<%BANNER%>

Assessing Teacher Self-Efficacy in Implementing Family Centered Practices

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042499/00001

Material Information

Title: Assessing Teacher Self-Efficacy in Implementing Family Centered Practices Development of the Working with Families Self-Efficacy Scales
Physical Description: 1 online resource (179 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Hollander, Erika
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: centered, efficacy, families, family, measurement, schools, self, systems, teacher, theory, wfses, working
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Marriage and Family Counseling thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: There is now consensus among teachers, administrators and policy-makers regarding the need and desire to promote family involvement in the education process, yet variations still prevail in the level of family involvement practices exhibited by teachers. The Working with Families Self-Efficacy Scales (WFSES) were developed to investigate empirically the level of self-efficacy reported by teachers in implementing specific family-centered practices designed to involve families in the educational process of their children. Three domains of practice were assessed: (a) teacher communication and conflict resolution practices with families, (b) their appreciation for diverse family's experiences and skills in reaching out and involving such families in their children's learning and development and (c) teacher expected role activities in working with families. It was hoped that if the WFSES could be established as valid and reliable, it could be used to explore the relationships among teacher self-efficacy in performing particular family involvement practices, their actual implementation of involvement practices, and parent/family engagement outcomes. This study involved 527 teachers of pre-kindergarten through sixth grade who completed the WFSES online. Teachers rated by self-report their capabilities in demonstrating twenty-seven skills. Principal components analysis resulted in a three factor structure. The three factors closely corresponded to the hypothesized constructs of: (a) communication and conflict resolution, (b) appreciating and adapting to family diversity, and (c) expectations about working collaboratively with families. Future studies should continue empirical investigations on the WFSES to facilitate study of the specific family involvement practices that teachers are skilled in and comfortable with using.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Erika Hollander.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Amatea, Ellen S.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-06-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042499:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042499/00001

Material Information

Title: Assessing Teacher Self-Efficacy in Implementing Family Centered Practices Development of the Working with Families Self-Efficacy Scales
Physical Description: 1 online resource (179 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Hollander, Erika
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: centered, efficacy, families, family, measurement, schools, self, systems, teacher, theory, wfses, working
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Marriage and Family Counseling thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: There is now consensus among teachers, administrators and policy-makers regarding the need and desire to promote family involvement in the education process, yet variations still prevail in the level of family involvement practices exhibited by teachers. The Working with Families Self-Efficacy Scales (WFSES) were developed to investigate empirically the level of self-efficacy reported by teachers in implementing specific family-centered practices designed to involve families in the educational process of their children. Three domains of practice were assessed: (a) teacher communication and conflict resolution practices with families, (b) their appreciation for diverse family's experiences and skills in reaching out and involving such families in their children's learning and development and (c) teacher expected role activities in working with families. It was hoped that if the WFSES could be established as valid and reliable, it could be used to explore the relationships among teacher self-efficacy in performing particular family involvement practices, their actual implementation of involvement practices, and parent/family engagement outcomes. This study involved 527 teachers of pre-kindergarten through sixth grade who completed the WFSES online. Teachers rated by self-report their capabilities in demonstrating twenty-seven skills. Principal components analysis resulted in a three factor structure. The three factors closely corresponded to the hypothesized constructs of: (a) communication and conflict resolution, (b) appreciating and adapting to family diversity, and (c) expectations about working collaboratively with families. Future studies should continue empirical investigations on the WFSES to facilitate study of the specific family involvement practices that teachers are skilled in and comfortable with using.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Erika Hollander.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Amatea, Ellen S.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-06-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042499:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 ASSESSING TEACHER SELFEFFICACY IN IMPLEMENTING FAMILY CENTERED PRACTICES: DEVELOPMENT OF THE WORKING WITH FAMILIES SELFEFFICACY SCALES B y ERIKA S. HOLLANDER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF F LORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 Erika S. Hollander

PAGE 3

3 To my parents you were my inspiration to begi n this doctoral quest for more knowledge and expertise to help children who are suffering and look for ways to advocate for them. Thank you for teaching me that with motivation and hard work, anything is possible

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world. ~ Anne Frank I would like to first and foremost thank the teachers, principals and other education leaders who took the time to complete the dissertation survey and forward it on to their colleagues. Without your assistance, this project would not have been completed. Your information and input on how to understand teachers capabilities in talking and relating to families of students you teach are both informative and helpful. Tha nk you for taking the time in your busy school schedules to inform us of the benefits and challenges of all the work teachers do in the schools. Highest on my list of acknowledgements next, I would like to thank Dr. Ellen Amatea, my doctoral chair and me ntor. She is my favorite conversational companion in discussing the benefits and challenges of family involvement in the schools and family centered training. From the first day I met her, I knew I had met my scholarly soul mate and leader in the field to guide me on my quest to understand the complexities of family involvement in helping children. Although many, many hours to getting to answers, I have come to understand that my asking the questions and pursuing the answers are as important as any final a nswers. I would also like to thank the other members of my committee: Dr. Peter Sherrard, from my first days at the University of Florida, his presence with knowledge and compassion set him apart from others who influence be it his chuckle or tug on h is whiskers, theories of family therapy or abilities to stretch my current theories. He modeled using humor, calmness and bold questioning which I try to emulate in my practice of counseling. I would also like to thank Dr. Sondra Smith for her guidance, honesty, and involvement as a leader in Chi Sigma Iota. Last thanks among my committee, I would like to thank Dr. David Miller for his support, knowledge

PAGE 5

5 information and patience Among my department, I could not go without thanking Dr. Silvia EchevarriaDoan for letting me participate in the educational wonders and joys of the University of Florida Couples and Family Therapy Clinic conducting counseling and supervision in the clinic further grounded me in family therapy and supervision techniques. To my mother Joan, I have often looked back on my life and marveled how one person can have so much influence on my life. You are truly the best role model a young developing woman could be blessed with. Thank you for your courage, strength, sunny disposition a nd nurturance of me relentlessly. I learned from you and daddy the importance of ambition, perseverance and enthusiasm. Thank you daddy. Every day you are missed mommy. I will love you forever and miss you always. For my little Andrew, you are the reason I kept going each day and continued on this magnificent journey of self discovery and empowerment seeking knowledge. Everyday with you I am reminded of how wonderful the world is having you in it. Y ou have grown into a fine young man and truly are a gentle man. May you also find the same passion and happiness in your chosen educational pursuit, career, family and life I would like to thank my mother Joan, father Steve, sister Tracy, brothers Todd and Mark for showing me ideas of family and supporting my i nterests for family counseling. I learned how to be more independent, ambitious, self sufficient and discovered distinctive communication abilities being with my primary family. To my sister Tracy, thank you for giving me your time and compassion. To my br other Todd, thank you for your sensitive support and humility. To my brother Mark, thank you for your demonstration of hard work and determination. To my other family, like Aunt Blanche, Aunt Carol, Uncle Harry, Aunt Joyce, Maria, Grandma Miriam, Grandpa E d, cousins, Rocio, Lucho and more who sat and talked with me for hours about my daily endeavors, struggles, sacrifices and accomplishments. Thank you for giving me your time. Last, I have my nephew, nieces and the new family generations who will further br ing forward

PAGE 6

6 the Hollander traditions and hopefully treasure life, love, the joy of living and helping out each other. Many thanks to my friends and classmates in the Counselor Education Department special thanks given to Kelly, Christy, Candy, Rosalie Marie and Carrie. My UF experience would also not have been the same without my good friend and research buddy, David Marshall confoundvariable may he rest in peace. To my special angel Jeni Leigh Pierce, may you rest in peace knowing you will stay in my heart always. I would like to thank my friends who believed and encouraged me to always reach for more, besides being a cheerleader in the most difficult times they celebrate in the finalizing of this project as well my dear friends: Ivette, Kristi, Ronnie, Jean, Shakira, Darlene, Shellie, Nancy, Danielle, Susan, Jaime, Jill, and Marsh. I appreciate your words of wisdom, positivity and friendship. Last to my river buddies, thank you for always taking the time you did not have to, the support you l e nt us and friendship you gave us. The sacrifices you have made looking past yourselves, caring for another, and selflessness. I know my f amily and f riends join my mother in spirit on my graduation day with her tears of joy and happiness for this grand ac complishment. I would like to thank Suzanne for introducing me to the world of family therapy in 1996 with the Philadelphia Child Guidance Center. PCGC and the Minuchin Center fortified the roots that ground me in counseling today. Special thanks to the Louisiana State University, Temple University and the University of Florida for believing in me and opening up their schools to me. I would like to thank the state of New Jersey for developing a progressive, innovative mental health program to help families in need and letting me be a part of this special program as a counselor. And for me the reason I finished is because I have had the pleasure of talking with strong and courageous families as I have worked as a counselor. I am so pleased to have met you and

PAGE 7

7 shared in your lives. I would like to take time to thank the families. Each conversation I am reminded how you as caregivers want your children to grow, seek knowledge, and experience in family harmony. For all the challenges and crises in your l ives, you continued to seek counseling, search for answers and seek comfort. Last ly the professionals who work with children and families thank you for choosing this noble profession of helping others. F or those of you who made the decision and dedicated your lives to helping others this is your special acknowledgement. This research was compiled for you and all your hard work, sacrifices and sleepless nights thinking about ways to help others. Finally, I want to thank Dr. Ellen Amatea, my family and f riends, the teachers, my doctoral committee, Candy, Patty, all of the C ounselor Education Department, f aculty, Chi Sigma Iota Beta Chapter, and University of Florida. Go Gators!

PAGE 8

8 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................10 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................15 Scope of the Problem ..............................................................................................................16 Theoretical Framework ...........................................................................................................21 Self Efficacy Theory .......................................................................................................21 Joyce E psteins Theory of FamilySchool Roles ............................................................25 Systems Theory ...............................................................................................................27 Family Systems Theory ...................................................................................................28 Family Centered Beliefs and Practices ...................................................................................30 Collaborative Family Teacher Role Expectations ...........................................................30 Commitment to Family Teacher Relationship Development ..........................................32 Communication and Conflict Resolution ........................................................................32 Appreciating Family Diversity ........................................................................................34 Need for the Study ..................................................................................................................35 Purpose of the Study ...............................................................................................................36 Research Questions .................................................................................................................36 Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................36 Organization of the Study .......................................................................................................38 2 REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE .....................................................................39 Family Involvement in Childrens Schooling .........................................................................39 Teacher Preparation in Family Involvement ..........................................................................42 Essential Teacher Competencies in Family Involvement .......................................................49 Family School Com munication .......................................................................................51 Understanding Family Diversity .....................................................................................55 Teacher Role with Families and Relationships ...............................................................57 Theoretical Frameworks .........................................................................................................62 Joyce E psteins Theory of FamilySchool Roles ............................................................62 Family Systems Theory ...................................................................................................62 Banduras Social Learning and Self Efficacy Theory .....................................................63 Assessments of Teacher Self Efficacy ...................................................................................67 Development of the Working with Families Self Efficacy Scales .........................................74 Summary .................................................................................................................................75

PAGE 9

9 3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................77 Population ...............................................................................................................................77 Sampling Procedures ..............................................................................................................78 Instrumentation .......................................................................................................................80 Participant Demographic Questionnaire ..........................................................................83 Data Collection Procedures ....................................................................................................84 R esearch Questions .................................................................................................................85 Data Analytic Procedures .......................................................................................................85 4 RESULTS ...............................................................................................................................87 Sa mple Demographics ............................................................................................................87 Item Analysis ..........................................................................................................................89 Research Questions .................................................................................................................94 Fami ly School Communication ..............................................................................................96 Teacher Role with Families ....................................................................................................96 Family Diversity .....................................................................................................................97 5 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................142 Development of the WFSES .................................................................................................142 Discussion of Results ............................................................................................................145 Limitations ............................................................................................................................151 Implications ..........................................................................................................................153 Implications for Theory ........................................................................................................154 Implications for Practice .......................................................................................................154 Implications for Research .....................................................................................................156 Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................................158 Summary ...............................................................................................................................160 APPENDIX A LETTER TO DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS AND SUPERINTENDENTS ..................161 B INFORMED CONSENT LETTER ......................................................................................162 C WORKING WITH FAMILIES SELF EFFICACY SCALES .............................................163 D DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ....................................................................................166 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................169 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................179

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 41 Gender, Ethnicity, Age, and Parental Status of study sample (527 participants) ..............99 42 Participants Teaching Specialty, Work Experiences and Ed. Level (527 participants) .100 43 Type of community in which teacher was reared and worked (527 participants) ...........101 44 State in which partic ipants reared and work (527 participants) .......................................102 45 Extent of Instruction, Nature of Relationships, and School Support (527 participants) ..104 46 SKILL: Discuss with parents your ideas and observations about their child. .................105 47 SKILL: Assist a parent to feel comfortable in talking with you about their concerns. ...106 48 SKILL: Balance your opinions about what a child needs with a parent who has a different opinion than you. ...............................................................................................107 49 SKILL: Work ou t a compromise with a parent when you strongly disagree with them. .................................................................................................................................108 410 SKILL: Respond effectively to a parent who seems upset with you. ..............................109 411 SKILL: Assist a parent who seems frustrated with their child. .......................................110 412 SKILL: Show a parent that you care about their child when they react like you do not like their chi ld. .................................................................................................................111 413 SKILL: Effectively resolve a conflict you have with a parent. .......................................112 414 SKILL: Intervene to help when a family is in crisis. .......................................................113 415 SKILL: Understand the difficult situations in which families may find themselves. ......114 416 SKILL: Assist a fam ily in accessing needed services in the community. .......................115 417 SKILL: Feel comfortable in working with families of different cultures and socioeconomic circumstances ..........................................................................................116 418 SKILL: Understand the particular constraints that may limit a family's involvement in their child's learning and daily activities. ....................................................................117 419 SKILL: I nvolve parents who have limited resources and/or time in their child's learning and development. ...............................................................................................118 420 SKILL: Understand the unique knowledge and strengths a child's family possess. ........119

PAGE 11

11 421 SKILL: Feel comfortable in working with nontraditional families such as: Gay/Lesbian families, Single Parent families, Multigenerational families, Adoptive/Foster families. .................................................................................................120 422 SKILL: Provide a warm, inviting interaction with caregivers from different types of families. ............................................................................................................................121 423 SKILL: Understand how your view of children may differ from the parents' view of their children. ...................................................................................................................122 424 SKILL: Give parents specific information about what they can do to influence their children's learning and development ...............................................................................123 425 SKILL: Create opportunities to develop positive, trusting relationships with each childs parents/caregivers. ................................................................................................124 426 SKILL: Communicate with parents of differing social classes about how they can support their childrens development. ..............................................................................125 427 SKILL: Motivate parents to make the changes they would like to i n functioning better as a family. .............................................................................................................126 428 SKILL: Assist parents in improving how they parent. ....................................................127 429 SKILL: Offer parents opp ortunities to participate in their childs development and learning. ...........................................................................................................................128 430 SKILL: Design school events in which parents can actively participate with their child to develop the child's lear ning. ...............................................................................129 431 SKILL: Schedule school events so parents are active participants. .................................130 432 SKILL: Invite parents to express their perspective as key decision makers in their childs development. ........................................................................................................131 433 Mean scores of WFSES: Family School Communication Self Efficacy Scales. ............132 434 Mean scores of Teacher Role with Families Self Efficacy Scales. .................................133 435 Mean scores of Family Diversity Self Efficacy Scales. ..................................................134 436 Questionnaire skill sets resulting with means 77% of lower in degree of confidence ....135 437 Questionnaire skill sets resulting with standard deviations of 16 increments or higher ..136 438 Scree Plot results from questionnaire 27 components .....................................................137 439 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis ........................................................138

PAGE 12

12 440 Factor Analysis for Working with Families Self Efficacy Scales .40 or higher. ..........139 441 Cronbach Alpha sc ores on FamilySchool Communication, Family Diversity and Teacher Role with Families .............................................................................................141

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ASSESSING TEACHER SELFEFFICACY IN IMPLEMENTING FAMILY CENTERED PRACTICES: DEVELOPMENT OF THE WORKING WITH FAMILIES SELFEFFICACY SCALES By Erika S. Hollander December 20 10 Chair: Ellen S. Amatea Major: Marriage and Family Counseling There is now consensus among teachers, administrators and policy makers regarding the need and desire to promote family involvement in the education process, yet variations still prevail in the level of family involv ement practices exhibited by teachers. The Working with Families Self Efficacy Scales (WFSES) were developed to investigate empirically the level of self efficacy reported by teachers in implementing specific family centered practices designed to involve f amilies in the educational process of their children. Three domains of practice were assessed: (a) teacher communication and conflict resolution practices with families, (b) their appreciation for diverse familys experiences and skills in reaching out an d involving such families in their childrens learning and development and (c) teacher expected role activities in working with families. It was hoped that if the WFSES could be established as valid and reliable, it could be used to explore the relationshi ps among teacher self efficacy in performing particular family involvement practices, their actual implementation of involvement practices, and parent/family engagement outcomes. T his study involved 527 teachers of pre kind ergarten through sixth grade who completed the WFSES online. Teachers rated by self report their capabilities in demonstrating twenty seven

PAGE 14

14 skills. Principal components analysis resulted in a three factor structure The three factors closely corresponded to the hypothesized constructs of : (a) communication and conflict resolution, (b) appreciating and adapting to family diversity, and (c) expectations about working collaboratively with families. Future studies should continue empirical investigations on the WFSES to facilitate study of the specific family involvement practices that teachers are skilled in and comfortable with using.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Educators have long recognized the importance of families in influencing student academic achievement. However, it was not until the late 1980s and 1990s that more systematic attention began to be given to considering how educators might work with families to enhance student learning and achievement (Clark, 1983; Dornbush et al., 1987; Kellaghan et al., 1993; Snow et al ., 1991). This ne w interest in families was generated by the results of research regarding the importance of families to the academic success of school age children. This research demonstrated that family involvement in their childrens schooling promoted better student a ttendance (Epstein, 2002) increased graduation rates and less grade retention, higher parent and student satisfaction with school, less discipline reports, and higher achievement scores in reading and math (Collignon et al. 2001; Murry et al., 2002; Furs tenburg et al., 1999). As a result of these findings, educators are now being encouraged to reach out and involve families more intentionally in their childrens schooling. A variety of innovative family centered practices have now been developed by earl y childhood educators working with low income families (Brofenbrenner, 1974; Davison, 1998; Scott Jones, 1987), by educators working with the families of language minority children (DelgadoGaitan, 1991; Delpit, 1995), reducing adolescent problem behavior (Amatea, 1991; Connell, 2007 ; Lee, 1993 ) and by educators working in low income schools (Comer et al. 1996). The importance of family involvement in childrens schooling has been accentuated by federal legislation such as the 2001 No Child Left Behind Ac t (NCLB) which defined an active role for caregivers in educational decisionmaking for their children and for the community at large. Implicit in this legislation is recognition of the interdependence of home and school in socializing children (Coleman, 1987) and of the importance of consistency and harmony between these two contexts. In addition, educators are

PAGE 16

16 r ealizing that the increasing cultural and economic diversity of families and the changes in family structure brought about with two parents working, with single families, and with economically struggling families, require educators to think differently about how they might interact with families (Epstein, 1990; Graue, 2003). Thus many educational leaders have raised expectations for teachers to con tact and involve families in their childrens learning. As a result, many teachers are being asked by administrators at the school, district, or state level to expand their efforts to interact with the families of their students so as to improve student l earning and achievement. In addition, many statelevel Departments of Education are requiring teacher education programs to include preparation for working with families as a competency to be addressed in their education programs ( F ESC 2010). These developments have led to a greater interest in assisting educators in enhancing their skills in working with the families of their students and in assessing teacher attitudes and skills in implementing family centered teaching practices. Scope of the Problem During the past decade, federal policy makers began recognizing the need to include families more systematically in their childrens educational experience. For example, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act created federal legislation mandating educational reform to enhance the student achievement of all American children. Moreover, the National Education Goals shaped specific knowledge criteria for teachers that included standards for teacher education and parental participation in the schools ( NEGP 2007). Later, under new presidential leadership, the E lementary and Secondary Education Act w as reauthorized as the No C hild Left Behind Act of 2001. This act further prescribed how parents were to be involved in their childrens schools. During this same time period, professional standards of practice for family involvement were promulgated by a variety of professional organizations (Family Involvement Network of

PAGE 17

17 Educators, 2001). However, while these professional standards were being recommended, there was not a consistent commitment in either the preservice education or in service preparation of teachers to work with their students families. In 2001 Caspe noted: no state requires a separate course in parent involvement for teacher licensure. Only a handful of states require parent involvement preparation as part of a course. A minority of the states include parent involvement in their competency standards for teachers/administrator s or in their standards for teacher s /administrators training programs. No state requires parent involvement coursework for recertification or renewal of a license ( p. 21). Even now in 2010, there is no agreement among the states as to the need to have an individual course in family involvement either for teacher certification or recertification. However, state educational reform has lead to the formulation of particular competencies an d skills related to parent involvement required of all preservice teachers and recertifying teachers. For example, Florida developed a set of Educator Accomplished Practices in 1999 to serve as guidelines for the preprofessional preparation of teachers at universities and colleges in the state and professionals working in school systems. Still utilized in 2010 these Florida Accomplished Practices for pre professional teachers require universities and colleges to prepare teachers to communicate and involve parents, understand diversity with sensitivity to backgrounds and barriers, and build relationships with parents ( FESC 2010 ). In addition, the Florida Accomplished Practices re quire teachers in the field to demonstrate these same practices of communicating and involving parents, understanding diversity with sensitivity to backgrounds and barriers, and building relationships with parents ( FESC 2010). Although most teacher preparation programs give limited attention to family involvement practices (Epstein & Salinas, 2004), some teacher preparation programs are beginning to address this topic. Instructors are meeting the needs of students, families and schools by preparing

PAGE 18

18 teacher education students to understand the family and their contribution to childrens learning. Epstein (2006) conducted a review of 161 U.S. schools, and noted that educational lea ders recognized the need to better prepare new educators in parent involvement. Fully 76% of the sample recommended that a full course on parental involvement be required at the undergraduate level (Epstein, 2006, p. 83). Furthermore, she reported a st rong consensus among her respondents that all teachers should know how to conduct practices of school, family, and community partnerships with all families (Epstein, 2006, p. 94). Not only does Epsteins research support the inclusion of a course to pre pare preservice teachers to value and engage in family involvement and collaboration (Epstein, 2004) it affirms the need for teacher educators and researchers to come together to discuss family involvement training and to offer preservice training and continuing education for teachers in the community (Epstein, 2005). Baum and Swick (2008) not only recommended that preservice te achers enroll in a course on family involvement, they recommended that the focus of family involvement be expanded to include the entire preparation program so as to give students time to understand their personal beliefs and practice, while applying their knowledge, skills, and dispositions in a variety of settings (Baum & Swick, p. 61). These authors also encouraged teacher educ ators to increase the experiential learning opportunities by increasing the contact with parents with meaningful interactions before student teaching. In addition, they recommended that teacher educators find cooperating teachers who could assist in crea ting opportunities for preservice teachers to observe teachers successfully having positive experiences with families. As a result, a growing body of literature has described the impact of family involvement courses in preservice teacher education. For example, Mulholland et al. (2008) conducted research on a university class on family involvement in which they exposed students to teachers in the field and to families with special needs. The ninety students enrolled in the course were

PAGE 19

19 required to intervi ew both a teacher and parent. Some of the questions that the students in the course asked teachers in the field regarding their practices with families were: Have you had many problems working with parents? And What kinds of communication do you use with the parents? Students were generally not pleased with the teachers answers and instructors of the course talked about the question framing and lead in of problems rather than asking questions about successful partnerships. Instructors proposed that act ivities talking with teachers in the field led to a better understanding of how students might work with families. The researchers also noted that in talking with and listening to other students experiences, the students were able to reflect upon common t eacher issues and the need for collaboration. Sutterby et al. (2007) conducted similar research and reported on the benefits for Latino preservice students interacting with Latino families in an afterschool tutoring program in building cultural communica tion and emotional support. Murray & Curran (2008) also conducted research with 26 teacher education students enrolled in an undergraduate course, entitled Consultation and Collaboration with Colleagues and Families that was required of students seeking l icensure in K 12 special education at a mediumsized, mid western university. Instructors assigned students to interact with individuals from a local county agency serving children and families with mental health and developmental needs and report on their findings. In a survey, administered at the end of the course to measure attainment of the course objectives students were instructed to provide evidence of their meeting the following objectives: (1) Define and explain the characteristics of collaboratio n, (2) Describe the current research on Families, (3) Understand the complex interaction of social, emotional, and economic issues impacting families, (4) Explain the influences of culture and diversity on families, (5) Develop successful collaboration wit h families, (6) Describe why collaboration is integral to partnerships, (7) Recognize manifestations of resistance for families. (8) Select/apply

PAGE 20

20 strategies for managing resistance by families, (9) Demonstrate awareness of personal attitudes, beliefs, and values that impact the development of partnerships, and (10) Value family contributions to the collaborative process. The researchers reported that the objective on which students most consistently felt they made gains (due to the absence of any tied rat ings from pre to post intervention) was, understand the complex interaction of social, emotional, and economic issues impacting families of children with disabilities. This was the objective on which all 26 students indicated their ability improved upon c ompletion of the course ( p. 61). Furthermore, these students reported that the experiential learning opportunity of interacting with individuals from the local agency created a long lasting effect on learning about family involvement. Bingham & Abernathy (2007) also designed a course to provide students with theory, general principles, procedures, and legal requirements for fostering collaborative partnerships among families, professionals, students and their stakeholders that lead to outcomes of individual and mutual empowerment by emphasizing the family centered model (p. 41). The course was designed to satisfy Nevada certification for special education teachers. The researchers compared the students conceptual mapping of family involvement pre and post testing through use of a concept mapping procedure. This concept mapping procedure addressed four main categories: (a) Communication, representing teacher/parent interaction or specific advocacy on behalf of the parent of child; (b) Role of School/Teac her representing the role of teachers in school settings; (c) Perception of Family Issues representing perceptions of issues families face raising a child with a disability; and (d) Other for any items that fell outside the major codes ( p. 47). In the process of developing their communication skills, students expanded their views of teacher parent communication fr om that of mere dissemination of information from teacher to parent to a more collaborative process seeing families as team members in the pro cess. With the role of the teacher, researchers found that at the pretest students began the course with more

PAGE 21

21 traditional and stereotypical roles but changed by the end of the course to conceptualizing the teachers role as one of teaming, sharing resou rces, and showing compassion toward both child and family challenges ( p. 52). In terms of perceptions of family issues, students reported at entry that they did not expect to have much interaction with families and had a limited understanding of resources and the financial hardships experienced by families. As a result of their findings, these researchers encouraged the incorporation of family concepts and family involvement into other courses within the preservice teacher preparation curriculum (Bingham & Abernathy, 2007; Hiatt Michael, 2006). These research efforts reveal that teacher educators are currently involved in developing family centered courses, and identifying the essential skills and knowledge of teachers to work with families in schools and communities (Epstein, 1999). Theoretical Framework The conceptual development of the Working with Families Self efficacy Scales (WFSES) was influenced by (1) Alfred Banduras social learning theory and self efficacy theory, (2) Joyce Epsteins theor y of family school involvement, and (3) Family systems theory that links family needs and interests, system interaction and building supportive relationships. Self Efficacy Theory Alfred Bandura (1977) describes the concept of self efficacy within his so cial learning theory as the belief that one has the capabilities to execute a course of actions required to manage prospective situations. Behavior is affected by both outcome expectations (judgments of teachers consequences to certain behaviors) and eff icacy expectations (teachers beliefs about their skill in a situation). Self efficacy is the belief (whether or not accurate) that one has the power to produce an effect. Low self efficacy can lead people to believe tasks are harder than they actually ar e and reverse high self efficacy can lead people to believe that tasks are more

PAGE 22

22 manageable, possible where they are more capable of producing an effect on a situation. According to Bandura, self efficacy results from the following four conditions: (a) pe rformance accomplishments/mastery experiences, (b) modeling /vicarious experiences, (c) social persuasions and (d) physiological factors. Performance Accomplishments, lat er termed Mastery Experiences, is comprised of the idea of completing the task succes sfully. In some cases, failure to perform the task can lead to influential encouragement to abstain from repeating the task. Therefore, repeated experiences in performing a task well and successfully are most influential and necessary to continue to perf orm the task. Modeling/vicarious experiences consists of the impact of observing others successfully completing a task and accomplishing the goal. Observers believe that they can accomplish the skills because someone else is able to do it. It is less depe ndable then first hand experience. Verbal Persuasions, later termed social persuasions, are encouragements to perform/master a task. When persons are told they are able to master a task in difficult situations they are more likely to put forth greater effo rt and demonstrate more confidence in performing a task. Emotional Arousal, later termed P hysiological Factors, relate to how we operate in situations. Stressful and fearful situations may provide informative data that shape our feelings of personal compet ency. The perceived self efficacy in threatening situations, increased anxiety and vulnerability may disable capabilities and belief in potential performance (Bandura, 1977). Self efficacy has become a powerful construct applied to explain individual behaviors across many fields. Researchers have linked self efficacy to the teaching role (Denham, 1981; Gibson, 1993) and to teacher beliefs in their capability to complete a range of teaching tasks, assignments or duties. Dellinger et al. (2008) different iate between the constructs of t eacher e fficacy and t eacher s elf e fficacy. Teacher Efficacy is defined as teachers beliefs in their abilities to affect student performance (outcomes) (p. 753) In contrast, Alfred Banduras

PAGE 23

23 theory of teacher self effi cacy beliefs can be defined as a teachers individual beliefs in their capabilities to perform specific teaching tasks at a specified level of quality in a specified situation. (p. 752). Researchers have often intertwined the two constructs when creating measurement s of teacher beliefs about their performance. For example, the construct of Teacher Efficacy defined by Ashton (1984) shows two components to teacher expectations towards students : (1) the teacher believes that students can learn the material; and (2) the teacher believes that these particular students can learn under their teaching In comparison in this study teacher efficacy toward families is conceptualized as: (1) the teacher s belie fs that families are important to their students educat ion and development; and (2) the teacher s beliefs that families can be successfully involved in their school program with their support. One of the most well known and frequently used instruments is the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES), originally de signed by Gibson & Dembo in 1984, and composed of 22 questions responses ranging on 6 points from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree Hoy & Woolfok (1990) developed a shorter version Teacher Efficacy Scale Short form consisting of ten questions. In both for ms of these questionnaires a sample family item: The amount a student can learn is primarily related to family background. Items were based on a full range of teacher beliefs. Tschannen Moran and Hoy (2001) developed a measure to assess teacher efficacy entitled the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES). The TSES assesses teacher beliefs about performing certain specific task or roles in the schools. The basic structure of the TSES instrument assesses teacher efficacy in Student Engagement, Instruct ional Strategies, and Classroom Management. In a limited number of measures, a portion of the instrument has been devoted to assessing teacher self efficacy in Family and Parent Involvement (Epstein, 1991, Hoover -

PAGE 24

24 Dempsey et al., 2002). In these measures one or two questions are asked of the teacher to rate their skill in working with families. For example, the unpublished version of Alfred Banduras Teacher Self Efficacy Scale is comprised of seven scales: (1) Efficacy to Influence Decision Making, (2) Efficacy to Influence School Resources, (3) Instructional Self Efficacy, (4) Disciplinary Self Efficacy, (5) Efficacy to Enlist Parental Involvement, (6) Efficacy to Enlist Community Involvement, and (7) Efficacy to Create a Positive School Climate ( http://people.ehe.ohio state.edu/ahoy/research/instruments/ 2009). In the fifth subscale, Efficacy to Enlist Parental Involvement, he asks three questions of teachers regarding their self efficacy: How much can you do to get parents to become involved in school activities ?, How much can you assist parents in helping their children do well in school ? and How much can you do to make parents feel comfortable coming to school ? Bandura (20 06) describes his updated rating and scoring system in his Guide for Constructing Self Efficacy Scales. Bandura updates his scoring method from levels of influence teachers have in their certain skills; nothing, very little, some influence, quite a bit and a great deal versus a newer version cannot do at all moderately do at al l and highly certain can do. He emphasizes the can do and cannot do in his scoring range modeling from his theory with Self Efficacy, the idea that Can is the judgment of capability (Bandura, 200 6). Only recently have researchers begun conceptualizing the possible role that teachers might play with student families (Graue, 2003; Garcia, 2004). It is necessary to understand the differing models of viewing parent benefit s to their childs education. The theory that families can contribute to the educational learning of children similarly to professionals involved in the families coincides with looking at families as having strengths re sources and abilities (Amatea, 2009; Barnard, 1994; Rafuls, 1996). Within the literature review, ideas of the Needs and Benefits of Families in Student Learning, Educational Reform, Communication, Diversity,

PAGE 25

25 General Self Efficacy, Teacher Self Efficacy, and Commitment to Building Relationships are discussed. This research study examines teachers ideas of their skills when working with parents and families in the education process. The complexity of school and family interactions is viewed from a multi systemic theoretically based perspecti ve. Joyce E psteins Theory of Family School Roles A key theory necessary to further identify key family involvement beliefs and skills is Epsteins theory on involving families in the schools In particular her ideas of types of involvement include: Pa renting, Communicating, Volunteering, Learning at Home, Decision Making, and Collaborating with the Community (Epstein, 1987). Her comprehensive guide to each type of involvement includes different practices and challenges to partnerships. Her expansive career focused on the particular ways families contribute to the school and how involving families assists the academic achievement of children. In her six types of involvement, she specifies ways that schools choose to interact with families to meet stud ents needs. Type 1 Parenting (Assist families with parenting and childrearing skills, understanding child and adolescent development, and setting home conditions that support children as students at each age and grade level. Assist schools in underst anding families). Type 2 Communicating (Communicate with families about school programs and student progress through effective school to home and home to school communications). Type 3 Volunteering (Improve recruitment, training, work, and schedules t o involve families as volunteers and audiences at the school or other locations to support students and school programs). Type 4 Learning at Home (Involve families with their children in learning activities at home, including homework and other curriculum linked activities and decisions.) Type 5 Decision Making (Include families as participants in school decisions, governance, and advocacy through PTA/PTO, school councils, committees, and other parent or ganizations.) Type 6 Collaborating with the Co mmunity (Coordinate resources and services for families, students, and the school with business, agencies, and other groups, and provide services to the community ( Epstein, 1997).

PAGE 26

26 Hoover Dempsey et al. (2002) created a Questionnaire for Teachers and Parents to survey teacher and parent perceptions of their family school relationships based upon Epsteins typology (Hoover Dempsey, 2002). In an indepth survey that assessed the six types of family involvement practices and teachers opinions of how they would rate their personal usage and/or school in these practices or opinions about families, the research team requested that teachers reflect on their personal judgments about parent s involvement, the practices they were currently using, and the partners hip programs teacher would like to see developed or improved in their school or in their own classrooms (Hoover Dempsey, questionnaire, p. 1). The instrument was administered as a prepost test to assess the impact of an in service training program for t eachers in two U.S. public schools that was designed to enhance practicing teachers beliefs, skills, and strategies related to parental involvement (Hoover Dempsey, 2002, p. 1). The questions items range from Strongly A gree to Strongly D isagree with an example of personal judgment Every family has some strengths that could be tapped to increase student success in school (Q 1). Another section for activities teachers can choose the question range of not important to very important Contact parents about t heir childrens problems or failures (Q 6). Results indicated that teachers began to understand the value in communication and invitations to parents, including communication around positive information and style of communication, i.e., I will be friendlier from the beginning ( p. 860) regarding forming relationships with parents Further understanding and increased comfort with the risks associated with increased invitations to parental involvement and increased commitment to treating involvement obstac les as problems to be solved rather than barriers to action ( p. 860). Some teachers appeared to have a renewed interest to make efforts with increased enthusiasm Never give up; there is always a way to get hold of a parent!( p. 860). While other teache rs seemed to learn that with their own avoiding of situations with parents limited invitations. Their own hesitance in

PAGE 27

27 dealing with conflict and problems led to their decisions of actions. Teachers began to understand from the parental perspective that m any parents do want to be involved but are inhibited by fear, addiction, schedules learning that teachers need to help them (parents) feel familiar and comfortable (Hoover Dempsey, 2002, p. 860). Systems Theory General systems theory defines complex layers of the environment, each having an interdependent effect on a childs development. The interaction between layers in the childs environment from his immediate family, community environment to the societal layers surrounding the child are influential in development C hanges or conflict in any one layer will ripple through other layers. To study a childs development then, we must look not only at the child and the immediate environment, but also at the interaction of the larger environment as wel l. Researchers have explored the ideas of families and schools as connected layers using systems theory in psychology, counseling and education where the patterns of interaction, relationships and the environment are all interconnected (Minuchin, 1974; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Nichols, 1991). The impact of systems theory has led to fundamental changes in how we think parents should be involved in the school and how and when to invite them. This dimension involves not only the underlying concepts that drive te achers to invite parents to participate but also their methods for inviting them. Systems theory stresses the importance of understanding peoples behavior in their natural context (Nichols, 1991, p. 77). Their natural context would be their home, school, peer and community environment. The context would also include the primary relationships in each context and interaction of each other. In understanding the teacher family roles, teachers identified interaction with children, parents and the school influences how teachers interact with families in circumstances. These relationships underscore the context with which teachers make decisions in how they are to relate, react and interact with

PAGE 28

28 families. The interaction between teachers and families develop over time from theory (Keys et al., 1998), education, and relationships with the environment. Family Systems Theory Research emphasizes the importance of parent involvement in promoting school success in students (Comer, 1984; Finders, 1994; Lareau, 1987). Programs demonstrating support of family involvement present verification that student performance and achievement (Hampton, 1998; Henderson, 1987; Peeks, 1993) comes with the school partnering with multiple partners, school personnel, students and families (Keys et. al, 1997) Research has demonstrated the relationships between family interactions patterns and childrens adjustment (Nichols, 1992, p. 351). Teachers understanding family issues and cultural influences can be better equipped to assist children in the classroom. Early evidence has shown that school performance of children is strongly influenced by their home background and family structure (Christenson, 1990) and improves student learning (Epstein, 1990). Building on the strengths, resources and diversity of the youth and families can assist in alleviating burdens to the school and community resources. Families seen as resources by the teachers and school can partner with the school to assist children. Among mental health and f amily counseling fields, students are taught the importance in interacting with multiple parts of the system, practice family interactions, family involving techniques and building system relationships. Professionals trained in the Family Systems approach learn ways of building and continuing ongoing relationships (Amatea & Sherrard, 1993; Mandell & Murray, 2009; Sheldon & Epstein, 2002) Focusing on the relationship, professionals look to find solutions in collaborations (Harrison, 2000) difficulties a nd conflicts while they develop these strong bonds with families (de Shazer, 1985; Lewis, 1996) Counselors create opportunities to develop positive, trusting relationships with families (Amatea, 1981;

PAGE 29

29 Dedmond, 1998; Hinkle, 1993; Kraus, 1998; McBride, 1999; Samis, 1993) While in training as a student and working as a professional, the continual focal point is on building relationships and maintaining them. Family Centered Principle is when teachers and professionals learn ways that the family contributes, influences and can benefit childrens learning. This primary preparation in Family Systems approach and Family Centered Principle enables counselors to be more comfortable and capable in working with families. Family intervention training for counselors is both experiential learning and theory based. Systems theory stresses the importance of understanding peoples behavior in their natural context (Nichols, 1991, p. 77). Their natural context would be their home, school, peer and community environment The context would also include the primary relationships in each context and interaction of each other. In understanding the role of a teacher t eachers identified beliefs on interaction with children, parents and the school influences how teachers int eract with families in circumstances. These relationships underscore the context with which teachers make decisions in how they are to relate, react and interact with families. The interaction between teachers and families develop over time from theory ( Keys et al., 1998), education, and relationships with the environment. Counselors are specialists in working with families. Whether in dyads, triads or understanding an individual in the system, these professionals are trained to understand how families relate and communicate to one another. In the context of a child, there are multiple influences on the individual such as family, schools, friends, spiritual leaders, communities, etc. As with the teacher in the school teachers can be the gate keeper to involving the family in the school. With family systemic training in education and understanding the F amily C entered P rinciple, teachers can gain comfort in learning how to interact with families. In some cases, teachers are the first to identify issues a nd concern of the students leading to possible referrals to counselors. Counselors can assist in the development of training modules, links to community

PAGE 30

30 resources (Downing, 1993) and support for childfamily team meetings (Amatea, 1991; Clark, 2000; Colbe rt, 1996) Family Centered Beliefs and Practices Previous research has found several key beliefs and practices that appear to contribute to the development of effective family involvement practices. These are: (a) a shift in family teacher role expectati ons toward collaboration, (b) a commitment to developing a relationship with students families, (c) effective communication and conflict resolution, (d) active efforts to reach out and involve families in their childrens learning and development, and (e) appreciating of diverse family backgrounds and beliefs. Collaborative Family Teacher Role Expectation s Teacher education literature for over three decades has promoted the practice of parent and family involvement. Epsteins theories are widely acknowledged as acceptable practices throughout the research and in practice. These practices exemplify communication with parents and families, techniques of involving and overcoming barriers to interacting with families (Turnbull, 2001; Sanders, 1996) and the im pact of family involvement instructional practices on childrens education and achievement. In reviewing the roles of teacher family relationships, universal school practices teacher preparation and activities emphasize widely varying family school relat ionship structures and role activities (Epstein, 1990; Hoover Dempsey et al., 2002). One direction is to promote a collaborative, partnership relationship between families and educators so as to maximize the resources available to promote children's learn ing (Amatea, 2009; Taylor & Adelman, 2000). Rather than interact with families merely on an asneeded basis, educators are being encouraged to consciously examine the beliefs under girding familyschool relations and are proposing a coexpert or collabor ative paradigm to replace the sole expert model that has traditionally characterized family school relationships (Amatea, 2009;

PAGE 31

31 Epstein, 1990 ; Swap, 1993; Weiss & Edwards, 1992). A second direction is to promote a parent involvement model in which the educator's role is that of sole expert or authority that assesses students' needs, identifies concerns or problems that merit attention, decides what type of instruction or solution is necessary, and determines how students and their families should be i nvolved. In this sole expert/authority model, educators are expected to assume unilateral or dominant roles in educational decisionmaking with a philosophy of doing to or doing for students and families. In contrast, in the coexpert or collaborative model educators work with students and their families together to identify resources for taking action to solve children's concerns and celebrate their learning. Other differences between these two paradigms include the focus of the relationship; the rol es of the educator, student, and family members; the nature of the relationship, including the goal toward which it is directed; the nature of the activities; and the expected outcomes (Amatea, 2009). Henderson et al. (1987) formulated a unique model of the four different paradigms depicting ways schools interact with families: (a) Partnership, (b) Open Door, (c) Come if We Call, and (d) Fortress. In the Partnership paradigm, families and schools work collaboratively in unison, in the Fortress paradigm f amilies are seen as unnecessary in the education of children and a source of unnecessary conflict In this latter paradigm, families are blamed for problems, seen as a nuisance and often make activities more difficult and take more time. The Open Door pa radigm depicts schools as welcoming most parents yet the schools decid e how parents will be involved. In the Come if We c all paradigm, schools involve families in only limited ways, parents come to schools only as invited and educators do not expect a lot from families. One influential interpretation of family teacher roles is depicted in Gibson & Dembos Teacher Efficacy Scale (1984). The Teacher Efficacy Scale created to conceptualize a teachers ability to teach children along a continuum with one aspe ct being the belief that the teacher has

PAGE 32

32 the greatest influence in helping children learn, and the other that the parents have the greatest influence. This is illustrated by test items such as: If parents could do more for their children, I could do more or If students arent disciplined at home, they arent likely to accept any discipline or The influences of students home experiences can be overcome by good teaching ( Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Woolfolk, 1990). Skills entailed in building professional relati onships with parents, encompass the teachers commitment to engaging with families, to creating an environment of collaboration and to identifying ways families can contribute to the learning process for their children. In teacher family roles, teachers views and actions reflect their skills in various levels of involving and interaction of families. Commitment to F amily T eacher R elationship D evelopment The teacher family relationship is complex yet starts with the foundation of trust, alliance and support for a common goal to help the children in the school. Demonstrating family sensitivity and taking into consideration barriers of culture, economics, race relationship, prior history of unsuccessful collaborations, family education level, and other biol ogical, psychological, social and system concerns the school professionals can build better interactions with primary relationships. Models of interactions with systemic strength based approaches foster greater student and family success and as a result, increase school and family satisfaction of student progress. Understanding teacher beliefs in how they can work and build relationships with familys leads us to try to understand how they communicate with them and understand family differences and complexities. Communication and Conflict Resolution Teacher Communication with families involves methods of convincing parents and families you understand where they are coming from, you want them to participate, are interested in seeing them in the schools and look to them for assistance. Traditional methods of

PAGE 33

33 communication, nonverbal and verbal convey these messages. While in conversation with families in person or by phone, teachers should express partnership language, nonblaming qualities, even tempered tones, cooperation and appreciation for their time. While meeting with families in person, there is a necessity of beginning connections with warm greetings and appreciation. Beginning connections require only a few moments to set the conversation for me etings and conferences. Understanding core communication with nonverbal body language, climate building within the environment and soothing, calming words can calm and comfort families rather than make them tensed and stressed. Conflict underlies teacher s decisions for building relationships. A skill in communication is learning to talk to others who have opinions that differ from ones own. Teachers who know the value of family involvement and parent participation often struggle with the time and diff iculties that complicate their efforts. A group of educators have begun to link the difficulties in managing conflict choosing a preferred style of interaction with groups. The research, in general, looks at the preferred interaction of Accommodating, Avoiding, Collaborating, and Competing. Researchers have begun to use the popular business management Thomas Kilmann Instrument (TKI) at social service positions: principals, teachers and counselors. This instrument delves into the ideas of conflict in gene ral situations applied to multiple fields, not teacher specific activities with families. Interesting to note, conflict preferred interactions differ among professionals in certain fields where Competing and Avoiding were Managers (Industrial field) diffe red from Social Service field preferring Compromising and Collaboration. The development of this study incorporates the theme of Communication in conflicting situations and topics around teachers communication with families (Connelly, 1998). Some of the elements in this paper will discuss the types of involvement or participation available to teachers and schools. Also mentioned will be a discussion on how teachers

PAGE 34

34 decisions may be supported by the school environment. Understanding the choices availabl e for involvement, it is necessary to understand how teachers perceive parents and families, which may reinforce their decisions for involving them. Communication involves techniques of communication, frequency, and dealing with miscommunication. Working through conflicts in styles, topics, opinions require skills in effective listening, negotiating, and respect for other parties to reach solutions. Appreciating Family Diversity Diversity involves sensitivity to parents/family barriers and strengths persp ective focusing on cultural and societal differences among teacher and student/families. The perspective works to identify how families contribute to their childs learning, internal family supports as strengths, parental and cultural barriers to involvem ent. The family has evolved over time having become more complex with separation, divorce, split household, stepfamilies and blended families, The (traditional) model for family involvement despite enormous changes in the reality of family structures is that of a two parent, economically self sufficient nuclear family with a working father and homemaker (David 1989 cited Finders, 1994, p. 83). In an article interviewing parents, parents explain how the diverse contexts of their lives create tensions that interfere with positive home/school relations (Finders, 1994, p. 84). Parents who have dropped out of school do not feel confident in school settings. Needed to help support their families or care for siblings at home, these individuals limited s chooling makes it difficult for them to help their children with homework (Finders, 1994, p. 84). Some explanations lean toward parent experiences with schools when they were students and parents past experiences with trying to unsuccessfully access serv ices for their children (Melaville, 1993) and is especially true for lower socio economic and minority students (Comer, 1984; Lareau, 1987; Swap, 1993). Cultural, socioeconomic and racial differences between school staff and families create either

PAGE 35

35 real o r assumed barriers (Weiss, p. 216). Campbell (1993) suggests possible reasons of resistance can be presented from parents. Parents having conflict with time, perceiving the consultation to be organized as a form of attack, negative associations to sch ools, fear of personal disclosure, societal cultural economic issues, and denial of childs misbehavior in the school. Common methods discussing reducing resistance include: setting a positive tone, empathy to parent situation(s), and reframing from probl em oriented to socio oriented focus ( p. 86). Parent counseling and consultation for example, positively affects student motivation, academic achievement, self esteem, and classroom behavior (Nichols, 1992, p. 352). Diversity involves familiarity with o ther cultures and styles and learning to be comfortable in talking with them Teachers need skills in viewing parents and families as having strengths and contributing to all parts of the learning process while considering family barriers. Working throug h self difficulties of complex family systems, alternate lifestyles and beliefs require skills in patience and acceptance with meeting with altering views of parenting, education and involvement. Need for the Study Limited research has been conducted on t eacher self efficacy in implementing family centered practices. To date, studies show the parents perspective and the teachers viewpoint both on ideas of barriers to collaboration, values of family/school partnerships and family involvement. Enhanc ing t eacher self efficacy in working with families is a possible training goal. Self efficacy has been a construct used to assess teachers perceived skills. Understanding the level of comfort and proficiency in how teachers communicate, working with diverse populations/situations and building teacher family relationships may contribute to how teachers involve families. Teacher education has begun to identify needed competencies and skills for teacher preparation working with families. Researchers have had few methods for assessing the impact of teacher preparation efforts to impact teaching practice with families in the schools.

PAGE 36

36 Purpose of the Study Although there is general agreement in the teacher education field as to the types of competencies that teache rs need to demonstrate in working with students families, research on the effectiveness of training to develop such competencies has been hampered by a lack of available instruments for measuring teachers perceptions about their capabilities for working with students families (Graue, 2003; Garcia, 2004; Becker 1982; Christenson et al., 2004). A valid, reliable and appropriate assessment tool is crucial for teacher educators so that they can more effectively assess the skills, relationship building, a nd training. Therefore, the major goal of this study is to develop a measure to assess teacher s self efficacy beliefs about working with families More specifically, the purpose of the study is to determine the psychometric properties of the WFSES based on data derived from a sample of teachers responding to a request to complete a survey via email. The WFSES item, subscale, and total scale psychometric properties will be determined, as will its factor structure. Initial differential validity will also be gathered. Research Questions The following research questions will be evaluated in this study: RQ1. What is the factor structure of the Working with Families Self Efficacy Scales? RQ2. To what extent does the determined factor structure confirm the proposed, theoretical structure? RQ3. What are the reliability coefficients for each the WFSES subscales? Definition of Terms Family School Communication consists of those person s involved in techniques of exchanging ideas and support through interaction dea ling with positive communication, miscommunications, interactions and collaborations. Parties working in collaboration and differences in styles, topics, opinions require skills in effective listening, negotiating, and respect

PAGE 37

37 for other parties to reach s olutions. Individuals developing ways to interact in the presence of conflicts, stressful situations, deadlines and tension. Family Centered Principle built from Family Systems Theory that the family influence s child development. When using the Family Ce ntered Principle, teachers and professionals should learn ways that the family contributes, influences and can benefit childrens learning. Family D iversity entails the ability to understand SocioCultural perspectives with familiarity and being comforta ble interacting with other cultures and styles. Professionals viewing parents and families as having strengths and contribution to all parts of the learning process while considering family barriers and challenges. Individuals working through self difficu lties of alternate lifestyles, family systems and beliefs require skills in patience and acceptance in meeting with altering views of parenting, education and involvement. Teacher Role with Families describes skills in building professional relationships and the commitment to support parents and families. Professionals creating an environment of collaboration and ways families contribute to the learning process for their children. P rofessionals assisting families in finding ways to relate to their schools and staff in their desired level of involving and interaction with the school and teachers. Efficacy is the power to produce an effect (i.e., competence). Self Efficacy belief s are those beliefs (whether or not accurate) that one has the power to produc e an effect (Bandura, 1977). Alfred Bandura points to four sources affecting self efficacy of: (a) performance accomplishments/mastery experiences, (b) modeling /vicarious experiences, (c) social persuasions and (d) physiological factors. Teacher Self Eff icacy is the teachers beliefs about their capabilities to produce an effect or task as a teacher; what they feel they can do tasks as a professional.

PAGE 38

38 Teacher Self Efficacy working with Families is the teachers beliefs about their capabilities of int eracting with families of their students; in particular their ability to communicate capability of interacting in socio cultural, diverse and connected roles with families. Organization of the Study The remainder of the study will be organized into four chapters. The second chapter is a review of the literature relevant to the study. Chapter 3 includes research methodology with the development of the Working with Families Self Efficacy Scales Chapter 4 contains the results of the data analyses and C hapt er 5 includes a discussion of the major findings the study limitations and implications of the findings.

PAGE 39

39 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE In this chapter, the research and theoretical literature relevant to family involvement in childrens school ing, and the preparation of teacher s in family involvement will be presented. The theoretical framework s of family systems theory, social learning theory, family school involvement theor y and the development of the Working with Families Self Efficacy S cales will also be discussed in this chapter. Family Involvement in Childrens Schooling Over the past three decades there has been an emerging consensus that the quality of relations between schools and families plays an integral role in student success. There is now substantial research emphasizing the importance of parent involvement in promoting school success of students (Comer, 1984; Finders, 1994; Lareau, 1987). Research evidence has shown that school performance of children (Christenson, 1990), t heir attitudes and behaviors (Jeynes, 2007) and their attendance (Epstein, 1990; 1996) is strongly influenced by the ir home background. In one book, Family Involvement in Children's Education, the authors cite thi rty years of research confirm that family involvement is a powerful influence on children's achievement in scho ol (Funkhouser, v, 1997). Funkhouser (1997) further state s that when families are involved in their children's education, children earn higher grades and receive higher scores on tests, attend school more regularly, complete more homework, demonstrate more positive attitudes and behaviors, graduate from high school at higher rates, and are more likely to enroll in higher education than students with less involved families (p. 3 ). Pare nt involvement has also been shown to improve the attitudes of parents about schools and teachers (Epstein, 1986) and to increase student self esteem (Fan & Chen, 2001).

PAGE 40

40 As a result, parental involvement in the education of children has been identifie d as a major national priority by educational reformers. Mattingly, Prislin, McKenzzie, Rodriguez and Kayzar (2002) point out that at the national level, the goal of improving parent participation has enjoyed bipartisan support and has been part of all ma jor educational reform legislation. (p. 549). T he Goals 2000: Educate America Act created federal support for educational reform for student achievement for all American children and schools. The core goals created standardized measures of goals named N ational Education Goals in 1990. Further goals added to the initial goals with the last revision in 1995 formed Goal 4 and Goal 8 ( NEGP 2007). The goals panel focused on vital concerns of T eacher Education (4) and Parental Participation in schools (8). In particular, the goals outli ned in parent participation were that by the year 2000, every school would promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children The objectives for this goal were that every state was to develop policies to assist local schools and local educational agencies to establish programs for increasing partnerships that respon d to the varying needs of parents and the home, including parents of children who are disadvantaged or bilingual, or parents of children with disabilities; every school was to actively engage parents and families in a partnership which supports the academi c work of children at home and shared educational decision making at school; and parents and families were to help to ensure that schools are adequately supported and will hold schools and teachers to high standards of accountability (p.2). Additionall y the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and parent involvement was one of the six targeted areas of school reform. As a result, several s tate initiates and mandates now require schools and teachers to participate in family involvement planning, curriculum and activities. For example, in

PAGE 41

41 Florida, the Family and School Partnership for Student Achievement Act of 2008 was created to provide parents with specific information regarding their childs educational progress and with comprehensive information about their choices and opportunities for involvement in their c hilds education later updated in 2010. T his act also created a framework for building and strengthening partnerships among parents, educators and other school related personnel, and com munity organizations ( Florida Statue 2010 ). The statute depicted below describes the uniform meaningful partnerships expected of teachers and schools to maintain with families. Each section provides further clarification available on the state website (information detailing each section shortened for this research): 2010 Florida Statutes : 1002.23 Family School Partnership for Student Achievement Ac t The purpose of the Family and School Partnership for Student Achievement Act is to: (a) Provide parents with specific information about their childs educational progress; (b) Provide parents with comprehensive information about their choices and opport unities for involvement in their childs education; and (c) Provide a framework for building and strengthening partnerships among parents, teachers, principals, district school superintendents, and other personnel. ~ Each district school board, school dis trict superintendent, and teacher shall fully support and cooperate in implementing a well planned, inclusive, and comprehensive program to assist parents and families in effectively participating in their childs education. ~ To facilitate meaningful parent and family involvement, the Department of Education shall develop guidelines for a parent guide to successful student achievement which describes what parents need to know about their childs educational progress and how they can help their child to succeed in school. ~ Each district school board shall adopt rules that strengthen family involvement and family empowerment. The rules shall be developed in collaboration with parents, school administrators, teachers, and community partners, and shall addre ss: (a) Parental choices and responsibilities; (b) Links with community services; (c) Opportunities for parental involvement in the development, i mplementation, and evaluation of family involvement programs; and (d) Opportunities for parents to participate on school advisory councils and in school volunteer programs and other activities.

PAGE 42

42 ~ Each school district shall develop and disseminate a parent guide to successful student achievement, consistent with the guidelines of the Department of Education, which addresses what parents need to know about their childs educational progress and how parents can help their child to succeed in school. The guide must: (a) Be understandable to students and parents; (b) Be distributed to all parents, students, and school personnel at the beginning of each school year; (c) Be discussed at the beginning of each school year in meetings of students, parents, and teachers ( Florida Statue 2010, p. 1). Th i s Florida statute further exemplif ies the expectations that educators will work with families in the schools. Communities, schools and school personnel need to comply with state regulations and mandates as requirements become more standardized. Teacher Preparation in Fa mily Involvement Even though teachers, principals, policy makers and teacher educators agree on the importance of parental involvement, only recently has attention been given to preparing teachers to work with students caregivers. Although most teacher pr eparation programs provide a limited amount of exposure to family involvement practices (Epstein & Salinas, 2004), some teacher preparation programs are beginning to address these needs by preparing preservice teachers to understand the family and their contribution to childrens learning. Joyce Epstein (2006) conducted a review of 161 U.S. schools and noted that educational leaders recognized the need to better prepare new educators in parent involvement. Fully 76% of the sample recommended that a full course on parental involvement be required at the undergraduate level (Epstein, 2006, p. 83). Furthermore, she reported a strong consensus among her respondents that all teachers should know how to conduct practices of school, family, and community part nerships with all families (Epstein, 2006, p. 94). Not only does Epsteins research support the need to instruct preservice teachers in understanding family involvement, it affirms the need for teacher educators and researchers to discuss family involvem ent preparation (Epstein, 2005).

PAGE 43

43 Baum and Swick (2008) discussed the benefits of not only having a course on family involvement but expanding the focus of family involvement to the entire preparation program so as to give students time to understand their personal beliefs and practice, while applying their knowledge, skills, and dispositions in a variety of settings (Baum & Swick, p. 61). These authors also encouraged teacher educators to increase the experiential learning opportunities by increasing pre service teachers meaningful interactions with parents before student teaching. In addition, they recommended that teacher educators find cooperating teachers who could assist in creating opportunities for preservice teachers to observe teachers successf ully having positive experiences with families. Mandell & Murray (2005) completed a comprehensive review of preservice teacher preparation in a family involvement approach known as the Family Cente red Preservice Model (FCPM). Among the participants, 70 % reported relying on their own personal family experiences as a framework for working with families (pg 76) demonstrating the need for preservice teachers to acquire specialized skills in working with families within their school. Sutterby et al. (2007) reported similar experiences occurred when Latino preservice students interacted with Latino families in an afterschool tutoring program building on cultural communication and support. Rupiper (2004) i nterviewed 82 special education teacher educators as to the inclusion of specific famil y centered content areas in their special education teacher preparation programs. There was a consensus among these teacher educators that the family centered content areas should include: a knowledge of families, IFS P/IEP skills, a respect for diversity, c ommunication s kills and knowledge of teamwork. However, the faculty rated respecting diversity as the most important area identified

PAGE 44

44 Grossman et al. (2007) emphasized the necessity of understanding relations hips in the professions of psychology and teaching which promotes the outcome. The core of the se jobs relied on the relationship between teacher and student or therapist and client Hence these researchers felt that learning, working on and maintaining re lationships was crucial for success in these jobs On page 111, they cite this example in understanding the teacher student relationship the new teacher who has always been a model student may be shocked to find that her own students behave defiantly wh en learning and coping with students. Further they note teaching novices to build relationships with reluctant or resistant clients presents a central challenge for preservice education in these helping professions ( p. 112). Their research studied eight professional preparation programs: three clinical psychology programs, two teacher education programs, and three seminaries looking at what they termed relational practices where they looked specifically on how novices are prepared to respond to various forms of resistance (pg 109). They suggest that psychology programs offer role plays, simulations and theoretical bases to analyze client resistance, teaching programs should follow similar in th eir training. Using a qualitative methodology, Murray and her associates (2006) studied the use of family centered practices among 19 teachers or administrators employed in 19 different programs located in six st ates. Researchers asked the study participants: What challenges or barriers have you experienced in implementing family centered practices in your job? What opportunities or supports have you experiences in implementing family centered practices in your job? How did course content or experiences impact your skills in working with families? and How are e arly childhood interventionists implementing family centered practices? (pg 129). They reported that regardless of the level of understanding of familycentered practices, administrators viewed on the job experiences occurring early in their careers as an influential factor in shaping their beliefs about working with families ( p. 17).

PAGE 45

45 Sarah Kit Yee Lam (2005) developed an interdisciplinary course to prepare school professionals to work with families. In her specialized course, she defines school prof essionals as teachers, school social workers, school psychologists, school counselors, and school nurses surrounding the child. The foundation of her course entails the benefits of involving families in childrens education. In particular, she educates te achersin training on the needs of exceptional children. Students with disabilities needs differ to the more traditional child. She also encourages among special education on these childrens needs; the families of these children have unique needs as well She developed her course using the principles of Evans Schilling (1996) of: (1) developing self and other awareness; (2) developing a knowledge base; (3) gaining direct experience with families; and (4) contributing to the field. Staton and Gilligan (2003) designed a course in which they sought to instill professional skills in preservice teachers in the following domains: (a) developing professional identit y through reinf orcing reflection and sel f awareness (2) developing knowledge of and respect for other professionals through exposing students to other professionals and sharing training experiences; and (3) building systemic thinking (page 39). They reported that changes had occurred in preservice teachers attitudes and skills through use of pre/ post questionnaires and reflection papers Giallourakis (2005) assessed changes in the familycentered beliefs, skills and practices of 104 graduate students by means of the Partnership Scale. They defined f amily centered beliefs as the graduate student s philosophical beliefs a bout family centered practice : F amily centered skills were defined as the teachers knowledge (abi lity) to work with families. Family centered systems represent ed the environment in which the teacher works with young children, and f amily centered work practices were defined as the teachers actual practices in the work setting as a family centered practitioner.

PAGE 46

46 MacPherson et al (2005) developed an online training course in family centered intervention base d upon the 1996 theori es of Begun. Family centered intervention recognizes that the family as a system is more than the sum of its parts and that the family system exists within a larger social and environmental context (pg 161). One addition to the course materials included 8 self study modules focusing on familycentered practice and the assessment of family strengths and needs (Kysela, McDonald, Drummond, & Alexander, 1996) was also included to instruct on family centered practices (page 161). Murray & Curran (2008) conduc ted research with 26 teacher education students enrolled in an undergraduate course required of students seeking licensure in K 12 special education at a mediumsized, mid western university. The course was titled Consultation and Collaboration with Collea gues and Families Instructors created an experiential opportunity for the preservice students to interact with individuals from a local county agency servicing children and families with mental health and developmental needs. A survey was administered at the end of the course to measure attainment of the course objectives using of the following questions: (1) Define and explain the characteristics of collaboration, (2) De scribe the current research on f amilies, (3) Understand the complex interaction of social, emotional, and economic issues impacting families, (4) Explain the influences of culture and diversity on families, (5) Develop successful collaboration with families, (6) Describe why collaboration is integral to partnerships, (7) Recognize manifest ations of resistance for families, (8) Select/apply strategies for managing resistance by families, (9) Demonstrate awareness of personal attitudes, beliefs, and values that impact the development of partnerships, and (10) Value family contributions to the collaborative process. The researchers reported that the only objective on which all 26 students indicated their ability improved upon completion of the course was that of understanding the complex interaction of social, emotional, and economic issues im pacting families of children with

PAGE 47

47 disabilities. Furthermore, these students reported that the experiential learning opportunity of interacting with individuals from the local agency created a long lasting effect on learning about family involvement. Bing ham & Abernathy (2007) designed a course to provide students with theory, general principles, procedures, and legal requirements for fostering collaborative partnerships among families, professionals, students and their stakeho lders that could lead to out comes of individual and mutual empowerment by emphasizing the family center ed model (p. 41). The course was designed to satisfy Nevada certification for special education teachers. The researchers compared students conceptual mapping of family involvem ent pre and post testing through use of a concept mapping procedure to analyze students work. This concept mapping procedure addressed four main categories: (a) Communication, representing teacher/parent interaction or specific advocacy on behalf of the p arent of child; (b) Role of School/Teacher representing the role of teachers in school settings; (c) Perception of Family Issues, representing perceptions of issues families face raising a child with a disability; and (d) Other for any items that fell ou tside the major codes ( p. 47). In the process of their evaluation with communication, students reported that they had changed their understanding of their role from that of a disseminator of information to parent s to that of a collaborator with parents and with families as team members in the process. While the students began with more traditional and stereotypic ideas about their role, they later were teaming, sharing resources, and showing compassion toward both child and fa mily challenges ( p. 52). Cha nges also occurred in students percep tions of family issues. At entry into the course students did not have much inte raction with families and had only a limited scope of understanding about financial hardships However by the end of the course, students perceived that there were f amily resources as well.

PAGE 48

48 Zygmunt (2006) assessed the effects on 78 preservice teachers of a university course on family involvement. The course instructor administered the Peabody Family Involvement Survey (Katz & Bauch, 1999) to both a treatment and control group. Participants were asked to indicate how strongly they agreed with the following statements : Conducting scheduled and unscheduled Parent/Teacher conferences, I believe communicating by phone to family member is fe asible for negative feedback Calling family members by phone with positive feedback or regarding concerns and Conducting home visits Crucial to her research was the exploration of teachers involving families, perceived feasibility in accomplishing these practices, and their perception of their preparation for such work. (Zygmunt, 2006, p. 327) The course focused on teaching methods of establishing family partnerships around mutual trust and respect, understanding family issues, and promoting school relationships. The course utilized experiential learning of role playing and case studies. Hoover Dempsey et al (2002) conducted an inservice teacher training program and used a variety of pre/post measures. The research sought to measure: (1) Teach er Efficacy, (2) Teachers beliefs about parent efficacy for helping children succeed in school, (3) Teacher beliefs about parent involvement, (4) Teacher beliefs about importance of specific involvement practices, (5) Teacher invitations to involvement an d (6) Teacher reports of parent involvement. Item example of measuring Teacher Efficacy: I feel that I am making a significant difference in the lives of my students. Results yielded conclusive findings with comparisons of post surveys to pre surveys; t eacher s increased their knowledge of the benefits of problem solving, strategizing and solutions utilizing family involvement more frequently. These research studies reveal that teacher educators are beginning to identify the essential skills and knowledg e of teachers to work with fa milies (Epstein, 1999) and are developing courses to cultivate these skills.

PAGE 49

49 Essential Teacher Competencies in Family Involvement A number of professional organizations have now formulated teacher competencies in family invol vement (Caspe, 2001). For example, the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards, the National Parent Teacher Association, the Council for Professional Recognition, and the Association of Teacher Educators, have now developed standards that emphasi ze communicat ion with students families and understanding the underlying principles of family and s chool partnerships. The Family Involvement Standards described by Caspe (2001) specify that: Candidates establish positive and productive relationships w ith families. Candidates maintains an open, friendly, and cooperative relationship with each childs family, encourages their involvement in the program and supports the childs relationship with his or her family (from Competency Goal IV; Functional Are a 11 for Center Based and Family child Care CDAs, c, p.5). On a different note, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards discusses the varying differences in building relationships and possible conflicts with families and schools. Accompli shed teachers develop skills and understanding to avoid these traditional pitfalls and work to foster collaborative relationships between school and family (Caspe, 2001, p. 16). Caspe (2001) describes the underlying principles in the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education where field experiences and clinical practice support the development of educators who can apply their knowledge of diversity, including exceptionalities, to work in schools with all students. They provide opportunitie s for candidates to reflect on their observations and practices in schools and communities with students and families from diverse ethnic, racial and socioeconomic groups (Caspe, 2001, p. 18). Although a growing number of teacher educat ors are recognizi ng the importance of teachers being prepared to work with families, there have been only limited efforts to change the curriculum standards for the preparation of teachers. Caspe (2001) not ed that currently no state

PAGE 50

50 require s a separate course in parent i nvolvement for teacher licensure. Only a handful of states require parent involvement preparation as part of a course. A minority of the states include parent involvement in their competency standards for teachers/administrator or in their standards for te acher/administrators training programs (p. 21). Some states, such as Florida, have developed standards for preparing teachers. The Educator Accomplished Practices were developed by the Education Standards Commission pursuant to legislative directive. The Accomplished Practices are gener al teacher competencies related to the goals of the Education Accountability Act and were adopted by the State Board of Education on November 7, 1996. In the 19981999 fiscal years the Education Standards Commission w orked on ways to better endorse the Practices to the education profession ( F ESC 2010). State standards led to the educational reform in Florida leading to the specification of c ompetencies and skills required of all teachers. Although there does not exist an individual theme of family involvement or working with families in the Florida Accomplished Practices, there are significant indicators of family and parent practices woven into the various standards that were developed. These Educator Accomplished P ractices include: Assessment ( sample key indicators referencing family/families or parent ) : Communicates individual student progress based upon appropriate indicators to the st udent, families, and colleagues. Communication ( sample key indicators referencing family/families or parent ) : Communicates with colleagues, school and community specialists, administrators, and families. Continuous Improvement ( sample key indicators refer encing family/families or parent ) : Communicates planned learning activities and student progress with students, families, and colleagues. Diversity ( sample key indicators referencing family/families or parent) : The professional teacher establishes a risk taking environment which accepts and fosters diversity. The teacher must demonstrate knowledge of varied cultures by

PAGE 51

51 practices such as conflict resolution, mediation, and creating a climate of openness, inquiry, and support. Analyzes and uses school, fam ily, and community resources to help meet students learning needs. Recognizes the importance of family and family structure to the individual learner and is aware of students family situation when planning individual learning. Ethics ( sample key indicat ors referencing family/families or parent ) : Takes reasonable precautions to distinguish between personal views and those of any educational institution or organization with which the individual is affiliated. Maintains honesty in all professional dealings. Shall not on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, age, national or ethnic origin, political beliefs, marital status, handicapping condition if otherwise qualified, or social and family background deny to a colleague professional benefits or advanta ges or participation in any professional organization. Role of the Teacher The professional teacher establishes open lines of communication and works cooperatively with families, educational professionals, and other members of the students support syste m to promote continuous improvement of the educational experience ; ( sample key indicators referencing family/families or parent ) : Serves as an advocate for her/his students. Confers with students and their families to provide explicit feedback on student progress and obtains assistance for families. Proposes ways in which families can support and reinforce classroom goals, objectives, and standards. Can describe overt signs of child abuse and severe emotional distress, and, when recognized, can take appropriate intervention measures, referral, and reporting actions. Can describe overt signs of alcohol and drug abuse, and, when recognized, can take appropriate intervention measures, referral, and reporting actions. Works with colleagues to meet identified educational, social, linguistic, cultural, and emotional needs of students. Communicates with families, including those of culturally and linguistically diverse students, to become familiar with the students home situations and backgrounds. Develops shor t and longterm personal and professional goals relating to the roles of a teacher ( F ESC 2010) A review of the content of current teacher coursework on family involvement and of professional standards for teachers reveals some consensus regarding the essential knowledge and skills required. Three areas in which teachers are expected to have some basic knowledge and skills are family school communication, understanding of family diversity, and t eacher role with famil ies. In the following sections these three areas will be discussed. Family School Communication The family school c ommunication domain comprise s the teachers beliefs about their ability to interact, intervene, and influence their working with students families. For example,

PAGE 52

52 Chen et al. (2009) designed an 18month professional development course to increase teachers understanding of positive family involvement practices. Information covered more traditional ways of communicating with families as well as understanding families influence, contribution and strengths in childs learning. Researchers asked teachers about the nature of their contacts with families with the question Mostly when I contact parents, its about problems or trouble ( p. 14). In communicating and collaborating with families, teachers reflected on how they perceive d students famil ies and their benefits in influenc ing their childrens learning Baum (2004) notes an important recommendation made by Henderson, Marburger, and Ooms (1986) that future teachers need to develop an understanding of the importance of parents role in education, diversity in families, family factors that impact childrens learning and development, and skills necessary for successful communication and collaboration (p. 57). She further reveals the importance of this preparation with opinions of McBride (1991) stating teachers who are not well prepared may feel frustrated and demonstrate negative attitudes about their wor k with families (p. 57). Baum (2004) writes Preservice and beginning teachers, who have had only one course on parent education, often express hesitation and sometimes even trepidation when discussing the nature and the quality of the relationships that they expect to develop with the families and children with whom they will work (p. 58). Baum (2004) comments, Preservice teachers often anticipate that these relationships will be characterized by conflict and criticism (p. 58). Hence it is important that preservice teachers r ole play situations in order to learn how to use appropriate communication and conflict resolution strategies (Baum, 2004). Most teachers feel frustrated in their attempts to involve parents (Garcia, 2004, p. 310) Regrettably families who do not feel welcome by teachers avoid coming to school (Lott, 2001). The practice literature emphasizes the need for teachers to build rapport with students caregivers, to use strength based versus deficit based language to be sensitiv e to diversity, to

PAGE 53

53 avoid blame, and to overcome family resistance and various barriers of working with families. Building rapport means creating an environment for the teacher, counselor, and parent to talk nonjudgmentally, sympathetically and supportively to each other. A teacher using skills of positive communication (e.g. listening, demonstrating empathy, being nonjudgmental, problem solving, conflict management, stress management) can model a way of working with fellow teachers and families (Coy & Sears, 2000, p. 60). When families are viewed as resourc efu l and helpful in the process of teaching their children, teachers value families and their contribution. In contrast, w hen families are viewed as deficient (Villegas & Lucas, 2002) or unskillful in helping their children, teachers plan procedures and policies without families and/or take a leadership role informing families of duties. It is predicted that teachers like parents (Hoover Dempsey et al. 1995) question their confidence and communication skills when trying to build relationships with nontraditional families especially when a school problem occurs. Communicating with families has always been promoted in school system s through the use of parent teacher conferences, parent teacher associations, volunteering at school and parent child centered goals for working with children at home. Teachers communicate with parents and families through letters home, phone calls, and invitations for participation in the schools. Sometimes communication is pleasant between parent and teacher and other times where conflicts occur communication is difficult. Teachers are trained to communicate ideas and principles to children and adolescents. Math, Science, Foreign Language all require skills in explaining ne w ideas, build on previous principles, and expanding depths of understanding. Part of the teachers daily tasks requires communicating with students in order to instill discipline, structure, and motivation in students. Teachers also communicate and dissem inate information to parents and caregivers.

PAGE 54

54 Although professional literature emphasizes the importance of parental involvement in childrens learning, there has been limited research about teachers strategies for handling conflictual communication with parents. Teachers face challenges to their job with students expanding homes, increased demands, intense communities, demanding complex families, expanding job descriptions, changes in expectations of roles placed by the school, principal, community and parents. Swap (1993) discussed a theory of how teachers avoid interactions with families in order to reduce their conflict and intrusion of parents. Conflict is unpleasant for any professional. If there were a choice, most people would prefer not to ente r an altercation with another person. Preventing conflict has advantages, so teachers/schools avoid situations in order to avoid potential conflict and can make it more difficult and uncomfortable to repair. For families, teacher parent child situations w here the child is not behaving well or performing well leads families to have self doubt about their influence. In preparation for school meetings, families have feelings of confusion, anxiety and fear they are to blame for the situation (Hoover Dempsey e t al. 2005). A research review of school strategies suggests that teachers practice ways to reduce the anxieties and frustrations of parents and children to increase the success of meetings (Hoover Dempsey et al. 1997). By blocking blame and having opportunities to view each others viewpoint, teachers work to offer respect and consideration to parents providing equal time in offering positive contributions and solutions (Amatea et al ., 2006). Teachers are being encouraged to involve and invite parent s into the school and into their classroom s Some invitations are to assist with homework assignments at home while others include invitations to problem solving and solution building teams to address child school disciplinary issues. Teacher invitations to parents are guided by the teachers level of comfort and understanding of family values. Parents affect childrens development (Brofenbrenner, 1979). The foundation of building relationships with families begins with respect, trust, and

PAGE 55

55 appreciation. Upon development of this connection between teachers and families, sensitive communication can occur even when addressing complicated problems and issues arise with the child in school. If this step of building the relationship (with classroom orientation s, family information meetings, courteous messages and phone calls, concern, tolerance and resilience) is missed, family alliance building will suffer. Conflict resolution curriculums have reentered the school with the increasing violence in the schools (Girard, 1995). Vestal (2001) emphasized the positive effects of conflict resolution training in the schools where teachers reported an increased level of comfort, strategies and understanding of handling conflict. Kelly (1983) stressed the importance of understanding the skills of mediation to include: acceptance, active listening skills, development of rapport and empathy, confidentiality, interpretation of interactive dynamics, and role modeling. These skills are similar to the fields of counseling an d psychology. According to Deutsch (1994) t he influencing skills one should possess to resolve conflict involve: (1) establish ing a working relationship with each of the conflicting parties to establish trust, communicate freely with him/her, and be responsive to her/his suggestions regarding an orderly process of negotiations and (2) establish ing and maintain ing a cooperative problem solving attitude among the conflicting parties toward their conflict. Understanding Family Diversity Researchers repor t that p arents are often unsure as to what kinds of questions to ask or what to do (Plunge, 1998), and feel they do not have the knowledge necessary to effectively advocate for services for their child or to understand the decisions made by professionals ( Simpson & Simpson, 1994). Moreover, parents often report feeling intimidated by educators (Brightman & Sullivan, 1980). The multitude of complex concerns facing schools and communities begin with understanding issues faced by students and their families; for example,

PAGE 56

56 drug addiction, abuse, separating families, unsupervised children, unemployment, crime and violence (Cloud, 1999; Coffman, 1984; Gilliland, 1993; Funkhouser, 1997; Melaville, 1993). McGrew et al. (1991) developed a twelve item instrument t o assess the degree to which families perceived their own sense of empowerment as a result of family members interactions with school staff that were related to their childrens educational program. From their factor analysis, three dimensions of the fami ly school relationships emerged: ( a ) parents comfort l evel in the r elationship with school staff (2) parents p erception of the level of c ollaboration by school staff and (3) the parental sense of c ontrol. Item questions examples It is difficult to work together with the school staff when planning my childs school program and The school staff anticipate our familys concerns and needs This instrument demonstrates both strengthbased family themes and sensitivity to family situations. Practitioners fre quently note that f amily involvement in the schools should express standards with working with families in a considerate, respectful manner (Barnard, 1994; Johnson, 1989) and combat barriers to families coming to schools (Turnbull, 2001). Some families a nd parents have traditionally not had positive experiences in the schools (Coffman, 1992; Finders, 1994; Lareau, 1987; Turnbull, 2001). This is especially true for lower socioeconomic and minority students (Comer, 1984; Lareau, 1987). Many of the famili es who were not successful in school have children who are suffering in school (Finders, 1984). Some explanations lean toward parent experiences with schools as students and parents past experiences with trying to unsuccessfully access services for their children (Melaville, 1993). There are other families that are unsure of what they can offer a school or toward their childrens education (Finders, 1994). Cultural diversity between teachers and families may contribute to the se difficulties. Barriers of family poverty (clothing, food and housing difficulties), racial differences and

PAGE 57

57 cultural disparities can also contribute to these difficulties The perception of differences can cause conflict between teacher and family yet families regardless of family structure, socioeconomic status, or cultural identification can contribute to child success in school (Clark, 1983). Family stressors may decrease familys attention to details. Acceptance and sensitive communication can bridge the cultural differences between school and home. Building a relationship sometimes requires the professional to become aware of the family circumstances and barriers to make a valuable connection to parents. Changing the way teachers relate and interact with families can begin with sensitivity to family situations. Teacher Role with Families and Relationships Several researchers have described different types of familyschool relationships. Snyder (2000) describes a typology of family school relationships in which one type of relationship is characterized by minimal contact of school staff with the family. This may entail a letter sent home or phone call requesting permission for the child to be in services or possibly stating the child will receives services, a form of n otification. This may also include the parent(s) coming to school to receive paperwork or sign in person. In contrast, another type of familyschool relationship is one depicting a higher level of contact with the parents/family through an invitation for a workshop, parent/teacher conference, parent/counselor conference, etc. At this level, the school disseminates information to the family. Another type of familyschool relationship involved actual interaction with parents that may be focused on a psycho educational model entailing instruction for parents and families on a problem solving method of handling stress and children's inappropriate behaviors (Snyder, 2000, p. 41). Joyce Epstein (l995) has proposed a variety of ways that family might be involved in their childrens learning that fall into five distinctive categories: (a) parenting, (b) c ommunicating, (c ) volunteering (d) l earning at home, and (e) d ecision m aking and

PAGE 58

58 c ollaborating with the c ommunity. In general, her theories comprise of a c omprehensive guide to each type of involvement including different practices and challenges to partnerships. Graue et al. (2003) conducted an investigation into the beliefs of preservice teachers ideas of parent involvement in teaching. She based her study on Epsteins (1995) typology of parent involvement of family structures and practices. Their research measured a variety of variables including preservice teachers memories of family involvement in education, for example: Describe your parents activities during your elementary years regarding how they: (1) showed respect for school, (2) responded to school, (3) discussed school with child, (4) attended school events and other activities. In addition to personal family experiences, the preservice teachers were asked to rate their beliefs regarding their certain family school knowledge domains: (1) curriculum, (2) child functioning in a group, (3) socioemotional needs, (4) academic strengths, and more. Another section including ideas of anticipate d parent involvement in teaching, for instance the question lead, How do you anticipate working with parents and families in your teaching ? (1) Parent Teacher Conferences, (2) Invite parents to work in the classroom, (3) Home visits, and more. Their studi es indicated that preservice teachers held more traditional models of teacher interactions with families and the more traditional family unit would be more inclined to participate in school involvement. These study participants appeared to base their perc eptions on their own history and upbringing. Ferrara (2009) surveyed 16,288 parents, 46 a dministrators, 1,200 teachers and clerical staff and 125 preservice teachers about family school relationships (Ferrara, 2009). Within the survey to parents, the pa rents responded to the question I feel welcome at the school with 89% of the elementary school parents agreeing, 83% of the middle school parents agreeing, and 81% of the high school parents whereas 4% of the elementary parents disagreed as did 6 % of the m iddle school parents and 6% of the high school parents. To the question School wants my ideas to

PAGE 59

59 make school better 57% of the parents in elementary, 43% of the middle school parents and 39% of the high school parents agree d whereas 23% of the elementar y, 46% of the middle school parents and 48% of the high school dis agree d. Among the teachers and clerical staff, staff wanted to see more parents volunteering, mostly expressed as the desire for parents to help as tutors or with clerical work such as photocopying. Some respondents mentioned parents serving as crossing guards or patrol helpers, or assisting with nonclassroom activities such as lunchroom, recess, and field trip supervision. Some staff wanted parents to make sure their children were completing their homework and using good study habits where a smaller group wanted to have improved or increased communication with parents (Ferrara, 2009, pg. 135). Along the lines of teachers identifying parenting concerns, staff would like to see more re sponsible parenting practices. These practices may include getting children to school on time, helping children take more responsibility for their behaviors, and ensuring that responsible adults provide for childrens basic needs such as clothing and nutri tion (Ferrara, 2009, p. 135). Several r esearchers have begun to define the type of family school relationship characterizing particular involvement practices. For example, Henderson, Jones and Raimondo (1999) presented a unique model of s chool paradi gms depicting four ways that schools interact with families: (a) Partnership, (b ) Open Door, (c ) Come if We call, and (d) Fortress. In the Partnership paradigm school staff believe that all families, teachers, schools work and learn together. They talk of ten about how students are doing. Parents are involved in schools to their interest/level of involvement. Educators encourage families to be involved in all aspects of their childs education and school and have high standards for all students, in all cl assrooms. In the Open Door paradigm, educators welcome most parents in many ways but teachers and principal decide how parents will be involved. Although the Open Door paradigm tries to help all students they do a better job with some students than others. In the Come if We call paradigm,

PAGE 60

60 educators involve families in very limited ways. Parents come to school only when invited. They appear to not expect a lot from their students or families independently. In the Fortress paradigm, educators keep par ents on the outside. When students do not do well, the school often blames them and their families. The school favors very few parents and seems to look down on the others. DeForest & Hughes (1992) assigned sixty elementary school teachers to one of t wo groups to view videotapes depending upon whether they scored above or below a certain cutoff score on the Teacher Efficacy Scale. First, teachers viewed one of two consultation videos that were identical except for identifying the problem, selecting an assessment procedure and selecting an intervention plan. Second, teachers rated the consultants effectiveness and the interventions acceptability. Teachers in the high Personal Teacher Efficacy group rated the consultant as more effective and the inter vention as more acceptable. Teacher collaboration with parents, students and other community members is becoming a more accepted relationship form. Collaboration involves developing relationships, shared responsibility, and active participation among m embers. Becoming a team, members share responsibilities and exchange of information working together on a joint plan. Knowledge and power can play an integral part in school climate from principal, teacher and family. The professional as expert viewpoi nt has shifted in research allowing for all parties to partake in expert knowledge, including parent (McCaleb, 1994; Gonzalez, 1996) and child (Austin, 1994; Amatea, 2009). The teacher, parents, and child are now collaborators in building an educational t eam. The team approach allows members to share activities as part of a team of experts valuing each persons opinions, input and knowledge of how to succeed in school, i.e., shared power and cooperative process of planning and problem solving (Weiss & Edwards, 1992, p. 215). The research strongly suggests evidence that methods of effectively serving psychological needs of

PAGE 61

61 the child in the context of the family demonstrate cost effective, cost efficient evidence of success for children (Epstein, 1990; F unkhouser, 1997; Sprenkle, 1996). Involvement invitations from school personnel to parents may be occurring as a result of state regulations rather than by professional choice ( McAllister Swap, 1990) T herefore the interaction and motivation of staff may not look to be embracing the knowledge and assistance a parent can provide. Christenson et al. (1997) sought to measure parents and school psychologists perspectives on parent involvement activities aimed at enhancing success of students in school. Rese archers asked participants to rate on a point system of 1 4 activities that should be offered in schools (rating system (1) no to (4) definitely yes) and how feasible the activity would be to complete (rating system was (1) not feasible to (4) very feasible). Sample partnership activities include: give parents information about community agencies to support childrens and familys needs and create more time for parents to meet with teachers and conduct family school meetings to problem solve with parents and teachers about ways to enhance childrens learning. They reported that parents had significantly higher ratings of interest in parent involvement activities than did school psychologists. Becker and Epstein (1982) measured elementary school teacher s' perceptions of parent involvement in home learning. In generating opinions of parent involvement, for example, an item question: Teachers can only provide parents with ideas about how to help with their childrens schoolwork teachers cannot influence parents to use these ideas and another Establish a formal agreement where the parent supervises and assists the child in completing homework tasks. Their results indicated teachers had a positive view of parent oriented teaching strategies. Findings are di scussed in terms of teachers' attitudes toward parent involvement, reported practices, and some differences in opinion and practice among teachers.

PAGE 62

62 Theoretical Frameworks Joyce E psteins Theory of Family School Roles As discussed in the section Essential Teacher Competencies above one of the key theories conceptualizing the t eacher s r ole and r elationships with families was formulated by Joyce Epstein in her Theory of FamilySchool Roles. Spanning thirty years, her theory identif ies key beliefs and skil ls for involving families in the schools Her comprehensive guide to each type of involvement includes different practices and challenges to school partnerships. Her research focuse s on the particular ways families contribute to the ir childs school ing a nd how involving families facilitates the academic achievement of children. In her six types of involvement, she specifies ways that schools choose to interact with families to meet student needs. Her defined practices incorporate theories on parenting, c ommunicating, volunteering, l earning at h ome, and decision m aking/collaboration with the c ommunity (Epstein, 1987) Family Systems Theory Family system theorists (Kraus, 1998; Minuchin, 1974; Nichols, 1991) approac h interventions by emphasizing the need to examine the child in context of the f amily their roles and their interactions. Hence the interdependency of family members is focused on rather than looking at individuals in isolation from the family. When viewing the child, family systems theorists view the organization of the members, not specifically the child or one person in the system. In trying to help the child, family practitioners help the sys tem, not one part of the system ( i.e ., not just the child or not just the parent ) They look at how the family is relating to each other and how they affect each other. The application of f amily s ystems t heory center s on understanding the child in the context of the environment s in which they live and learn. Within the theory, professionals learn about family needs and interests, and how family members interact, support and function

PAGE 63

63 together. It is important to observe family interactions and other relationships that influence each other. A f amily s ystems theorist seeks to understand and create rela tionships with family members and system partners to support the development and growth of the child. In building relationships with the childs support team, professionals promote positive working relationships and can support family changes and improveme nts. When looking at the relationships around a child, the parents, siblings, grandparents, extended community and peers influence the child inside and outside the school walls. The influence of a childs connections can foster or hinders a child s daily success, learning and development. Viewing the child s development through a family systems lens can assist educators in promoting the academic progress of child ren In family s ystems theory, the use of a strength based perspective that focus es on parents strengths and positive contribution to childrens development enables professionals to identify ways that parents contribute to their childs success and support ways parents can continue to contribute inside and outside the school. Researchers have exp lored the ideas of families and schools as connected systems using systems theory from the fields of psychology, counseling and education (Minuchin, 1974; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Nichols, 1991). Often the first and most valuable professionals for parents and their children, beyond visits to a pediatrician, are teachers who work with children every day. B ecause they become an important part of child ren s social system s classroom teachers are in a unique position to interact positive ly learning development a nd relationships daily. Banduras Social Learning and Self Efficacy Theory Alfred Bandura (1977) describes the concept of s elf e fficacy within his Social Learning t heory as the belief that one has the capabilities to execute the course of actions required to manage prospective situations. Self Efficacy is the belief that one has the power to produce an

PAGE 64

64 effect. Low self efficacy can lead people to believe tasks are harder than they actually are and reverse high self efficacy can lead people to believe th at tasks are more manageable, possibly where they believe they are more capable of producing an effect on a situation or reaching a goal. Bandura (1977) presented the theoretical groundwork to explain psychological behaviors and motivations achieved or a ctualized in different situations. His theory hypothesized that expectations of personal efficacy (or influence) determine whether coping behavior will be initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obst acles and aversive experiences (p 191). Bandura (1977) proposed that expectations (or perceptions) of personal self efficacy are derived from four principle sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. The more dependable the sources, the greater are the changes in perceived self efficacy (p. 191). His theory of behavioral change where educators or psychologists influence a persons self efficacy is to create an environment of mo deling more productive behaviors inducing situations of strong Performance Accomplishments with positive feedback (later named Mastery Experiences), Vicarious experiences (m odeling/watching others) Verbal persuasion ( encouragements rather than discouragem ents) and increase positive physiological states to achieve beneficial outcomes. Further reviewed, teachers sense of accomplishment around completing a task reinforces the act of repeating the task. Therefore, repeated experiences performing the task well and successfully are necessary to continue to perform the task. Teachers need opportunities to experience this growth in nontraditional activities with families. Various activities surrounding working with families will encourage more involvement i f they have the sense of capability in performing the activity or task. Continued mastery of actions, with positive benefits to the task,

PAGE 65

65 will also instill greater likelihood of continuing the behavior. More common in the teaching profession is the abili ty to watch classmates, newer teachers and more seasoned teachers performing the interaction with families and successfully. Observers believe that they can accomplish the skills because someone else is able to do it and worthwhile doing it. It is less dependable then first hand experience (Bandura, 1977). Like their students, teachers can benefit from the Verbal Persuasions, later termed Social persuasions in performing a task. Others encouraging them to get families involved, learning how to involve fa milies, and learning skills to relate to families from peers and administration. Persons told they are able to master a task in difficult situations are more likely to put forth greater effort and confidence in performing a task. Ideally, these encouragem ents work better if they are positive, should negative feedback be passed to the teacher in training they will more likely be disinterested in trying something new or want to because they are feel ing uncomfortable. The Physiological Factors, formally Emoti onal Arousal relates to how we operate in situations. Stressful and fearful situations may be informative data to feelings of personal competency. The perceived self efficacy in threatening situations, increased anxiety and vulnerability may disable capabi lities and belief in potential performance (Bandura, 1977). If t eachersin training do not feel prepared to work with families it will affect their self efficacy in believing they can do it. Staff often becomes frustrated from special needs children, especially untrained staff (Snyder, 2000, p. 179). Others feel inadequate, helpless, and confused when encountering the various exceptionalities of students (Snyder, 2000, p. 179). Some examples of physiological responses, t eachers experiencing poor or negative physiological factors may feel the situation to be stressful creating headaches, stomachaches, and general panic/dread from upcoming event. Teacher Preparation programs have begun to address these training needs due to National and State regulatio ns.

PAGE 66

66 Bandura (1977) suggests that reinterpretation of events causing positive outcomes and successes help recognize how events are correlated reinforcing positive outcomes. Positive outcomes in deal ing successfully with stressful situations can lead pe rsons to overcome their doubts. Frequency of behaviors will not increase if persons do not believe that the same actions will not be rewarded on future occasions with like positive results whereas the same would hold true if persons believed there may be no effect or little consequence especially in stressful situations. Central to the theory of self efficacy are the ideas for analyzing changes achieved in fearful and avoidant behavior. Bandura (1977) asserted that a person s perception of their mastery of a skill : affect both initiation and persistence in a coping behavior. The strength of peoples convictions in their own effectiveness is likely to affect whether they will even cope with a given situation. At this initial level, perceived self efficacy influences choice of behavioral settings. People fear and tend to avoid threatening situations they believe exceed their coping s kills, whereas they get involved in activities and behave assuredly when they judge themselves capable of handling situations that would otherwise be intimidating (p. 1934). Teachers have the opportunity to be in various situations with parents and families in schools. There is no accepted model for teaching and involvement of families. Research suggests involving families in the process of educating students, home/school communication, classroom teaching, and policies. It is hypothesized that teachers invite and involve families in their classroom and school according to their skill level in working with them and perceived beneficial outcome of their efforts. The strength of the teachers conviction involving families would benefit their students and their teaching may coincide with their perceived ability to cope with involving them in such activities. Teachers fear or hesitation in working with families may exceed their beliefs about their coping skills for handling the situation intimidating their choices influencing their behavior and the setting. Teachers who expressed a solid sense of efficacy also reported higher levels of preparation and enthusiasm (Allinder, 1994). Higher Teacher Self -

PAGE 67

67 Efficacy in the literature asserts the teachers level of self efficacy will persist even with the most difficult child or unmotivated student. Higher Teacher Self Efficacy in working with Families will assert that the teachers level of self efficacy will persist even with the most complicated family or seemingly unmotivated parent. Assessments of Teacher Self Efficacy Researchers describe teachers reporting high efficacy as mor e confident of their skills and abilities related to childrens learning, and more likely to initiate and invite parent involvement in childrens school related learning activities (Hoover Dempsey, 1992, p. 288). Previous measurements created to assess t hese attitudes have focused on teacher school practices and teacher parent interactions, like conferences or volunteering. In the Morris and Taylor (1998) study of Teacher Self Efficacy, preservice teachers responded to questions How comfortable do you f eel about your ability to encourage parents to increase their involvement in the school activities of their children? ( p. 225). Respondents answered with a low (1) or a high (5), the mean score (standard deviation) was 3.22 (.98) when asked post semester replies were 4.56 (.54). In the Morris et al (1995) teacher efficacy and parent efficacy were evaluated among 221 parents and 196 teachers from 9 schools revealing teacher self efficacy were significantly and negatively correlated with several indicator s of parent involvement. Theoretical grounding for this survey reflects ideas from Epsteins Six Types of Involvement of school family partnerships. Teachers who reached out to families, along with the literature, usually have high expectations and effic acy with parental feedback and involvement. Characteristically, a parent teacher conference or a phone call can be either positive or negative. Teacher efficacy did yield a higher correlation in a positive direction with parents attendance to conferences, parent help with homework, and parental assistance in activities. This is an expected finding because teachers who believe that parents can have a positive impact on their childrens educational

PAGE 68

68 outcomes are expected to actively invite parents to engage in home school activities (Morris et al ., 1995, p. 25). An example of a question on the Teacher Efficacy Questionnaire survey, Parents and guardians, rather than teachers, are primarily responsible for childrens learning (Morris, 1995, p. 50). The answe r key scale ranged from Strongly A gree to Strongly D isagree. One of the earliest teacher efficacy studies was conducted by the RAND organization ( Armor et al., 1976). This study used a twoitem teacher efficacy measure and the items included (a) When i t comes right down to it, a teacher really cannot do much because most of a student's motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment and (b) If I try really hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students. T he first question seemed to measure environmental variables influencing childrens education. The second question examined teacher's ideas on their ability to influence student academic and behaviors known as personal teaching efficacy. Rotters (1966) theori es grounded the earlier works of looking at Teachers beliefs in their abilities. In the past two decades, work in teacher efficacy has expanded the theoretical base to include the social cognitive theory of Bandura, 2006 and Bandura, 1977. Izzo et al ( 1999) presented a comprehensive study of teacher perceptions of parental involvement over 3 years linking the ideas that enhancing parents involvements in childrens school relates to improvements in school functioning. Teachers rated four dimensions of parental involvement: frequency of parent teacher contact, quality of the parent teacher interactions, participation in educational activities at home and participation in school activities. In the Teacher Efficacy Scale, Gibson and Dembo (1984) maintain two different dimensions contributed to the teacher efficacy construct: General Teaching Efficacy designed to measure the general influence teachers believe they have in the face of external barriers such as family influence, and Personal Teacher Efficacy designed to measure teachers beliefs in their

PAGE 69

69 own ability to reach goals with students. Debate over the construction of these different measures has appeared in the literature. Controversy stemmed around Rotters Locus of control (Guskey, 1994) vs. Banduras Self efficacy Negative vs. Positive item questions, and certain item inclusions. Researchers argue the Gibson and Dembos (1984) Teacher Efficacy Scale, assesses teachers beliefs of their functioning in general rather than assessing teachers beli efs in their ability to perform certain specific functions (Ross, 1998; Brouwers and Tomic, 1999). Brouwers and Tomic (1999) developed the Teacher Interpersonal Self Efficacy scale to measure Banduras Self Efficacy theory associated to teachers beliefs i n their ability to perform specific activities. The dimensions of their measurement scale include (1) teacher perceived self efficacy in managing student behavior in the classroom, (2) teacher perceived self efficacy in eliciting support from colleagues, and (3) teacher perceived self efficacy in eliciting support from the school principal (p. 13). Researchers have sought to measure Teacher Efficacy as defined by Banduras self efficacy and social learning theories (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Tschannen Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Ashton & Webb (1986) are documented as pioneering the development of a measure. They identified two dimensions personal teaching efficacy (PTE) and general teaching efficacy (GTE). Gibson & Dembo (1 984) developed the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) to also measure the dimensions. Their variation is most prevalent in the research and has since had several critics and other adaptations to modify the validity and internal consistency (Tschannen Moran & Wo olfolk Hoy, 2001). TschannenMoran & Woolfolk Hoy (2001) argued they created a more accurate measurement describing Banduras theory of self efficacy created in earlier years ( Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990) with a more recent revision measuring overall Teacher Eff icacy with factors Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, and Classroom Management.

PAGE 70

70 In this development of the WFSES in this study, the measurement of professional self efficacy working with families was inspired by various teacher efficacy measures. One such research instrument was the Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). This instrument is composed of 22 questions targeting various teacher responsibilities. Another researcher team, Tschannen Moran and Hoy (2001) developed the Teach er Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) to assess teachers beliefs about involving families in certain specific task or roles in the schools. The TSES instrument includ es the following subscales; efficacy in Student Engagement, in Instructional Strategies, and in Classroom Management. A very limited number of measures are now available that assess and understand t eacher self efficacy in working with students parents or families (Epstein, 1996 Hoover Dempsey et al., 2002). However these measures tend to narro wly conceptualize parent involvement in a remediation paradigm based upon Epsteins model of familyschool roles (1994) rather than a collaborative paradigm of family school roles and also tend to ignore the special challenges of working with culturally di verse families. For example, Hoover Dempsey et al (2002) conducted an inservice teacher training program and used a vari ety of pre/post measures of : (1) Teacher Efficacy, (2) Teachers beliefs about parent efficacy for helping children succeed in school, (3) Teacher beliefs about parent involvement, (4) Teacher beliefs about importance of specific involvement practices, (5) Teacher invitations to involvement and (6) Teacher reports of parent involvement. An example of an item measuring Teacher Efficacy: I feel that I am making a significant difference in the lives of my students. Kieffer & Hensen (2000) developed a new instrument challenging traditional methods of measuring Teacher Efficacy. The new measurement Sources of Self Efficacy Inventory ( SOSI) examined a sample of 252 pre certification education teachers of varying educational levels at a s outhwestern university. Their instrument sought to measure four scales grounded in Banduras

PAGE 71

71 theories of Self Efficacy Mastery Experience (9 items), Emotional/Physiological Arousal (7 items), Vicarious Experience (9 items) and Social Verbal Persuasion (10 items). The predominant interpretation of Banduras theory to construct teacher efficacy, outcome expectations would essentially reflect the degree to which teachers believed the environment could be controlled, that is, the extent to which students can be taught given such factors as family background, IQ, and school conditions ( Gibson & Dembo, 1984, p. 570). The research into the development of the WFSES is set forth to examine Teacher Self Efficacy working with families is the belief with the understanding that families influence of child development and that teachers can utilize parents influence to meet teaching goals. Lamorey and Wilcox (2 005) adapted the T eacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) to fit the ir research needs of Early Intervention Teachers with expanding roles and demands on liaisons between home and school. The y modified item statements from the TES to create thei r measure EISES: original TES statement: When a student does better than usual, many times it is because I exerted a little extra effort ; t heir changes: When a family does better than expected, many times it is because I exerted a little extra effort The majori ty of item statements were family centered and strength based regarding early education interventionists and working with families. The scale measured dimensions similar to the original TES, personal teacher self efficacy and general teacher self efficacy Interesting to note on their measurement, their descriptive statistics presented with some respondents rated as low as 1 (1 7) on almost half of the item statements. Teacher efficacy appears linked to teacher expectations of parent efficacy (the belief that parents have the skills to teach their children). A parent that exhibits higher efficacy is also associated with higher levels of interactions with classroom teachers and the school (Hoover Dempsey et al. 1992). High teacher self efficacy teachers persist longer with students (Dembo &

PAGE 72

72 Gibson, 1985). In describing the extrapolations of low vs. high teacher self efficacy, Gibson & Dembo (1984) proposed the teachers willingness to stay with a student in a failure situation is indicative of a teacher s confidence in his or her teaching ability and/or the students ability to learn (p. 570). The teachers willingness to stay with a parent and family in a difficult or compromising situation is indicative of a teachers confidence in her ability to wor k with parents to meet the needs of the students. Lamorey and Wilcox (2005) When applied to teachers, Bandura's social cognitive theory of self efficacy would predict that teachers with low teaching efficacy may put minimal effort into their work because they do not think that they have the skills or resources to make a difference in the lives of their students based on (a) vicarious observations of others failure, (b) their own past failures, (c) negative feedback, and (d) individual states such as depr ession, anxiety, and stress. In contrast, teachers with high teaching efficacy would put forth a substantial amount of effort in the classrooms and would persist in these efforts in the face of adversity based upon (a) opportunities to observe the success of other teachers, (b) a history of positive experiences, (c) positive feedback, and (d) individual states such as hopefulness, optimism, and self reliance (p. 71). Kevin Kieffer (2000) described the development of his measure the Sources of Self Efficac y Inventory (SOSI), and construct validation of teacher efficacy of teaching The SOSI has 35 items with an answer key of items ranging from D efinitely not true for me to D efinitely true for me on a 1 7 Likert scale. His unique scale is based on Bandur as Social Learning theory, in particular the four domains describing Mastery Experience, Emotional/Physiological Arousal, Vicarious Experiences, and Social Verbal Persuasion focusing on general teaching efficacy. Sample items include: I get excited when I do something right to help a child learn; I tend to believe others when they tell me I will be a good teacher ; My fears of making mistakes affect my ability to teach ; and Feedback from other teachers are valuable to me. The instrument

PAGE 73

73 was administered to 252 undergraduates in a psychology class was gathered follow ed by a factor analysis conducted on the instrument. McNaughton et al. (2008) pre/post design studied active listening skills of preservice professionals. Active Listening skills are the meth odical teaching of communication and listening skills taught in psychology and counseling. Although teaching Active Listening skills are not new to teacher education programs, there is a limitation of literature regarding teaching effective listening skill s to preservice teachers (McNaughton, 2008). Their education team describes a unique viewpoint into the core foundation skills for preservice teachers could benefit from in empathetic listening, paraphrasing, and nonverbal body gestures. The research l inking the relationship between teacher efficacy and family involvement practices have begun to widen. Few surveys link teacher efficacy with specific practices and skills of teachers in family involvement. Garcia (2004) developed an inventory Family Involvement Teacher Efficacy Scale. The scale was designed to measure levels of family involvement practices reported by teachers. Her study compared the Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) and her scale. She describes her scale as addressing 24 practices covering the six categories of Epsteins Six Types of Involvement of school family partnerships. The scale has a total of 34 items with item questions corresponding to one of the six categories. The scales answer key ranges from Strongly A gree to S trongly D isagree Sample items in the scale include: (1) Teachers are not very powerful influences in promoting the involvement of parents, (2) I am effective at providing enough opportunities for working parents to participate in school/classroom rel ated activities, and (3) I do not have enough training to provide parents with suggestions on parenting and childrearing practices for the age and grade levels I teach. She administered the two measurements before and after a training program. Her research conclusions held that her measurement was a significant predictor of Epsteins model of

PAGE 74

74 practices. In particular, the measurement represented four categories. She concluded that like Banduras original notions of teacher self efficacy teachers who perceived themselves as more efficacious in their ability to work with families made more attempts to involve families in the educational process of their children (Garcia, 2004, p. 308). Similar to Delia Garcias Family Involvement Teacher Efficacy Scale, E lizabeth Graue (2003) developed a measure to assess the beliefs about home school relations of preservice teachers, in particular the beliefs, memories and proposed practices of prospective teachers to illuminates the social and cultural understandings te achers bring to their professional education (Graue et al., 2003, p. 722). The instrument is based on Epsteins Six Types of Involvement of school family partnerships. The survey has a total of 90 items. The survey was divided into several categories demographic : prospective teachers memories of family involvement in education, ascribing knowledge to parents and teachers (Parents and teachers each have unique expertise about children. Directions including: Please rate the knowledge that parents and teachers have, i.e., school expectations, family cultural practices, ways to deal with learning problems), conceptions of parental involvement for various subgroups (i.e., divorced parents, grandparents, stayat home parents), anticipated parent involvement in teaching (i.e., meet with parents to set goals, family get togethers outside of school time, home visits). Question format: How do you anticipate working with parents and families in your teaching ? Open ended item questions enabled preserv i ce teachers to speculate on the grade they hope to teach, to describe appropriate roles of parents in education, biggest worries with families, and how they anticipated learning about working with parents. Development of the Working with Families Self E fficacy Scales In developing the Working with Families Self E fficacy Scales for this study, the content and format of existing instruments were reviewed by the researcher. For example in Epsteins

PAGE 75

75 scale, several different response formats were utilized: a four point L ik ert scale measuring extent of agreement ; a four point scale measuring extent of importance and a four point scale measuring extent of support Epstein also utilized open ended questions for the teacher to discuss their beliefs (Epstein, 1996). In contras t in the development of the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen Moran & Woolfolk, 2001) the three factors of Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, and Classroom Management utilized a nine point scale ranging from Nothing to A Great Deal a ssessing how much the respondent felt they could perform a task using the lead in question of How much can you.. In Self Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, Alfred Bandura (2005) further modified this rating scale to include a larger amount of choices stat ing the can do of confidence of completing the task with a continuous response scale of 0 to 100 where 0 represented cannot do at all 50 represented moderately can do and 100 represented highly certain can do. A measure was developed to assess t eacher s elf e fficacy in working with families consisting of the three sub scales of Family School Communication Family Diversity, and Teacher Role with Families using Banduras most recent response format. Summary This review of the literature on family involvement and on the preparation of teachers to work with families supports the need to develop a measure to assess preservice teachers self e fficacy beliefs about working with families. A valid, reliable and appropriate assessment tool is crucial for teacher educators to more effectively assess the impact of training in working with families. Although there is general agreement in the teacher education field as to the need for teachers to incorporate family involvement practices and the general competencies that teachers need to demonstrate in working with students families, there is li mited agreement regarding the specific knowledge and skills for working with families that teachers need to acquire.

PAGE 76

76 Additionally, there is not a consensus as to how such teac her skills and knowledge are to be assessed.

PAGE 77

77 C HAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The Working with Families S elf Efficacy Scales (WFSES) was developed to assess the level of confidence of educators in building working relationships with the families of their student s. WFSES has been subjected to some professional scrutiny; the purpose of this study is to assess the psychometric properties of the WFSES The research procedures are presented in this chapter, as are the sampling procedures. Also included are presentati ons of the development and completed WFSES measurement. Finally, the methodological limitations are presented. This study is descriptive in nature because educator attitudes and beliefs regarding their competence in building working relationships with the families of their students will be collected only as a basis from which to evaluate the WFSES; no experimental manipulation of variables was conducted in this study. The data collected were used to evaluate the WFSES as a measure of teacher self efficacy in building teacher student caregiver relationships. Population The population for this study was composed of teachers employed in regular or special education positions in the United States teaching children at the pre kind ergarten through 6th grade l evels. In the general elementary school population in 20072008 employed in the United States, a total number of 2,103,400 teachers ( 323,924 male teachers and 1,779,476 female teachers) were employed both in the public and private sector The ethnic composition of elementary school teachers in the United States in 20072008 were: 82.3% white, nonHispanic teachers, 7.2 % African American 7.7 % Hispanic, 1.3% Asian/Pacific Islander .4% American Indian/Alaskan Native and .8 identifying as two or more ethnic ities. The age range among elementary school teachers in the United States consists of: 18.7% under 30, 26.3% ages 3039, 23.8% ages 4049, 25.6% ages 5059, and 5.6% ages 60 and above. In the highest degree

PAGE 78

78 earned, teachers held: 50.7% bachelor, 48.5% p ost baccalaureate, 42.3% m aster, 5.7% e ducation s pecialist and .5% doctoral ( N CES 2010). In a state composition of Florida, there were 7,265 male teachers and 73,050 female teac hers ( F DOE p. 5) employed as elementary school teachers in 20082009. The ethnic composition of elementary school teachers in the state of Florida in 20082009 were: 74.47% white, nonH ispanic teachers, 12.68% African American 11.75% Hispanic, 90 % Asian/Pacific Islander and 19% American Indian/Alaskan Native. Last ethnic composition for exceptional student education teachers (ESE) in the state of Florida in 20082009 were: 74.48% white nonHispanic teachers, 14.23% African American 10.12% Hispanic, .90% Asian/Pacific Islander and .28% American Indian/Alaskan Native ( F DOE 2009 ). Sampling Procedures To participate in the study, educators need to meet the following sampling criteria: a ) currently employed as a teacher in the United States, b ) teaching in regular and/or special education classes in grades prekind ergarten through 6th grade, c ) and proficient in the use of the English language. The sampling procedures used in this study involved two levels. The first level involve d the identification and enlistment by this researcher of chairpersons in departments of teacher education programs in various higher education institutions and persons in leadership positions in the National Education Association and Kappa Delta Pi professional teacher organizations so as to have access to email addresses of alumni or members of an organization. Departmental administrators and leaders at each college or university were asked to forward to their alumni and local professionals. The following schools contacted were: Alabama State University, Auburn University, Faulkner University, Jacksonville State University, University of Alab ama, Troy University, Alaska Pacific University, Northern Arizona University, Arkansas State University, Lyon College, University of Arkansas Fort Smith, Williams Baptist College, California State University Long Beach, San Diego State University, Uni versity of Colorado -

PAGE 79

79 Boulder, Eastern Connecticut State University, Fairfield University, University of Connecticut, University of Delaware, George Washington University, Howard University, Florida A&M University, Florida State University, Florida Internat ional University, Stetson University, University of Central Florida, University of Florida, Albany State University, Clayton State University, Georgia State University, University of Georgia, University of Hawaii Manoa, University of Idaho, DePaul Universi ty, Northeastern Illinois University, Wheaton College, Ball State University, Indiana State University, Manchester College, Taylor University, Graceland University, Kansas State University, University of Kansas, Eastern Kentucky University, Morehead State University, Western Kentucky University, Louisiana State University, University of New Orleans, University of Maine, Bowie State University, Towson University, University of Maryland College Park, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Eastern Michigan Univ ersity, Spring Arbor University, Concordia University, University of Minnesota Duluth, Jackson State University, University of Mississippi, Missouri Southern State University, Truman State University, University of Montana Missoula, Creighton Universit y, University of Nebraska At Lincoln, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Keene State College, Kean University, Monmouth University, The College of New Jersey, Eastern New Mexico University, Western New Mexico University, Buffalo State College, Fordham University, Pace University, Syracuse University, Appalachian State University, East Carolina University, Wake Forest University, University of North Dakota, Bowling Green State University, Muskingum University, Ohio State University, Northeastern State Univ ersity, Oklahoma State University, Oregon State University, University of Portland, Pennsylvania State University, Widener University, University of Rhode Island, Clemson University, University of South Carolina, Dakota State University, University of Sout h Dakota, University of Tennessee, Vanderbilt University, Baylor University, University of Houston, Trinity University, Brigham Young University, University of

PAGE 80

80 Vermont, George Mason University, Virginia State University, Seattle University, Western Washington University, Marshall University, West Virginia University, Marquette University, University of Wisconsin Stout, and University of Wyoming. Each letter requested representatives also pass on the survey to other representatives and colleagues that fit the criteria to complete the survey. After electronic access to college alumni or professional association members, several other methods were employed to invite teachers to participate. One method involved the researcher directly contacting teachers via phone to discuss the research project and providing an electronic link to the survey; another method was through a letter of invitation (Appendix A) A third method was an electronic message to teachers and principals inviting them to participate in the online survey. After the request was made for participation, participants were linked to the online consent form (Appendix B), and submitting their agreement before beginning the survey. The question of needed sample size for this study as challenging Gay and Airasian (2000) proposed that for a population beyond 5,000, a sample size of 400 is sufficient. In populations exceeding 10,000, researchers suggest a sample size between 200 and 1,000 is satisfactory (Alreck & Settle, 1995) Therefore, because the greatest possible degree of generalizability was desired, a minimum of 500 participants was sought for this study. Instrumentation Essential steps in developing the WFSES have been completed. The first version of the WFSES was developed to assess three co nstructs of teachers work with families: (a) their communication with families, (b) their appreciation for family d iversity and (c) their expectations as to their role in working with families. These three constructs were identified as a result of examining the research literature concerning teacher abilities to build relationships with families and are defined as follows:

PAGE 81

81 Family School Communication consists of those practices in which teachers and caregivers engaged in exchanging ideas, expressing opinions and providing support. As such, communication involves positive communications, miscommunications, conflictual interactions and collaborations. Teachers and students caregivers may demonstrate different communication styles, perspectives, opinions that require skills in effective listening, negotiating, and conveying respect for differing perspectives. Hence educational professionals need to develop ways to effectively communicate in the contexts of conflicts, stressful situations, deadlines and tension. Family Diversity entails the ability to understand the perspectives of persons from diverse economic and cultural circumstances and demonstrate comfort in interacting with such persons. Professionals need to view parents and families as having strengths and contributing to the learning process while considering family barriers and challenges. This entails individuals examining their own attitudes about race, gender, alternate lifestyles, family structures and differing beliefs about parenting, educ ation and parent involvement. Teacher Role with Families describes expectations as to the nature of the roles that an educator expects to implement with their students caregivers and families. Professionals need to assist families in finding ways to rela te to their schools and staff in their desired level of involvement and interaction with the school and teachers. A set of 56 items was created initially to represent these three constructs. Fifteen questions assessed Family School Communication, 29 quest ions assessed Family Diversity and 13 questions assessed Teacher Role with Families The item format was modeled after Banduras Teacher Efficacy Scale which requested the teacher to assess their confidence to perform an activity Item questions bega n w ith the stem of either How much can I influence or How much can I do to determine the teachers self rated level of confidence in performing each activity (Bandura, 1997) The response range was from 1 9, with the categories labeled as

PAGE 82

82 nothing (1 point : something they believe they cannot do), very little, some influence, quite a bit, a great deal (9 points : something they believe they can do very well). Three subscales were derived from the sum of the items composing each subscale. Respondents scor ing above the midpoint response were identified as high self efficacy responders and those scoring below the median we re classified as being low self efficacy. To establish content validity, the researcher solicited feedback from three teacher education faculty members currently involved in teaching courses on family involvement to teacher education students. Each reviewer was given a working definition of the three constructs and questions were listed randomly. To determine how well each item fit into its assigned (construct) category, the reviewers were asked to sort each of the items into one of the three construct categories, and to provide feedback regarding the content and relevance of the item. Test items were selected based upon the reviewers c omments Questions were eliminated if reported to be confusing or seem to duplicate other items. Second, questions were eliminated if the three reviewers did not agree on the coding of the question item, for example, one thought a question fit as a Fami ly School Communication and two thought a question was Teacher Role with Families category. Overall, the instructors were not familiar with Banduras style of question format How much can you do and answer key ( Woolfolk Hoy, 2009). Respondents commented that they did not like the original response format and found it confusing in answering each question. This review process resulted in a reduced set of 27 questions with nine questions composing each sub scale. In addition, the category Role of Teacher wa s renamed Teacher R ole with Famil i es to reflect the fact that the respondent would have expectations regarding both the teacher and the parent/caregivers role in family school matters (See Appendix C ). In addition,

PAGE 83

83 the response format of the instrument was changed to reflect circulated version of Banduras self efficacy scales ( Woolfolk Hoy, 2009). The format of the items was changed to be a statement of skill. The answer key range from cannot do the task at all to the percentage of highly certain participants can do the task Answers are in a percentage of 0% to 100% confident. The t hree subscales were derived from the sum of all the items composing each subscale. The scores 0 31% are classified as low self efficacy, 3252% fair 53 73% moderately 74 94% high and 95100% proficient self efficacy. As a next step, the researcher conducted a small pilot study involving 10 teachers in the field to assess individual item characteristics and instrument format. To improve the clarity of items, modificat ions were made in sentence structure, word choice and demographics questions. For example one question that previously was: Share with parents/caregivers your current ideas and observations of the children you are working with later modified to Discuss wit h parents your ideas and observations about their child Another revised question: Intervene when a family is in crisis later modified to Intervene to help when a family is in crisis. After completing these initial procedures, the final draft of the instr ument consisted of 27 items. Participant Demographic Questionnaire D emographic information from the respondents was collected through use of a demographic questionnaire designed by the researcher that appeared at the end of the online survey. Respondent s were asked to report their age, gender, ethnicity, parental status, level of education, teaching specialty, extent of teaching experience, the size and economic level of the community in which they were raised, the size and economic level of the communit y in which they currently worked, extent of instruction in family interaction practices the perceived nature of their interaction with students families, and extent of institutional support for family teacher relationships (See Appendix C for a sample of the questionnaire and Appendix D for

PAGE 84

84 demographic variables). For the purpose of this study, urban, suburban, rural areas and lower, middle, upper class families were defined using the federal poverty guidelines (HHS, 2009). The definitions include geogra phic a rea s of : an urban area is a place that has a total population greater than 100,000 people ; a suburban area is a place that has a total population of 100,000 people or less with a population density of 500 people or more per square mile ; and a rural area is a defined as having a population density less than 500 people per square mile. Economic Communit ies are defined as a lower income community is one in which most residents have an income at or below the poverty level. For example, a family of four ha ving an income of $22,000 would be considered at the poverty level. A middle income community is one in which most residents have an income range from $25,000 to $150,000 (a wide range of income levels in these communities) Similarly, upper income communi ty is one in which most residents have a family income ranging from $160,000 or above. Participants were questioned regarding their identification of the community environment they were raised, where they currently work and the state. The 9 categorizes a re: a) Rural Lower Income b) Rural Middle Income c) Rural Upper Income d) Suburban Lower Income e) Suburban Middle Income f) Suburban Upper Income g) Urban Lower Income h) Urban Middle Income and i ) Urban Upper Income Data Colle ction Procedures Teachers were invited to participate in the study after reading the online consent form (Appendix B), and submitting their agreement. In compliance with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) research protocol, participants were informed o f potential risk and benefits as a result of participation in the study. Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and informed that no identifying data of any type would be gathered. Each participant completed the Working with Fa milies Self Efficacy Scales (Appendix C), and a demographic

PAGE 85

85 information sheet (Appendix D ) Contact information was also provided in the original email for questions or comments. At the end of the survey, a series of open ended questions were provided to assess the participants sense of support and satisfaction with their work with students families. In addition, instructions to participate in a raffle for a gift certificate were provided. All information was kept confidential. The survey took 7 to 20 minutes online to complete. Research Questions The following research questions were examined in this study, RQ1. What is the factor structure of the Working with Families Self Efficacy Scales? RQ2. To what extent does the determined factor structure confirm the proposed, theoretical structure? RQ3. What are the reliability coefficients for each the WFSES subscales? Data Analytic Procedures To determine the factor structure of the instrument, the researcher perform ed a principal components factor ana lysis An orthogonal (varimax) rotation was applied. To address question two, the factor structure derived from the first research question was examined in relation to the proposed theoretical structure of t he three hypothesized factors (or constructs) of Family School Communication (I), Family Diversity (II), and Teacher R ole with Families (III). The factors w ere determined with a correlation of .40 or higher that comprised 16 % of the variance with each construct Items correlating with the proposed construct were retained. Items that aligned with more than one construct were retained to maintain consistency and integrity. Items were adjusted according to constructs and then used to assess internal consistency. To assess the reliability of the three subscales, Cronbachs alpha coefficients were also calculated. In addition, item statistics for each of the 27 items were calculated including

PAGE 86

86 response f requencies, standard deviation, mean, median and mode. Finally the researcher compiled descripti ve statistics on the sample in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, parental status, teaching specialty, extent of teaching experience, community raised and work, level of education, extent of instruction in family interaction practices, and perceived nature o f interaction in working with students families.

PAGE 87

87 C HAPTER 4 RESULTS The Working with Families S elf Efficacy Scales (WFSES) was developed to assess the level of confidence and competence of educators in working with and building relationships with the fa milies of their students. The psychometric properties of the WFSES were investigated in this study. The results of this investigation are presented in this chapter along with a discussion of the characteristics of the study sample. A discussion of the psychometric properties, data analyses and responses to each research question is also presented. Sample Demographics Six hundred and thirty teachers participated in the study out of a 10,000 email invitations and 100 letters of invitation were sent out to university and college professors, leaders of professional associations, and individual teachers. However, eightytwo of those participants either did not complete the WFSES or demographic questionnaire or had to be deleted from the sample. In addition, 21 participants were eliminated from the sample because they did not meet the sampling criteria for this study. These individuals either identified themselves as high school teachers (10), principals (2), guidance counselors (1), teachers with only an assoc iate degree (6), or teachers teaching outside the U nited States (2) As a result a the study sample consisted of 527 teachers who met the criteria of: a) being currently employed as a teacher in the United States, b ) teaching in regular and/or special education grades pre kind ergarten to 6th grade and c ) being proficient in the use of the English language. As depicted in Table 4 1, the study sample consisted of 477 females (90.5%) and 50 males (9.5%). The ethnic composition of the sample was 470 Caucasi an (89.8%) and 57 minority teachers (10.8%). The minority categories include: 4 Asian (.8%), 13 African American (2.5%), 20 Hispanic (3.8%), 2 Native American (.4%), 6 Bi Racial (1.1%) and 12 in

PAGE 88

88 Other Race not listed (2.3%). These demographics reflect the national statistics for teachers ( NCES, 2009). The age composition of participants ranged from 35 among ages 2125 (6.6%), 60 among ages 2630 (11.4%), 53 among ages 3135 ( 10.1%), 53 among ages 3640 (10.1%), 47 among ages 4145 (8.9%), 68 among ages 4650 (12.9%), 163 among ages 5160* (30.9%), 42 among ages 6165 (8%), 5 among ages 6670 (.9%), and 1 among ages 7175 (.2%). A design error in the variable of 5160 lead t o a combined category not separating the age bracket of 5160 into two categories 51 55 and 5660. The data set consists of two categories combined. Among the 527 teachers, 368 teachers (69.8%) identified themselves as being a parent/caregiver/guardian of a child whereas 159 teachers (30.2%) stated they were not a parent (see Table 4 1) O f the participants, 411 were regular education teachers (78%) and 116 were special education teachers (22%). Both regular and special education teachers at all grade l evels were represented in the study sample Participants ranged in amount of teaching experience from less than 1 year to 35 years or more. A much larger portion of the sample was composed of teachers with between 2 to 10 years of experience versus teacher s with 20 years or more experience. Sixty seven teachers from 2 4 years experience (12.7%), 56 57 years (10.6%), and 49 810 years (9.3%) showed the top three category sampling listing In the sample, there were 178 teachers holding a bachelor s degree (3 3.8%) and 181 m aster s degree teachers (34.3%) (see Table 4 2). In terms of representation by geographic and economic level, t eachers predominantly identified themselves as having been raised in suburban middle class communities (250 or 47.4%) or rural middle class communities (98 or 18.6%). However, most of the teachers participating in this study were currently working in suburban middle income communities (153) or suburban lower income communities (84 or 15.9%) ( s ee Table 4 3)

PAGE 89

89 In this study, invitatio ns to participate were initially sent to national teacher organizations student associations and university professors who were requested to forward the survey to their alumni The largest proportion of participating teachers worked in the following states: New Jersey 54 teachers (10.2%), Florida 42 teachers (8%) and Virginia 176 teachers (33.4%) ( s ee Table 4 4) The participating teachers had varying levels of instruction in family involvement or family teacher interaction. There were 159 teachers (30.2% ) who reported having no inservice course or training in family interaction practices. Forty teachers (7.6 %) identified themselves as having a part of one of their courses being devoted to family interaction practices, 116 teachers reported having 1 or more in service training experiences or courses on this topic, and 212 teachers (40.3%) had 2 or more of these training experiences on this topic. There were 315 (59.8%) of the participating teachers who reported having an overall positive relationship wi th students families and 115 (29.4%) who reported an extremely positive relationship The amount of school support from administrators towards working with families also varied substantially with 9 teachers rating they had no support ( 1.7%), 38 teachers little support (7.2%), 97 teachers some support (18.4%), 153 teachers moderate support (29%) and 224 teachers a great deal of support (42.5%) ( s ee Table 4 5) Item Analysis The Working with Families Self Efficacy Scales was designed for use by teachers to self report their level of confidence and competence working with the families of their students. The scale measures from 0 (cannot do at all), midway at 50 (moderately can do) and 100 (highly certain can do). The scale rises from 0 to 100 in increments of 10 points. Teachers responded to the 27 proposed skills set questions. All 27 items demonstrated a .40 correlation o n factor loading with a construct. Some items loading on more than one construct. The skill item :

PAGE 90

90 Discuss with parents your ideas and observations about their child resulted in a range of 30 to 100 and a standard deviation of 13.306. Teachers most frequently selected options 100 (210 teachers), 90 (153 teachers) and 80 (91 teachers) (see Table 4 6) The skill item : Assist a parent to f eel comfortable in talking with you about their concerns resulted in a range of 40 to 100 and a standard deviation of 13.05. Teachers most frequently selected options 100 (191 teachers), 90 (154 teachers) and 80 (114 teachers) (see Table 4 7). The skill i tem : Balance your opinions about what a child needs with a parent who has a different opinion than you resulted in a range of 20 to 100 and a standard deviation of 16.38. Teachers most frequently selected options 80 (164 teachers), 90 (114 teachers) and 100 (88 teachers) (see Table 48). The skill item : Work out a compromise with a parent when you strongly disagree with them resulted in a range of 20 to 100 and a standard deviation of 17.66. Teachers most frequently selected options 80 (141 teachers), 90 ( 103 teachers) and 100 (95 teachers) (see Table 4 9). The skill item : Respond effectively to a parent who seems upset with you resulted in a range of 20 to 100 and a standard deviation of 17.89. Teachers most frequently selected options 80 (128 teachers), 90 (126 teachers) and 100 (104 teachers) (see Table 410). The skill item : Assist a parent who seems frustrated with their child resulted in a range of 40 to 100 and a standard deviation of 13.44. Teachers most frequently selected options 100 (164 teacher s), 90 (146 teachers) and 80 (122 teachers) (see Table 4 11). The skill item : Show a parent that you care about their child when they react like you do not like their child resulted in a range of 40 to 100 and a standard deviation of 13.44. Teachers most frequently selected options 100 (179 teachers), 90 (136 teachers) and 80 (124 teachers) (see Table 412). The skill item : Effectively resolve a conflict you have with a parent resulted in a range of 30 to 100 and a standard deviation of 15.46. Teachers most frequently selected options 80 (151 teachers), 90 (126 teachers) and 100 (106 teachers) (see Table 413). The skill item : Intervene to help when a

PAGE 91

91 family is in crisis resulted in a range of 0 to 100 and a standard deviation of 20.40. Teachers most freq uently selected options 80 (106 teachers), 100 (104 teachers) and 100 (90 teachers) (see Table 414). The skill item : Understand the difficult situations in which families may find themselves resulted in a range of 40 to 100 and a standard deviation of 13.37. Teachers most frequently selected options 100 (180 teachers), 90 (159 teachers) and 80 (103 teachers) (see Table 415). The skill item : Assist a family in accessing needed services in the community resulted in a range of 0 to 100 and a standard devi ation of 21.29. Teachers most frequently selected options 80 (106 teachers), 90 (103 teachers) and 100 (80 teachers) (see Table 416). The skill item : Feel comfortable in working with families of different cultures and socioeconomic circumstances resulted in a range of 0 to 100 and a standard deviation of 13.97. Teachers most frequently selected options 100 (240 teachers), 90 (132 teachers) and 80 (80 teachers) (see Table 417). The skill item : Understand the particular constraints that may limit a family' s involvement in their child's learning and daily activities resulted in a range of 40 to 100 and a standard deviation of 14.30. Teachers most frequently selected options 100 (172 teachers), 90 (135 teachers) and 80 (116 teachers) (see Table 418). The sk ill item : Involve parents who have limited resources and/or time in their child's learning and development resulted in a range of 20 to 100 and a standard deviation of 16.92. Teachers most frequently selected options 80 (140 teachers), 90 (112 teachers) an d 100 (105 teachers) (see Table 419). The skill item : Understand the unique knowledge and strengths a child's family possess resulted in a range of 20 to 100 and a standard deviation of 14.98. Teachers most frequently selected options 80 (154 teachers), 100 (141 teachers) and 90 (119 teachers) (see Table 420). The skill item : Feel comfortable in working with nontraditional families such as: Gay/Lesbian families, Single Parent families, Multigenerational families, Adoptive/Foster

PAGE 92

92 families resulted in a range of 0 to 100 and a standard deviation of 14.20. Teachers most frequently selected options 100 (255 teachers), 90 (126 teachers) and 80 (84 teachers) (see Table 421). The skill item : Provide a warm, inviting interaction with caregivers from different t ypes of families resulted in a range of 40 to 100 and a standard deviation of 10.83. Teachers most frequently selected options 100 (267 teachers), 90 (146 teachers) and 80 (74 teachers) (see Table 422). The skill item : Understand how your view of children may differ from the parents' view of their children resulted in a range of 40 to 100 and a standard deviation of 11.42. Teachers most frequently selected options 100 (235 teachers), 90 (161 teachers) and 80 (91 teachers) (see Table 423). The skill item : Give parents specific information about what they can do to influence their children's learning and development resulted in a range of 30 to 100 and a standard deviation of 13.2. Teachers most frequently selected options 100 (208 teachers), 90 (138 teachers) and 80 (112 teachers) (see Table 424). The skill item : Create opportunities to develop positive, trusting relationships with each childs parents/caregivers resulted in a range of 30 to 100 and a standard deviation of 13.66. Teachers most f requently selected options 100 (152 teachers), 90 (147 teachers) and 80 (133 teachers) (see Table 425). The skill item : Communicate with parents of differing social classes about how they can support their childrens development resulted in a range of 3 0 to 100 and a standard deviation of 13.63. Teachers most frequently selected options 100 (186 teachers), 80 (132 teachers) and 90 (129 teachers) (see Table 426). The skill item : Motivate parents to make the changes they would like to in functioning bette r as a family resulted in a range of 0 to 100 and a standard deviation of 20.02. Teachers most frequently selected options 80 (131 teachers), 70 (101 teachers) and 50 (83 teachers) (see Table 427). The skill item : Assist parents in improving how they pare nt resulted in a range of 0 to 100 and a standard deviation of 22.70. Teachers most frequently selected options 80 (98 teachers), 70 (96 teachers) and 50 (84 teachers) (see Table 428). The skill item :

PAGE 93

93 Offer parents opportunities to participate in their childs development and learning resulted in a range of 0 to 100 and a standard deviation of 15.75. Teachers most frequently selected options 100 (152 teachers), 90 (129 teachers) and 80 (128 teachers) (see Table 429). The skill item : Design school events i n which parents can actively participate with their child to develop the child's learning resulted in a range of 0 to 100 and a standard deviation of 20.56. Teachers most frequently selected options 100 (127 teachers), 80 (120 teachers) and 90 (90 teachers ) (see Table 430). The skill item : Schedule school events so parents are active participants resulted in a range of 0 to 100 and a standard deviation of 20.76. Teachers most frequently selected options 100 (144 teachers), 80 (105 teachers) and 90 (99 te achers) (see Table 431). The skill item : Invite parents to express their perspective as key decision makers in their childs development resulted in a range of 10 to 100 and a standard deviation of 16.69. Teachers most frequently selected options 100 (197 teachers), 90 (131 teachers) and 80 (108 teachers) (see Table 432). Of the 27 items, 7 items present as 77% of lower in degree of confidence. The mean scores were with the following questions: a) Work out a compromise with a parent when you strongly disagree with them at 77.72%, b) Intervene to help when a family is in crisis at 75.90%, c) Assist a family in accessing needed services in the community at 73.49 %, d) Motivate parents to make the changes they would like to in functioning better as a famil y at 69.43%, e) Assist parents in improving how they parent at 64.12 %, f) Design school events in which parents can actively participate with their child to develop the child's learning at 77.6% (see Table 436) Of the 27 items, these 10 items present ed i n 16 increments or higher in standard deviation. T he standard deviations score d with the following questions: a) Balance your opinions about what a child needs with a parent who has a different opinion than you at 16.39, b) Work out a compromise with a parent when you strongly disagree with them at 17.66, c) Respond effectively

PAGE 94

94 to a parent who seems upset with you at 17.89, d) Intervene to help when a family is in crisis at 20.40, e) A ssist a family in accessing needed services in the community at 21.29, f ) Involve parents who have limited resources and/or time in their child's learning and development at 16.92, g) Motivate parents to make the changes they would like to in functioning better as a family at 20.02, h) Assist parents in improving how they parent at 22.70, i) Schedule school events so parents are active participants at 20.76, j) Design school events in which parents can actively participate with their child to develop the child's learning at 20.56 (see Table 4 37). The general statistics perform ed on all 27 skill items are displayed in Table 4 6 to 432. Each skill set under the three category constructs of Family School Communication, Family Diversity and Teacher Role with Families computated including frequencies of item selection, percentage of item selection, standard deviation, mean, median and mode. In Tables 4 33 to 435, mean scores are calculated for each construct delineating ranges Family School Communication (77.72 to 88.39) Family Diversity ( 79.43 to 91.73) and Teacher Role with Fa milies (64.12 to 88.18). Research Questions The first research question for the study was: What is the factor structure of the WFSES? The 27 items on the WFSES were analyzed using a principal components analysis (PCA) to determine the factor structure. An orthogonal (varimax) rotation was applied. The PCA for these 27 items yielded five factors in the initial (i.e. unrotated) factor structure of the WFSES. A scree plot in Table 4 38 was used to examine how many factors should be retained. The scree plot showed a substantial drop in the respective eigenvalues of the component factors after three factors. The values starting with components: 1 (12.297), 2 (1.99), 3 ( 1.920) then 4 (1.290) and 5 (1.039). Therefore, based on the scree plot, three factors were retained. The distinct eigenvalues displayed with a

PAGE 95

95 noticeable decline on the 4th and 5th eigenvalues. In the scree plot, three factors (components) showed visible variability and accounted for 60% of the total variance in the instrument. Presented in T able 4 39 are the eigenvalues of each of the five factor (unrotated) PCA solution. As well as the percentage of variance explained in the rotated factor solution. Each of the first three factors shown in Table 4 41 was treated as a subscale of the WFS E S an d each retained survey item was assigned to one of three subscales based on highest factor loading. Subscale scores for each respondent then were computed by summing the response weights for each item for each particular subscale. The second research question was: To what extent does the determined factor structure confirm the proposed, theoretical structure? To address question two, the factor structure was examined in relation to the proposed theoretical structure of t he three hypothesized factors (or co nstructs) of Family School Communication (I), Family Diversity (II), and Teacher Role with Families (III). The questions chosen for each of the hypothesized constructs in the survey originally were derived from the theoretical and research literature. Su bsequently, the original set of items on the WFSES was examined in a pilot study which helped to refine the constructs. The WFSES that emerged from the final factor structure included 27 items over three subscales. The factors w ere determined with a loadin g of .40 or 16% or higher of the variance and compared with each constructs. Skill set items falling under the proposed construct were retained where others matching with a different construct were adjusted. Items that aligned with more than one construc t were retained to maintain consistency and integrity. Items were moved to the corresponding constructs and then manipulated to assess internal consistency. The three subscales were similar to the three constructs upon which the original WFSES was based. Comparison of the proposed and derived constructs and WFSES subscales are discussed below.

PAGE 96

96 Family School Communication The first derived subscale consisted of items that predominantly came from the construct of family school communication. This subscale r epresented the level of confidence that teachers reported in communicating and/or effectively resolving conflicts with their students caregivers. Items from this subscale include Discuss with parents your ideas and observations about their child (.687) ; B alance your opinion about what a child needs with that of a parent who has a different opinion about their child (.798) ; Assist a parent to feel comfortable in talking with you about their concerns (.676) ; and Work out a compromise with a parent when you s trongly disagree with them (.795) Other skill sets include: Respond effectively to a parent who seems upset with you (.810) ; Assist a parent who seems frustrated with their child (.637) ; Show a parent that you care about their child when they react like y ou do not like their child (.735) and Effectively resolve a conflict you have with a parent (.776) One item, Intervene to help when a family is in crisis which was originally hypothesized to be included in this subscale yet loaded more heavily on the Teac her Role with Families subscale. Another item Give parents specific information about what they can do to influence their children's learning and development (.437) loaded on both the Family School C ommunication and T eacher R ole with Families subscales hence it was retained in the final instrument on both categories. As a result, this subscale consisted of 9 items with factor loadings ranging from .437 to .810. Teacher Role with Fami lies The second derived subscale consisted of items that predominantly cam e from the proposed construct of T eacher R ole with Families in involvement strategies This subscale represented the level of confidence participants reported in implementing specific family involvement strategies. The item Give parents specific informati on about what they can do to influence their chil dren's learning and development (.513) was proposed on the T eacher R ole

PAGE 97

97 with Families construct and also loaded on the Family School C ommunication self efficacy scales. As with the item Communicate with pare nts of differing social classes about how they can support their childrens development (.522) proposed on T eacher R ole with Families construct which also loaded on another scale Family D iversity. Both items Involve parents who have limited resources and/ or time in their child's learning and development (.639) and Understand the unique knowledge and strengths a child's family possess (.458) were proposed on Family D iversity yet also loaded on T eacher R ole with Families self efficacy scales. Hence these two items were retained for each category. The following items were proposed on the T eacher R ole with Families self efficacy scales and maintained loading on this construct: Create opportunities to develop positive, trusting relationships with each childs parents/caregivers (.548) ; Motivate parents to make the changes they would like to in functioning better as a family (.753) ; Assist paren ts in improving how they parent (.689) ; Offer parents opportunities to participate in their c hilds development and learning (.664) ; Design school events in which parents can actively participate with their child t o develop the child's learning (.728) ; Schedule school events so p arents are active participants (.708) ; Invite parents to express their perspective as key decisio n make rs in their childs development (.629) ; Intervene to help when a family is in crisis (.473) ; and Assist a family in accessing needed services in the community (.646) This category contains 13 skill set items ranging from .453 to .689. Family Divers ity The third derived subscale consisted of items that predominantly came from the proposed construct of Appreciating Family Diversity. This subscale represented the level of confidence participants reported in appreciating the specific circumstances and characteristics of families from diverse cultural and economic circumstances. Item Communicate with parents of differing social classes about how they can support their childrens development (.420) originally

PAGE 98

98 proposed on T eacher R ole with Families scales also loaded onto Family D iversity. Where the items Involve parents who have limited resources and/or time in their child's learning and development (. 407 ) and Understand the unique knowledge and strengths a child's family possess (.552) were proposed on F amily D iversity and also loaded on T eacher R ole with Families scales. These items were retained for each category Items from this subscale include Understand the difficult situations in which families may find themselves (.663) ; Feel comfortable in worki ng with families of different cultures and socioeconomic circumstances (.791) ; Understand the particular constraints that may limit a family's involvement in their child's learning and daily activities (.649) ; Feel comfortable in working with nontraditional families such as: Gay/Lesbian families, Multigenerational families, Single Parent families, Adoptive/Foster families (.755) ; Provide a warm, inviting interaction with caregivers from different types of families (.760) ; and Understand how your view of chi ldren may differ from the parents' view of their children (.573) This category contains 9 skill set items ranging from .407 to .791. The third resea rch question was: What are the reliability coefficients for each the WFSES subscales? The Family School C ommunication subscale expanded to 9 items. The Family Diversity subscale contained 9 items and the T eacher R ole with Families subscale expanded to 13 items. After identifying the placement of each item in the three subscales, Cronbachs alpha coefficients were computed and are shown in Table 4 41. A reliability coefficient of .899 was computed for the Family School Communication subscale a coefficient of .930 was computed for the Family Diversity subscale and a reliability coefficient of .923 for T eacher R ole with Families subscale indicating that each subscale was highly reliabl e

PAGE 99

99 Table 4 1. Gender, Ethnicity, Age, and Parental Status of s tudy s ample ( 527 participants ) Variable Frequency Percentage (%) Gender Female 477 90.5 Male 50 9.5 Ethnicity Asian 4 .8 African American 13 2.5 Hispanic 20 3.8 Caucasian 470 89.2 Native American 2 .4 Bi Racial 6 1.1 Other Race not listed 12 2.3 Age 21 25 35 6.6 26 30 60 11.4 31 35 53 10.1 36 40 53 10.1 41 45 47 8.9 46 50 68 12.9 51 60* 163* 30.9 61 65 42 8 66 70 5 .9 71 75 1 .2 Parent/Caregiver/Guardian Yes 368 69.8 No 159 30.2 Design error 51 60 have read 51 55 and 56 60.

PAGE 100

100 Table 4 2. Participants Teaching Specialty, Work Experiences and Ed Level ( 527 participants ) Variable Frequency Percentage (%) Current Track as a Teacher PreK to K Regular Education 57 10.8 1 st to 2 nd Regular Education 111 21.1 3 rd to 4 th Regular Education 96 18.2 5 th to 6 th Regular Education 147 27.9 PreK to K Special Ed ucation 20 3.8 1 st to 2 nd Special Education 21 4 3 rd to 4 th Special Education 20 3.8 5 th to 6 th Special Education 55 10.4 Level of work experience as a Teacher 0 2 years 38 7.2 2 4 years 56 10.6 5 7 years 67 12.7 8 10 years 49 9.3 11 13 years 46 8.7 14 16 years 43 8.2 17 19 years 43 8.2 20 22 years 46 8.7 23 25 years 31 5.9 26 28 years 27 5.1 29 31 years 28 5.3 32 34 years 29 5.5 35 up 24 4.6 Level of Education Bachelor 178 33.8 Master 181 34.3 Master+20 85 16.1 Post Master 70 13.3 PhD 13 2.5

PAGE 101

101 Table 4 3. Type of c ommunity in w hich t eacher w as r eared and w orked ( 527 participants ) Variable Frequency Percentage Community Environment you were reared in: Rural Lower Income 39 7.4 Rural Middle Income 98 1 8.6 Rural Upper Income 7 1.3 Suburban Lower Income 16 3 Suburban Middle Income 250 47.4 Suburban Upper Income 35 6.6 Urban Lower Income 18 3.4 Urban Middle Income 60 11.4 Urban Upper Income 4 .8 Community Environment you work in: Rural Low er Income 53 10.1 Rural Middle Income 58 11 Rural Upper Income 1 .2 Suburban Lower Income 84 15.9 Suburban Middle Income 153 29 Suburban Upper Income 48 9.1 Urban Lower Income 55 10.4 Urban Middle Income 62 11.8 Urban Upper Income 13 2.5

PAGE 102

102 Table 4 4. State in w hich participants reared and work ( 527 participants ) Variable Community R eared % Community Work % State Alabama 3 .6 0 0 Alaska 0 0 0 0 Arizona 3 .6 1 .2 Arkansas 27 5.1 35 6.6 California 23 4.4 16 3 Colorado 8 1.5 16 3 Connecticut 5 .9 0 0 Delaware 0 0 0 0 District of Columbia 0 0 0 0 Florida 40 7.6 42 8 Georgia 6 1.1 1 .2 Hawaii 0 0 0 0 Idaho 13 2.5 22 4.2 Illinois 20 3.8 10 1.9 Indiana 6 1.1 0 0 Iowa 6 1.1 10 1.9 Kansas 5 9 4 .8 Kentucky 14 2.7 13 2.5 Louisiana 3 .6 0 0 Maine 11 2.1 15 2.8 Maryland 12 2.3 10 1.9 Massachusetts 5 9 0 0 Michigan 12 2.3 6 1.1 Minnesota 5 .9 2 .4 Mississippi 2 .4 1 .2 Missouri 8 1.5 1 .2 Montana 2 .4 4 .8 Nebraska 2 .4 0 0 Nevada 1 .2 0 0 New Hampshire 1 .2 0 0 New Jersey 56 10.6 54 10.2 New Mexico 13 2.5 25 4.7 New York 46 8.7 9 1.7

PAGE 103

103 Table 4 4. Continued. Variable Community Raised % Community Work % State North Carolina 4 .8 3 .6 North Dakota 10 1.9 10 1.9 O hio 15 2.8 6 1.1 Oklahoma 16 3 24 4.6 Oregon 3 .6 0 0 Pennsylvania 17 3.2 3 .6 Rhode Island 3 .6 3 .6 South Carolina 3 .6 0 0 South Dakota 0 0 1 .2 Tennessee 3 1.1 2 .4 Texas 13 2.5 0 0 Utah 2 .4 0 0 Vermont 2 .4 1 .2 Virginia 4 9 9.3 176 33.4 Washington 3 .6 0 0 West Virginia 3 .6 0 0 Wisconsin 5 .9 1 .2 Wyoming 1 .2 0 0 Outside the US* 14 2.7 0 0

PAGE 104

104 Table 4 5. Extent of Instruction, Nature of Relationships, and School Support ( 527 participants ) Variable Frequency P ercentage Extent of Instruction in family interaction practices No in service course or training 159 30.2 Part of a course 40 7.6 1 in services training or course 116 22 2 or more of either 100 19 3 or more of either 112 21.3 Overall nature of relationships with students families Extremely negative 0 0 Negative 0 0 Somewhat negative 5 .9 Neutral 18 3.4 Somewhat Positive 34 6.5 Positive 315 59.8 Extremely Positive 155 29.4 Amount of School Support from administration towards worki ng with families None 9 1.7 Little 38 7.2 Some 97 18.4 Moderate 153 29 A great deal 224 42.5 *optional question 6 missing 1.1% responses.

PAGE 105

105 Table 4 6. SKILL: Discuss with parents your ideas and observations about their child. 1 2 19 10 41 91 153 210 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52% Fair Self Efficacy 53 73% Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94% High Self Efficacy 95 100% Proficient Self Effic acy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 19 10 41 91 153 210 .2% .4% 3.6% 1.9% 7.8% 17.3% 29% 39.8% Mean Median Mode 88.39 90 100 St andar d Dev iation 13.306

PAGE 106

106 Table 4 7. SKILL: Assist a parent to feel comfortable in talking with you about their concerns. 4 18 9 37 114 154 191 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Effica cy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 4 18 9 37 114 154 191 .8% 3.4% 1.7% 7% 21.6% 29.2% 36.2% Mean Median Mode 87.80 90 100 St an d ard Dev iation 13.05

PAGE 107

107 Table 4 8. SKILL: Balance your opinions about what a child needs with a parent who has a different opinion than you. 4 3 8 49 22 75 164 114 88 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 4 3 8 49 22 75 164 114 88 .8% .6% 1.5% 9.3% 4.2% 14.2% 31.1% 21.6% 16.7% Mean Median Mode 79.11 80 St andard Dev iation 16.38

PAGE 108

108 Table 4 9. SKILL: Work out a compromise with a parent when you strongly disagree with them. 2 7 14 57 31 77 141 103 95 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 0 2 7 14 57 31 77 141 103 95 .4% 1.3% 2.7% 10.8% 5.9% 14.6% 26.8% 19.5% 18% Mean Median Mode 77.72 80 St andard Deviation 17.66

PAGE 109

109 Table 4 10. SKILL: Respond effectively to a parent who seems upset with y ou. 2 8 16 49 28 66 128 126 104 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Profic ient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 8 16 49 28 66 128 126 104 .4% 1.5 % 3 % 9.3 % 5.3 % 12.5 % 24.3 % 23.9 % 19.7 % Mean Median Mode 79.03 80 Standard Deviation 17.89

PAGE 110

110 Table 4 11. S KILL: Assist a parent who seems frustrated with their child. 2 18 18 57 122 146 164 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Effic acy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 18 18 57 122 146 164 4 % 3. 4 % 3.4 % 10. 8 % 23. 1 % 2 7.7 % 3 1.1 % Mean Median Mode 86. 0 5 90 100 St an dar d Dev iation 13.44

PAGE 111

111 Table 4 12. S KILL: Show a parent that you care about their child when they react like you do not like their child. 4 17 14 53 124 136 179 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 3 1 % Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 4 17 14 53 124 136 179 .8% 3.2% 2.7% 10.1% 23.5% 25.8% 34% Mean Median Mode 86.57 90 100 St andard Deviation 13.44

PAGE 112

112 Table 4 13. SKILL: Effectively resolve a conflict you have with a parent. 5 11 26 26 76 151 126 106 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Hi ghly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 5 11 26 26 76 151 1 26 106 .9% 2.1% 4.9% 4.9% 14.4% 28.7% 23.9% 20.1% Mean Median Mode 81.20 80 St andard Dev iation 15.46

PAGE 113

113 Table 4 14. SKILL: Intervene to help when a family is in crisis. 4 1 4 13 14 59 37 87 106 98 104 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects C annot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 4 1 4 13 14 59 37 87 106 98 104 .8% .2% .8% 2.5% 2.7% 11.2% 7% 16.5% 20.1% 18.6% 19.7% Mean Median Mode 75.90 80 St andard Dev iation 20.40

PAGE 114

114 Table 4 15. SKILL: Understand the difficult situ ations in which families may find themselves. 4 17 15 49 103 159 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 4 17 15 49 103 159 180 .8% 3.2% 2.8% 9.3% 19.5% 30.2% 34.2% Mean Median Mode 87.08 90 100 St andard Dev iat ion 13.37

PAGE 115

115 Table 4 16. SKILL: Assist a family in accessing needed services in the community. 7 1 6 15 12 74 39 84 106 103 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Sel f Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 7 1 6 15 12 74 39 84 106 103 80 1.3% .2% 1.1% 2.8% 2.3% 14% 7.4% 15.9% 20.1% 19.5% 15.2% Mean Median Mode 73.49 80 St andard Dev iation 21.29

PAGE 116

116 Table 4 17. SKILL: Feel comfortable in working with families of different cultures and socioeconomic circumstances 1 2 19 13 40 80 132 240 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 19 13 40 80 132 240 .2% .4% 3.6% 2.5% 7.6% 15.2% 25% 45% Mean Median Mode 88.98 90 100 St andard Dev iation 13.97

PAGE 117

117 Table 4 18. SKILL: Understand the particular constraints that may limit a family's involvement in their child's learning and daily activities. 6 20 21 58 116 135 172 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Ef ficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 6 20 21 58 116 135 172 1.1% 3.8% 4% 11% 22% 25.4% 32.6% Mean Median Mode 85.58 90 100 St anda rd Dev iation 14.30

PAGE 118

118 Table 4 19. SKILL: Involve parents who have limited resources and/or time in their child's learning and development. 2 5 13 41 31 78 140 112 105 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 5 13 41 31 78 140 112 105 .4% .9% 2.5% 7.8% 5.9% 14.8% 26.6% 21.3% 19.9% Mean Median Mode 79.43 80 St andard Dev iation 1 6.92

PAGE 119

119 Table 4 20. SKILL: Understand the unique knowledge and strengths a child's family possess. 1 3 5 25 22 57 154 119 141 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moder ately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 25 22 57 154 119 141 .2% .6% .9% 4.7% 4.2% 10.8% 29.2% 22.6% 26.8% Mean Median Mode 83.5 80 St andard Dev iation 14.98

PAGE 120

120 Table 4 21. SKILL: Feel comfortable in working with nontraditional families suc h as: Gay/Lesbian families, Single Parent families, Multigenerational families, Adoptive/Foster families 1 1 6 16 7 31 84 126 255 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % F air Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 1 6 16 7 51 8 4 1 26 2 55 .2% .2% 1.1 % 3% 1.3 % 5.9 % 15. 9 % 2 3.9 % 4 8.4 % Me an Median Mode 89.58 90 100 St andard Dev iation 14.20

PAGE 121

121 Table 4 22. SKILL: Provide a warm, inviting interaction with caregivers from different types of families. 1 8 3 28 74 146 267 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 8 3 28 74 1 46 267 .2% 1.5% .6% 5.3% 14% 27.7% 50.7% Mean Median Mode 91.73 100 St andard Dev iation 10.83

PAGE 122

122 Table 4 23. SKILL: Understand how your view of children may differ from the parents' view of their childre n. 2 10 8 20 91 161 235 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficie nt Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 10 8 20 91 161 235 .4% 1.9% 1.5% 3.8% 17.3% 30.6% 44.6% Mean Median Mode 90.57 90 100 St andard Dev iation 11.42

PAGE 123

123 Table 4 24. SKILL: Give pare nts specific information about what they can do to influence their children's learning and development. 2 4 10 14 39 112 138 208 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fai r Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2 4 10 14 39 112 138 208 .4% .8% 1.9% 2.7% 7.4% 21.3% 26.2% 39.5% Mean M edian Mode 88.18 90 100 St andard Dev iation 13.2

PAGE 124

124 Table 4 25. SKILL: Create opportunities to develop positive, trusting relationships with each childs parents/caregivers 1 4 20 14 56 133 147 152 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Modera tely can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 4 20 14 56 133 147 152 .2% .8% 3.8% 2.7% 10.6% 25.2% 27.9% 28.8% Mean Median Mode 85.43 90 100 St andard Dev iation 13.66

PAGE 125

125 Table 4 26. SKILL: Communicate with parents of differing social classes about how t hey can support their childrens development. 1 7 12 14 46 132 129 186 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 7 12 14 46 132 129 186 .2% 1.3% 2.3% 2.7% 8.7% 25% 24.5% 35.3% Mean Median Mode 86.8 90 100 St andard Dev ia tion 13.63

PAGE 126

126 Table 4 27. SKILL: Motivate parents to make the changes they would like to in functioning better as a family. 5 3 1 19 29 83 42 101 131 71 42 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self E fficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 5 3 1 19 29 83 42 101 131 71 42 .9% .6% .2% 3.6% 5.5% 15.7% 8% 19.2% 24.9% 1 3.5% 8% Mean Median Mode 69.43 70 80 St andard Dev iation 20.02

PAGE 127

127 Table 4 28. SKILL: Assist parents in improving how they parent. 10 6 11 27 45 84 60 96 98 46 44 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly cer tain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 6 11 27 45 84 60 96 98 46 4 4 1.9% 1.1% 2.1% 5.1% 8.5% 15.9% 11.4% 18.2% 18.6% 8.7% 8.3% Mean Median Mode 64.12 70 80 St andard Dev iation 22.70

PAGE 128

128 Table 4 29. SKILL: Offer parents opportunities to participate in their childs developmen t and learning. 1 2 3 6 19 27 60 128 129 152 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 6 19 27 60 128 129 152 .2% .4% .6% 1.1% 3.6% 5.1% 11.4% 24.3% 24.5% 28.8% Mean Median Mode 83.85 90 100 St andard Dev iation 15.75

PAGE 129

129 T able 4 30. SKILL: Design school events in which parents can actively participate with their child to develop the child's learning. 3 1 10 9 10 52 32 73 120 90 127 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low S elf Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 3 1 10 9 10 52 32 73 120 90 127 .6% .2% 1.9% 1.7% 1.9% 9.9% 6.1% 13.9% 22.8% 17.1% 24.1% Mean Median Mode 77.6 80 100 St andard Dev iation 20.56

PAGE 130

130 Table 4 31. SKILL: Schedule school events so parents are active participants. 6 2 6 3 13 43 41 65 105 99 144 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moder ately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 6 2 6 3 13 43 41 65 105 99 144 11 % .4 % 1.1 % .6 % 2.5 % 8.2 % 7.8 % 12.3 % 19.9 % 18.8 % 27.3 % Mean Median Mode 78.98 80 100 St andard Dev iation 20.76

PAGE 131

131 Table 4 32. SKILL: Invite parents to express their perspective as k ey decision makers in their childs development. 1 8 7 27 21 45 108 131 197 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of Subjects Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do 527 subjects 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 7 4 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 8 7 27 21 45 108 131 197 .2% 1.5% 1.3% 5.1% 4% 8.5% 20.5% 24.9% 34% Mean Median Mode 84.67 90 100 St andar d Dev iation 16.69

PAGE 132

132 Table 433. Mean scores of WFSES: Family School Communication Self Efficacy Scales. Family-School Communication Self-Efficacy Scales 77.72 79.03 79.11 81.2 86.05 86.57 87.8 88.18 88.39 0 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Skill Set Means Skills Means Skill Set Item 1 77.72 Work out a compromise with a parent when you strongly disagree with them. 2 79 .03 Respond effectively to a parent who seems upset with you. 3 79.11 Balance your opinions about what a child needs with a parent who has a different opinion than you. 4 81.2 Effectively resolve a conflict you have with a parent. 5 86.05 Assist a pa rent who seems frustrated with their child. 6 86.57 Show a parent that you care about their child when they react like you do not like their child. 7 87.8 Assist a parent to feel comfortable in talking with you about their concerns. 8 88.18 Give pare nts specific information about what they can do to influence their children's learning and development. 9 88.39 Discuss with parents your ideas and observations about their child.

PAGE 133

133 Table 434. Mean scores of Teacher Role with Families Self Efficacy Scales. Teacher Role with Families Self-Efficacy Scales 64.12 69.43 73.49 75.9 77.6 78.98 79.43 83.5 83.85 84.67 85.43 86.8 88.18 0 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Skill Set Mean Skills Means Skill Set Item 1 64.12 Assist parents in improving how they parent. 2 69.43 Motivate parents to make the changes they would like to in functioning better as a family. 3 73.49 Assist a family in accessing needed services in the community. 4 75.90 Intervene to help when a family is in crisis. 5 77.6 Design school events in which parents can actively participate with their child to develop the child's learning. 6 78.98 Schedule school even ts so parents are active participants. 7 79.43 Involve parents who have limited resources and/or time in their child's learning and development. 8 83.5 Understand the unique knowledge and strengths a child's family possess. 9 83.85 Offer parents opportunities to participate in their childs development and learning. 10 84.67 Invite parents to express their perspective as key decision makers in their childs development. 11 85.43 Create opportunities to develop positive, trusting rela tionships with each childs parents/caregivers. 12 86.8 Communicate with parents of differing social classes about how they can support their childrens development. 13 88.18 Give parents specific information about what they can do to influence their children's learning and development.

PAGE 134

134 Table 435. Mean scores of Family Diversity Self Efficacy Scales. Family Diversity Self-Efficacy Scales 79.43 83.5 85.58 86.8 87.08 88.98 89.58 90.57 91.73 0 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Skill Set Means Skills Means Skill Set Item 1 79.43 Involve parents who have limited resources and/or time in their child's learning and development. 2 83.50 Understand the unique knowledge and strengths a child's family possess 3 85.58 Understand the particular constraints that may limit a family's involvement in their child's lear ning and daily activities. 4 86. 8 Communicate with parents of differing social classes about how they can support th eir childrens development. 5 87.08 Understand the difficult situations in which fam ilies may find themselves. 6 88.98 Feel comfortable in working with families of different cultures and so cioeconomic circumstances. 7 89.58 Feel comfortable in working with nontraditional families such as: Gay/Lesbian families, Single Parent families, Multigenerational families, Adoptive/Foster families. 8 90.57 Unders tand how your view of children may differ from the parents' view of their children. 9 91.73 Provide a warm, inviting interaction with caregivers from different types of families.

PAGE 135

135 Table 4 36. Questionnaire s kill sets resulting with means 77% of lower in degree of confidence Skill sets Mean Work out a compromise with a parent when you strongly disagree with them. Intervene to help when a family is in crisis. Assist a family in accessing needed services in the community. Motivate parents to make the changes they would like to in functioning better as a family. Assist parents in improving how they parent. Design school events in which parents can actively participate with their child to develop the child's learning. 77.72 75.90 73.49 69.43 64.12 77.6

PAGE 136

136 Table 4 37. Questionnaire s kill sets resulting with standard deviations of 16 increments or higher Skill sets Std. Dev. Balance your opinions about what a child needs with a parent who has a differen t opinion than you. Work out a compromise with a parent when you strongly disagree with them. Respond effectively to a parent who seems upset with you. Intervene to help when a family is in crisis. Assist a family in accessing needed services in the community. Involve parents who have limited resources and/or time in their child's learning and development. Motivate parents to make the changes they would like to in functioning better as a family. Assist parents in i mproving how they parent. Schedule school events so parents are active participants. Design school events in which parents can actively participate with their child to develop the child's learning. 16.39 17.66 17.89 20.40 21.29 16.92 20.02 22.70 20.76 20.56

PAGE 137

137 Table 4 38. Scree Plot results from questionnaire 27 components

PAGE 138

138 Table 4 39. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total % of Variance Cumulati ve % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 12.297 45.545 45.545 5.867 21.729 21.729 2 1.990 7.369 52.914 5.742 21.267 42.997 3 1.920 7.111 60.024 4.598 17.028 60.024 4 1.290 4.777 64.801 5 1.039 3.849 68.650

PAGE 139

139 Table 4 40. Factor Analysis for W orking with Families Self Efficacy Scales .40 or higher *Final arrangement Family School Communication Efficacy 1. Discuss with parents your ideas and observations about their child. .687 2. Assist a parent to feel comfortable in talking with you about th eir concerns. .676 3. Balance your opinions about what a child needs with a parent who has a different opinion than you. .798 4. Work out a compromise with a parent when you strongly disagree with them. .795 5. Respond effectively to a parent who seems upset with you. .810 6. Assist a parent who seems frustrated with their child. .637 7. Show a parent that you care about their child when they react like you do not l ike their child. .735 8. Effectively resolve a conflict you have with a par ent. .776 9. Give parents specific information about what they can do to influence their c hildren's learning and development. .437 Family Diversity Efficacy 1. Communicate with parents of differing social classes about how they can support their childrens development. .420 2. Understand the difficult situations in which families may find themselves. .663 3. Feel comfortable in working with families of different cultures and socioeconomic circumstances. .791 4. Understand the parti cular constraints that may limit a family's involvement in their child's learning and daily activities. .649 5. Feel comfortable in working with nontraditional families such as: G ay/Lesbian families, Single Parent families, Multigenerational families, Adoptive/Foster families. .755 6. Provide a warm, inviting interaction with caregivers from different types of families. .760 7. Understand how your view of children may differ from the parents' view of their children. .573 8. Involve p arents who have limited resources and/or time in their child's learning and development. .407 9. Understand the unique knowledge and strengths a child's family possess. .552 Teacher Role with Famil ies Efficacy 1. Give parents specific informatio n about what they can do to influence their children's learning and development. .513 2. Communicate with parents of differing social classes about how they can support their childrens development. .522 3. Involve parents who have limited resources and/or time in their child's learning and development. .639 4. Understand the unique knowledge and strengths a child's family possess. .458 5. Create opportunities to develop positive, trusting relationships with each childs paren ts/caregivers. .548

PAGE 140

140 Table 4 40. Continued. Factor Analysis on the Working with Families Self Efficacy Scales .40 or higher determination 6. Motivate parents to make t he changes they would like to in functioning better as a family. .753 7. Assi st parents in improving how they parent. .689 8. Offer parents opportunities to participate in their childs development and learning. .664 9. Design school events in which parents can actively participate with their child to develop the child's l earning. .728 10. Schedule school events so parents are active participants. .708 11. Invite parents to express their perspective as key decision makers in their childs development. .629 12. Intervene to help when a family is in crisis. .473 1 3. Assist a family in accessing needed services in the community. .646

PAGE 141

141 Table 4 41. Cronbach Alpha scores on Family School Communication, Family Diversity and Teacher Role with Families Item Mean Range Cronbach Alpha Low High Family School Comm unication ( 9 ) 87.025 79.431 91.727 .899 Family Diversity (9) 84.083 77.723 88.387 .930 Teacher Role with Families (13) 79.337 64.118 88.178 .923

PAGE 142

142 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to facilitate the development of the Working with Fami lies Self Efficacy Scales (WFSES) a measure developed to assess the level of confidence of teachers working with and building relationships with the families of their students. The items in the instrument depicted particular practices in which a teacher m ight engage in interacting with the families of his/her students Although promising, the WFSES lacked an empirical basis for its theoretical constructs and psychometric properties. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the psychometric pro perties (including factor structure) of the WFSES. Presented in this chapter is the development of the WFSES, and a discussion of the results, implications and recommendations that evolved from the research. Development of the WFSES In developing the WF SES for this study, the content and format of existing instruments were reviewed by the researcher. One of the earliest teacher efficacy studies was conducted by the RAND organization (Armor et al., 1976). This study used a twoitem teacher efficacy measure and item with ideas about families examples include: (a) When it comes right down to it, a teacher really cannot do much because most of a student's motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment and (b) If I try really hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students. In the Morris and Taylor (1998) study of Teacher Self Efficacy, preservice teachers responded to questions How comfortable do you feel about your ability to encourage parents to increase the ir involvement in the school activities of their children ? focusing on teacher school practices and teacher parent interactions, like conferences or volunteering (p. 225).

PAGE 143

143 One of the most well known and frequently used instruments is the Teacher Effic acy Scale (TES), originally designed by Gibson & Dembo in 1984, and composed of 22 questions. Hoy & Woolfok (1993) developed a shorter version Teacher Efficacy Scale Short form consisting of ten questions. Both instruments ranged from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree In both forms of these questionnaires a sample family item: The amount a student can learn is primarily related to family background. Items were based on a full range of teacher beliefs. Kevin Kieffer (2000) described the development of his measure the Sources of Self Efficacy Inventory (SOSI), and construct validation of teacher efficacy about the teaching performance administered to 252 undergraduates in a psychology class The SOSI has 35 items with an answer key of items ranging from definitely not true for me to definitely true for me on a 1 7 Likert scale. Sample items include: I get excited when I do something right to help a child learn and My fears of making mistakes affect my ability to teach The Teachers Sense of Ef ficacy Scale (Tschannen Moran & Woolfolk, 2001) was developed researching three factors of Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies and Classroom Management utiliz ing a nine point response scale ranging from Nothing to A Great Deal assessing how much t he respondent felt they could perform a task using the lead in question of How much can you .. The TSES instrument would become a ground breaking instrument using the definition of self efficacy emphasizing r espondents beliefs in their ability that they can do a certain task. Elizabeth Graue developed a measure to assess the beliefs about homeschool relations of preservice teachers (Graue et al., 2003). The instrument is based on Epsteins Six Types of Involvement of school family partnerships. The survey has a total of 90 items. Question format: How do you anticipate working with parents and families in your teaching ? Open ended item questions enabled preservice teachers to speculate on the grade they hope to teach, to describe

PAGE 144

144 appropriate roles o f parents in education, biggest worries with families, and how they anticipated learning about working with parents. In Self Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, Alfred Bandura (2005) further modified his rating instrument for Self Efficacy with changes to hi s response choices with can do language exemplifying confidence of completing the task with a continuous response scale of 0 to 100 where 0 represented cannot do at all, 50 represented moderately can do and 100 represented highly certain can do. I tems include: How much can you do to get parents to become involved in school activities ? How much can you assist parents in helping their children do well in school ? and How much can you do to make parents feel comfortable coming to school ? Lamorey and Wilcox (2005) adapted the T eacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) to fit the ir research needs of Early Intervention Teachers with expanding roles and demands on liaisons between home and school. Their modification item statements of their measure E ISES: Original TES statement: When a student does better than usual, many times it is because I exerted a little extra effort Their changes: When a family does better than expected, many times it is because I exerted a little extra effort The majority of item statements were family centered and strengthbased regarding early education interventionists and working with families. The scale measured dimensions similar to the original TES, personal teacher self efficacy and general teacher self efficacy. McNaughton et al. (2008) pre/post design studied active listening skills of preservice professionals. Active Listening skills are the methodical teaching of communication and listening skills taught in psychology and counseling. Sample items in the scale include: (1) Teachers are not very powerful influences in promoting the involvement of parents, (2) I am effective at providing enough opportunities for working parents to participate in

PAGE 145

145 school/classroom related activities, and (3) I do not have enough training to provide parents with suggestions on parenting and childrearing practices for the age and grade levels I teach. In developing t he Working with Families Self Efficacy Scales Bandura s response scale (2005) was chosen ranging from 0 to 100 where 0 represented teachers beliefs they cannot do at all the task 50 represented moderately can do the task and 100 represented highly certain can do the task. The directions for teachers read please indicate how certain you are that you can do eac h of the things described below by choosing the appropriate number and r ate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100. Respondents were asked to rate their self efficacy with working with families where they rated their confidence a nd capabilit y with family centered skill sets in complex situations working with families. Teachers were asked to respond to 27 family centered skills. Discussion of Results The WFSES was developed based upon multiple t heorist s ideas regarding the optim al roles and practices that teachers might demonstrate in building relationships with the families of their students. Based on these sources, the original instrument was conceptualized as three underlying practice domains represented as three subscales. T he factor analysis of teacher responses to the WFSES yielded three factors that closely corresponded to the original three practice domains: T he Family School Communication subscale was designed to assess how educators reported that they interacted with c aregivers in exchanging ideas and support even in the presence of conflicts, stressful situations, deadlines and tension. Understanding the difficulties in communication is not often discussed in the literature or with research measurements. This dissert ation research opened up the conversation of understanding the barriers in teacher communication by increasing awareness of conflicts and stressful situations around interacting

PAGE 146

146 with families. It was assumed that educators working in collaboration with st udents caregivers could experience differences in styles, agendas or opinions yet demonstrate skills in effective listening, negotiating, and respecting other parties in order to reach solutions. As such, this practice domain assessed how the respondent h andled positive communications, miscommunications, interactions and collaborations. The ideas of miscommunications and difficulties in learning the skills to interact with families are new aspects of teachers communication with families. In particular, i tems loading on this subscale included: Discuss with parents your ideas and observations about their child; Balance your opinion about what a child needs with that of a parent who has a different opinion about their child; Assist a parent to feel comfortable in talking with you about their concerns ; and Work out a compromise with a parent when you strongly disagree with them. Other skill sets include: Respond effectively to a parent who seems upset with you; Assist a parent who seems frustrated with their child ; Show a parent that you care about their child when they react like you do not like their child and Effectively resolve a conflict you have with a parent One item, Intervene to help when a family is in crisis which was originally hypothesized to be included in this subscale loaded more heavily on the Teacher Role with Families subscale. Another item Give parents specific information about what they can do to influence their children's learning and development loaded on both the Family School C ommunic ation and Teacher Role with Families subscales hence it was retained in the final instrument on both categories. The Family Diversity subscale assesses the educators ability to understand diverse socio cultural perspectives and experience comfort in interacting with persons from other cultures and socioeconomic backgrounds. Education professionals need to view parents and families as having strengths and contributing to all parts of the learning process while considering family

PAGE 147

147 barriers and challenges. T his requires educators to become aware of their own biases and attitudes about persons having alternate lifestyles, family structures, socioeconomic backgrounds who might hold differing beliefs about parenting, education and parent involvement. Item Commun icate with parents of differing social classes about how they can support their childrens development originally proposed on teacher family scales also loaded on the diversity factor In contrast, there w ere two items Involve parents who have limited resources and/or time in their child's learning and development and Understand the unique knowledge and strengths a child's family possess that were proposed to represent the diversity factor and also loaded on Teacher Role with Families factors. Hence t hese two items were retained for each factor Other i tems loading on the diversity factor are: Understand the difficult situations in which families may find themselves; Feel comfortable in working with families of different cultures and socioeconomic circumst ances ; Understand the particular constraints that may limit a family's involvement in their child's learning and daily activities ; Feel comfortable in working with nontraditional families such as: Gay/Lesbian families, Multigenerational families, Single Parent families, Adoptive/Foster families ; Provide a warm, inviting interaction with caregivers from different types of families ; and Understand how your view of children may differ from the parents' view of their children The Teacher Role with Families su bscale assesses teacher expectations as to the nature of professional relationships they expect to create with students caregivers and the types of activities they expect to engage in with families. It was assumed that educators would demonstrate a variet y of ways of engaging families in their childs schooling. The item Give parents specific information about what they can do to influence their chil dren's learning and development was proposed on the Teacher Role with Families construct and also loaded on the Family School Communication self efficacy scales. As with the item Communicate with parents

PAGE 148

148 of differing social classes about how they can support their childrens development proposed on Teacher Role with Families factors also loaded on the Family Diversity factor There were two items Involve parents who have limited resources and/or time in their child's learning and development and Understand the unique knowledge and strengths a child's family possess were proposed for the diversity subscale that also loaded on Teacher Role with Families self efficacy scales. Hence these two items were retained for each factor As a result t he following items were proposed on the Teacher Role with Families self efficacy scales and load on this factor : Create oppor tunities to develop positive, trusting relationships with each childs parents/caregivers; Motivate parents to make the changes they would like to in functioning better as a family; Assist parents in improving how they parent; Offer parents opportunities t o participate in their c hilds development and learning; Design school events in which parents can actively participate with their child t o develop the child's learning; Schedule school events so p arents are active participants; Invite parents to express t heir perspective as key decision makers in their childs development; Intervene to help when a family is in crisis; and Assist a family in accessing needed services in the community. Although not surprising, the four items demonstrating the greatest res ponse variation (largest standard deviation) in self efficacy among this sample of teachers were: Assist parents in improving how they parent and Assist a family in accessing needed services in the community. Somewhat surprising was the large response var iation in self efficacy to the items: Schedule school events so parents are active participants and Design school events in which parents can actively participate with their child to develop the child's learning The first two items are often considered t o be outside of the realm of t eacher responsibilities, but the last two items are important strategies that teachers might implement As for teacher self efficacy with working with families, teachers rated mean averages of 69.43% for Motivate parents to m ake the changes

PAGE 149

149 they would like to in functioning better as a family and 64.12% Assist parents in improving how they parent. Often teachers are looking for students families to support or supervise students completing school projects or supervising schoo lwork One important learning opportunity exists in having the teacher discuss with caregivers working outside the home how to assist their children in tackling these difficult tasks. Other areas of teacher assistance to families in parenting fall in the lines of encouragement, redirection, and discipline. As a familyschool team, collaboratively the team can work to strategize on what is working in school or home for the child. With the ongoing conversation, the team can discuss how the family can continu e to work together positively. For instance, often when a child comes from a divorced family and spends time in two different households of their divorces parents, there can be difficulties in the transfer of information from school, development of simila r disciplinary rules and even the location of the school backpack. One possible strategy is for teachers to assist the family in developing procedures for school communication with both households. For 20 of the items on the WFSES t eachers responses demonstrated considerable certainty that they could perform skills There were only a few respondents who indicated low levels of self efficacy of having 0 to 31% confidence in their capability to perform these described skills working with families: Discuss with parents your ideas and observations about their child (1 teacher), Balance your opinions about what a child needs with a parent who has a different opinion than you (7), Work out a compromise with a parent when you strongly disagree with them (9), R espond effectively to a parent who seems upset with you (10). Effectively resolve a conflict you have with a parent (5), Intervene to help when a family is in crisis (22), Assist a family in accessing needed services in the community (29), Feel comfortable in working with families of different cultures and socioeconomic circumstances (1), Involve parents who have limited resources and/or time in their child's learning and development (7), Understand the

PAGE 150

150 unique knowledge and strengths a child's family posses s (4), Feel comfortable in working with nontraditional families such as: Gay/Lesbian families, Single Parent families, Multigenerational families, Adoptive/Foster families (2), Give parents specific information about what they can do to influence their chi ldren's learning and development (2), Create opportunities to develop positive, trusting relationships with each childs parents/caregivers (1), Communicate with parents of differing social classes about how they can support their childrens development (1 ), Motivate parents to make the changes they would like to in functioning better as a family (28), Assist parents in improving how they parent (54), Offer parents opportunities to participate in their childs development and learning (6), Design school eve nts in which parents can actively participate with their child to develop the child's learning (23), Schedule school events so parents are active participants (17), Invite parents to express their perspective as key decision makers in their childs develop ment (9). On the other hand, there were 15 items on the WFSES in which a number of teachers rated themselves as having 0% confidence in their capability to perform these described skills working with families. There were a varying number of teachers who i ndicated they could not perform the tasks described in the following items: Intervene to help when a family is in crisis (4 teachers), Assist a family in accessing needed services in the community (7), Feel comfortable in working with families of different cultures and socioeconomic circumstances (1), Feel comfortable in working with nontraditional families such as: Gay/Lesbian families, Single Parent families, Multigenerational families, Adoptive/Foster families (1), Motivate parents to make the changes th ey would like to in functioning better as a family (5), Assist parents in improving how they parent (10), Offer parents opportunities to participate in their childs development and learning (1), Design school events in which parents can actively participa te with their child to develop the child's learning (3), and Schedule school events so parents are

PAGE 151

151 active participants (6). This is a good indication of the further necessity of family centered skills training for preservice and current teachers. Teachers rating 0 to 31% confidence in their capability to perform these described skills working with families. Limitations The study sample was comprised of 527 elementary school teachers in the United States working in grades pre k indergarten through 6th gra de. The study sample was drawn from teachers who volunteered to participate in this study from a request via an email. One potential limitation to this sample was the possible lack of representativeness of the sample of teachers who chose to participate in the study. Due to the voluntary nature of the participant pool the extent to which the findings are generalizable to a broader teacher population is questionable. Also, the method of enlisting the assistance of Department heads at universities to provid e names and email addresses to their teacher education alumni might have resulted in a n unrepresentative sample wherein department heads selected only certain alumni for the researcher contact. In addition, the delivery of the study questionnaire exclusive ly through computer contact, automatically excluded from the potential sample all teachers who did not have access to a computer. Some emails were nonfunctioning and others were directed to the incorrect representatives. Several administrators discussed th eir limitations in forwarding the study to request participations. Also t eachers may have experienced some difficulties with accessing surveymonkey.com on a computer with firewalls T he demographic questionnaire was designed to differentiate among teach ers in terms of the socioeconomic level of their community and school. However some older teachers may have different perceptions of how they might characterize their community economic level they were raised. An income of a family of $50,000 may be interpreted by teachers differently than teachers in their twenties today as compared to an income bracket. As defined in the community

PAGE 152

152 for income, some differences in how a 60 year old teacher might perceive the economic level of their childhood communities ma y need further review. It is important to u nderstand the demographic sample as representative from the responses of teachers. As well, teachers working in lower socio economic environments as compared to where they were raised or currently working in suburban areas. It is important to l inking research to contextual differences in confidence in skills depending on their student population they work with. A second limitation concerns the self report nature of the response format. Historically, it has been well documented that self reports are subject to social desirability influences. Respondents may have wanted to look good and thus shaped their answers to appear that way. A third limitation concerns the conceptualization of the scales. Items were deve loped according to existing literature and best practice. However, they may not be representative of the entire array of practices teachers need to work effectively with parents. Finally, due to the self selection process used in this study, teachers responding and completing the survey may represent a sample of teachers who are more confident in their abilities and skills in working with parents and thus may demonstrate a high level of self efficacy due to their interests in responding to this specific survey. Bandura (2005) posited that items may some times be too specific to effectively demonstrating the construct of s elf e fficacy However, items may be too general. To establish content validity, the researcher solicited feedback from three teacher ed ucation faculty members currently involved in teaching courses on family involvement to teacher education students. Each reviewer was given a working definition of the three constructs and questions were listed randomly. To determine how well each item f it into its assigned (construct) category, the reviewers were asked to sort each of the items into one of the three construct categories, and to provide feedback regarding the content and relevance of the item. A final limitation of this

PAGE 153

153 instrument is the i nterpretation by the participant of the meaning of terms in an item. For example in the item s Provide a warm, inviting interaction with caregivers from different types of families does the warm, inviting interaction have a universal understanding? Wo uld teachers agree as to what is meant by warm, inviting interaction as how it might be provide d to different types of families? As such in the item Respond effectively to a parent who seems upset with you does effectively have a universal understand ing and agreed upon response(s) so that the parent feels both heard and supported? Further refinement of items within each practice domain may be necessary so as to fully understand, learn and teach the fundamental strengths of building relationships with students families. The logical next step for this instrument furthering this doctoral research, a panel should evaluate the skill set items as it appears under each construct. It is recommended that the original three person expert panel who reviewed th e building and defining of each of the proposed constructs Family Diversity, Family School Communication and Teacher Role with Families revisit this instrument for content validity. This instrument should undergo professional scrutiny with the expert pa nel to review each item question as it appears in each domain. In their review, the panel should evaluate whether each item retained the spirit of the item intended under each domain. The panel of experts can also review omitted skills removed to form the final 27 items. The expert panel can review the wording of skill set items for specifics around the meaning of the item and/or improving the way the item is worded. In addition, reviewer can observe whether the item best fits a teacher self efficacy by demonstrating teachers beliefs of their capabilities to perform the skills. Implications The creation of the instrument and analyses of the WFSES statistics generated in this study yield implications for theorists of Teacher Self Efficacy, teachers in volved in f amily c entered practices and researchers who study Teacher Self Efficacy working with Families.

PAGE 154

154 This research generated teachers responses to skill set items some expected while others surprising. The confirming items further created support for implications to the theory practice and more research Implications for Theory Most of the research on family school involvement has examined either the nature of parents roles in working with schools or the possible student outcomes resulting fr om their involvement. H owever a new body of literature is emerging describing optimal practices in which teachers might engage families. Although there is a growing body of literature describing the types of practices in which teachers should engage, only recently have teacher preparation programs recognized the need to help teachers develop their skills in working with families. This study sought to identify specific skills and practices that teachers use during interactions with families. The conceptual development of the Working with Families Self E fficacy Scales (WFSES) was influenced by (1) Alfred Banduras social learning theory and self efficacy theory, (2) Joyce Epsteins theory of family school involvement, and (3) Family Systems Theory linking fa mily needs and interests, system interaction and building supportive relationships. The identification of particular teacher practices with families that evolved from these theories were organized into three domains: (a) f amily diversity, (b) teacher r ole with families and (c) family teacher c ommunication. Self Efficacy measurement sets out to measure the belief in performing a certain task. Although this instrument is not focusing on teacher specific application of these skills, the outcome expectancy is relevant in todays understanding of the skills. Implications for Practice The Working with Families S elf Efficacy Scales (WFSES) was developed to assess the level of confidence of educators in building working relationships with the families of their

PAGE 155

155 students. Teachers frequently work with families in the schools regarding a variety of settings and interactions. Some teacher interactions are more traditional as in the back to school nights volunteering or parent teacher conferences other interactio ns may be interactions with parents as leaders, advocates for their children or understanding the Individual Education Planning (IEP) process. A large amount of the research is available on the parents perspective on interacting with the school and barrie rs to becoming involved. Little research has been conducted from the teachers standpoint on teacher practices, confidence and comfort level on working with families in the schools. The WFSES has the potential to assist teachers and administrators in d eveloping individual self growth and workshops on working with families practices. This instrument can be used to help understand the difficulties and strengths in working with families. Understanding teachers confidence in working with families can lead to understanding teacher comfort levels and practices with involving families in activities and interactions. Core curriculums can be developed to strengthen skills around understanding family diversity, familyschool communication and teacher roles with working with families. There is a need in understanding the level of comfort and proficiency in how teachers communicate, work with diverse populations/situations and build teacher family relationships contributing to how teachers involve families. Th e WFSES has implications for educators besides professionals in the schools. The WFSES fills a need in the study of teachers self efficacy beliefs and can be useful for many practice oriented applications. For instance, the WFSES, in its present format, can assess the self efficacy beliefs of teachers as they work with the caregivers of students whom they currently teach. Educators need to understand the confidences of their students when working with families. Understanding the key constructs of this study, teachers in training and teachers in the

PAGE 156

156 field can develop their skil ls in working with families, beliefs and practices contributing to family centered training. Implications for Research The development of Teacher Self Efficacy in research has b lossomed into an explosion of new instruments. With a standard definition of Teacher Self Efficacy and how instruments can measure teachers beliefs in their capabilities to perform certain tasks, the further development of specialized instruments leads i nto the future. This research set out to compare beginning measurements of Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Self Efficacy with their creation of instruments and research studies. T h e WFSES lines up with other measurements in the field in practices and skills of teachers. This measurement created under this doctoral research focused on the development of a measure specific in nature measur ing specific skill sets of teachers working with families. In comparison with other measures within completed research, the WFSES is the only instrument that measures teachers beliefs in their capabilities to work with families of their students. In that respect, the WFSES creation and study has begun a new path to straighten this existing measurement and possibly opening up for other measurements of this focus. In addition, although this measure specifically research ed teachers self efficacy with working with families, the WFSES can transfer to multiple other respective fields of medical, counseling, social services, admini strative fields that interact with children and families in the workplace. Research has found several key beliefs and practices that appear to contribute to the development of effective family involvement practices. Over the last decades, there has been a shift in family teacher role expectations toward collaboration and a commitment to developing a relationship with students families Research has only begun to understand effective communication and conflict resolution, active efforts to reach out a nd involve families in their

PAGE 157

157 childrens learning and development, and appreciating of diverse family backgrounds and beliefs. Over the span of decades, research has linked the academic success of students with parental involvement. This measurement is needed to further understand teachers account s of their skills working with families. Measurements understanding the relationship between teachers beliefs in their skills, teachers comfort level and teachers practices with working with families are needed to be explored. Researchers have few methods for assessing the impact of teacher preparation efforts with impacting teaching practice with families in the schools. Limited research has been conducted on teacher capabilities in implementing family centered practices. A valid, reliable and appropriate assessment tool is crucial for teacher educators so that they can more effectively assess skills, relationship building, and continued training of teachers. Academic research has only begun to review teach er preparation training efforts on effectively impacting the ways we think about teacher development and family interventions in the schools. There is a limited consensus on how teachers should be trained in working with families and raising self efficacy toward family interactions. There is a limited consensus on teacher practices with working with families in schools. The WFSES fills a need in the study of teachers self efficacy beliefs and can be useful for many practice oriented applications. For instance, the WFSES, in its present format, can assess the self efficacy beliefs of teachers as they work with the caregivers of students whom they currently teach. These assessments could be useful in profiling individual teachers or teacher groups (e.g. gr ade level work groups or specialized teacher groups such as special education teachers or ESOL teachers), assessing needs of teachers, and for developing targeted professional development experiences about working with students families. The WFSES could a lso be used t o evaluate the impact of professional development experiences or preserv i ce

PAGE 158

158 training experiences designed to influence teachers beliefs about their ability and their subsequent behaviors interacting with students caregivers. Recommendation s for Future Research This study was undertaken to design a measure to assess teachers self efficacy beliefs about working with the families of their students. The resulting measure provides a model for creating additional items or areas of teacher inter action with families that might be useful to a practitioner such as principal or school administrator. Previous research has found several key beliefs and practices that appear to contribute to the development of effective family involvement practices. The se are: (a) a shift in family teacher role expectations toward collaboration, (b) a commitment to developing a relationship with students families, (c) effective communication and conflict resolution, (d) active efforts to reach out and involve families in their childrens learning and development, and (e) appreciati on of diverse family backgrounds and beliefs. For example, this domain of items might be expanded to develop measures of a teaching facultys view of their collective self efficacy in school wi de efforts to develop a particular school wide climate characterized by collaborative relationships with the families of their students or with community members. Self Efficacy looks at confidence in ability to perform certain tasks. Further research looking at a teachers level of confidence in correlation with their level of comfort performing the task and in turn their ability to carry out the task is needed in the future. The WFSES could be refined through continued use in future research. Specifical ly, research that extends what is known about how teachers self efficacy beliefs about working with families are structured, how these beliefs impact teachers behaviors with caregivers and with students, how these relationships impact student achievement and how outcome expectations play a part in this relationship. There is a need to know whether teacher self -

PAGE 159

159 efficacy beliefs are strong predictors of teacher behaviors, of parent behaviors, of student achievement of student school bonding, or of other relevant outcomes. The WFSES could also be used to evaluate the impact of professional development experiences or preservice training experiences designed to influence teachers beliefs about their ability and their subsequent behaviors interacting with s tudents caregivers. The demographic research compiled in this study with the WFSES can be further analyzed using Multiple Regression analysis to look at the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. As well, a qualitative research study can be performed to further review the open ended questions offered optionally to participants at the end of the demographic survey. Questions included: Describe the extent of support you receive from your school administration?, What do you find mos t satisfying about your work with students' families?, What do you find least satisfying about your work with students' families?, and What have we not asked you about working with students' families that it would be helpful for us to know? In quick revie w, one teacher from a n urban, lower socioeconomic Virginian school working as a 1st grade teacher writes: I work in a Title 1 school and we get lots of support from Title 1 to involve parents. There is a program called Partners in Print that is designed to invite parents to come after school to learn how to read and write with their child at home. They come with their child and the child receives a free book to bring home. We usually offer a session in English and a session in Spanish all taught by teachers on our grade level. The lessons are all prepared by Title 1 so there is very little additional prep. We do this about 2 3 times per year. We also send home folders every week with communication to parents and a place for parents to write back. These are sent home in English and if needed in Spanish. I have a partner teacher that will translate for me when it's beyond my Spanish ability! We have 2 full time school counselors that are wonderful and supportive and a great help working with our families. You r question asking if I am a parent is a good one. I felt much more confident working with parents after having my own kids (19 and 16 years ago). Future studies could examine the performance of weak items of the WFSES, explore relationships with other meas ures of teacher parent involvement, and investigate whether

PAGE 160

160 teachers with high levels of self efficacy beliefs on particular WFSES subscales are more successful with diverse groups of students caregivers in different contexts. Confirmatory factor analys is should be used in future studies using the WFSES to confirm the alignment of the factor component structure of scores generated from this measure in this study. Additionally, it is important to investigate whether teachers in other contexts besides pre kindergarten 6th grade in elementary schools (e.g middle schools, high schools, special education classrooms) respond in a similar way to rate their confidence. Summary Although the constructs of teacher efficacy and teacher self efficacy beliefs have been around for several decades, only recently have efforts been made to assess the specialized knowledge and practice teachers need to work with the families of their students. The WFSES measures teachers self efficacy beliefs related to specific practi ces for working with the families of their students. In this research, Teacher Self Efficacy working with Families is the teachers beliefs about their capabilities of interacting with families of their students; in particular their ability to communicate and capability of interacting in sociocultural, diverse and connected roles with families. The results of this study confirm the proposed factor component structure of this measure and suggest that the three factors (a) family diversity, (b) t eacher r ol e with families and (c) family teacher c ommunication comprising the WFSES are important aspects of a teachers functioning with students caregivers.

PAGE 161

161 A PPENDIX A LETTER TO DISTRICT A DMINISTRATORS AND SUPERINTENDENTS Principal Investigator : Erika S. Holl ander, Doctoral Student University of Florida Department of Counselor Education Post Office Box 117046 Gainesville, Florida 326117046 Phone: (352) 392 0731 Faculty Supervisor : Dr. Ellen Amatea, Ph.D. July 2009 Dear Education Leader, Good day. I a m a doctoral student in Counselor Education from the University of Florida. I am interested in understanding teacher s assessment of their abilities to work with the families of their students. For my doctoral dissertation I have created a measure to assess teacher confidence and competence in working with families. I am writing to ask your assistance in circulating a questionnaire to the teachers in your school district. A brief paragraph below describes the research to be forward to staff: INFORMATI ON: I am a doctoral student from the University of Florida. I am writing asking for you to participate in a research study. The purpose of this study is to explore how teachers assess their skills in working with the families of their students. If you volunteer for this study you will be asked to fill out demographic data on yourself (age, gender, ethnicity level of work experience, level of education training and instruction in family involving techniques courses / trainings.) You will also be asked to r espond to questions about your ability to accomplish certain skills. You will not be asked to identify yourself by name nor by school or community. Staff should follow this link to the survey Working with Families Self E fficacy research at www.WFSES.com review the informed consent, and complete a 27 question survey and 14 demographic questions. The questionnaire will take approximately 7 10 minutes. Thank you for your time and consideration of this letter, ~ Erika Erika Hollander, LPC

PAGE 162

162 A PPENDIX B INFORMED CONSENT LET TER Survey takes 7 10 minutes wit h 27 questions. Demographics page has 13 questions. TITLE OF STUDY : Assessing Teacher Confidence and Capabilities in Communication, Diversity, and Collabor ative Relationships with Families Development of the Measure WFSES: Working with Families Self Efficacy Scales Principal Investigator : Erika S. Hollander Doctoral Student Faculty Supervisor : Dr. Ellen Amatea, Ph.D. University of Florida, Counselor E ducation (352) 273 4322 INFORMATION: We are asking you to participate in a research study. The purpose of this study is to explore how teachers assess their skills working with students families. If you volunteer for this study you will be asked to fi ll out demographic data on yourself (age, gender, ethnicity, level of work experience, level of education training and instruction in family involving techniques.) You will be asked to respond to questions about your ability to accomplish certain skills. CONFIDENTIALITY: You are not asked to identify yourself by name in this study. Participants interested in the dinner gift certificate raffle only will be asked to provide their name and address so winnings can be mailed. Participation in this raffle is vo luntary. Surveys are for educational university research only. BENEFITS: The benefit of this study is to help teachers have a better understanding of their skills in building relationships with families of students. The possible risks to your participati ng in this study are a slight possibility of emotional discomfort (if any) to responding to the questions. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you may choose to stop or not respond at any time. There is no compensation or direct be nefits for your participation in this study. All volunteering participants in the lottery raffle will have a chance to win a gift certificate to a restaurant. There will be 20 raffle winners. There are no foreseen risks to participation in this study. Loc al resources for counseling if needed are the Crisis Center (352) 334 0888 and University of Florida Counseling Center (352) 392 1575. For out of the area counseling services, please contact your local community counseling center. If you have any quest ions or concerns about your rights, contact the UF IRB office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250. AUTHORIZATION FOR PARTICIPATION: I have read the above and understand the nature of this study and agree to participate. I under stand that by agreeing to participate in this study I have not waived any legal or human rights. I also understand that I have the right to refuse to participate and that my right to withdraw from participation at any time during this study will be respect ed with no coercion or prejudice. I have received a copy of this description via email. Press next page if you agree to the terms and would like to continue...

PAGE 163

163 APPENDIX C WORKING WITH FAMILIE S SELF EFFICACY SCALES This q uestionnaire is designed to help gain a better understanding of professionals' confidence and capabilities with skill sets in complex situations working with families. Please indicate how certain you are that you can do each of the things described below by choosing the appropriate number. Some skills are classified under more than one category; rating the same number across the whole row. For an overall proficiency in a category add column numbers and divide by the number of questions. Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using the scale below: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Cannot do at all Moderately C an do Highly certain can do Working with Families Self Efficacy Scales Working with Family Skills Family School Communication Efficacy Family Diversity Efficacy Teacher Role with Families Efficacy Discuss with parents your ideas and observations with their child. 1. _____ Assist a parent to feel comfortable in talking with you about their concerns. 2. _____ Balance your opinions about what a child needs with a parent who has a different opinion than you. 3. _____ Work out a compromise with a parent when you strongly disagree with them. 4. _____ Respond effectively to a parent who seems upset with you. 5. _____ Assist a parent who seems frustrated with their child. 6. _____ Show a parent that you care about their child when they react like you do not like their child. 7. _____ Effectively resolve a conflict you have with a parent. 8. _____ Give parents specific information about what they can do to influence their children's learning and development. 9. _____ 1. _____ Communicate with parents of differing social classes about how they can support their childrens deve lopment. 1. _____ 2. _____ Understand the difficult situations in which families may find themselves. 2. _____ Feel comfortable in working with families of different cultures and socioeconomic circumstances. 3. _____

PAGE 164

164 Working with Familie s Self Efficacy Scales page 2 Understand the particular constraints that may limit a family's involvement in their child's learning and daily activities. 4. _____ Feel comfortable in working with nontraditional families such as: Gay/Lesbian families, Multigenerational families, Single Parent families, Adoptive/Foster families. 5. _____ Provide a warm, inviting interaction with caregivers from different types of families. 6. _____ Understand how your view of children may differ from the parent s' view of their children. 7. _____ Involve parents who have limited resources and/or time in their child's learning and development. 8. _____ 3. _____ Understand the unique knowledge and strengths a child's family possess. 9. _____ 4. _____ Create opportunities to develop positive, trusting relationships with each childs parents/caregivers. 5. _____ Motivate parents to make the changes they would like to in functioning better as a family. 6. _____ Assist parents in improving how they parent. 7. _____ Offer parents opportunities to participate in their childs development and learning. 8. _____ Design school events in which parents can actively participate with their child to develop the child's learning. 9. _____ Schedule school events so parents are active participants. 10. _____ Invite parents to express their perspective as key decision makers in their childs development. 11. _____ Intervene to help when a family is in crisis. 12. _____ Assist a family in accessing needed services in the community. 13. _____ Family School Communication Efficacy Family Diversity Efficacy Teacher Role with Families Efficacy

PAGE 165

165 Working with Families Self Efficacy Scales page 3 The Worki ng with Families Self Efficacy Scales rating contains five categories: Low Self Efficacy, Fair Self Efficacy, Moderate Self Efficacy, High Self Efficacy and Proficiency Self Efficacy working with families. See chart below: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 0 0 31% Low Self Efficacy 32 52 % Fair Self Efficacy 53 73 % Moderate Self Efficacy 74 94 % High Self Efficacy 9 5 100 % Proficient Self Efficacy Cannot do at all Moderately C an do Highly certain can do

PAGE 166

166 APPENDIX D DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Please choose an answer below for each question by choosing the appropriate answer that best describes you. 4) Please identify YOUR age: a) 21 25 b) 26 30 c) 31 35 d) 36 40 e) 41 45 f) 46 50 g) 51 60 h) 61 65 i) 65 70 j) 71 up 5) Please identify YOUR gender: a) Female b) Male 6) Please identify YOUR ethnicity : a) Asian b) African American c) Hispanic d) Caucasian e) Native American f) Bi Racial g) Other Race not listed 7) Are you a parent/guardian/caregiver of a child: a) Yes b) No 8) Please identify your current Track as a Teacher: ~ Choose the answer that best fits your current teaching situation ~ a) Pre K to Kindergarten Regular Education b) 1st to 2nd grade Regular Education c) 3rd to 4th grade Regular Education d) 5th to 6th grade Regular Education e) Pre K to Kindergarten Special Education f) 1st to 2nd grade Special Education g) 3rd to 4th grade Special Education h) 5th to 6th grade Special Education 9) Please identify your current LEVEL of YOUR work experience as a Teacher: a) 0 2 years b) 24 c) 5 7 d) 810 e) 1113 f) 14 16 g) 17 19 h) 20 22 i) 23 25 j) 26 28 k) 2931 l) 32 34 m) 35 up

PAGE 167

167 WFSES Demographic Information page 2 10. In this question identify the answer that best fits your situation, the definitions include : Geographic Area a. An urban area is a place that has a total population greater than 100,000 people. b. A suburban area is a place that has a total population of 100,000 people or less with a population density of 500 people or more per square mile. c. A rural area is a defined as having a population density less tha n 500 people per square mile. Economic Community a. A lower income community is one in which most residents have an income at or below the poverty level. For example, a family of four having an income of $22,000 would be considere d at the poverty level. b. A middle income community is one in which most residents have an income range from $25,000 to $150,000. There are obviously a wide range of income levels in these communities. c. Similarly, upper income co mmunity is one in which most residents have a family income ranging from $160,000 or above. a.) Please identify the COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT you were r eared in and identify t he state: a) Rural Lower Income b) Rural Middle Income c) Rural Upp er Income d) Suburban Lower Income e) Suburban Middle Income f) Suburban Upper Income g) Urban Lower Income h) Urban Middle Income i) Urban Upper Income b.) Please identify the COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT you work in and identify your state: a ) Rural Lower Income b) Rural Middle Income c) Rural Upper Income d) Suburban Lower Income e) Suburban Middle Income f) Suburban Upper Income g) Urban Lower Income h) Urban Middle Income i) Urban Upper Income 11) Please identify your current LEVEL of YOUR education: a) Associates b) Bachelor c) Master d) Master + 20 e) Post Master f) PhD

PAGE 168

168 W FSES Demographic Information page 3 12) Please identify the extent of INSTRUCTION you have in family interaction practices : a) no in service training or course b) part of a course c) 1 in service training or course d) 2 or more of either e) 3 or more of either 13) Please identify your overall nature of interaction with your students families : a) extremely n egative, b) negative, c) somewhat negative d) neutral e) somewhat negative f) negative g) extremely negative 14) Please identify the amount of support you receive from your school administration towards your working with families as a teacher (optiona l): School Support: a) none b) little c) some d) moderate e) a great deal 15) Describe the extent of support you receive from your school administration? (optional) 16) What do you find most satisfying about your work with students' families? (optional ) 17) What do you find least satisfying about your work with students' families? (optional) 18) What have we not asked you about working with students' families that it would be helpful for us to know? (optional) 19) Respondents interested in the RAFFLE for GIFT CERTIFICATES to community restaurants, can submit their name and address for the random drawing. Surveys must be received by April 30, 2010 to be eligible for raffle Specific research surveys are confidential and will not be linked to the winner or nonwinner in any capacity. Research study for educational use only. (No answer necessary for participants who do not want to be in the raffle.) Please include your NAME and ADDRESS so the gift certificate can be mailed to the winners.

PAGE 169

169 REFERENCES Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 8695. Alreck, P.L. & Settle, R.B. (1995). The Survey Research Handbook (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill. Amatea, E. (1991). Brief strategic interventions for school behavior problems. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Amatea, E. (2009). Building culturally responsive family sch ool relationships Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Amatea, E., and Fabrick, F. (1981). Family systems counseling: A position alternative to traditional counseling. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 15 228236. Amatea, E., and Sherrard, P. (1993). Inquiring into children's social worlds: A choice of Lenses. In Walsh, A, and Williams, G. (Eds). (1993) Schools and Family Therapy: Using systems theory and family therapy in the resolution of school problems. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher. Amatea, E., SmithAdcock, S., & Villares, E. (2006). From family deficit to family strengths: Viewing families' contributions to children's learning from a family resilience perspective. Professional School Counseling, 9, 77 189. Armor, D., ConryOseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., and Pascal, A. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading program in selected Los Angeles minority schools Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and E ducation, Vol. S: Self efficacy and adolescence (pp. 307 337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control N ew York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Bandura, A. (1977) Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191215. Baum, A. and Swick, K. (2008). Dispositions toward Families and Family Involvement: Supporting Preservice Te acher Development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(6), 579584.

PAGE 170

170 Begun, A.L. (1996). Family systems and familycentered care. In P. Rosin, A.D. Whitehead, L.I. Tuchman, G.S. Jesien, A.L. Begun, & L. Irwin (Eds.), Partnerships in family-centered care: A guide to collaborative early intervention ( p. 33-63). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Bingham, A and Abernathy, T. (2007). Promoting FamilyCentered Teaching: Can one Course Make a Difference? Issues in Teacher Education, 16(1), 3760, Ca spe, Margaret (2001). Family School Community Partnerships: A Compilation of Professional Standards of Practice. Harvard Family Research Project. Chen, C., Kyle, D., & McIntyre, E. (2008). Helping Teachers Work Effectively with English Language Learner s and Their Families. School Community Journal, 18(1), 7 20. Clark, M. and Stone, C. (2000). The Developmental School Counselor as Educational Leader. In J. Wittmer, (2000) Managing your School Counseling Program: K 12 Developmental Strategies ( pp. 75 81). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation. Clark, R.M. (1983). Family life and school achievement Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cloud, J. (1999). What can schools do? Time Magazine May 3, 1999. Colbert, R. (1996). The counselor's role in advancing school and family partnerships. School Counselor 44(2), 100104. Coffman, S. and Roark, A. (1992) A profile of adolescent anger in diverse family configurations and recommendations for intervention. School Counselor, 39(3), 211 216. Comer, J.P. (1984). Homeschool Relationships as they affect the academic success of children. Education and Urban Society, 16, 323 337. Connell, A., Dishion, T., Yasui, M., & Kavanagh, K. (2007). An adaptive approach to family intervention: Linking engagement in familycentered intervention to reductions in adolescent problem behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 568579. Connelly, L. (2010). Conflict management styles of a selected group of Pennsylvania superin tendents and their board presidents' perceptions of their conflict management styles. Dissertation, 1 153. Coy, D. and Sears, S. (2000) The Scope of Practice of the High School Counselor. In J. Wittmer, Managing your School Counseling Program: K 12 Developmental Strategies ( pp. 56 66). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation. Dedmond, R. (1998). Total quality leadership and school counseling. In J.M. Allen (Ed), School counseling: new perspectives and practices ( pp. 133137). Greensboro, NC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services.

PAGE 171

171 DeForest P. and Hughes, J. (1992). Effect of teacher involvement and teacher self efficacy on ratings of consultant effectiveness and intervention acceptability. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 3(4), 301316. Dellinger, A., Bobbett, J., Olivier, D. and Ellett, C. (2008) Measuring teachers self efficacy beliefs: Development and use of the TEBS SELF. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 751766. de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to Solutions in Brief Therapy New York: Norton. Dembo M.H. and Gibson, S. (1985) Teachers sense of efficacy: an important factor in school achievement. Elementary School Journal 86,173 184. Denham, C.H., and Michael, J.J. (1981). Teacher sense of efficacy: A definition for the construct and a model for further research. Educational Research Quarterly, 6(1), 3961. Downing, J., Pierce, K., and Woodruff, P. (1993). A Community Network for Helping Families School Counselor, 41( 2) 102 108. Drummond, J., Kysela, G. M., McDonald, L., Alexander, J., & Shank, M. S. (1996). Cooperative family learning Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta, Family and Child Resiliency Centre. Epstein, J. (1986). Parents reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86, 277294. Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement. In K. Hurrelmann, F. Kaufmann, & F. Losel (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints 121136. New York: DeGruyter. Epstein, J, and Hollifield, J. (1996). Title I and school family community partnership: Using research to realize the potential. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1 (3), 263279. Epstein, J. (1990). School and family connections: Theory, research and implications for integrating sociologies of education and family. Marriage and Family Review, 15(1 2), 99126. Epstein, J. and Dauber S (1991). School Programs and Teacher Practices of Parent Involvement in Inner city Elementary Schools. The Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 289 305. Epstein, J. and Sanders, M. (1999). Preparing Educators for School Family Community Partnerships Results of a National Survey of Colleges and Universities. Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, 34, 160.

PAGE 172

172 Epstein J. and Sanders, M. (2006). Prospects for Change: Preparing Educators for School, Family, and Community Pa rtnerships Peabody Journal of Education, 81 (2), 81120. Epstein, J., Coates, L., Salinas, K.C. Sanders, M.G. & Simon, B.S. (1997). School Family, and Community Partnerships. Your Handbook for Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Epstein, Joyce L (2005). Links in a Professional Development Chain: Preservice and Inservice Education for Effective Programs of School, Family, and Community Partnership. New Educator, 1(2), 125141. Epstein, J. L. and Sheldon, S. B. (2002) Present and accounted f or: Improving student attendance through family and community involvement. Journal of Educational Research, 95(5) 308318. Epstein, J. L., & Salinas, K. C. (2004). Partnering with families and communities. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 1217. Ev ans Schilling, D. (1996). Preparing educators for family involvement: Reflections, research and renewal. Forum of Education, 51(1), 35 46. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students academic achievement: A meta analysis. Educationa l Psychology Review, 13(1), 120. Ferrara, Margaret M. (2009). Broadening the Myopic Vision of Parent Involvement. School Community Journal, 19(2), 123142. Finders, M. and Lewis, C. (1994). Why some parents don't come to school. Educational Lead ership, 51, 5054. FESC Florida Education Standards Commission. (2010). Professional Competencies for t eachers of the Twenty First Century. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. Retrieved May 16, 2005 and January 28, 2010, Updated, on S ep tember 23, 2010 http://www.fldoe.org/dpe/publications/professional499.pdf Florida Statue (2010). 1002.23 Family and School Partnership for Student Achievement Act. Retrieved S eptember 2008, from http://www.fldoe.org/family/fspsa.asp. Updated on October 7, 2010. http://www.leg.s tate.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_ String=&URL=10001099/1002/Sections/1002.23.html FDOE Florida Department of Education. (2009) Data Source: DOE Staff Information Data Base 0809 fall survey data as of 3/5/09, p. 19. Re trieved from http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/word/tchdemo.doc

PAGE 173

173 Funkhouser, J., and Gonzales, M. (1997). Family Involvement in Children's Education: Successful Local Approaches. W ashington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Garcia, Delia (2004). Exploring Connections between the construct of Teacher Efficacy and Family Involvement Practices. Urban Education, 39(3), 290315. Gay L.R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Giallourakis, A., Pretti Frontczak, K., & Cook, B. (2005). Understanding family involvement in the preparat ion of graduate students: Measuring family centered beliefs, skills, systems, and practices. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project Gibson, S., and Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychol ogy, 76, 569582. Gibson, R., Mitchell, M. and Basile, S. (1993). Counseling in the Elementary School: A Comprehensive Approach. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Gonzalez, L. & Carter, K. (1996). Correspondence in cooperating teachers' and stude nt teachers' interpretations of classroom events. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 3947. Graue, E. and Brown, C. (2003). Preservice teachers notion of families and schooling. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 719 735. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Shahan, E., Ronfeldt, M., Digra, I., & Shiang, J. (2007). Preparing practitioners to respond to resistance: A cross professional view. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 13(2), 109123. Guskey, T. and Passaro, P. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 627643. Hampton, F. and Mumford, D. (1998). Parent Involvement in inner city schools: The project FAST extended family approach to success. Urban Education, 33(3), 410 427. Harrison, T. (2000). The School Counselor as Consultant/Coordinator. In J. Wittmer, Managing your School Counseling Program: K 12 Developmental Strategies ( pp. 183 203). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation. Henderson, A. (1987). The evidence continues to grow: Parent involvement improves student achievement. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education.

PAGE 174

174 Henderson, A., Marburger, C. and Ooms, T. (1986). Beyond the bake sale: An educators guide to working w ith parents. Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens in Education. HHS The 2009 HHS Poverty Guidelines. (2009). United States Health and Human Services. Washington, DC (retrieved September 2009 from http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.sht ml.) Hiatt Michael, Diana. (2006). Reflections and Directions on Research Related to Family Community Involvement in Schooling. School Community Journal, 16(1), 7 30. Hinkle, J. (1993). Training school counselors to do family therapy. Elementary Scho ol Guidance and Counseling, 27, 252257. Hoover Dempsey, K.V., Bassler, O.C., and Brissie, J.S. (1992). Explorations in parent school relations. Journal of Education Research, 85, 287294. Hoover Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Burrow, R. (1995). Parents reported involvement in students homework: Strategies and practices. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 435450. Hoover Dempsey, K.V., & Sandler, H.M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children's education? Review of Educati onal Research, 67, 342. Hoover Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins, A. S., & Closson, K. E. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. Elementary School Journal, 106(2 ) 105130 Hoover Dempsey, K.V., Walker, J.M.T., Jones, K.P., Reed, R.P. (2002). Teachers involving parents (TIP): results of an in service teacher education program for enhancing parental involvement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 843867. Hoy, W. K., and Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Organizational socialization of student teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 279300. Izzo, C.; Weissberg, R.; Kasprow, W.; and Fendrich, M. (1999). A Longitudinal Assessment of Teacher Percepti ons of Parent Involvement in Childrens Education and School Performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27 (6), 817839. Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievem ent: A meta analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82110. Johnson, B., McGonigel, M. and Kaufmann, R. (Eds.). Guidelines and recommended practices for the individualized family service plan. Chapel Hill, NC: National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System.

PAGE 175

175 Katz, L., & Bauch, J. (1999). The Peabody family involvement initiative. The School Community Journal, 9 (1), 4969. Keys, S. and Bemak, F. (1997). School Family Community Linked Services: A school counseling role for changing times. School Counselor, 44(4), 255263. Keys, S., Bemak, F. and Lockhart, E. (1998). Transforming school counseling to serve the mental health needs of at risk youth. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, 381388. Kieffer, K. and Henson, R. (2000). Devel opment and Validation of the Sources of Self Efficacy Inventory (SOSI): Exploring a New Measure of Teacher Efficacy Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education (New Orleans, LA, April 2527, 2000). Kra us, I. (1998). A fresh look at school counseling: A familysystems approach. Professional School Counseling, 1 (4), 1217. Lam, S. (2005). An Interdisciplinary Course to Prepare School Professionals to Collaborate with Families of Exceptional Children. Multicultural Education, 13(2), 3842. Lamorey S. and Wilcox, M. (2005). Early intervention practitioners' self efficacy: A measure and its applications. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20 (1), 6984. Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differenc es in Family School relationships: the Importance of Cultural Capitol. Sociology of Education, 60, 73 85. Lee, S. (1993). Family Structure Effects on Student Outcomes. In B. Schneider and J. Coleman. Parents, Their Children, and Schools ( pp 43 75). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Lewis, W. (1996). A proposal for initiating family counseling interventions by school counselors. School Counselor, 44( 2), 9399. Lott, B. (2001). Low income parents and the public schools. Journal of Social Issues, 5 7(2), 247259. MacPherson, L., McDonald, L., Drummond, J., Kysela, G., Watson, S. (2005). Issues in Developing an Internet Course for FamilyCentered Practice in Early Intervention. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin 33(1 2), 154 175. Mandell, C ., & Murray, M. (2009). Administrators' Understanding and Use of FamilyCentered Practices. Journal of Early Intervention, 32(1), 1737. Mandell, C.J. & Murray, M.M. (2005). Innovative familycentered practices in personnel preparation. Teacher Educat ion and Special Education, 28 (1), 7477.

PAGE 176

176 Mattingly, D.J., Prislin, R. McKenzie,T.L., Rodriguez, J.L. & Kayzar, B. (2002) Evaluating evaluations: The case of parent involvement programs. Review of Educational Research, 72(4), 549576. McAllisterSwap S. (1990). Parent involvement and success for all children: What we know now. Boston, MA: Institute for Responsive Education. McBride, B. (1991). Preservice teachers attitudes toward parental involvement. Teacher Education Quarterly, 18, 59 67. McBride, S. (1999). Familycentered practices. Young Children, 54, 6268. McCaleb, S. P. (1994). Building communities of learners: A collaboration among teachers, students, families, and community New York: St. Martins. McNaughton, D., Hamlin, D., M cCarthy, J., HeadReeves, D., & Schreiner, M. (2008). Learning to Listen: Teaching an Active Listening Strategy to Preservice Education Professionals. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27 (4), 22331. Melaville, A., Blank, M., and Aseyesh, G (1993). Together we can: A guide for crafting a profamily system of education and human services D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and Family Therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Morris, V. and Taylor S. (1998). Alleviating Barriers to Family Involvement in Education: The Role of Teacher Education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14( 2), 219 231. Morris, V. (1995). Parent Efficacy, Teacher Efficacy, and Parent Involvement in Professional Development Schools. Research Report for Frayser Elementary School. Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis, College of Education, Memphis, TN 38152. Mulholland, R. and Blecker, N. (2008). Parents and Special Educators: Pre Service Teachers Discussion Points. International Journal of Special Education, 23(1), 4853. Muller, C. and Kerbow, D. (1993). Parent Involvement in the Home, School, and Community. In B. Schneider and J. Coleman, Parents, Their Children, and Schools ( p p 13 41). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Murray, M. and Mandell, C. (2006). Onthe Job Practices of Early Childhood Special Education Providers Trained in Family Centered Practices. Journal of Early Intervention, 28 (2), 12538. NCES National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Characteristics of Full Time School Teachers. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved September 9, 2010 from http://nces. ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section4/table tsp 1.asp

PAGE 177

177 NEGP National Educational Goals Panel. (2007). History, 1989 Present Retrieved December 11, 2007, from http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ negp/page17.htm Nichols, M. and Schwartz, R. (1991). Family Therapy: Concepts and Methods ( 2nd ed. ) Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Peeks, B. (1993). Revolutions in counseling and education: A systems perspective in schools. Elementary S chool Guidance and Counseling, 27 245257. Plunge, M. (1998). The efficacy of self administered videotapes for increasing parent participation during individualized educational program meetings. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humani ties and Social Sciences, 59(5). Rafuls, S. (1996). Grounded Theory Methodology in Family Therapy Research. In Sprenkle, D. and Moon, S., Research Methods in Family Therap y (pp. 6482) New York: The Guilford Press Ross, J. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in Research on Teaching, ( 7, pp. 4974) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectations for internal versus external control of reinforcements Psychological Monographs 80, 128. Rupiper, M. and Marvin, C. (2004). Preparing Teachers for Family Centered Services: A Survey of Preservice Curriculum Content. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27 (4), 384395. Sanders, Mavis G. (1996). Building Family Partner ships that Last. Educational Leadership, 54(3 ), 6166. Samis, K, Allan J. and Echols, F. (1993). El ementary school counsellors' perceptions of their current and ideal role with parents and families. Canadian Journal of Counseling, 27 (4), 249262. S chneider, B. and Coleman, J. (1993). Parents, Their Children, and Schools Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Simpson, R.L. and Simpson, J.D. (1994). At risk and disabled students: Parent and family needs. Preventing School Failure, 39(1), 2125. Snyder, B. (2000). Managing an Elementary School Developmental Counseling Program: The Role of the Counselor. In J. Wittmer, Managing your School Counseling Program: K 12 Developmental Strategies ( pp. 35 47). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corpora tion.

PAGE 178

178 Snyder, B. (2000). School Counselors and Special Needs Students. In J. Wittmer, Managing your School Counseling Program: K 12 Developmental Strategies ( pp. 172 182). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation. Sprenkle, D. and Moon, S (1996). Research Methods in Family Therapy. New York: The Guilford Press. Staton, A.R., & Gilligan, T.D. (2003). Teaching school counselors and school psychologist to work collaboratively. Counselor Education and Supervision, 42, 162176. Sutterby, J., Rubin, R., and Abrego, M. (2007). Amistades: The Development of Relationships between Preservice Teachers and Latino Families. School Community Journal, 17(1), 7794. Swap, S. (1993). Developing Home School Partnerships New York: Teachers Col lege Press. Tschannen Moran, M., and Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783805. Turnbull, A. and Turnbull H. (2001). Families, Professionals, and Exceptionality : Collaborating for E mpowerment 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Villegas, Ana and Lucas, Tamara (2002). Preparing Culturally Responsive Teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20 32. Weiss, H. M., & Edwards, M. E. (1992). The famil yschool collaboration project: Systemic interventions for school improvement. In S. L. Christenson & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), Home school collaboration ( pp. 215243). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Wittmer, J. (2000). Managing your School Counseling Program: K 12 Developmental s trategies. Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation. Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational P sychology, 82, 8191. Woolfolk Hoy, Anita (2009). Banduras Teacher Efficacy Scale Retrieved September 9, 2009, from http://people.ehe.ohiostate.edu/ahoy/research/instruments/ Zygmunt Fillwalk, E. (2006). The difference a course can make: Preservice teachers' perceptions of efficacy in working with families. The Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 27(4), 327342.

PAGE 179

179 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Erika Hollander was born a nd raised in New Jersey. She is the daughter of Steven and Joan Hollander. She earned her Bachelor of Science degree in psychology from the Louisiana State University where she began her work in foster care and therapeutic arts for children who experienced abuse in their childhood. She enjoyed using play, music and art mediums to assist children in healing. She furthered her education with a Master of Education in counseling psychology with a specialization in elementary and secondary school guidance counse ling from Temple University. After graduation, she continued her learning working in an urban, lower socioeconomic elementary school where she was introduced to family therapy techniques leading her to the Philadelphia Child Guidance Center. With an intere st in learning ways the family contributes and supports child development, she pursued a Postmaster in Marriage and Family Counseling from the University of Florida and continued for her Doctor of Philosophy in Marriage and Family Counseling from the Unive rsity of Florida. She holds professional licenses from Florida and New Jersey. Sh e has focused much of her training and research around understanding child development her training settings include: shelter s for runaway and ungovernable youth among rural and suburban areas urban school guidance, foster care programs, prison for men incarcerated for substance abuse, family conflict, teacher family alliances, and in home counseling. Dr. Erika Hollander specializes in building familyschool collaborations, i ncreasing parent child communication, and reducing child hood stress. She enjoys spending time with her family and friends, community service, animals, painting, drawing, gardening, reading, snorkeling, laughing, learning and singing.