Abstract
In other studies, about family/parent involvement, the research was based on surveys and observations over time. There were no studies that involved given activities and the response to those activities. The purpose of this research was to measure family involvement and socioeconomic status of families when sending activities home with preschoolers. The study was conducted by students at Longwood University in the Social Research and Program Evaluation class. There were 99 surveys that were sent to Andy Taylor Center and Head Start, and 16 surveys were returned, making the response rate 16.2%. The data analyzed is the average of overall family involvement, the average of family involvement in different socioeconomic statuses, and the themes in the qualitative questions. The overall family involvement for the Finger Friends activity averaged to be an 8 out of 10. The averages for each household income ranged from 2 out of 10 to 10 out of 10. The overall themes in the qualitative questioning were enjoyment, difficulty level, and new things learned in the activities. This added a perspective into family involvement when families are given activities to complete with surveys instead of solely doing observations or surveys.
Introduction
This study is going to look at if Family Fun Time Activities and income affect family involvement. Parent involvement can involve many elements, like conditions of the home, involvement with the school, home learning, etc. Wolf & McCoy (2019) and Sohr et al. (2013) look at how socioeconomic status affects family involvement. Wolf & McCoy’s (2019) findings were not able to determine on how the parent’s involvement affects their child’s development. Sohr et al.’s (2013) findings were taken in short durations so there is room for communication error and the data was taken for only white families. Family Fun Time Activities were prepackaged activities that were given to preschoolers at Andy Taylor Center and Head Start to take home to complete. They were given a survey along with the activities as well as a book to attempt to increase participation in the surveys. This study will focus on the Finger Friends Activity, the preschoolers and family will make finger puppets, practicing shapes, colors, and textures. This study is going to take surveys from families of different socioeconomic status to gain more understanding on family involvement during Family Fun Time Activities, specifically the Finger Friends Activity.
Literature Review
There are many ways to define parent involvement. There are many that refer to Epstein’s Model (1991) that includes six types of family involvement: positive home conditions (familial relationships and living conditions), communication with child and school, at school involvement, home learning activities aside from schoolwork, shared decision making within the school and administration, and community involvement partnerships (Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Epstein et al., 2009). To add on to Epstein’s Model, Harris and Robinson (2016) suggest that there should be more involvement with the school and there should be a focus on racial inequality. On the other hand, those that have not read Epstein’s Model have a hard time defining parent involvement, like being involved in their child’s social life at school and getting to school, helping the child with school, being actively involved, etc. In a qualitative study conducted by Gross, Bettencourt, Taylor, Francis, Bower, and Singleton (2020), there was little agreement on the conceptualization of parent involvement, but that there could be multiple models at work. There are many more studies that attempt to answer the question: What impacts family involvement?
Socioeconomic Status and Family Involvement
The variation of socioeconomic status can have an impact on how involved family can be with their child’s education. This is apparent in a qualitative study done in Ghana, where there is a gap on school readiness from household SES and parental involvement in school (Wolf & McCoy, 2019). They also found that it was harder for parents to be involved in their schooling, if they themselves, were not literate (Wolf & McCoy, 2019). There was lack of cultural differences in this study, but the information that was found was helpful. On the opposite sides of the spectrum, Sohr, Scaramella, Martin, Neppl, Ontai, and Conger (2013), conducted longitudinal evaluations over three generations. The results of this study found that the first-generation SES was hopefully going to predict responsive and clear parental communication, so this would predict higher education attainment and parenting styles in the second generation, and vocabulary and language development in the third generation (Sohr, Scaramella, Martin, Neppl, Ontai & Conger, 2013). The first generations’ SES was the helping factor to determine the next two generations’ success. This study was expensive and took over 20 years to complete, there could have also been a lack of communication or a crunch for time so there was not enough information or forgotten information. These studies both look at the different sides of socioeconomic statuses and the positive affects they have on their children. The families in Ghana had different means of being involved in their child’s education.
Race and Family Involvement
The race of a family can determine how involved the parents are in their schooling. There are gaps between races in education and Day and Dotterer (2018) wanted to see if there were any strategies that helped bridge the gap. In the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002, it was found that more academic socialization and more home involvement was more beneficial for Black and Hispanic/Latino adolescents’ educational attainment, but it was the opposite for white children (Day & Dotter, 2018). The approach of getting involvement from the families was important, although, it was unclear about what strategies supports adolescents in academics. This study also did not cover different community characteristics, and parent-child relationships. Toldson and Lemmons (2013), an earlier study, talked about race, school environment, and parenting practices. They looked at how minority parents are not as likely to be more involved at their child’s school. They conducted a qualitative study over the phone, and they found that “parents who were Black and Hispanic, non-native English speakers, lived in unsafe neighborhoods, and had less than a high school education were less likely to visit the school” (Toldson & Lemmons , 2013). This affected white children differently than children that were Black or Hispanic because their parents could have a different SES.
In summary, the evidence supports the fact that socioeconomic status and race are a factor in parent involvement in schools. There are longitudinal and qualitative studies that can back up assumptions that socioeconomic status and race can affect and effect parent involvement in their children’s education (Day & Dotterer, 2018; Toldson & Lemmons, 2013). This study is going to support these finding in a qualitative study using a survey to find out if Family Fun Time Activities increase family involvement.
Data and Methods
Instrument
A survey questionnaire was created by the 50 members of the Social Research and Program Evaluation team at Longwood University. The survey asked both open and close-ended questions. Items on the survey were designed to evaluate SMART objectives of five activities that were completed the previous week by Head Start and Andy Taylor Center families. Items were included that also addressed demographic information, enjoyment of the activities, family involvement, and completion of the activities. Hard copies of the questionnaire were delivered to Head Start and the Andy Taylor Center.
Sample
The non-probability sample for this study was based on 99 children (ages three to five years old). Seventy-nine children attended Head Start in three counties. Head Start is a federally subsidized preschool for families with economic need. Twenty-one children attended the Andy Taylor Center which is located on a college campus, and families apply and pay for their children to attend. Attached to the questionnaire was a children’s book to incentivize families to return the survey. Guardians of the children were asked to complete the survey and return it to the preschool the next day. Teachers sent a reminder home with children to return outstanding questionnaires. This resulted in 16 questionnaires being returned. Overall, there was a 16.2% response rate.
Quantitative Analysis
Quantitative analysis of the returned surveys was based on the close-ended questions. For this study, the dependent variable is family involvement. The item from the questionnaire that was used to operationalize this was, “How involved was your family throughout the activity?” The answer choices for this item were a “scale of 0-10; 0 = not at all, 10 = a great amount.” For this study, the independent variable is income. The item from the questionnaire that was used to operationalize this was, “What is your annual household income?” The answer choices for this item were “1. Less than $10,000, 2. $10,000 – $30,999, 3. $31,000 – $50,999, 4. $51,000 – 70,999, 5. $71,000 – $90,999, 6. $91,000 or more, 7. Prefer not to answer.” Descriptive statistics were used to analyze these variables.
Qualitative Analysis
Qualitative analysis of the returned surveys was based on open-ended questions. The open-ended questions on the survey were, “What did your family enjoy most about these activities? Why?”, “What did your child learn from these activities?”, “What recommendations would you suggest making these activities better?” To answer the research question, “How do Family Fun Time Activities and income affect family involvement?”, inductive open coding was used to determine reoccurring themes in the respondents’ responses.
Findings
Quantitative Findings
The dependent variable for this study is family involvement. The item from the questionnaire that was used to operationalize this was, “How involved was your family throughout the activity?” The answer choices for this item were a “scale of 0-10; 0 = not at all, 10 = a great amount.” The mean for the family involvement is 8. The standard deviation for the dependent variable is 2.35.
For this study, the independent variable is income. The item from the questionnaire that was used to operationalize this was, “What is your annual household income?” The answer choices for this item were “1. Less than $10,000, 2. $10,000 – $30,999, 3. $31,000 – $50,999, 4. $51,000 – 70,999, 5. $71,000 – $90,999, 6. $91,000 or more, 7. Prefer not to answer.” Four respondents made “Less than $10,000” per year, two respondents made “$10,000 – $30,999” per year, two respondents made “$31,000 – $50,999” per year, no respondents made “$51,000 – $70,999” per year, one respondent made “$71,000 – $90,999” per year, one respondent made “$91,000 or more” per year, and three respondents put “Prefer not to answer.” The respondents that made “Less than $10,000” per year averaged an 8.3 out of 10 in family involvement. The respondents that made “$10,000 – $30,999” per year averaged an 8.5 out of 10 in family involvement. The respondents that made “$31,000 – $50,999” per year averaged a 10 out of 10 in family involvement. The respondent that made “$71,000 – $90,999” per year averaged a 2 out of 10 in family involvement. The respondent that made “$91,000 or more” per year averaged a 10 out of 10 in family involvement. The respondents that preferred to not answer averaged a 7 out of 10 in family involvement. This data tells us that respondents with low and higher income had about the same amount of family involvement. The respondents that preferred to not put their income, also had about the same amount of family involvement. The respondent that made $71,000 – $90,999 per year was the only outlier because they told us in the survey that they were annoyed with the finger friends not staying together. In general, it is hard to find relationship because of the few responses we got.
Qualitative Findings
In the Family Fun Time Activities Survey there are three common themes: difficulty level, enjoyment, and new things learned. In reference to difficulty level, five out of 16 surveys follow this theme. Respondent Three states, “Our family really enjoyed how simple the activities were and how much our child enjoyed them, even completing some with siblings.” By stating this, Respondent Three is focusing how easy the activities were to complete and that being a factor into their enjoyment of the activities as a family. To continue the theme, Respondent One states that the Family Fun Time Activities were “Easy to follow instructions.” These activities are meant for preschoolers (three- to four-year-olds), so these instructions need to be simple to understand. It is encouraging when respondents say that the instructions were easy to follow. When the instructions to the activities are easy to understand, families seem to enjoy them more.
In reference to enjoyment of the Family Fun Time Activities, 13 out of 16 surveys mentioned this theme. Respondent 15 states “Yes, we enjoyed making the finger friends the most. Spending time together doing something educational is always fun.” This respondent really enjoyed spending time with their child and completing these activities. They also seemed to enjoy that their child was able to learn while doing activities with them. Respondent Five says “It’s fun when you want to do something fun & enjoyable for kids & family. It can be a learning skill but fun for the kids.” They found enjoyment in having activities to do with their child and the rest of their family. They also thought that having skills to learn was beneficial to their children. Respondent 16 adds to theme by writing “My self and 2 sons! Enjoyed the different learning out comes that come along with the activities.” The most enjoyable part of the activities for the parents is the educational aspect.
In reference to the theme of new things learned, 13 out of 16 surveys mentioned this theme. Respondent One wrote “Practiced cutting with scissors… listening to and following instructions… practiced counting.” They referenced the things their child learned to these activities, and they are all things that the child will use later in life. Respondent Two continues this theme and states “[Child’s name] learn how to cut and glue and how to trace better.” Getting children to learn how to use their fine motor skills is important and it is beneficial to their development. Getting children to practice using scissors with their family is beneficial to their growth.
Conclusion
In this study, it was found that there was high family involvement with the Family Fun Time Activities. The averages were taken from the involvement for the Finger Friends Activity, an average of 8 out of 10. It was found that there was no relationship found between socioeconomic status and family involvement in these activities. Opposed to previous literature that found that there was less family involvement from families of lower socioeconomic status. Parents were satisfied with the activities by talking about their enjoyment of the activities, the difficulty level of these activities, and the new things their children learned from the activities. These results emphasize the importance of easy, affordable activities done with families to improve family involvement.
References
Day, E., & Dotterer, A. M. (2018). Parental Involvement and Adolescent Academic Outcomes: Exploring Differences in Beneficial Strategies across Racial/Ethnic Groups. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 47(6), 1332–1349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0853-2
Epstein, J. L, & Dauber, S. L (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. The Elementary School Journal, 91, 289-305.
Epstein, J. L, Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C, Jansorn, N. R., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gross, D., Bettencourt, A. F., Taylor, K., Francis, L., Bower, K., & Singleton, D. L. (2020). What is Parent Engagement in Early Learning? Depends Who You Ask. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 29(3), 747–760. https://doi-org.proxy.longwood.edu/10.1007/s10826-019-01680-
Harris, A. L., & Robinson, K. (2016). A new framework for understanding parental involvement: Setting the stage for academic success. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(5), 186–201. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2016.2.5.09
Sohr, P. S. L., Scaramella, L. V., Martin, M. J., Neppl, T. K., Ontai, L., & Conger, R. (2013). Parental Socioeconomic Status, Communication, and Children’s Vocabulary Development: A Third-Generation Test of the Family Investment Model. Child Development, 84(3), 1046–1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12023
Toldson, I., & Lemmons, B. (2013). Social Demographics, the School Environment, and Parenting Practices Associated with Parents’ Participation in Schools and Academic Success among Black, Hispanic, and White Students. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23(2), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.747407
Wolf, S., & McCoy, D. C. (2019). Household Socioeconomic Status and Parental Investments: Direct and Indirect Relations With School Readiness in Ghana. Child Development, 90(1), 260–278. https://doi-org.proxy.longwood.edu/10.1111/cdev.12899