Teachers Involving Parents (TIP): results of an in-service teacher education program for enhancing...

Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 843–867

Teachers Involving Parents (TIP): results of an in-serviceteacher education program for enhancing parental involvement

Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey*, Joan M.T. Walker, Kathleen P. Jones,Richard P. Reed

Department of Psychology and Human Development, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Box 512, Nashville, TN 37203, USA

Received 24 May 2000; received in revised form 17 July 2001; accepted 5 October 2001

Abstract

Despite considerable theoretical and empirical work supporting the critical role of parents in students’ school success,

pre-service teachers generally receive little preparation for involving parents. Responding to a need for in-service

preparation, this paper reports on a program designed to enhance practicing teachers’ beliefs, skills, and strategies

related to parental involvement. Results of an initial test of the program in two US public schools serving

predominantly high-risk populations suggested that participation increased teachers’ sense of efficacy, and enhanced

beliefs about parents’ efficacy for helping children learn as well as invitations to involvement. Results are discussed with

reference to links between teacher beliefs and practices, diffusion of intervention effects within schools, directions for

future research, and implications for the design and implementation of effective professional development programs.

r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Parental involvement; Teacher efficacy; Teacher beliefs; Belief–behavior links; In-service teacher education

A growing body of evidence supports theimportance of parental involvement in educationacross varied cultural contexts (e.g., Bermudez,1993; Chen & Stevenson, 1989; Constantino, Cui,& Faltis, 1991; Davies, 1993; Huss-Keeler, 1997;Moles, 1993; Okagaki, Frensch, & Gordon, 1995;Peng & Wright, 1994; Vincent, 1996). Parentalinvolvement has been associated with strongeracademic achievement by children and adoles-cents, as well as increases in student attributesconducive to academic success, including im-

proved school attendance and behavior, morepositive perceptions of classroom and schoolclimate, stronger self-regulatory skills, strongerwork orientation, and higher educational aspira-tions (e.g., Eccles & Harold, 1993; Grolnick &Slowiaczek, 1994; Haynes, Comer, & Hamilton-Lee, 1989; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Paulson,1994; Sui-Chu & Willms, 1996; Steinberg, Elmer,& Mounts, 1989; Zellman & Waterman, 1998).

In addition to enhancing student outcomes,effective parental engagement in children’s educa-tion also benefits parents and teachers. Numerousstudies have suggested that when teachers invitethem, parents from very diverse backgrounds canbecome productively involved in their children’seducation (e.g., Epstein, 1992; Dauber & Epstein,

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-615-343-4962; fax: +1-

615-343-9494.

E-mail address: [email protected]

(K.V. Hoover-Dempsey).

0742-051X/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 7 4 2 - 0 5 1 X ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 4 7 - 1

1993; Harry, 1992; Grolnick, Benjet, Kurowski,& Apostoleris, 1997; Krasnow, 1990; Pratt,Green, MacVicar, & Bountrogianni, 1992). Forexample, parents appreciate teacher guidanceand may experience increased efficacy for helpingtheir children learn when teachers offer specificsuggestions for involvement (e.g., Epstein, 1986;Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Brissie, 1992; Ho-over-Dempsey, Bassler, & Burow, 1995). Further,teachers who invite parents’ involvement tend toreport relatively high levels of teaching efficacyand support from parents, and tend to beperceived by parents as better teachers (e.g.,Epstein, 1986; Greenwood & Hickman, 1991;Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Brissie, 1987).

Despite the benefits of parental involvement,parents and teachers alike have reported barriersto effective involvement, across varied cultures andgroups within cultures (e.g., Bermudez, 1993;Comer & Haynes, 1991; Davies, 1993; Epstein,1986; Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Harry, 1992; Huss-Keeler, 1997; Lightfoot, 1981; Moles, 1993; Reed-Danahay, 1996; Vincent, 1996; Yao, 1993). Thesebarriers include differences between parents’ andschools’ goals for children’s education, languagedifferences, and varied structural constraints (e.g.,school accessibility limited to workday hours).Parents may also experience barriers due to inter-vening family commitments (e.g., infant or eldercare) or practical and personal issues (e.g., accessto transportation, limited skills for helping inspecific learning areas, a legacy of low efficacy forschool tasks derived from personal educationalhistory).

Teachers, too, may contend with pragmatic,psychological, and cultural barriers to parentalinvolvement (e.g., Davies, 1993; Gestwicki, 1992;Griffith, 1996; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1992;Huss-Keeler, 1997; Lightfoot, 1981; Midkiff &Lawler-Prince, 1992; Reed-Danahay & Anderson-Levitt, 1991). Teachers may avoid involving parentsbecause they lack practical support for the extraactivities implied by active parental involvementprograms. Teachers with limited experience or skillsmay reach out only to give up if initial efforts arenot immediately successful. Experienced teachersmay be reluctant to invite parents if negativeencounters have cast a pall over the perceived

likelihood of successful involvement. Further com-plicating prospects for effective parental involve-ment, teachers who feel uncertain of their skills indealing with ‘traditional’ families may struggle evenmore as they consider trying to work productivelywith families perceived as ‘different’ from envi-sioned norms on a number of dimensions.

Given these barriers to regular positive interac-tions between home and school, communicationsbetween teacher and parent may emerge primarilyin situations motivated by dissatisfaction, frustra-tion, mistrust or anger from one or both parties.Unfortunately, interactions in such cases maywork to create further separation and distancebetween parents and teachers rather than effectiveparental involvement. This perpetuates a quand-ary: teachers may not know how to invite orsustain involvement efforts; and parents whoseinvolvement is not invited may perceive intentionalexclusion or low regard for their involvement.

Recognizing this dilemma, teacher educatorshave developed programs to increase teachercommitment to inviting and sustaining parentalinvolvement. In general, such programs at theundergraduate and graduate levels have focusedon pre-service teachers’ attitudes, experiences, andpreparation for parental involvement (e.g., Evans-Schilling, 1999; Jones & Blendinger, 1994; Morris,Taylor, Knight, & Wasson, 1996; Noordhoff &Kleinfeld, 1993; Tichenor, 1997). Unfortunately,these programs appear to reach a very smallproportion of the pre-service teaching population(e.g., Chavkin & Williams, 1988; de Acosta, 1996;Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Greenwood & Hickman,1991).

Because pre-service opportunities designed spe-cifically to develop teachers’ parental involvementskills are few in number, in-service approachesseem a potentially critical tool for constructingmore comprehensive and effective parental invol-vement. For this reason, we developed a short-term in-service education program designed toenhance practicing teachers’ beliefs, skills, andstrategies related to parental involvement. Theprogram was grounded in a theoretical under-standing of the parental involvement process(Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995, 1997) andprinciples of effective in-service education (e.g.,

K.V. Hoover-Dempsey et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 843–867844

Jaervinen, Kohonen, Niemi, & Ojanen, 1995;Wilson & Berne, 1999). Although implemented inthe US, the program’s foundation in this broaderliterature supports its relevance to schools andfamily community populations across a range ofgroups and cultures.

The work reported here focused on two primarygoals: (1) the development and implementation ofa school-based intervention designed to increaseteachers’ invitations to parent involvement and,ultimately, parents’ involvement in their children’seducation; and (2) the development of an effectivein-service education program whose principlesmight be applied broadly across a variety ofspecific content and contexts. Immediately below,we consider specific variables theorized to enhanceteachers’ invitations to parental involvement, andwe identify principles guiding the design anddelivery of the in-service program. We thendescribe a study which examined the program’seffectiveness in enhancing teacher beliefs andbehaviors related to parent involvement. Studyresults are described quantitatively in relation toprogram influences on targeted outcomes andqualitatively in relation to participant learningthroughout the program. Finally, we consider whythe design and implementation of the programfacilitated increases in targeted teacher beliefs andbehaviors and how both the findings and programprinciples might be applied to future research.

1. The Teachers Involving Parents program

1.1. Program foundations and goals

Drawing on literature underscoring causal linksbetween beliefs and behavior (e.g., Bandura, 1997;Goodnow, 1988; McGillicuddy-DeLisi, 1992;Miller, 1988; see also Datnow & Castellano,2000; Fullan, 1991; Wilson & Berne, 1999), theTeachers Involving Parents (TIP) program wasdesigned to enhance teacher beliefs consideredcritical to the development of teacher behaviorsinviting parental involvement (Hoover-Dempsey& Sandler, 1995, 1997).

Personal beliefs shape behavior because theyinfluence individual perceptions and understand-

ings of events in the environment, orient indivi-duals toward particular tasks and actionalternatives in varied situations, influence multipleindividual decisions related to goal-setting andgoal attainment (e.g., effort, persistence), andinfluence personal development of commitmentand skills related to goals and activities at issue(e.g., Bandura, 1997; Goodnow, 1988; McGilli-cuddy-DeLisi, 1992; Miller, 1988; Schunk &Zimmerman, 1997). In designing and evaluatingthe in-service education program reported here, weassumed that teachers’ beliefs in four specific areaswould influence their perceptions of parent in-volvement, their orientation toward inviting par-ent involvement, and their goals, commitments,and skills related to inviting parental involvement.These belief systems included personal sense ofteaching efficacy, beliefs about parents’ efficacy forhelping their children learn, beliefs about parentinvolvement in general, and beliefs about theimportance of specific parent involvement prac-tices (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Dauber & Epstein,1993; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1992).

Personal sense of teaching efficacy has beenrelated to stronger confidence in one’s efforts,greater goal-related behavior, and greater persis-tence in overcoming obstacles (e.g., Bandura,1993, 1997; Guskey, 1988; Hoover-Dempseyet al., 1992; Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990).These links suggest that stronger sense of teachingefficacy will support higher levels of teacherinvitations to involvement. Teacher beliefs aboutparents’ efficacy for helping children learn wereincluded because teachers who believe that parentsare capable of contributing to their children’seducational success are more likely to act in waysthat will secure parents’ involvement than thoseholding less positive views (e.g., Bandura, 1997;Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1992). Positive teacherbeliefs about parental involvement in general wereincluded because teachers who believe morestrongly that parental involvement is an importantcontributor to children’s educational success aremore likely than those holding less positive beliefsto act in ways that enable or increase parentalinvolvement (e.g., Epstein, 1986, 1992). Teachers’beliefs about the importance of specific involve-ment strategies were included because teachers

K.V. Hoover-Dempsey et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 843–867 845

who know of and are committed to a wide range ofinvolvement strategies have more options availablefor implementation—across a variety of circum-stances, contexts, and parent preferences—oncethe decision to invite involvement has been made.

In sum, the objectives of the in-service programincluded the strengthening of specific teacher beliefsystems hypothesized to be necessary to teacherdecisions to invite parental involvement. Theultimate goal of the program, of course, was toincrease parents’ engagement in their children’sschooling through its positive influence on tea-chers’ invitations to parental involvement.

1.2. Program design and implementation

Program design and implementation weregrounded in specific principles underlying success-ful professional development programs (e.g.,Chester & Beaudin, 1996; Datnow & Castellano,2000; Jaervinen et al., 1995; Leach & Conto, 1999;Lord, 1994; Neff, 1990; Schwartz, Lin, Brophy, &Bransford, 1999; Wilson & Berne, 1999). Such adesign was expected to facilitate participants’collective identification and development of effec-tive, school-specific strategies for inviting parentalinvolvement. Critical principles employed arediscussed below.

1.2.1. Respect for the expertise and perspectives of

participants

Program facilitators were committed to under-standing and respecting teachers’ expertise—aboutthe school as well as the school’s children, familiesand educational processes (e.g., see Datnow &Castellano, 2000; Wilson & Berne, 1999). Thesecommitments meant that the program in general,and the content of specific sessions in particular,were grounded in the questions, ideas andexpertise of participants as well as the theoreticaland empirical resources identified by the facil-itators. In general, facilitators worked to serve asguides and resources, consultants to the process,rather than ‘experts from the outside’ (e.g.,Jaervinen et al., 1995; Wilson & Berne, 1999).

Two specific steps were taken to promote thecentral role of participants’ expertise and con-tributions. First, facilitators recorded all ideas,

concerns, and suggestions generated in discussion(sometimes as an explicit part of the group’sactivities, sometimes in notes taken by onefacilitator). All notes were word-processed, dupli-cated, and returned to participants in the followingsession; in most circumstances they were also usedexplicitly as part of the next session’s activities.Similarly, anonymous ratings and comments onevaluation forms at the end of each session wereword-processed and returned to participants at thebeginning of the following session. As appropriate,facilitators commented on suggestions for changeor improvement and discussed how the sugges-tions would be integrated into subsequent sessions.

Second, the value of participants’ expertise andcommitment was acknowledged by a modesthonorarium for participation. Although in-serviceprogram participation is often assumed to be animplicit component of professional commitment,the generally negative reputation of in-serviceeducation (e.g., Wilson & Berne, 1999) and thereality that teachers’ time is often undervalued,suggested that a modest honorarium would under-score the value of participants’ time and energycommitted to the program. The honorariumamount ($25 for each of six sessions) was identifiedafter consultation with practicing teachers at otherschools as conveying professional respect withoutsuggesting coercive inducement. To ensure equalaccess to the program and associated honorarium,all teachers in each school were invited toparticipate; all who elected to do so were includedin the program.

1.2.2. Collegial interaction and a community of

learners

Consistent with program goals and literature onsuccessful professional development (e.g., Datnow& Castellano, 2000; Fullan, 1991; Sarason, 1996;Wilson & Berne, 1999), the program also assumedthat learning and behavioral change were mostlikely to emerge from substantive collegial inter-action related to the material and issues at hand.The program sought to create a learning commu-nity both safe and challenging, a setting withinwhich participants could trust others, offer ideas,examine experiences and beliefs, and generateimproved alternatives based on thoughtful critique


of current beliefs and practice. The creation ofsuch an active learning community, it wasassumed, would support: (a) participants’ accessto sources of increased efficacy (mastery experi-ences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion,and affective arousal) (Bandura, 1997; Goddard,Hoy, & Hoy, 2000; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler,1997); (b) participants’ construction of knowledge,rather than passive receipt of knowledge delivered(e.g., Schwartz, 1999; Wilson & Berne, 1999); and(c) participants’ ownership of emergent changeprocesses (e.g., Helsby, 1999).

1.2.3. Learning processes: content, reflection,

feedback, and planning

Also consistent with program goals and sugges-tions in the literature (e.g., Goddard et al., 2000;Jaervinen et al., 1995; Leach & Conto, 1999; Lord,1994; Neff, 1990; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996;Schwartz et al., 1999; Wilson & Berne, 1999),individual sessions included: (a) integration oftheoretical and empirical content pertinent to theissues considered; (b) opportunities for individualand group reflection on knowledge, problems, andsuggested strategies presented by varied groupmembers; (c) on-line feedback from colleagues andfacilitators regarding benefits and concerns im-plicit in varied suggestions; and (d) use of content,reflection and feedback to plan improved invita-tions for parental involvement within the particu-lar school community. By focusing attention ongroup-defined issues, problems, and solutions—and on participants’ power to use program-basedlearning to influence parent, student, and schooloutcomes—these components of the programsupported participants’ motivation for developingincreasingly effective invitations to involvement.

1.2.4. Logistics supporting program goals and

processes

Facilitators used several specific techniques orapproaches within each session to underscore theeducational values implicit in the processes above.Participants’ and facilitators’ names were treatedas important information: permanent, program-logo name tags were worn by all, and all wereencouraged strongly to address others by name.(In one school, participants remarked often in the

first two sessions how helpful it was to putcolleagues’ names together with faces—a com-ment, perhaps, on the extent to which the dailylives of teachers in mid- to large-size urban schoolsmay fail to include opportunities for significantpersonal or professional interaction with collea-gues.) Substantial refreshments were provided bythe program and made available throughout eachsession. Participants’ time was explicitly valuedand honored by beginning and ending all sessionsprecisely on time. Finally, acknowledging thatweariness may set in at the end of many teachers’days with students, each session began with an‘icebreaker’ activity designed for movement andenjoyment within a task illustrating content to beconsidered in the session.

1.2.5. In sum

The fundamental goal of the program was tooffer groups of knowledgeable professionals aforum for building and sustaining personal andinterpersonal or organizational frameworks essen-tial to creating more effective parental involvementin the school. The program focused on creatingopportunities for collegial interaction amongpeers, assuming that learning is best fostered incontexts that enhance both trust and critique. Theprogram was also grounded in support forparticipants’ construction of new knowledge andbelief systems, processes that require active perso-nal exploration of belief–behavior systems. Final-ly, the program was explicitly grounded in theassumption that collective generation and evalua-tion of ideas underlie a group’s ability to continue

the development of beliefs, skills, and practicesbeyond the confines of a time-limited intervention.

Building on these principles as well as theoryand research identifying specific teacher beliefsystems central to increased teacher invitationsand increased parental involvement, the programwas designed in six modules. Designed in advanceof program implementation, the modules—con-sistent with principles outlined above—were flex-ible so as to allow participants’ experiences,questions and goals to guide program contentand method. Basic information about the modulesis summarized in Fig. 1; they are described in moredetail in Section 3 as reflecting structural elements


Mod

ule

Titl

e/sa

mpl

e ob

serv

atio

nO

bjec

tive

M

etho

ds

1 T

each

ers'

exp

erie

nces

of

Pres

ent p

aren

tal i

nvol

vem

ent a

s is

sue

cent

ral t

o ch

ildre

n's

Faci

litat

or p

rese

ntat

ion;

Ind

ivid

ual w

ritte

n re

spon

ses

pa

rent

al in

volv

emen

t sc

hool

suc

cess

; Ena

ble

part

icip

ants

to r

efle

ct u

pon,

iden

tify,

to q

uest

ions

; Int

erac

tive

pres

enta

tions

of

resp

onse

s di

scus

s be

st a

nd w

orst

invo

lvem

ent e

xper

ienc

es; I

dent

ify

to f

ull g

roup

; Fac

ilita

tor

reco

rdin

g of

gro

up

spec

ific

obs

tacl

es to

eff

ectiv

e in

volv

emen

t. br

ains

torm

ing

resp

onse

s.

2

Add

ress

ing

and

copi

ng w

ith

Des

crib

e pr

oble

m-f

ocus

ed a

nd e

mot

ion-

focu

sed

copi

ng

Faci

litat

or p

rese

ntat

ion;

Ind

ivid

ual w

ritte

n re

spon

ses

ob

stac

les

stra

tegi

es;

Iden

tify

obst

acle

s as

sho

rt-t

erm

or

long

-ter

m, a

s

to q

uest

ions

; Sm

all-

grou

p br

ains

torm

ing

on s

olut

ions

appr

opri

ate

for

prob

lem

-foc

used

or

emot

ion-

focu

sed

copi

ng

to s

peci

fic

obst

acle

s; S

mal

l-gr

oup

repo

rtin

g to

ful

l st

rate

gies

; Doc

umen

t par

ticip

ants

' wor

k as

bas

is f

or

grou

p; F

acili

tato

r re

cord

ing

of s

mal

l gro

up

subs

eque

nt s

essi

ons.

re

spon

ses.

3

Perc

eptio

ns o

f pa

rent

s R

evie

w, r

elat

e pr

evio

us c

onte

nt to

per

cept

ions

of

pare

nts;

Fa

cilit

ator

pre

sent

atio

n; L

arge

-gro

up d

iscu

ssio

n;

Prom

ote

a ‘g

esta

lt sh

ift,’

cre

atin

g aw

aren

ess

of h

ow b

elie

fs

Indi

vidu

al r

espo

nses

sha

red

with

ful

l gro

up.

infl

uenc

e at

titud

es, p

erce

ptio

ns, a

nd b

ehav

iors

in c

ompl

ex

prob

lem

are

as, i

nclu

ding

par

ent i

nvol

vem

ent.

4

C

omm

unic

atin

g w

ith p

aren

ts

Dra

win

g on

und

erst

andi

ng o

f per

cept

ion

form

atio

n, a

sk

Faci

lita

tor

pres

enta

tion;

Sm

all-

grou

p br

ains

torm

ing:

pa

rtic

ipan

ts to

con

side

r cu

rren

t app

roac

hes,

st

yles

, and

ne

w a

ppro

ache

s fo

r en

hanc

ing

com

mun

icat

ion

with

st

rate

gies

for

invi

ting

pare

ntal

invo

lvem

ent;

Iden

tify

pare

nts;

Sm

all-

grou

p pr

esen

tatio

ns to

ful

l gro

up.

whi

ch p

roce

sses

wor

k w

ell,

whi

ch s

eem

less

eff

ectiv

e.

5 W

orki

ng w

ith h

ard-

to-r

each

R

evie

w r

esou

rces

; Exp

and

on ‘

norm

al’

chan

nels

of

pare

nt-

Wal

k-th

roug

h of

res

ourc

es in

TIP

pac

kets

; Gro

up

pare

nts

teac

her

com

mun

icat

ion;

Con

stru

ct id

eas

for

invi

ting

hard

- di

scus

sion

of

new

com

mun

icat

ion

stra

tegi

es

to-r

each

par

ents

; Exa

min

e pa

st s

ucce

sses

for

‘m

agic

’id

entif

ied

and

deve

lope

d by

par

ticip

ants

; Con

trib

utio

nsco

mpo

nent

s, tr

ansf

er to

for

m n

ew s

trat

egie

s.

to f

ull g

roup

dis

cuss

ion.

6

Plan

ning

& e

nact

ing

D

evel

op p

ract

ical

, spe

cifi

c pl

ans

& ta

ctic

s fo

r en

actin

g Fa

cilit

ator

pre

sent

atio

n; S

mal

l-gr

oup

brai

nsto

rmin

g;

invo

lvem

ent s

trat

egie

s be

yond

the

TIP

pro

gram

; Clo

sing

Sm

all-

grou

p pr

esen

tatio

ns to

ful

l gro

up; C

losi

ng

cere

mon

y of

rec

ogni

tion

and

appr

ecia

tion

of

the

grou

p's

cere

mon

ies.

co

llect

ive

wor

k an

d ac

com

plis

hmen

ts.

Fig

.1.

Conte

nt,

obje

ctiv

es,m

ethods

for

TIP

pro

gra

mm

odule

s.


of program design, participants’ adaptations of thedesign, and participant responses to the unfoldingprogram.

2. Method

2.1. Subjects

The program was implemented within thecontext of a network of social service programsfocused on improving high-risk children’s schooloutcomes in a large, mid-south urban area in theUnited States. The two public schools includedin the study, Randolph Elementary and JohnsonMiddle School (pseudonyms), were located inneighborhoods targeted for a variety of interven-tions.

After receiving permission from the principal ofeach school, program facilitators solicited volun-teer participants from each school. Teachers ineach school were told of the program’s purposeand structure in a general staff meeting. AtRandolph Elementary, 13 teachers and supportstaff chose to participate; 10 non-participatingteachers volunteered to serve as the school’scomparison group. Randolph participants choseto spread the six TIP modules over an 8-weekperiod and to hold all sessions at school. AtJohnson Middle, 17 teachers and support staff,including the principal, chose to participate; 12teachers volunteered to serve as a comparisongroup. Johnson teachers chose a more intensiveprogram format, asking that the six sessions beheld in three 2-hour meetings spread over 2 weeks.As at Randolph, Johnson teachers chose to holdall sessions at the school. General characteristics ofthe 30 participants and 22 comparison groupmembers in the two schools are summarized inTable 1.

Randolph Elementary, serving grades K-4, wasbuilt in 1952. It is located in an urban area thatincludes a large public housing project, manysingle-family and duplex residences, and somecommercial development. At the time of the study,38 total faculty members served 412 students (75%of whom were African-American, 21% white, 2%Asian, 2% Hispanic). Ninety-eight percent of the

students received free or reduced-cost lunch.Approximately 73% walked to school fromadjoining neighborhoods; the remainder weretransported in day care vans, public bus or privatecar. A 3-year average (1996–1999) standardizedtest score performance, combining test scoresand gain scores, placed Randolph in the district’sthird quadrant, far below national averages forabsolute scores but slightly above national averagesfor gains (P. Changas, pers. comm., April 1999).

Johnson Middle School served children in pre-K, K, 5th, and 6th grades. Built in 1954, the schoolis located in an inner city area including a largepublic housing project, many single-family homes,and a few commercial establishments. In the yearof the study, 39 faculty members served 473students (67% of whom were African-American,27% white, 3% Asian, 3% Hispanic). Eighty-onepercent of the students received free or reduced-cost lunches. Approximately 70% walked toschool from the adjoining neighborhoods and theremainder were bussed. A 3-year average (1996–1999) standardized test score performance, com-bining test scores and gain scores, placed Johnsonin the district’s lowest quadrant, below nationalaverages for absolute scores and slightly belownational averages for gain scores (P. Changas,pers. comm., April 1999).

2.2. Procedures

Program sessions were scheduled following eachgroup’s preference in the school library immedi-ately after school hours. Each library was reason-ably sized, allowing for a refreshments area, asizeable area for large group presentation anddiscussion, and more distant ‘corners’ for smallgroup work.

Before the program began, participating andcomparison teachers were given instrumentpackages (see Note 1) with self-explanatory direc-tions; they were asked to complete the question-naires independently and return them to theinvestigators before the program began. Post-program instrument packages were given toparticipating and comparison teachers after theprogram was completed; all were asked again tocomplete the questionnaires independently and


leave them in sealed envelopes for the investigatorsin a designated collection box at the school. Inappreciation of all respondents’ time and partici-pation, the program contributed a nominal sum($5.00) for each completed Teacher Questionnaireto a fund to be used for parental involvementefforts identified by participants at each school.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Teacher efficacy

The Teacher Efficacy Questionnaire (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1987) was used; the measurecontains 12 items answered on a 6-point scale(1=disagree very strongly to 6=agree very

Table 1

Demographic characteristics: TIP teachers, comparison teachers, and total group

Randolph Elementary Johnson Middle School Total

TIP

(n ¼ 13)

Comparison

(n ¼ 10)

TIP

(n ¼ 17)

Comparison

(n ¼ 12)

TIP

(n ¼ 30)

Comparison

(n ¼ 22)

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Grade taught

Pre-K/Kindergarten 3 23 1 10 5 30 2 17 8 26 3 14

1st, 2nd grades 5 38 3 30 — — — — 5 17 3 14

3rd, 4th grades 2 15 4 40 — — — — 2 7 4 18

5th, 6th grades, 5/6

split

— — — — 5 30 7 58 5 17 7 33

Spec. Ed. support

positions

3 23 2 20 7 41 3 25 10 33 5 25

Years teaching experience

1–5 5 38 4 40 8 47 2 17 13 43 6 27

6–10 — — 3 30 2 12 6 50 2 7 9 41

11–15 4 31 — — 1 6 2 17 5 17 2 9

16–20 1 8 1 10 4 24 2 17 5 17 3 14

21+ 3 23 2 20 2 12 — — 5 17 2 9

Years in present school

1–5 6 46 5 50 12 71 5 42 18 60 10 45

6–10 2 15 3 30 4 24 5 42 6 20 8 36

11–15 3 23 — — 1 6 2 17 4 13 2 9

16–20 2 15 2 20 — — — — 2 7 2 9

Degree level

BA/BS 5 38 4 40 12 71 5 42 17 57 9 41

MA/MS/MEd. 7 54 3 30 3 18 4 33 10 33 7 32

Master’s +30 1 8 3 30 2 12 3 25 3 10 6 27

Ethnicity

African-Am/

Hispanic-Am

3 23 1 10 10 59 4 33 13 43 5 23

White, non-

Hispanic

10 77 9 90 7 41 8 67 17 57 17 77

Gender

Female 13 100 8 80 11 65 10 83 24 80 18 82

Male — — 2 20 6 35 2 17 6 20 4 18


strongly). The questionnaire includes such items as‘‘I feel that I am making a significant educationaldifference in the lives of my students.’’ Negativelyworded items were reverse scored. Total possiblescores ranged from 12 to 84; higher scoresindicated greater teaching efficacy. Previouslyreported reliabilities range from 0.83 to 0.87(Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1987, 1992); standardizedalpha for the pre-TIP administration was 0.81;post-TIP was 0.86.

2.3.2. Teacher beliefs about parent efficacy for

helping children succeed in school

The Hoover-Dempsey et al. (1992) scale wasused. The measure incorporates seven itemsanswered on a 6-point scale (1=disagree verystrongly to 6=agree very strongly). It includessuch items as ‘‘If my students’ parents try reallyhard, they can help their children learn even whenthe children are unmotivated.’’ Total possiblescores ranged from 7 to 42; higher scores indicatedmore positive teacher beliefs about parent efficacy.Previously reported alpha reliability was 0.79(Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1992); pre- and post-TIP administrations yielded alphas of 0.80 and0.69, respectively.

2.3.3. Teacher beliefs about parent involvement

This measure was adapted from Epstein, Sali-nas, and Horsey (1994). Eight items from theoriginal 17-item scale were used. Items wereanswered on a 6-point scale, including three pointsof disagreement (disagree very strongly, disagree,disagree just a little) and three of agreement (agreejust a little, agree, agree very strongly). Sampleitems included: ‘‘Parent involvement can helpteachers be more effective with more students;’’‘‘Parent involvement is important for a goodschool.’’ Total possible score for the scale was48; higher scores indicated more positive beliefsabout parent involvement. Standardized alphareliability in the pre-TIP administration was 0.65;post-TIP was 0.75.

2.3.4. Teacher beliefs about the importance of

specific involvement practices

This 16-item scale was derived from the work ofseveral investigators. Ten were drawn from

Epstein et al. (1994) (e.g., ‘‘Having a conferencewith each of my students’ parents at least oncea year’’). Four were developed on the basis ofthe Epstein (1986) 12 types of learning activitiesteachers ask parents to do with their childrenat home (e.g., ‘‘Asking my students’ parentsto help the child with homework’’). One wasadapted from Stipek (D. Stipek, pers. comm.,December 1998): ‘‘Giving parents ideas to helpthem become effective advocates for their chil-dren’’; one was drawn from a local, program-wide evaluation effort (‘‘Sending home ‘letters’telling parents what the children have beenlearning and doing in class’’). Teachers wereasked to respond to each item on a 6-point scale(1=this is not at all important to me; 6=thisis very important to me). Total possible scorefor the scale was 96; higher scores indicatedstronger beliefs in the importance of the involve-ment practices. Standardized alpha reliabilityfor pre-TIP administration was 0.90; post-TIP,0.94.

2.3.5. Teacher invitations to parental involvement

This scale contained 16 items identical to themeasure of teacher beliefs about the importanceof specific strategies (above). The response formatwas changed from ‘‘How important do youthink these practices and strategies are?’’ to‘‘How often have you done each of the followingthis year?’’ Teachers responded to each itemon a 6-point scale (1=never, 2=once this year,3=once each semester, 4=once a month, 5=onceevery 1–2 weeks, 6=1+time[s] each week).Total possible score for the scale was 96;higher scores indicated more frequent parentalinvolvement invitations. Standardized alpha relia-bility for pre- and post-TIP administrations was0.89.

2.3.6. Teacher reports of parental involvement

This scale was included to gain an estimate ofparents’ levels of involvement. The scale included14 items drawn from the previous two measures.Teachers were asked to respond to the question‘‘How many of your students’ parents haveparticipated in the following activities this year?’’offering their best estimate for each on a 6-point


scale (1=none, 2=10–25%, 3=30–45%, 4=55–70%, 5=75–90%, 6=all). Sample items included:‘‘Contact me when their children are having aproblem with learning;’’ ‘‘Help the child withhomework.’’ Total possible score for the scaleranged from 14 to 84; higher scores reflectedhigher teacher reports of parents’ involvement.Standardized alpha reliability for the scale pre-TIPwas 0.89, post-TIP, 0.92.

2.3.7. Demographic data

Teachers were also asked to provide specificdemographic data: grade level taught, position(classroom or support), years of teaching experi-ence, years in the school, degree level, ethnicity,and gender.

2.3.8. Qualitative data

At the end of each session, TIP teachers wereasked to complete anonymously a brief ‘‘two-minute’’ evaluation. These evaluations askedparticipants to identify the best or most valuablefeature of the session, to describe what could havebeen improved about the session, and to offer anyother general comments about the session. At theend of the full program, teachers were asked tocomplete a ‘‘ten-minute’’ evaluation, which askedparticipants to rate the quality of the entireprogram in terms of content, materials, andeffectiveness. Themes and comments from theseevaluations are discussed below.

3. Results

Results are presented in two sections. The firstincludes quantitative examination of the pro-gram’s influence on the four targeted teacher beliefsystems (teacher efficacy, beliefs about parentefficacy, beliefs about parental involvement, andbeliefs about the importance of specific involve-ment practices), teachers’ invitations to involve-ment, and teachers’ reports of parent involvement.The second section uses qualitative data takenthroughout the program to examine in more depthparticipants’ experiences of the program, theirengagement in shaping its content and processes,and their learning.

3.1. Comparing TIP participants and non-

participants

Analyses revealed no significant differencesbetween TIP and comparison teachers in demo-graphic characteristics. As reported in Table 2,there were also no significant differences betweengroups in study variables prior to the program.Examination of pre-program correlations amongstudy variables, however, suggested the possibilityof somewhat different patterns for the two groups(see Table 3; e.g., teacher efficacy was linked toseveral other study variables in the comparisongroup but not in the TIP group).

Results of a principal components factor analy-sis on study variables, however, suggested that thegroups were characterized primarily by two similarfactors, teacher efficacy (TIP group eigen va-lue=2.09, 35% of the cumulative factor; compar-ison group=2.97, 50% of the cumulative factor)and teacher beliefs about parents’ efficacy (TIPgroup=1.14, an additional 19%; comparisongroup=1.37, an additional 23%). These resultsunderscored the two groups’ similarity prior to theprogram.

Between-group differences in study variableswere examined by repeated measures analysisof variance (see Table 2). Results suggesteda relatively strong program influence on teacherefficacy. The interaction effect indicated thatTIP teachers, but not comparison teachers, re-corded a significant increase in efficacy acrossthe course of the program (Fig. 2). Resultsalso suggested increases among TIP participantsin teacher beliefs about parent efficacy andinvitations to involvement. Comparison teachersalso recorded gains in these areas, however, andthe interaction effects were not significant (seeFigs. 2–4).

Surprisingly, there were no gains within orbetween groups in teacher beliefs about parentinvolvement or teacher beliefs about the impor-tance of specific involvement practices. Subsequentexamination of group means revealed that TIP andcomparison groups both recorded relativelyhigh scores prior to the program (in the topquartile of each measure’s range; beliefs aboutparental involvement: TIP x ¼ 39:14; comparison


x ¼ 38:35 [range: 6–48]; beliefs about the impor-tance of specific involvement practices: TIPx ¼ 85:49; comparison x ¼ 85:43 [range: 16–96]).These high initial means suggested that bothgroups held relatively strong, positive beliefs aboutparental involvement prior to the intervention,leaving little ‘room’ for the program to effectnotable change. Gains in teacher reportsof parental involvement were also not significant;it seems likely that the issues of timing mayhave limited the potential for change in ob-served parental behavior. These findings andpossible explanations are considered further inSection 4.

3.2. Examining TIP teachers’ experience of

the program

In this section, we describe the program asstructured from the outset and as adapted to theneeds and requests of participating teachers. Wepresent this information as related to the pro-gram’s six modules; each includes discussion ofbasic module content, educational principles andprocesses employed, and observations about par-ticipants’ responses to program content andparticipant learning.

3.2.1. Module 1: teachers’ experiences of parent

involvement

This first meeting was designed to set the tonefor the full program as facilitators worked tocreate a respectful, open atmosphere. After a briefround of introductions to acquaint teachers andfacilitators with one another, facilitators offered ageneral overview of the program’s goals andcontent and gave each participant a personal copyof a large loose-leaf notebook of resource materi-als on parental involvement for use throughout theprogram (see Note 1). After these preliminaryevents, teachers were asked to help generate a setof ground rules to guide participants’ and facil-itators’ conduct (e.g., ‘‘No idea is out of bounds,’’‘‘Our conversations are confidential,’’ ‘‘Partici-pate,’’ ‘‘Be a good listener’’).

Facilitators then presented research-based in-formation on the role of parental involvement inchildren’s development and educational success.After some discussion, participants were asked towrite out their own definitions of parent involve-ment. Individual ideas were shared with the groupand recorded on large flipcharts; these contribu-tions included both simple and more complexdefinitions (e.g., ‘‘coming to conferences;’’ ‘‘colla-boration between teachers and parents, school

Table 2

Repeated measures analysis of variance, TIP and comparison groups, pre- and post-intervention

TIP group Comparison

group

F (1, 50) F (1, 50) F (1, 50):

Post

Pre Post Pre Post Pre p Post p var. x

group

p

Teacher efficacy 49.83 52.99 51.50 51.43 0.00 ns 4.40 0.04 4.84 0.03

Teacher beliefs about parent

efficacy for helping children

succeed in school

25.70 29.73 25.01 28.07 1.01 ns 33.74 0.00 0.64 ns

Teacher beliefs about parent

involvement

39.14 39.61 38.35 38.93 0.70 ns 0.87 ns 0.01 ns

Teacher beliefs about

importance of specific

involvement practices

85.49 86.78 85.43 86.03 0.05 ns 0.75 ns 0.10 ns

Teacher invitations to

involvement

63.51 68.62 60.94 62.66 1.65 ns 6.10 0.02 1.51 ns

Teacher reports of parent

involvement

31.60 34.39 34.34 33.52 0.20 ns 0.72 ns 2.42 ns


staff and community’’). Consideration of thesedefinitions was followed by discussion of thereality that involvement, whatever its potential oractual benefits, can be very difficult to create.

Participants were then invited to reflect on andrecord their own ‘‘best’’ and ‘‘worst’’ experienceswith parent involvement. Shared ‘‘best’’ experi-ences included examples of notable parental helpand support, often related to class events (e.g., ‘‘Itook a trip with third gradersyI had parents puttogether learning packets for the trip, scrapbooksafter the trip, and many went along!’’) or parents’

responsiveness to a child’s learning needs (e.g.,‘‘[Parents] understood their child’s problems atschool and supported me and him; they didn’toverreact and were always available’’). ‘‘Best’’experiences also included numerous examples ofparents’ small expressions of appreciation (e.g.,‘‘Once I got aycard with a handwritten messagefrom a step-mom’’).

Sharing of ‘‘worst’’ experiences was accompa-nied by notable affect as participants describeddifficult interactions and long-standing memories.Many of these contributions seemed grounded in

Table 3

Means, standard deviations and correlations for all study variables for each group, pre-intervention

TIP participants

1 2 3 4 5 6

Outcome variables

1. Teacher efficacy —

2. Teacher beliefs about parent efficacy for


0.07 —

3. Teacher beliefs about parent involvement �0.11 0.25 —

4. Teacher beliefs about importance of

specific parent involvement practices

�0.16 0.07 0.65nnn —

5. Teacher invitations to involvement 0.03 0.07 0.18 0.50nn —

6. Teacher reports of parental involvement �0.11 0.20 0.14 0.06 0.37n —

possible range 12–72 7–42 8–48 16–96 16–96 14–84

actual range 35–60 11–37 31–45 67–96 39–89 21–42

x 49.83 25.70 39.14 85.49 63.51 31.60

sd 6.48 5.07 3.30 7.63 12.88 5.97

Comparison group

1 2 3 4 5 6

Outcome variables

1. Teacher efficacy —

2. Teacher beliefs about parent efficacy for


0.51n —

3. Teacher beliefs about parent involvement 0.38 0.66nn —

4. Teacher beliefs about importance of

specific parent involvement practices

0.62nn 0.16 0.18 —

5. Teacher invitations to involvement 0.54nn 0.06 �0.05 0.21 —

6. Teacher reports of parental involvement 0.68nnn 0.43n 0.37 0.27 0.61nn —

possible range 12–72 7–42 8–48 16–96 16–96 14–84

actual range 37–70 17–37 31–45 75–96 25–79 22–63

x 51.50 25.01 38.35 85.43 60.94 34.34

sd 8.97 6.27 3.67 5.97 14.10 10.40

nnnpo0:001:nn po0:01:n po0:05:


Fig. 2. TIP and comparison group changes in teacher efficacy. Key: - - - - - TIP teachers; —— comparison teachers.

Fig. 3. TIP and comparison group gains in teacher perceptions of parents’ efficacy for helping the child succeed in school. Key: - - - - -

TIP teachers; —— comparison teachers.

Fig. 4. TIP and comparison group gains in teacher invitations to involvement. Key: - - - - - TIP teachers; —— comparison teachers.


teachers’ feeling threatened or disliked by parents;quite salient in several of these examples was thefact that the interactions were public (e.g., ‘‘Aparent accused me of being unfair with no basis;she told me she never liked me from the firstdayyshe said all of this in front of my class andused many obscenities;’’ ‘‘One of my children’sparents told her child, ‘The next time someone hits[you],yslap the sh out of them;’ she said this infront of my other children and my roommother!’’). Also quite salient was the theme offeeling unsupported by colleagues in the face ofdifficult interactions (e.g., ‘‘A parent threatenedme verbally, verbally abused me, in the hallway, infront of other teachers [and] no one came to myaid;’’ ‘‘The principal didn’t allow me to talk duringa heated parent conference; when I was allowed tospeak, the differences were cleared up!’’).

Facilitators and participants focused attentionon identifying specific obstacles—in the classroom,school, or community—that seemed to promotesuch ‘‘worst’’ experiences and preclude ‘‘best’’experiences (e.g., ‘‘Different expectations,’’ ‘‘Par-ents don’t feel welcome or invited by the school’’).The full list produced by the group was recordedfor use in the next program session.

Feedback from teachers on this first sessionunderscored appreciation for the discussion (e.g.,‘‘It’s good to have time to talk’’) and relief inhearing others’ experiences (e.g., ‘‘I’m notalone!’’). Anticipating future sessions, some feed-back also conveyed eagerness for problem-solvingin this sometimes frustrating and emotionallycharged area of school life (e.g., ‘‘I’m anxious tolearn how to honestly be more effective withparents’’).

3.2.2. Module 2: coping with barriers to

involvement

Building on the list of specific obstacles identi-fied in the first session, the second module focusedon developing tools for dismantling barriers toinvolvement. Participants first selected specificbarriers as among the most important they face(e.g., ‘‘Parents don’t feel welcome in the school;’’‘‘Parents don’t see themselves as key in theirchildren’s education’’). These were then categor-ized by the group as involving (a) short-term issues

with fairly accessible solutions, or (b) more long-term issues with more complex causes and solu-tions.

Material on strategies for coping with obstacleswas then introduced. Problem-focused coping(e.g., doing something about the problem itself)and emotion-focused coping (e.g., doing some-thing about my feelings or reactions to theproblem) in particular were discussed. Participantswere asked to categorize specific obstacles asappropriate for solutions incorporating problem-focused (i.e., ‘‘Is this a problem situation that I [orwe] can change?’’) or emotion-focused strategies(i.e., ‘‘Is this a problem that’s beyond my [or our]control?’’).

Working with obstacles amenable to problem-focused coping, small groups of teachers generatedsuggestions for dealing with these barriers (e.g., forthe obstacle ‘‘Parents don’t feel welcome in theschool,’’ suggested solutions included ‘‘Individualteachers should make contact with individualparents;’’ ‘‘[Have more] friendly office staff;’’‘‘Hold community-based events in the schoolyear-round’’). For somewhat more complex ob-stacles (e.g., ‘‘Teachers don’t know how to supportone another [in relation to parents]’’), the group’sideas included suggestions focused on significantincreases in communication among colleagues(e.g., ‘‘Be honest with each other;’’ ‘‘Keep othersinformed about problems;’’ ‘‘Come up with‘signals’ to let others know you need help’’). Smallgroups presented their suggestions for commentand critique; the suggestions, enhanced by groupfeedback, were recorded for return to teachers anduse in subsequent modules.

Participants’ evaluation of the session reflectedcontinuing development of varied insights aboutpersonal responses to parents (e.g., ‘‘[Overall] I’vehad good parents; why do I still focus on thosescary folks?’’) as well as emerging use of contenton coping with obstacles to involvement (e.g.,‘‘[It’s important to] formulate specific goals andlearn to focus on the ones I can control orinfluence’’). Still other comments reflected whatwould become a theme throughout the program:appreciation of colleagues’ ideas and insights onthe problems at issue (e.g., ‘‘[The day’s mostvaluable experience was] getting more ideas from


each other about others’ goals for parent involve-ment—we all have good ideas!’’).

3.2.3. Module 3: perceptions of parents

The third module introduced parents’ voicesinto the discussion. Intended to support thedevelopment of more positive views of parents’efficacy for helping children learn, the sessionbegan with theoretical and empirical materialunderscoring the power of beliefs in influencingattitudes, perceptions of others, and behaviors.

Participants were then ‘introduced’ to a realparent. Basic information, as might be perceivedby school personnel in limited contact with theparent, was presented first (e.g., child talks a lot inclass, appears to have a learning disability of somekind; parent hasn’t been to school, sent cupcakesonce in response to request, says she’ll try to get toa parent–teacher conference at the end of theyear). Participants were asked to record shortdescriptors of the parent based on inferencesderived from the information; responses includedsuch perceptions as ‘‘busy,’’ ‘‘tired,’’ ‘‘indifferent,’’‘‘little follow-through.’’

A first-person interview with the parent wasthen read; this more detailed information includedthe parent’s thinking about her goals, activities,efforts, and frustrations in helping her childsucceed in school. When the full interview wascompleted, participants were asked again to recordshort descriptors capturing their current impres-sions of the parent. A markedly different set ofperceptions emerged: for example, ‘‘motivated,’’‘‘resourceful,’’ ‘‘lives too far away,’’ ‘‘dedicated.’’Participants were very quick to recognize thatmore information about the parent–more ‘listen-ing to her story’—yielded considerably morecomplex and positive impressions of her interests,activities, and commitment to this child’s success.

The group turned then to developing strategiesfor obtaining more complete information aboutstudents’ parents. They also focused on strategiesfor approaching parents with positive expectationsabout their interest (e.g., ask parents for briefinformation on their perceptions of the child’sacademic strengths, ask parents about theirexpectations for the teacher). Participants’ emer-ging ownership of the program was underscored

when several offered personal materials they haddeveloped in previous years pertinent to thesetasks.

Session evaluations identified the day’s mostvaluable experiences as including awareness of thepower of perceptions and the drawbacks of limitedinformation (e.g., ‘‘The story of Ms. Harrison wasvery enlightening; I learned not to judge tooquickly based on what little information we have;’’‘‘My perceptions of parents do not come even close

to what the parent may actually be like’’). Othercomments underscored the importance of under-standing parents’ lives (e.g., ‘‘[It’s really importantto] ‘walk a mile in our parents’ shoes’ for betterunderstanding’’) and teachers’ critical role in‘‘[helping] parents feel like they should be in-volved.’’

3.2.4. Module 4: communicating with parents

Building on ideas generated in previous sessions,the fourth program module began by askingparticipants to describe their current successfulstrategies for communicating with parents. Allstrategies offered were recorded and placed in oneof three broad categories that seemed to incorpo-rate all suggestions: parent–teacher conferences,casual communications, and meetings regardingspecific problems.

Participants separated into three groups, each ofwhich focused on discussing successes, problems,and strategies for improved communications with-in the particular category. For example, the groupworking with the category ‘‘parent conferences’’identified over a dozen strategies for improvingtheir effectiveness, including ‘‘Prepare a profilesheet for the conference,’’ ‘‘Follow up with phonecalls,’’ ‘‘Schedule a home visit conference,’’ ‘‘Finda place for the children to stay while conferen-cing.’’

The three working groups presented their ideasto all participants and asked them to rate eachstrategy along two dimensions: (a) how often thestrategy is used in the school now (‘‘Many of ususe this now;’’ ‘‘Some of us use this now;’’ ‘‘This ispretty much a new idea here’’) and (b) howsuccessful the strategy is likely to be in this school.Most strategies presented were used by at leastsome teachers in the school (e.g., ‘‘Offer a reward


to the class if parents come to conferences;’’‘‘Follow up with a letter or note’’); a few wereused by most all teachers (e.g., ‘‘Be accommodat-ing to parents’ schedules,’’ ‘‘Involve everyone[present] in the conversation’’). A very smallnumber represented ideas that had not been triedby anyone present (e.g., ‘‘Have a ‘professionalarea’ in the school [where impromptu conferencescan take place];’’ ‘‘Have a ‘conference party’’’).

Feedback on the session underscored the valueof reflecting on current practice and consideringnew ideas (e.g., ‘‘[I really liked] brainstormingideas about parent/teacher communication. Some-times we forget to even TRY to come up withimprovements! [It’s as if we say] ‘It’s the way we’vealways done it—so what if it doesn’t work well?!!’’’‘‘I learned a lot about how to create and takeadvantage of situations and opportunities to talkto parents’’). Comments pointed again to the valueparticipants placed on talking with and learningfrom their colleagues (e.g., ‘‘I gained manyimportant ideas when we broke into groups toanswer questions;’’ ‘‘Scheduling conferences: I likeseveral of the things my group came up with;’’‘‘We all communicate differently, but we should allcommunicate positively!’’). Growing ease withthe group and an emerging view of participantsas leaders of the effort emerged in other observa-tions (e.g., ‘‘The best thing was brainstorming ingroups – shouldn’t be putting Pat and Marietogether in groups, though:)!’’ ‘‘The best experi-ence was watching our group’s presenter’’).

3.2.5. Module 5: working with hard-to-reach

parents

Although many strategies emerged in the pre-vious session, a few participants suggested expli-citly that facilitators might offer more new ideas‘from the outside’ (e.g., ‘‘The presenters couldhave offered more helpful suggestions about howto create opportunities to talk with parents;’’ somecomments were more direct: ‘‘Show me somethingnew! I don’t see anything new here!’’ ‘‘Where’s themagic bullet?!’’).

This session thus began with guided groupreview of the full set of resources included inparticipants’ binders (distributed at the firstmodule; see Note 1). Participants were asked to

be free in offering their ideas about which amongthese resources might really be helpful in theschool. The set included five categories of resour-ces: (1) publications on parent involvement fromthe US Department of Education and the ERICClearinghouse on Elementary and Early Child-hood Education; (2) information on exemplarynational programs of support for parental involve-ment in homework (e.g., from Rutgers UniversityCenter for Families Involved in Schoolwork, theTeachers Involving Parents in Schoolwork Pro-gram at Johns Hopkins University, the AmericanFederation of Teachers Learning Line); (3) localresources, including a Lesson Line, a PublicEducation Foundation program of grants andmini-grants to support parent involvement in theschools, a local university’s Teacher-in-Residenceprogram; (4) selected empirical and conceptualarticles on parent involvement; and (5) relatedresources from the National Education Associa-tion (Ideas and Tips for Parent Involvement), theNational Parent–Teacher Association (Teachers’

Guide to Parent and Family Involvement), and theNational Network for Partnership Schools.

Following this review of varied external re-sources, participants were asked to identify exam-ples of recent interactions with parents that felt atleast somewhat successful. Numerous experienceswere offered (e.g., ‘‘Having lots of contact withparents through a weekly planner [and having]parents sign off on specific activities;’’ ‘‘Using a[business] mentor of one of the children to havethree-way communication: I talk with the mentor,he talks with the family of the child havingproblems;’’ ‘‘Having hallway conversations’’).Facilitators highlighted these successes and re-introduced (accompanied by handout summaries)the many goals, plans and strategies generated by

the group over the course of previous sessions.Participants were then asked to identify one

continuing problem in parent involvement theywould like to solve. These problems were recordedfor use as the focus of the group’s work in the finalTIP session. Facilitators then shared the outline ofa process designed to ‘create magic solutions’ (seeAppendix A). The steps were reviewed as prefaceto active engagement with this process in the finalsession.


Participants’ evaluations of this session high-lighted the usefulness of the decision to collectivelyreview resources distributed at the first TIPsession. Consistent with one teacher’s response(‘‘Reviewing resources was very good; I may nothave looked at them if we had not gone over themhere!’’), several comments underscored the impor-tance of this review (e.g., the ‘most valuableexperience of the day’ was ‘‘stepping throughthe available resources,’’ ‘‘learning that all of thosehelpful resources are included in our notebooks!’’).Participants also continued to offer explicit praisefor what they learned from each other; forexample, ‘best experiences’ included: ‘‘Ms. S’sideas about the weekly planner,’’ ‘‘Listening tothe strategies from the other teachers;’’ ‘‘Hearingthe successes of other teachers in dealing withparents.’’

3.2.6. Module 6: planning and enacting

This final session began with facilitators’ ob-servations about the strengths of the participatinggroup based on interactions across the previousweeks (e.g., ‘‘You manifest a strong sense of caringabout the children, teaching well, and connectingin positive ways with families;’’ ‘‘You each seem tobe able to be active in both leadership and‘listener’ roles’’). Links between these qualitiesand the group’s ability to continue functioningafter the program were identified and discussed.

Facilitators then presented clusters of parentinvolvement problems that seemed to emerge inmany of the group’s discussions over the previoussession. These clusters included: creating feelingsof partnership (examples of specific problems orquestions: ‘‘How to involve the reluctant parent;’’‘‘How to get parents interested in monitoring theirchild’s academic and social progress’’); enactingpartnership (e.g., ‘‘How to get a parent to helpcorrect a student’s behavior,’’ ‘‘Getting a parent tohelp with homework or at least make sure work isfinished’’); and communicating with hard-to-reachparents (e.g., ‘‘How to get important contactinformation from parents reluctant to give it;’’‘‘[What to do when] a parent refuses to havecontact with school’’).

Participants were asked to select one cluster.Using processes outlined in ‘‘How to make magic’’

(Appendix A), each of the three groups was askedto work as ‘‘a committee that’s going to solve thisproblem,’’ addressing these issues in particular: (1)articulating how the problem is related to ourgoals (why is it worth our time and energy?); (2)generating a list of all strategies participants hadtried before to solve the problem, and then a list ofother strategies that might (also) work; (3)selecting the two or three ‘best’ strategies fromthe lists, and planning then for specific next stepsneeded to enact these problem-solving strategies.As these plans were developed in each group, rolesand assignments related to specific strategies wereidentified and accepted as working groups createdplans to be carried out subsequently. Using largeposters summarizing the group’s work, represen-tatives from each group presented plans foraddressing the problem(s) identified.

After discussion of these plans, the program wasbrought to a close with ceremonial recognition ofeach participant’s contributions to the group’swork, and celebration of the learning and planningenabled by the group’s collective and focusedcommitment to inviting parent involvement. Par-ticipants’ evaluative comments continued to em-phasize the value of talking and sharing ideas withcolleagues (e.g., ‘‘I appreciate the unity that’sformed with the TIP group, the feeling ofcamaraderie among teachers;’’ ‘‘I thought I wasthe only one so stressed out, because I’ve neverbeen in a school like this one. I thought I wasdoing something wrong. [But] there are answers;we just have to figure them out’’). Teachers alsofocused on the value of even small amounts of timegiven to explicit thinking about parents’ roles instudents’ school success (e.g., ‘‘I appreciate thetime to stop and remember why I’m here. Reach-ing out to parents is important—it’s not justanother thing on my list of things that are hardto do.’’).

4. Discussion

Consistent with expectations, the TIP programsucceeded in supporting significant increases inparticipants’ sense of teaching efficacy; the dataalso suggested increases in participants’ beliefs


about parents’ efficacy for helping children learnand invitations to involvement. Contrary toexpectations, however, the TIP program did notappear to strengthen teacher beliefs about parentinvolvement in general, teacher beliefs about theimportance of specific involvement practices, orteacher reports of parent involvement. Also some-what surprisingly, comparison teachers appearedto gain in some areas. Following discussion ofpossible reasons for these findings, we considerspecifically how principles guiding the design andimplementation of the TIP program may havefacilitated predicted gains.

4.1. What variables supported increased teacher

invitations to parental involvement?

4.1.1. Teacher efficacy

Results suggested that participation in the TIPprogram led to increases in sense of teachingefficacy. The finding is encouraging becauseteacher efficacy has been linked to strongerprofessional functioning in several domains (e.g.,Bandura, 1997; Dembo & Gibson, 1985; Goddardet al., 2000; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1987, 1992).Stronger personal beliefs in one’s teaching effi-cacy—especially if combined with commitment tothe importance of parental involvement—arelikely to support (re)new(ed) invitations to par-ents, persistence in efforts to involve parents,persistence in overcoming the obstacles encoun-tered, and the possibility of increasingly produc-tive parent–child–teacher relationships. Increasesin participants’ efficacy were manifested in manyof their evaluative comments (e.g., ‘‘We [teachers]need to develop a new approach; we can make adifference!’’). Increased comfort with the risksassociated with increased invitations to parentalinvolvement—and increased commitment to treat-ing involvement obstacles as problems to be solvedrather than barriers to action—are theoreticallyamong the consequences of increases in sense ofteaching efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Increases inboth areas were evident in participants’ observa-tions about their learning experiences during theTIP program (e.g., ‘‘Many parents do want to beinvolved but are inhibited by fear, addiction,schedules; we need to help them feel familiar and

comfortable;’’ ‘‘Never give up; there is always away to get hold of a parent!’’). Many participantsappeared then to build on an increasing sense ofefficacy in developing specific plans, especially inthe late TIP sessions, for enhanced invitations toparental involvement (e.g., ‘‘I will be friendlierfrom the beginning;’’ ‘‘I will try to have regularcontact with all parents, not just to discussstudents’ grades;’’ ‘‘[I’m looking forward to] beingmore persistent with parents—using my team tohelp in coming up with strategies’’). Directparticipation in the TIP program appeared neces-sary to these increases in sense of teaching efficacy;comparison teachers’ sense of efficacy did notincrease across the course of the program.

4.1.2. Teacher perceptions of parent efficacy for

helping children learn

Another variable hypothesized as necessary forteachers’ use of increased personal efficacy indeveloping more effective invitations to parentalinvolvement is teacher beliefs about parents’efficacy for helping children learn. Consistent withexpectations, the data suggested that participationin the TIP program was associated with gains inbeliefs about parents’ efficacy. Theoretically, thesebeliefs appear important to increased invitationsto involvement because teachers who assume thatparents are capable of helping their children seemmore likely than those holding less positive viewsof parents’ efficacy to act in ways that will secureparents’ involvement (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Ho-over-Dempsey et al., 1992). The strengthening ofteacher beliefs about parents’ efficacy was reflectedin several participants’ identification of importantlearning during the TIP program. Across theboard, these comments reflected increased under-standing of parents’ interest in their children’seducational success (e.g., ‘‘Parents are reallytrying, they just aren’t always sure what to do;’’‘‘Parents love their children too, and, like us, needencouragement’’). Participants recorded awarenessof their own role in supporting parents’ involve-ment, and that seemed to underscore an increas-ingly partnership-focused view of family-schoolrelationships among participants (e.g., ‘‘[TIP]remind[ed] us of the good things that canhappen when we see parents—and parents see


themselves—as important;’’ ‘‘Parents have as manynegative/wary reactions and feelings about us aswe have about them. [We] need to recognize this asa partnership. We are not adversaries, but toomany times we put ourselves in that position; weshould work together for our children’’).

4.2. Why did comparison teachers gain in beliefs

about parents’ efficacy for helping children learn?

As true of TIP teachers, comparison teachersalso recorded increases in beliefs about parents’efficacy for helping children learn. One explana-tion for this unexpected finding might lie inintervening events at both schools (e.g., a majorcommunity effort to bring parents into the school;new funding for innovative parental involvementefforts). Careful observation of contextual vari-ables throughout the program and conversationswith school personnel, however, suggested no suchintervening events at either site. Consistent withthe observations of school personnel, a moreviable explanation suggested that through pro-cesses of observation and interaction, someprogram effects appeared to be diffused amongthe broader group of teachers in each school.

Diffusion may have begun in initial meetingswith the full staff of each school when the TIPprogram was described and volunteer participantssolicited; it may have continued as TIP andcomparison teachers completed pre-program ques-tionnaires. Both events may have primed allteachers to begin thinking about parental involve-ment as a more salient component of schoolefforts. Once underway, the program itself createda fairly notable presence in each school (e.g., the‘ice-breaker’ activity introducing each sessionusually produced laughter and enjoyment thatspilled over into adjoining hallways). Participantsalso commented often on the opportunities thesessions afforded for productive brainstorming onsolutions to difficult problems. The Goddard andcolleagues (2000) examination of teacher efficacysuggested that collective efficacy in a schoolfacilitates the establishment of school-wide normsand the purposeful pursuit of educational goals.Social norms also offer school staff opportunitiesfor vicarious learning, a critical factor in organiza-

tional functioning. Post-program conversationswith staff members in both schools suggested thatTIP and non-TIP teachers often ‘‘exchangedexpertise,’’ and did so specifically with regard toparent involvement. Such exchanges among tea-chers may well have offered multiple opportunitiesfor vicarious learning about parents and parentalinvolvement, thus supporting the diffusion ofpositively regarded innovations beyond the con-fines of direct participation.

4.3. What program design and implementation

issues should be addressed in future work?

While offering valuable information, findingsfor the program are set within the context ofspecific limitations, several of which should beaddressed in future work. For example, this initialstudy did not explicitly consider or monitor thelinks between program duration and programinfluence on outcome variables, nor did the studyinclude longer-term assessments of program im-pact. Thus, the finding that teachers reported nonotable increases in parents’ involvement over thecourse of the program itself seemed sensible inretrospect given that program-generated increasesin teacher invitations were likely to have evolvedgradually across the course of the program. Suchgradual changes by program’s end might not yethave been noted by parents as an observabledifference in teacher or school behaviors, thusreducing the likelihood of notable differences inparents’ involvement activities. The fact thatthe program was offered in both schools nearthe end of the school year may also have depre-ssed parental responses by program’s end, asfamilies prepared for completing involvementin the current grade (in one school, over halfof the families also prepared to transition toanother school for the coming year). Futurestudies should include planned variations inprogram timing, duration and intensity, andshould continue to monitor teacher and parentoutcome variables across several months followingthe program.

Future studies of TIP and similar in-serviceprograms should also take into account theunanticipated finding that participating and


comparison teachers appeared to hold two of thefour belief systems hypothesized as necessary toincreased teacher invitations to involvement.Specifically, both groups’ scores on attitudestoward parental involvement and beliefs aboutspecific parental involvement practices were quitehigh before the program began. This suggests thatprofessional development efforts to increase tea-chers’ invitations to involvement might wellassume that many teachers already hold relativelypositive beliefs about parental involvement andthe importance of specific involvement practices.They should instead focus most strongly onincreasing a complex of belief systems includingpersonal (and collective) teaching efficacy andbeliefs about parents’ efficacy for helping theirchildren learn. Such development efforts shouldfocus on transforming existing and enhanced beliefsystems into actions.

Future studies should also include systematicattention to contextual variables characterizing arange of participating schools. Given evidence thatparent involvement, and teacher commitment toparent involvement, often varies across the ele-mentary, middle, and high school years, ages ofstudents should be varied and studied for linkswith program effects. Similarly, careful attentionshould be given to local history and context suchas student turnover rates. Such contextual circum-stances are likely to exert differential influences onin-service program effects.

Finally, replications of the program shouldinclude the ‘next step’ of examining systematicallyother variables also hypothesized to influenceparents’ involvement decisions (e.g., role construc-tion, efficacy for helping the child learn, invitationsfrom students) (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler,1997). They should also, particularly in schoolsserving middle school and high school children,include student perceptions of program goals,target outcomes, and parental involvement.The importance of including such assessments infuture studies is underscored by work highlightingthe importance of teacher and student invitationsto parents’ involvement decisions (e.g., Balli,Demo, & Wedman, 1998; Reed, Hoover-Dempsey,& Flynn, 2001; Walker & Hoover-Dempsey, 2001;Weeden, 2001).

4.4. How might principles guiding TIP program

design and implementation have influenced

program outcomes?

The TIP program was characterized by itscommitment to principles of effective in-serviceeducation, in particular, respect for the perspec-tives and expertise of participants, the value ofcollegial interaction in crafting effective solutionsto familiar problems, and learning processesfocused on content, reflection, feedback andplanning (e.g., Chester & Beaudin, 1996; Datnow& Castellano, 2000; Harry, 1992; Jaervinen et al.,1995; Leach & Conto, 1999; Lord, 1994; Neff,1990; Bransford & Schwartz, 1999; Wilson &Berne, 1999). Drawing again on comments andobservations from participants throughout thecourse program, we consider how three funda-mental principles may have worked to influenceteachers’ belief–behavior systems related to par-ental involvement.

4.4.1. Respect for the perspectives and expertise of

participants

In soliciting and respecting participants’ experi-ences and expertise in the life of the school,program facilitators worked to allow and supportparticipants’ discussion of successes, failures, fearsand concerns related to parental involvement.These discussions allowed all—participants andfacilitators alike—to understand ‘where teacherswere’ in their thinking and experiences at thebeginning of the program. Awareness of partici-pants’ cognitions and affect related to parentalinvolvement allowed facilitators to use theseunderstandings as ‘preparation for future learning’(e.g., Bransford & Schwartz, 1999). Marked bydisclosure and respect, these discussions supporteddevelopments in areas critical to increased sense ofteaching efficacy among participants (masteryexperiences, vicarious experiences, social persua-sion, and affective states) (e.g., Bandura, 1993,1997; Goddard et al., 2000). For example, inopenly sharing positive and negative personalexperiences of parental involvement, participantsunderscored the affective salience of the topicand supported each other’s emotional invest-ment in developing more positive parent–teacher


experiences. In gathering across several sessions tofocus explicit attention on parental involvement,participants experienced increased opportunitiesfor social persuasion—from colleagues and facil-itators—that positive parental involvement en-hances students’ (and therefore teachers’) success(e.g., ‘‘[This was] incredibly motivating—I wantmore information and am anxious to check out thematerials’’).

4.4.2. Collegial interaction

As participants listened to and learned fromeach other, they experienced what was perhaps themost important means of increasing relevant beliefsystems: the program’s provision of well-sup-ported opportunities for collegial interactionamong peers. In sharing personal involvementexperiences both positive and negative, partici-pants developed an appreciation for one another(e.g., ‘‘There is a lot of knowledge and skill in thisgroup and this workshop allowed us to share[it]!’’). This interaction and appreciation appearedcritical to changes in teacher beliefs about personalability to ‘make a difference’. In fact, participants’final program evaluations identified the mostvaluable components of the program as includingseveral aspects of collegial interaction (‘‘groupdiscussion,’’ ‘‘group identification and analysis ofobstacles,’’ ‘‘the development of group goals,’’‘‘brainstorming with colleagues’’). These collectiveexperiences served as a foundation for the devel-opment of new ideas for solving importantproblems. In many ways, participants appearedto become a ‘‘community of learners redefiningteaching practice’’ (Wilson & Berne, 1999, p. 194);in the words of one participant, ‘‘I thoroughlyenjoyed working with the groupyit gave us asense of community.’’

4.4.3. Learning processes emphasizing content,

reflection, feedback, and planning

As facilitators introduced new, theoretically andempirically grounded content that complementedparticipants’ own experiences and observations,teachers were able to weave their own ideas andconcerns into a broader tapestry of work support-ing the educational ‘sense’ of involving parentsin children’s learning. The program essentially

helped participants examine ‘‘the barrierscreated by their own assumptions’’ (Harry, 1992,p. 493). As teachers began to look at parentsfrom different perspectives, they also began toreach out more affirmatively, directly, and effec-tively (Huss-Keeler, 1997). Small working groupsdeveloped specific plans for increasing teacherinvitations to involvement; these plans includedactivities, sequence, resources, roles, and ex-pected outcomes. In so planning, participantsinitiated actions to solve identified problems and,perhaps just as importantly, experienced them-

selves as productive, collaborative problem-sol-vers, capable of creating more effective invitationsto parental involvement and responding well toincreased parental engagement in children’sschooling.

The program also appeared to succeed becauseit offered a model of partnership and collaborationamong peers that promised viability beyond theintervention itself. Facilitators’ knowledge, com-bined with respect for participants and theirexpertise in school matters and in the wisdom ofvaried parent involvement practices, exemplifiedthe basic structure of potentially productiverelationships between teachers and parents. Byhighlighting teachers’ collective expertise, theprogram encouraged participants to engage in aprocess modeling the viability and usefulness ofteachers’ own leadership in inviting effectiveinvolvement. In this process, the program alsoencouraged teachers’ active engagement in prepar-ing for their own future learning (e.g., Bransford &Schwartz, 1999). As one participant observed nearthe program’s conclusion: ‘‘I know what this isabout: we’re already doing just what we shouldkeep doing when the program is over!’’

5. Conclusion

A critical component of successful teachereducation is preparing teachers for parentalinvolvement. The success of the TIP programunderscores the importance of in-service programsas a means of strengthening the motivation andskills teachers already have for involving parentsin their children’s education. The in-service


program supported the development of teachers’sense of efficacy and teachers’ beliefs aboutparents’ efficacy for helping children learn.In combination with beliefs already in place(concerning the value of parental involvementand the importance of specific involvementpractices), these program-enhanced gains sup-ported increased teacher invitations to parentalinvolvement. The program also demonstratedthe value of encouraging participants to reflecton and identify personal and collective beliefs asone means of enabling effective action. Mostimportant in this process appeared to be theprogram’s provision of well-supported opportu-nities for collegial interaction focused on groupgeneration of solutions to important educationalproblems. In this area as in many other areas ofteachers’ professional tasks, the success of such in-service programs is likely grounded in deep respectfor participants’ knowledge, professionalism, crea-tivity, commitment, and ability to work collec-tively in generating solutions to identifiedproblems.

Acknowledgements

We extend many thanks to school leaders whoopened their schools to this program (mostparticularly Lueatrice Green Lovett, ChristineIngram, and James Merriweather); to participatingteachers and parents, who graciously gave us time,energy, and a wealth of ideas; to Jennifer DeJong,Angela Battiato, Drew Wilkins, Kristin Stephen-son and Howard Sandler of the Family SchoolPartnership Lab; to the Kraft Foundation, UnitedWay of Middle Tennessee, Martha O’BryanCenter, Metropolitan Nashville Department ofSocial Services, Family & Children’s Services, andthe Success By Six Program for financial andinstrumental support.

Appendix A

Teachers Involving Parents (TIP)‘‘How to Make Magic: Creating Solutions for

Parent Involvement Problems’’

Points to ponder before creating solutions* ‘Magic’ solutions (much like good magic shows

themselves) are usually created on the basis of hardwork, practice, evaluation, and more hard work.

* In creating ‘magic’ solutions, it is important tothink about your successes—not just to feel goodor dwell in the past, but to analyze what has

worked, why it has worked, and how those lessons

might be useful in solving the present problem.Steps in creating ‘magic solutions’

1. What’s the problem? State it and define it!2. How is the problem related to our goals (is itworth time and energy)?3. What kind of problem-solving strategies can weuse on this problem?

* Problem-focused (get in there and work onthe problem itself)?

* Emotion-focused (change our reactions to theproblem)?

* What can I/we do? What do I/we want to do?* Which of the approaches is best, given the

problem, our goals, and available resources?4. What are alternative specific strategies forsolving the problem? Good ones need to get uscloser to our goals, and good brainstorming is key

here! After brainstorming:* What are our priorities among these strate-

gies?* Are these strategies for the short run? For the

long run?5. What strategy(ies) do we choose and how are wegoing to put them into action? Steps for develop-ing and implementing the plan:

* Do we want to take these on one at a time orwork with several simultaneously?

* Who needs to be involved in making the planwork?

* What are the specific steps in the plan?* Who’s going to do what tasks, when?* When will we ‘put it all together’ and try it out?

6. How will we know if our solution works?Developing a plan for evaluating outcomes,including assessment of:

* What worked and why?* What did not work and why?

7. Making the solution even better: gather evalua-tion and outcome information to use in improvingon good beginnings.


8. Celebrate successes, and return to the processwhen new or revitalized ‘magic’ solutions areneeded!

Notes1. Program documents available from the authorsinclude a list of resources received by TIPparticipants, the TIP Teacher Questionnaire, theTIP Program Evaluation form, and a verbatimsummary of participating teachers’ program eva-luation responses.

References

Balli, S. J., Demo, D. H., & Wedman, J. F. (1998).

Family involvement with children’s homework: An

intervention in the middle grades. Family Relations, 47,

142–146.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive devel-

opment and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28,

117–148.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New

York: W.H. Freeman.

Bermudez, A. B. (1993). Teaming with parents to promote

educational equality for language minority students.

In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic

society (pp. 175–188). Albany: State University of

New York Press.

Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer:

a simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-

Nejad, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in

education, Vol. 24 (pp. 61–100). Washington, DC: American

Educational Research Association.

Chavkin, N. F., & Williams, D. L. (1988). Critical issues in

teacher training for parent involvement. Educational Hor-

izons, 66, 87–89.

Chen, C., & Stevenson, H. W. (1989). Homework: A cross-

cultural examination. Child Development, 60, 551–561.

Chester, M. D., & Beaudin, B. Q. (1996). Efficacy beliefs of

newly hired teachers in urban schools. American Educational

Research Journal, 33, 233–257.

Comer, J. P., & Haynes, N. M. (1991). Parent involvement in

schools: An ecological approach. Elementary School Jour-

nal, 91, 271–277.

Constantino, R., Cui, L., & Faltis, C. (1991). Chinese parental

involvement: Reaching new levels. Equity & Excellence in

Education, 28, 46–50.

Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to

Success for All: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations

shape implementation. American Educational Research

Journal, 37, 775–799.

Dauber, S. L., & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Parents’ attitudes and

practices of involvement in inner-city elementary and

middle schools. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and

schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 53–71). Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press.

Davies, D. (1993). Benefits and barriers to parent involvement:

From Portugal to Boston to Liverpool. In N. Chavkin

(Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp.

205–216). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

de Acosta, M. (1996). A foundational approach to preparing

teachers for family and community involvement in chil-

dren’s education. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 9–15.

Dembo, M. H., & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers’ sense of efficacy:

An important factor in school achievement. Elementary

School Journal, 86, 173–184.

Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1993). Parent-school involve-

ment during the early adolescent years. Teachers College

Record, 94, 568–587.

Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents’ reactions to teacher practices

of parent involvement. Elementary School Journal, 86,

277–294.

Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships.

In M. Aiken (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research

(pp. 1139–1151). New York: MacMillan.

Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and

teacher practices of parent involvement in inner-city

elementary and middle schools. Elementary School Journal,

91, 291–305.

Epstein, J. L., Salinas, K. C., & Horsey, C. S. (1994).

Reliabilities and summaries of scales: School and family

partnership surveys of teachers and parents in the elementary

middle grades. Baltimore, MD: Center on Families, Com-

munities, Schools, and Children’s Learning and Center for

Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Stu-

dents, Johns Hopkins University.

Evans-Schilling, D. (1999). Preparing educational leaders to

work effectively with families: The Parent Power Project. In

M. S. Ammon (Ed.), Joining hands: Preparing teachers to

make meaningful home-school connections (pp. 101–121).

Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.

Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Gestwicki, C. (1992). Home, school and community relations.

Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers.

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective

teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on

student achievement. American Educational Research

Journal, 37, 479–507.

Goodnow, J. J. (1988). Parents’ ideas, actions, and feelings:

Models and methods from developmental and social

psychology. Child Development, 59, 286–320.

Greenwood, G. E., & Hickman, C. W. (1991). Research and

practice in parent involvement: Implications for teacher

education. Elementary School Journal, 91, 279–288.

Griffith, J. (1996). Relation of parental involvement, empower-

ment, and school traits to student academic performance.

Journal of Educational Research, 90, 33–41.

Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostoleris,

N. H. (1997). Predictors of parent involvement in children’s

schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 538–548.


Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’

involvement in children’s schooling: A multidimensional

conceptualization and motivational model. Child Develop-

ment, 65, 237–252.

Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and

attitudes toward the implementation of instructional in-

novation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63–69.

Harry, B. (1992). An ethnographic study of cross-cultural

communication with Puerto Rican–American families in the

special education system. American Educational Research

Journal, 29, 471–494.

Haynes, N. M., Comer, J. P., & Hamilton-Lee, M. (1989).

School climate enhancement through parental involvement.

Journal of School Psychology, 27, 87–90.

Helsby, G. (1999). Changing teachers’ work. Philadelphia: Open

University Press.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental

involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a

difference? Teachers College Record, 95, 310–331.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do

parents become involved in their children’s education?

Review of Educational Research, 67, 3–42.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1987).

Parent involvement: Contributions of teacher efficacy,

school socioeconomic status, and other school character-

istics. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 417–435.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1992).

Explorations in parent-school relations. Journal of Educa-

tional Research, 85, 287–294.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Burow, R. (1995).

Parents’ reported involvement in students’ homework:

Strategies and practices. Elementary School Journal, 95,

435–450.

Huss-Keeler, R. L. (1997). Teacher perception of ethnic and

linguistic minority parental involvement and its relation-

ships to children’s language and literacy learning: A case

study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 171–172.

Jaervinen, A., Kohonen, V., Niemi, H., & Ojanen, S. (1995).

Educating critical professionals. Scandinavian Journal of

Educational Research, 39, 121–137.

Jones, L., & Blendinger, J. (1994). New beginning: Preparing

future teachers to work with diverse families. Action in

Teacher Education, 16, 79–86.

Krasnow, J. (1990). Building new parent–teacher partnerships:

Teacher research teams stimulate reflection. Equity and

Choice, 6, 25–30.

Leach, D. J., & Conto, H. (1999). The additional effects of

process and outcomes feedback following brief in-service

teacher training. Educational Psychology, 19, 441–462.

Lightfoot, S. L. (1981). Toward conflict and resolution:

Relationships between families and schools. Theory into

Practice, 20, 97–103.

Lord, B. (1994). Teachers’ professional development: Critical

colleagueship and the role of professional communities. In

N. Cobb (Ed.), The future of education: Perspectives on

national standards in education (pp. 175–204). New York:

College Entrance Examination Board.

Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of

competence in favorable and unfavorable environments:

Lessons from research on successful children. American

Psychologist, 53, 205–220.

McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. V. (1992). Parents’ beliefs and

children’s personal-social development. In I. E. Sigel, A.

V. McGillicuddy-DeLisi, & J. J. Goodnow (Eds.), Parental

belief systems: Their psychological consequences for children

(pp. 115–142). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Midkiff, R., & Lawler-Prince, D. (1992). Preparing tomorrow’s

teachers: Meeting the challenge of diverse family structures.

Action in Teacher Education, 14, 1–5.

Miller, S. A. (1988). Parents’ beliefs about children’s cognitive

development. Child Development, 59, 259–285.

Moles, O. (1993). Collaboration between schools and dis-

advantaged parents: Obstacles and openings. In N. Chavkin

(Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society

(pp. 21–49). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Morris, V., Taylor, S., Knight, J., & Wasson, R. (1996).

Preparing teachers to reach out to families and commu-

nities. Action in Teacher Education, 18, 10–22.

Neff, R. H. (1990). Research-based findings seldom incorpo-

rated in teacher in-service education. Journal of Instructional

Psychology, 17, 46–51.

Noordhoff, K., & Kleinfeld, J. (1993). Preparing teachers for

multicultural classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education,

9, 27–39.

Okagaki, L., Frensch, P. A., & Gordon, E. W. (1995).

Encouraging school achievement in Mexican American

children. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17,

160–179.

Paulson, S. E. (1994). Relations of parenting style and parental

involvement with ninth-grade students’ achievement. Jour-

nal of Early Adolescence, 14, 250–267.

Peng, S. S., & Wright, D. (1994). Explanation of academic

achievement of Asian American students. Journal of

Educational Research, 87, 347–352.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in

education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Pratt, M. W., Green, D., MacVicar, J., & Bountrogianni, M.

(1992). The mathematical parent: Parental scaffolding,

parenting style, and learning outcomes in long-division

mathematics homework. Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology, 13, 17–34.

Reed, R. P., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Flynn, C. (2001).

Motivational factors of parental involvement in education:

Testing a mediational model. Paper presented at the Biennial

meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,

Minneapolis, MN.

Reed-Danahay, D. (1996). Education and identity in rural

France: The politics of schooling. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Reed-Danahay, D., & Anderson-Levitt, K. M. (1991). Back-

ward countryside, trouble city: French teachers’ images of

rural and working-class families. American Ethnologist, 18,

546–564.


Sarason, S. (1996). Revisiting the culture of the school and the

problem of change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-

regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist, 32, 195–208.

Schwartz, D. L. (1999). The productive agency that drives

collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collabora-

tive learning: Cognitive and computational approaches

(pp. 197–241). Amsterdam: Pergamon.

Schwartz, D. L., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. D. (1999).

Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional

designs. In C. M. Reigelut (Ed.), Instructional design theories

and models, Vol. 2 (pp. 183–213). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Sui-Chu, H. O., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental

involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of

Education, 69, 126–141.

Steinberg, L., Elmer, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative

parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success

among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424–1436.

Tichenor, M. S. (1997). Teacher education and parent involve-

ment: Reflections from preservice teachers. Journal of

Instructional Psychology, 24, 233–239.

Vincent, C. (1996). Parents and teachers: Power and participa-

tion. London: Falmer Press.

Walker, J. M. T., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. (2001). Age-

related patterns in student invitations to parental involvement

in homework. Paper presented at the symposium, Parental

involvement in homework: What do we know and how do

we really know it? Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Weeden, C. J. (2001). Parental involvement in education:

Why parents do what they do. Honors Thesis, undergraduate

program in Child Development, Department of Psychology

& Human Development, Vanderbilt University, Nashville,

TN.

Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the

acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of

research on contemporary professional development. In A.

Iran-Nejad, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in

education, Vol. 24 (pp. 173–209). Washington, DC: Amer-

ican Educational Research Association.

Woolfolk, A., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. (1990). Teachers’ sense of

efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 6, 137–148.

Yao, E. L. (1993). Strategies for working effectively with Asian

immigrant parents. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and

schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 149–156). Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press.

Zellman, G. L., & Waterman, J. M. (1998). Understanding the

impact of parent school involvement on children’s

educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Research,

91, 370–380.


Teachers Involving Parents (TIP): results of an in-service teacher education program for enhancing...

Documents

Transcript of Teachers Involving Parents (TIP): results of an in-service teacher education program for enhancing...