The Effects of Provided Activities on Parent Involvement in Low Income Families
Woodland Sacra
Longwood University
Abstract
Parents in low income families often have difficulty spending time with their children due to excessive work hours. The purpose of this study is to see if giving families pre-planned activities will increase parent involvement. We studies families in three rural Virginia counties with children in Head Start. We collected survey data from these families in this mixed-methods study. Our qualitative data came from open-ended survey questions and our quantitative data came from close-ended survey questions. The themes that arose from our survey were families spending time together, having fun, and teamwork. Our statistical results indicate that these activities did encourage parent involvement. The practical implication of this study is that low income families should be provided with ways to increase parent involvement.
Introduction
This research was conducted to find if pre-planned activities would increase parent involvement. The significance of this study is if these activities do increase parent involvement then our methods can be implemented nationwide, therefore increasing parent involvement on a much larger scale. The purpose of this study is to research the affects provided activities would have on parent involvement.
Literature Review
Parent involvement is the level of involvement a parent has in their child/children’s schooling. This can include the relationship a parent has with school faculty and things done in the home to improve a child/children’s academic performance (DeLoatche et al., 2014). The concept of parent involvement has been on the rise, partially because of the No Child Left Behind Act which came about in 2001 (Patall et al., 2008). It has also been on the rise because of how it affects children. Parent involvement has been shown to improve life for children both inside and outside of schools (DeLoatche et al., 2014; Garbacz et al., 2015).
Head Start first came about in 1965 because of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. It was designed to provide children of low-income families with school readiness. It currently serves approximately one million children every year (Bierman et al., 2015; Ansari et al., 2016; Koedel & Techapaisarnjaroenkit 2012).
Methods and Data
Study Design and Sample
The population utilized in this research is families with children that attend Head Start. The sample we are using is eighty-six families with children in Head Start in three rural Virginia counties. Our survey response rate was 51%. We evaluated five activities that were sent home with the children
Procedure
The following statement was placed at the top of our survey: “Please answer the following questions based on your household’s experience with the Family Fun Time Activities. Your answers will be anonymous. Please answer questions as accurately as possible and feel free to skip any questions you do not wish to answer. If for any reason you feel the need to end your participation in this survey, you are free to do so.” Below this was a section where participants could agree or disagree to this statement. We followed all human subject protections put forth by the Institutional Review Board at Longwood University. Our pen and paper surveys were sent home with students and each survey had a $5 Walmart gift card attached. Once completed, surveys were collected by teachers. We as researchers had zero contact with the participants.
Quantitative Measures
We perceived parent involvement based on responses to the following questions. In regards to all five activities, we asked “From the following choices, please choose the most appropriate level of completion for this activity” with answer choices of “Attempted and completed”, “Attempted but did not complete”, and “Did not attempt (If you did not attempt this activity, please skip to the next section of the survey)” and “On a scale of 0-10, how much did your family enjoy this activity? (0=Not at all, 10=Very much)” In the “Sugar Writing Activity” section we asked “How involved was your family in this activity? (0=Not at all, 10=Very much).” and “How long did it take you and your child/children to complete the activity?” with answer choices of “0-10 minutes”, “11-20 minutes”, “21-30 minutes”, and “longer than 30 minutes”. In the “Family Characteristics” section we asked “During a typical day, how many hours do you spend interacting with your child/children? (Please circle)” with a number scale starting with 0 and ending with “10 or more.” In the same section we asked “How would you rate your current relationship with your child/children? (0=Mostly negative, 10=Mostly positive)” followed by a scale from 0-10.
Qualitative Measures
We asked the following open-ended questions. “The Family Fun Time Activities included a Thankful Turkey Activity, an Animal Dice Activity, a Noodle Necklace Activity, a Stress Ball Balloon Activity, and a Sugar Tray Writing Activity. What was your favorite activity and why?” “Please explain what your family gained from these activities. How will you use what you gained in the future?” “Do you think that being provided with pre-planned activities increased the amount of fun time you got to spend with your family after school? Please explain.” “If you had to change at least one thing about these activities for future use, what would it be?”
Analysis
quantitative responses. Descriptive analyses were conducted using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) 25.
qualitative responses. Qualitative coding was based on themes.
mixed-method analysis. This research utilizes mixed-method analysis where quantitative data and qualitative data inform each other.
Quantitative Findings
The dependent variable was the question “How involved was your family in this activity? (0=Not at all, 10=Very much),” in reference to the Sugar Writing Activity. The mean of the 32 responses was 8.63 with a median of 10.
The independent variable was “How long did it take you and your child/children to complete the activity?” Out of 33 responses, 45.5% of respondents took 20 minutes or less while 54.5% of respondents took 21 or more minutes. This is represented on Table 1.
Respondents who spent 20 minutes or less on the activity had a mean of 9.07 of family involvement. Respondents who spent 21 minutes or more on the activity had a mean of 8.28 of family involvement. This is represented on Table 2. This implies that families who completed the activity faster had higher rates of family involvement.
Based on these findings, the activates sent home got families involved with their children.
Table 1
Time Spent on Sugar Writing Activity
Responses Frequency Percent
≤20 Minutes 15 45.50
≥21 Minutes 18 54.50
Total 33 100
Table 2
Time Spent compared to Family Involvement in Sugar Writing Activity
Responses Frequency Mean of Family Involvement
≤20 Minutes 14 9.07
≥21 Minutes 18 8.28
Total 32 8.62
Qualitative Findings
Through coding, three main themes in Family Fun Time Activities were discovered: spending time together, having fun, and teamwork.
The most prevalent theme was spending time together. When asked about what their family gained from the activities, Respondent 3 said “Time spent together,” and Respondent 12 said “Mommy and me time.” Respondent 8 said “It had us spend more time together,” and Respondent 5 said “Our family was able to bond.” Respondent 19 stated “My family gained quality time.” Respondent 14 said “togetherness sitting together, doing things,” and Respondent 15 said “It provided us family time.” Providing more detail, Respondent 7 stated “We enjoyed sitting down together doing the activity as family,” and Respondent 13 said “We were together doing these activities; my brother, me, and my son. We don’t usually do these kinds of things together. I want to continue doing things together.”
The second most prevalent theme was having fun. When asked “What was your favorite activity and why?” Respondent 4 said “Animal dice because my daughter had the most fun,” and Respondent 18 said “The animal dice activity was very fun.” When asked what their families gained from the activities Respondent 11 said “Fun learn activities that we can keep playing in the future,” and Respondent 2 said “It was fun playing a game with the kids.” Respondent 12 said “My daughter had a time of laughs and learning.” Respondent 5 said “We learned that we can learn and have fun at the same time,” and Respondent 9 said “We had fun learning together.” When asked what they would change about the activities Respondent 12 said “Nothing. It was really fun.”
The last theme is teamwork. When asked what their family gained from the activities Respondent 17 said “Working together,” and Respondent 1 said “We learned to do team work.” Respondent 16 said “We gained that we can work together and have fun,” and Respondent 18 said “Working well together just takes a little patience.” Respondent 15 said “We all gained experience in following directions and working together.”
In summary, a majority of the parents surveyed gained quality time with their family and children, therefore increasing parent involvement. Many of the families had fun, these activities provided a nice break from the standard routine and let fun fill these families’ homes. Many families practiced teamwork skills, a skill these young children can use for the rest of their lives.
Conclusion
We found that provided activities did increase parent involvement in these Head Start families. Now with this evidence, we could begin to use activities like this to increase parent involvement on a much larger scale. Which in turn, would help children flourish.
Bibliography
Ansari, A., et al. (October 2016). Parenting Gains in Head Start as a Function of Initial Parenting Skill. Journal of Marriage and Family. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.longwood.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid= e404fb2e-971b-431a-82e4-9c74218ae44e%40pdc-v-sessmgr06
Bierman, K. L., et al. (December 2015). Helping Head Start Parents Promote Their Children’s Kindergarten Adjustment: The Research-Based Developmentally Informed Parent Program. Child Development, 86. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.longwood.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid= ccca4a1f-c270-4c11-80f3-14a11004246e%40pdc-v-sessmgr05
DeLoatche, K. J., et al. (August 2014). Increasing Parent Involvement Among Head Start Families: A Randomized Control Group Study. Early Childhood Education Journal. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.longwood.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid= b5dd7f 92-a6cc-404d-b4de-85480013f101%40sessionmgr103
Garbacz, S. A., et al. (March 2015). A Multidimensional Examination of Parent Involvement Across Child and Parent Characteristics. Elementary School Journal. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.longwood.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid= aee2c3af-7239-4a9b-a238-11ea685a525f%40sessionmgr102
Koedel, C., & Techapaisarnjaroenkit, T. (Spring 2012). The Relative Performance of Head Start. Eastern Economic Journal, 38. Retrieved from https://www-jstor- org.proxy.longwood.edu/stable/pdf/41408859.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ac194342434085ba8101acf1231e40af1
Patall E. A., et al. (December 2008). Parent Involvement in Homework: A Research Synthesis. Review of Educational Research,78. Retrieved from https://www-jstor- org.proxy.longwood.edu/stable/pdf/40071154.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A26ba6f1a883dd4b877e828453bf49853