Abstract
The notion that parent involvement impacts student learning outcomes for children who are at risk for failing academically has been supported by prominent early childhood education experts. Recent attention has been given to specific ways parents can help increase student learning through their interactions with children as they complete home learning activities. It is important to note that the term parent is used interchangeably with the terms adult, guardian and family member. The term “at-risk reader” refers to readers who are at risk of failing school because of reading deficiencies. This report will examine whether parent training to increase parent–child interactions during the completion of second grade Interactive Homework Assignments (IHA) can facilitate increases in a student’s ability to draw inferences from reading selections, a skill closely aligned with proficiency in reading acquisition. The second grade level was chosen because these children were those whose teachers were concerned with preparing them to take the third grade SAT9. Third grade level was not selected because many of their professional development activities were prescribed due to their immediate concern with preparing students to take the SAT9. IHA, for the scope of this study, is homework designed to increase parent involvement and student achievement. The results indicate that specific parent training during a brief period of time, approximately four weeks, has the potential for improving academic performance for academically at-risk students.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Au K. (1993). Literacy instruction in multicultural settings. Fort Worth, TX: Hartcourt Brace
Bailey L. B. (2004). Interactive homework for increasing parent involvement and student reading achievement. Childhood Education 81(1):36–40
Bailey L. B., Silvern S. B., Brabham E., Ross M. (2004). The effects of interactive reading home work and parent involvement on children’s inference responses. Early Childhood Education Journal 32(3):173–178
Bronstein P., Ginsberg G. S. (1993). Family factors related to children’s intrinsic/extrinsic motivational orientations and academic performance. Childhood Development 64:1461–1474
Bryan J., Burstein K., Bryan T. (2001). Students with learning disabilities: Homework problems and promising practices. Educational Psychologist 36(3):167–180
Burns M., Griffin P., Snow C. E. (1999). Starting out right: A guide to promoting children’s reading success. Current Reviews for Academic Libraries 37(1):203
Campbell F. A., Ramey C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high-risk African American students at middle adolescents: Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational Research Journal 32:743–772
Cooper H., Jackson K., Nye B., Lindsay J. J. (2001). A model of homework on the performance evaluations of elementary school students. The Journal of Experimental Education 69(2):181–199
Davis K. A., Golden J. M. (1994). Teacher culture and children’s voices in an urban kindergarten center. Linguistics and Education 6:261–287
Epstein J. L. (1994). Family math that’s above average: Take home activities for kids and their parents. Instructor 103(8):17–19
Hoover-Dempsey K. V., Battiato A. C., Walker J. M. T., Reed R. P., DeJong J. M., Jones K. P. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist 36(3):195–209
McCarthey S. J. (2000). Home-school connections: A review of the literature. The Journal of Educational Research 93(3):145–167
Taylor D., Dorsey-Gaines C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning from inner-city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Vygotsky L. (1978). Mind in society Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Warton P. M. (2001). The forgotten voices in homework: Views of the students. Educational Psychologist 36(3):155–165
Worrell F. C., Gabelko N. H., Roth D. A., Samuels L. (1999). Parents’ reports on homework amount and problems in academically talented elementary students. Gifted Child Quarterly 43(2):86–96
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendixes
Appendix A. Interactive Homework Assignments Rubric (Data Collection Form)
Appendix B. Inference Assessment (Pre- and Post-Test)
Appendix C. Rubric for Evaluating Inference Pre- and Post-Test
Inference questions | (3) Student uses logic to answer. Answer is plausible | (2) Student uses only some logic and answer is only slightly plausible | (1) Student’s answer is implausible and illogical |
|---|---|---|---|
(1) How can the boys figure out what kind of animal is in the tree? | Student used at least 3–5 of the following logical strategies to answer the question: | Student used only 1–2 of the 5 logical strategies to answer the question | Student used none of the 5 logical strategies to answer the question |
(1) The boys could think about what kind of animals can move about in trees | |||
(2) The boys could discuss how the animal moved and think about the kind of animal that moved that way. | |||
(3) The boys could attempt to recall the animal’s color and think about animals that move about in trees with that color | |||
(4) The boys could attempt to recall any sounds the animal made | |||
(5) The boys could attempt to recall the size of the animal and then think about animals that move about in trees with that size. | |||
(2) How can they be sure? | Student used 3–5 of the logical strategies to support his answer: | Student used 1–2 of the logical strategies to support his answer | Student used none of the strategies to support his answer |
(1) They can go back after school to check to see if the animal is still there. | |||
(2) They can ask other children who pass the tree every morning if they’ve ever seen an animal in that tree on their way to school, and then think about the animal they saw (think about the color the size, and how the animal moved) and decide whether they saw that animal. | |||
(3) They can decide that there is no way to tell for sure what kind of animal is in the tree without going back to the tree to check. | |||
(4) They can decide that there is no way to tell what kind of animal is in the tree even if you go back because a different animal could be in the tree by the time you get back. | |||
(5) They could use the process of elimination | |||
(3) What kind of animal could be in the tree? | Answer is logical: animal is one that can climb a tree or fly into a tree, move around from limb to limb on a tree with ease | Answer is somewhat logical: animal is one that either can climb a tree or fly into a tree but cannot move easily from limb to limb | Answer is illogical: animal is one that cannot climb a tree or can fly into a tree, and cannot move easily from limb to limb. |
(4) Why did you choose that animal to be the one in the tree? | (1) The student thought about the kinds of animals that could climb trees. | ||
(2) The student thought about the kinds of animals that can move from limb to limb in trees | |||
(3) The student thought about animals that can move from limb fast | |||
(4) Process of elimination: The student thought about the animals from the list and decided which one could not climb a tree at all and put an X on it, and went on to put an X on the name of the animal that could not move swiftly and chose the one that was left. | |||
(5)The student recalled a conversation or a book that discussed animals that could climb trees and move about swiftly in them |
Appendix D. Scoring Sheet for Pre-/Post-Assessment
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bailey, L.B. Interactive Homework: A Tool for Fostering Parent–Child Interactions and Improving Learning Outcomes for At-risk Young Children. Early Childhood Educ J 34, 155–167 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-006-0114-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-006-0114-y