Family, School, and Community Partnerships: A Model for Pre-service

Teacher EducationPresentation at

Center for Research, Evaluation & Advancement of Teacher Education

2010 Research Conference on Teacher EducationHouston, TX

November 14-15, 2010

PresentersMary M. Harris, Ph.D.

University of North Texas Teacher Education & Administrationmary.harris@unt.edu

Amber L. Brown , Ed.D.

University of Texas – Arlington

Curriculum and Instruction

amber.brown@uta.edu

Judy Trotti, Ed. D.University of Mary-Hardin

BaylorCollege of EducationJTrotti@umhb.edu

www.pte.unt.edu

Revised Modules Now Online:

Purpose

The purpose of this research project was to examine changes in knowledge and attitudes related to family involvement in schools by pre-service teacher education students participating in the PTE Connect Curriculum.

Study Questions

1. To what extent was change in candidate knowledge of each type of family involvement associated with use of the related module?

2. To what extent was change in candidate attitude toward family involvement associated with the use of the set of modules?

Curriculum of PTE Connect

• Content based on the National PTA Standards for Parent Involvement

• Web-based curriculum delivery• Case-study from perspective of 1st-

year teacher• Class Discussion

Research Base of PTE Connect

The evidence is now beyond dispute. When parents are involved in their children’s education at home their children do better in school

Henderson and Mapp, 2002 A New Wave of Evidence

Policy Base of PTE Connect

ACEI – Standard 5 Professionalism• 5.2 Collaboration with families,

colleagues, and community agencies—– Candidates know the importance of

establishing and maintaining a positive collaborative relationship with families, school colleagues, and agencies in the larger community to promote the intellectual, social, emotional, physical growth and well-being of children.

Policy Base of PTE Connect

TExES PPR - Standard XI:

The teacher understands the importance of family involvement in children’s education and knows how to interact and communicate effectively with families

Location of Study

• Conducted at four large state Universities across the country serving a diverse student population– Urban - South– North– Southwest– Urban - North

Participants

African American6.3%

Asian0.3%

Latino28.86%

White62.42%

Other2.1%

Ethnicity

EC-461%

4 - 821%

8 - 1213%

All level6%

Certification Level

Treatment

• Partner universities infused the PTE Curriculum into their teacher education programs in their own ways.

• Sample lesson plans were provided for guidance, but were just suggestions.

• Sample lesson plans included:– Discussion of Case Studies – Cooperative group projects– Products of learning (Teaching Activity)

Teaching Methods Employed by Each University

• South-Urban (n=413)– All six Modules infused into 100% online

course in Family, School, and Community Partnerships

– Modules read online individually– Content discussed online in groups– Case studies discussed online in groups.– Teaching activity completed individually

and shared via online discussion board.

Teaching Methods Employed by Each University

• North (n=288)– Three modules (Parenting, Communicating,

Collaborating w/ the Community) each infused into a different teacher education course.

– Objectives discussed in question-response format.

– Case studies in groups

Teaching Methods Employed by Each University

• Southwest (n=494)– Learning at Home only Module addressed

via Math content course– None of Curriculum materials addressed

directly in class– Students organized and implemented Parent

Power Nights at local elementary schools

Teaching Methods Employed by Each University

• South-Rural (n=341)– Parenting, Communicating, and Advocacy &

Decision-Making modules addressed via Classroom Management course

– Modules read online individually– Case studied discussed as whole-group– Content discussed in class as whole-group

Knowledge Assessments

– Six assessments developed by project personnel on the basis of each module’s content and objectives.

– Each assessment consisted of 20 multiple choice and true/false items

– Assessments were revised after item analysis of assessments of teacher candidates who participated in pilot studies in 2002-2004.

– The pre-and post-knowledge assessment instruments were identical.

Attitude Towards Parent Involvement Survey

• Developed by Epstein, Connors, and Salinas (1993) for use with in-service teachers.

• Asks teachers to report the importance of various parent involvement activities using a Likert scale with “1” being “not important” and “4” being “very important.” – Factor I: Parents and Teachers as Partners in Learning

- represented activities where the parent and teacher worked together as partners in the child’s learning

– Factor II: Teacher Initiated Partnership Activities and represented activities planned or initiated by the teacher to facilitate parent involvement in the child’s learning.

– Factor III: Parent Initiated Community and School-wide Partnership Activities - was based on how important teachers feel it is for parents to engage in partnership activities with their child at school and in the community.

Mean Difference Between Pre- and Post Knowledge Assessments of the PTE Connection Modules - All

Parenting* Comm.* Volunteer-ing*

Learning* Advocacy* Collborating50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

74.0 73.0

82.1

71.4

76.2

66.9

83.580.2

85.4

78.0

84.7 84.2

PrePost

Module

Mean

Score

*p < .001

Mean Difference Between Pre- and Post Attitude Assessments of the PTE Connection

Modules - All

Factor I* Factor II* Factor III*2

2.22.42.62.8

33.23.43.63.8

4

2.99

2.682.77

3.02

2.78 2.83PrePost

Mean

Score

*p < .001

Mean Difference Between Pre- and Post Knowledge Assessments of the PTE Connection Modules – South Urban

Parenting** Comm.** Volunteering* Learning** Advocacy** Collborating***

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

76.6 77.6

85.0

75.177.3

67.9

87.885.8

88.586.6 85.0 84.3

PrePost

Module

Mean

Score

*p < .05; ** p < .001

Mean Difference Between Pre- and Post Attitude Assessments of the PTE Connection Modules – South Urban

Factor I*** Factor II* Factor III**2

2.22.42.62.8

33.23.43.63.8

43.82

3.51

2.77

3.94

3.55

2.83 PrePost

Mean

Score

*p < .1; **p < .05; *** p < .001

Mean Difference Between Pre- and Post Knowledge Assessments of the PTE Connection Modules - North

Parenting Comm. Volunteering Learning Advocacy Collborating*50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

69.3 68.5 69.171.0 70.2

79.1

PrePost

Module

Mean

Score

**p < .05

Mean Difference Between Pre- and Post Attitude Assessments of the PTE Connection Modules -

North

Factor I* Factor II** Factor III**2.002.202.402.602.803.003.203.403.603.804.00

2.7

2.38

3.44

2.76 2.81

3.56

PrePost

Mean

Score

*p < .05; ** p < .001

Mean Difference Between Pre- and Post Knowledge Assessments of the PTE Connection Modules - Southwest

Parenting Communicat-ing

Volunteering Learning Advocacy Collborating 50

60

70

80

90

100

62.562.92

PrePost

Module

Mean

Score

Mean Difference Between Pre- and Post Attitude Assessments of the PTE Connection Modules - Southwest

Factor I** Factor II* Factor III2

2.22.42.62.8

33.23.43.63.8

4

2.82

2.58

3.63

2.86

2.64

3.64

PrePost

Mean

Score

*p < .1; **p < .05

Mean Difference Between Pre- and Post Knowledge Assessments of the PTE Connection Modules – South Rural

Parenting* Comm. Volunteering Learning Advocacy* Collaborating50

60

70

80

90

100

69.8466.77

56.94

82.81

72.26

76.67

PrePost

Module

Mean

Score

* p < .001

Mean Difference Between Pre- and Post Attitude Assessments of the PTE Connection Modules – South

Rural

Factor I Factor II* Factor III**2

2.22.42.62.8

33.23.43.63.8

4 3.73

3.23

3.43

3.75

3.32

3.75

PrePost

Mean

Score

*p < .1; **p < .05

Results

• One-tailed, paired sample t-tests were performed to compare mean scores on each of the pre- and post-test scores on both measures

• Results of the analysis of knowledge scores indicated significant changes between pre- and post-test scores for all six assessments (p< .001) when data were combined.

• Significant results differed by university

Conclusions

• The infusion of web-based learning modules into existing pre-service teacher education classes was found to be successful in improving student attitudes toward parent involvement and knowledge about parent involvement - across all universities.

• Systematic presentation of PTE Curriculum through 100% online course led to greatest knowledge gains

• Use of problem-based learning through case studies helped the learners apply knowledge through discussion and reflection

Conclusions

• All universities experienced significant increases in attitude scores suggesting that attitude was more related to the positive consideration of families, school, and communities rather than specific knowledge change.