers.

• This project has partnered with early childhood teachers in Head Start settings to assist in promoting parent strengths, competencies, engagement with child, and children’s healthy development through comprehensive, evidence-based family-centered services.

• Parent engagement with child (i.e., warmth & sensitivity, support for autonomy, participation in child learning) and with teachers (i.e., collaborative interactions and planning) is an additional focus of the intervention program.

• Although preliminary research has examined the relationship between teachers’ use of triadic/collaborative strategies and child outcomes, research has yet to investigate the relationship between teachers’ use of triadic/collaborative strategies, parent-professional relationships, and parent engagement during home visits.

Research Question

• Do teachers’ use of triadic/collaborative strategies during home visits relate to parent engagement during home visit activities?– What is the relationship between strategy use and

parents (a) rate of interaction with the child and (b) quality of parent engagement with the child?

– What is the relationship between strategy use and parents (a) rate of interaction with the teacher and (b) quality of parent engagement with the teacher?

Methods

SampleSampleTable 1Table 1Demographic InformationDemographic Information

ParentParent ChildChild TeacherTeacher

AgeAge (n=220)(n=220) (n=220)(n=220) (n=29)(n=29)

MeanMean 29 years29 years 43 months43 months 35 Years35 Years

RangeRange 19-62 years19-62 years 36-53 months36-53 months 23-56 Years23-56 Years

GenderGender

MaleMale 5 %5 % 52 %52 %

FemaleFemale 95 %95 % 48 %48 % 100%100%

EthnicityEthnicity

CaucasianCaucasian 47 %47 % 33 %33 % 88%88%

African-AmericanAfrican-American 16 %16 % 18 %18 %

HispanicHispanic 26 %26 % 25 %25 % 12%12%

OtherOther 11 %11 % 24 %24 %

Table 1 continuedTable 1 continuedDemographic InformationDemographic Information

ParentParent TeacherTeacher

Education LevelEducation Level (n=220)(n=220) (n=29)(n=29)

12th Grade or less12th Grade or less 23 %23 %

High School Diploma or GEDHigh School Diploma or GED 20 %20 %

Some training beyond High School, but not Some training beyond High School, but not a degreea degree

30 %30 %

One year vocational training certificateOne year vocational training certificate 8 %8 %

Two year college degreeTwo year college degree 9 % 9 %

Four year college degreeFour year college degree 3 %3 % 48%48%

Beyond four year degreeBeyond four year degree 7 %7 % 52%52%

Language spoken in homeLanguage spoken in home

EnglishEnglish 76 %76 %

SpanishSpanish 19 %19 %

OtherOther 5 %5 %

Table 1 continuedTable 1 continuedDemographic InformationDemographic Information

Martial StatusMartial Status Parent (n=220)Parent (n=220)

MarriedMarried 38 %38 %

DivorcedDivorced 13 %13 %

Single, never marriedSingle, never married 29 %29 %

SeparatedSeparated 8 %8 %

With partner, not marriedWith partner, not married 12 %12 %

Number of people living in householdNumber of people living in household

Two-ThreeTwo-Three 28 %28 %

Four-FiveFour-Five 52 %52 %

Six or moreSix or more 20 %20 %

Procedure

• Children and parents recruited for this investigation are involved in the Getting Ready Project.

• Teachers visit family homes five times throughout the school year.

• Two sessions are videotaped and reliably coded for frequency of collaborative and triadic strategies and overall parent engagement.

Strategies for Teachers/Professionals

• Establishing & re-establishing a relationship• Asking parents to share observations & ideas• Affirming parents’ competence• Establishing a dyadic context• Helping prioritize concerns/needs• Focusing attention on child’s strengths• Provide developmental information • Brainstorming• Making suggestions• Promoting interaction through modeling• Helping plan for future goals

(McCollum & Yates, 1994; Sheridan, Knoche, Marvin, & Edwards, 2008)

Procedures• Parents provided demographic information for

themselves, their children, and their families• Teacher strategy use was coded using a 60-second

partial interval recording procedure (Home Visit Observation Definition Guide; McBride & Peterson, 1997); • Parents’ rate of interaction with child was coded using

a 60-second partial interval recording procedure• Parents’ quality of engagement with the child was

coded every 10 minutes of interaction on a Likert scale (1=low, 4=high)

• Parents’ rate of interaction with teacher was coded using a 60-second partial interval recording procedure

• Parents’ quality of engagement with the teacher was coded every 10 minutes of interaction on a Likert scale (1=low, 4=high)

Analyses and Results

Analyses

• Correlational analyses were conducted:– To examine the relationship between

strategy use and parents’ rate of interaction with the child and the quality of parent engagement with the child.

– To examine the relationship between strategy use and parents’ rate of interaction with the teacher and quality of parent engagement with the teacher.

Table 3Pearson CorrelationsPearson Correlations

Strategy Use RateStrategy Use Rate Parent-ECPParent-ECP

EngagementEngagement

Parent-Child Parent-Child

EngagementEngagement

Parent-ECPParent-ECP

Rate of InteractionRate of Interaction

Parent-ChildParent-Child

Rate of InteractionRate of Interaction

Strategy Use RateStrategy Use Rate

Parent-ECPParent-ECP

EngagementEngagement.50**.50**

Parent-Child Parent-Child EngagementEngagement

.35**.35** .42**.42**

Parent-ECPParent-ECP

Rate of InteractionRate of Interaction

.42**.42** .74**.74** .03.03

Parent-ChildParent-Child

Rate of InteractionRate of Interaction.09.09 .31**.31** .83**.83** .06.06

* p <.05

** p<.01

Results

• No relationship was found between strategy use and parent’s rate of interaction with the child

• A significant positive relationship was found between strategy use and the quality of parent engagement with the child

• A significant positive relationship was found between strategy use and parent’s rate of interaction with the teacher

• A significant positive relationship was found between strategy use and of quality of parent engagement with the teacher

Discussion

• Teacher’s strategy use was not related to parent’s rate of interaction with the child

• Teacher’s strategy use was related to parent’s quality of engagement with the child

• Although quality of parent-child engagement was related to teacher’s strategy use and the rate of parent-child engagement, the mechanism for these relationships is unknown.

Discussion

• Teachers strategy use was related to parent quality of engagement and the rate of interaction with the teacher

• Parent may view home visits as an opportunity to interact and discuss pertinent issues with their child’s teacher outside of the school environment

• This time may also be viewed as an opportunity for both parties to share information in a reciprocal manner to enhance the child’s development

Limitations

• Effectiveness of strategy use is not coded– For the purposes of this study, amount of

strategy use was investigated.

• Family characteristics were not controlled but likely influenced rate of interaction and quality of parent engagement.

• Rate and quality are not independent of each other for both parent-child and parent-teacher variables.

Future Directions

• Assess teachers’ strategy use over time• Examine relationships between overall parent

engagement and– Relationships with teachers– Parent’s self-efficacy– Parental involvement in school

• Assess the quality of implementation, or teacher effectiveness

Implications for School Psychologists

• Importance of family involvement outside of school

• Importance of attachment and engagement

• Early intervention

• Importance of parents having fun with their children!

For More Information

• Susan Sheridan: ssheridan2@unl.edu• Lisa Knoche: lknoche2@unl.edu • Allison Osborn: allison.osborn@huskers.unl.edu • Kelly Rasmussen: kelrasmussen@hotmail.com• Katie Woods: kwoods@huskers.unl.edu

This research is supported by a grant awarded to Drs. Susan Sheridan and Carolyn Pope Edwards by the Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS) -- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and Office of the

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE); and the Department of Education (DOE) -- Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services. The opinions expressed herein are those of the investigators and do not reflect the funding agencies

(GRANT # 1R01H00436135).

References• Charlop-Christy, M. H., & Carpenter, M. (2000). Modified incidental teaching

sessions: A procedure for parents to increase spontaneous speech in their children with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 98–112.

• Clingenpeel, B., & Pianta, R. (2007). Mothers’ sensitivity and book-reading interactions with first graders. Early Education and Development, 18, 1-22.

• Coyl, D. D., Roggman, L. A., & Newland, L. A. (2002). Stress, maternal depression, and negative mother-infant interactions in relation to infant attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 23, 145-163.

• Dishion, T., & Stormshak, E. (2007). Intervening in children's lives: An ecological approach to family-centered intervention. Washington DC: APA

Publishing.• Dunst, C.J., & Bruder, M.B. (1999). Increasing children's learning opportunities

in the context of family and community life. Children's Learning Opportunities, Report, 1.

• Englund, M., Luckner,A., & Whaley, G. (2004). Children's achievement in early elementary school: Longitudinal effects of parental involvement, expectations, and quality of assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 723-730.

• Guralnick, M., & Neville, B. (1997) Designing early intervention programs to promote children's social competence. In M. Guralnick (Ed.), The Effectiveness of Early Intervention (579-610). Baltimore: Brookes.

References

• 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, National Center for Family & Community Connections with Schools.

• Hirch-Pasek, K. & Burchinal, M. (2006). Mother and caregiver sensitivity over time: Predicting language and academic outcomes with variable- and person-centered approaches. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 449-485.

• Hoagwood, K. E. (2005). Family-based services in children’s mental health: A research review and synthesis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 690-713.

• Lamb-Parker, F., Boak, A Y., Griffin, K. W., Ripple, C., & Peay, L. (1999). Parent-child relationship, home learning environment, and school readiness. School Psychology Review, 28, 413-425.

• McCollum, J. A., & Yates, T. J. (1994). Technical assistance for meeting early intervention personnel standards: Statewide processes based on peer review. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 14, 295-310.

References• Molfese, V., Molfese, D., & Modgline, A. (2001). Newborn and preschool

predictors of second-grade reading scores: An evaluation of categorical and continuous scores. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 545-554.

• Parker, F., Boak, A., & Griffin, K. (1999). Parent-child relationship, home learning environment, and school readiness. School Psychology Review, 28(3), 413-425.

• Sheridan, S., Marvin, C., Knoche, L. & Edwards, C. (2008). Getting Ready: Promoting school readiness through a relationship-based

partnership model. Early Childhood Services.• Sheridan, S. & Kratochwill, T. (2008). Behavioral parent- teacher

consultation: Conceptual and research considerations. Journal of School Psychology, 30(2), 117-139.

• Sheridan, S. M., Clarke, B. L., Knoche, L. L., & Edwards, C. P. (2006). The effects of conjoint behavioral consultation in early childhood

settings. Early Education and Development, 17, 593-617. • Swick, K., & Hassell, T. (1990). Parental efficacy and the development of

social competence in young children. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 17, 24-32.