Need 20 page DISSERTATION DONE WITHIN24HRS.

List of Tables

[Use Word’s Table of Figures feature (using caption style = “table”) to create this section. Note that each table title needs to be created as a caption style format above the table. The List of Tables entries should mirror the APA format of table titles within the body of the paper. Consult the APA Manual to ensure that all tables and table titles conform to APA format. See the APA Manual, Chapter 5, for guidance and examples.] Example entries with formatting rules are included below.

Table 1 Title is Italicized using Upper- and Lower-case Font...........................................8

Table 2 Title........................................................................................................................9

Table n Title........................................................................................................................9

[Use Word’s Table of Figures feature (using caption style = “figure”) to create this section. Note that each figure caption needs to be created as a caption style format below the figure. The List of Figures entries should mirror the APA format of figure captions within the body of the paper. Consult the APA Manual to ensure that all tables and table titles, figures, and figure captions conform to APA format. See the APA Manual, Chapter 5, for guidance and examples.] Example entries with formatting rules are included below.

Figure 1. Title is in Normal Upper- and Lower-case Font................................................10

Figure 2. Title....................................................................................................................11

Figure n. Title....................................................................................................................12

133

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

H2a. Alternate hypothesis text

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here] The literature review should be approximately 40 to 80 pages—50 or more sources. Include literature search strategies.

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here] Replace “Theme or Subtopic” with an appropriate heading that describes the discussion to follow.

If additional subheadings are needed, please use this format per APA:

Level 3 heading. [Text . . .begins here]

Level 4 heading . [Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

Research question 1/hypothesis. [Text . . . begins here]

Research question 2/hypothesis. [Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

[Text . . . begins here]

Reference 1

Reference 2

Reference n

List all references in APA format (see Chapter 7) with the exception noted below. For each reference listed, there must be at least one corresponding citation within the body of the text, and vice-versa. Single space each reference using a .5” inch hanging indent; separate references with a single space. Sort by alpha surname or title (if a title is used in lieu of an author). Only capitalize the first word of a title and of a subtitle if a subtitle is included. Know when to italicize and when not to (i.e., periodical vs. non-periodical, publication vs. book, report, or paper). Italicize a journal title, the comma after the journal title, and the volume number (i.e., Journal Name, 4(2), 12–22.), but do not italicize the parentheses, issue number in parentheses, or the comma following the issue number. Please refer to the APA Manual (2010) and the Writing Center for additional APA guidance. Note that the sixth edition of the APA Manual (2010) requires a digital object identifier (doi) be provided, if one has been assigned (see pages 187–192).

[Each Appendix referenced in text should appear in this section at the end of the manuscript. Appendices should be listed in the order in which they are referenced in the text.]

[Insert/type Appendix A content here]

[Insert/type Appendix n content here]

Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Explain Parental Involvement of Immigrant and Refugee Populations in Head Start

Dissertation Proposal

Submitted to Northcentral University

Graduate Faculty of the School of Education

in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

by

Prescott Valley, Arizona

April 2017

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Statement of the Problem 4

Purpose of the Study 5

The Head Start and Early Head Start programs were created to help students become ready to enter school (DeLoatche, Bradley-Klug, Ogg, Kromrey, & Sundman-Wheat, 2015; Dove, Neuharth-Pritchett, Wright, & Wallinga, 2015). However, while these programs have generally shown positive results (DeLoatche et al., 2015), without parental involvement, these students are less ready to enter schooling when they come of elementary schoolage (Dove et al., 2015; Manz et al., 2014). Parental involvement is an important factor in helping to create successful early childhood education experiences (Garbacz et al., 2016; McCormick, Cappella, O'Connor, & McClowry, 2013; Smith, 2014). If parents are involved in preschool, then it bodes well for future involvement, academic success, and other positive outcomes for their children (Demircan & Erden, 2015). Nevertheless, immigrant and refugee families are of particular concern in Head Start and Early Head Start programs because getting these parents involved is a challenge for many reasons (Cheatham & Ostrosky, 2013; Demircan & Erden, 2015). Barriers to parental involvement include parents’ own preconcieved beliefs of involvement, their own current life circumtances, and their cultural beliefs (Manz, Gernhart, Bracaliello, Pressimone, & Eisenberg, 2014). A growing number of studies suggests a positive impact of parental involvement for toddlers is significant at the beginning of early schooling (McCormick, Cappella, O’Connor, & McClowry, 2013). However, identifying ways to increase parental involvement with immigrant/refugee families usually is not easy (DeLoatche et al., 2015; Porumbu & Necsoi, 2013; Pratt, Lipscomb, & Schmitt, 2015).

Attitudes and beliefs about the roles of parental involvement in education for immigrant or refugee parents may include that education is a teacher's responsibilities or that parents cannot make a positive difference in their children's education (Bracke & Corts, 2012; Cheatham & Ostrosky, 2013). Parental involvement in overall education relates to the beliefs of parents and whether they should or should not be involved in their children's education (Bracke & Corts, 2012). This knowledge serves as a role construction and is often shaped by a parent's personal experiences with schooling and personal perceptions (Bracke & Corts, 2012; Manz et al., 2014). If parents believe good parenting means that they should take an active role in their children's education, there is a greater likelihood they will play a decisive role in their children's education (Bracke & Corts, 2012). In the context of subjective norms about the roles of parents in education, parents may not be involved because they lack the examples of involvement or they may come from a culture in which parents were never expected to be involved (Bracke & Corts, 2012). These norms are a product of whether an individual believes other meaningful people approve or disapprove of a behavior and their motivation to comply with those people (Perry & Langley, 2013). Parental intentions are a direct function of the attitude about the behavior and represent an indication of a parent’s readiness to perform a given behavior, such as how the responding parents plan on being involved during the school year (Bracke & Corts, 2012; Kiriakidis, 2015). Finally, parents’ perceptions of their personal level of control over their choices for involvement and the barriers to participation that they encounter contribute to their level of participation with the school (Ajzen, 1991). For example, low-income parents may have restrictive jobs that limit their availability, and this may provide an obstacle to their involvement (Bracke & Corts, 2012). Considered holistically, researchers suggest parents or caregivers of immigrant or refugee children need to be involved in their children’s education to promote success; however, there are few studies specifically assessing and addressing immigrant and refugee populations who are at risk of low parental involvement with education for toddlers and preschoolers (Manz et al., 2014).

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) may provide an insight into issues related to parental involvement in schools. This theory emphasizes that behavioral change can occur if the determinants of behavior are identified and used to design interventions for behavioral change (Demircan & Erden, 2015). The three most important tenets of TPB that affect behavior align well with current research on parent involvement in general given they focused on the key roles of attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and control beliefs and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991). As applied to parent involvement, control beliefs might refer to those perceptions that parents may have concerning barriers which may hinder their participation. Perceived behavioral control refers to the ease or difficulty of performing a behavior, in this case, involvement in schooling (Ajzen, 2991). However, how TPB may be applied to the study of parental involvement has received little attention (McGregor & Knoll, 2015), especially with regards to specific educational contexts or subsets of the population. It remains unclear how it may be used in a context such as parent participation in Head Start and Early Head Start programs with immigrant and refugee populations (Hindman et al., 2012) to provide an insight into the specific issues of this parent population and how and if it can assist in identifying determinants of behavior that can then be used to design interventions to increase parent involvement. Variables related to immigrants and refugees, such as whether a family is first or second-generation, their age, and length of time they have lived within their receiving nation have significant implications on family outcomes (Salas-Wright, Kagotho, & Vaughn, 2014). And, so this population might encounter sole determinants of parent involvement that need exploration and identification.

Parental involvement in schooling activities for toddlers and preschoolers is important to a child’s outcomes (e.g., higher levels of proactive learning behaviors, greater receptive vocabulary, and lower levels of conduct problems) (Bracke & Corts, 2012; Hindman et al., 2012; Manz et al., 2014). Particularly, parents who are immigrants or refugees, for example someone who is foreign born (first-generation immigrant) (Krogstad, 2015; Winsler et al., 2014), have low involvement in their children’s education, possibly due to their attitudes and beliefs (Demircan & Erden, 2015; Manz et al., 2014; Poureslami et al., 2013). Researchers have identified barriers to parental participation in their child’s education, but they may not have an adequate theoretical framework whereby parent involvement behavior may be determined and predicted (Kiriakidis, 2013). Use of a relevant theory may guide the design of an intervention to improve parental participation for a particular population (Lin, 2012). The theory of planned behavior (TPB) may be useful to examine parental behaviors, but this theory has been applied in a limited way to early childhood education settings (McGregor & Knoll, 2015). There is a need for research concerning parental involvement with the Early Head Start and Head Start programs (Bracke & Corts, 2012; Hindman et al., 2012), particularly within the immigrant and refugee communities (Hindman et al., 2012; Manz et al., 2014).

The problem to be addressed in this study is the limitation of immigrant and refugee parent involvement in Head Start and Early Head Start to support their child’s education (Hindman et al., 2012; Manz et al., 2014). Specifically, this study will address the lack of knowledge regarding what variables are related to high and/or low parent involvement and identification of those that may serve as barriers to or promoters of parent involvement in this population. Some of the barriers for immigrant and refugee families are likely their pre-conceived beliefs about education (Cheatham & Ostrosky, 2013) as well as differences that arise due to language and culture (Cheatham & Ostrosky, 2013). The variables as defined within the theory of planned behavior (TPB), that contribute to parental intentions are attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991; Bracke & Corts, 2012; Perry & Langley, 2013), and these have not been thoroughly examined such that this knowledge can hopefully then be applied to help devise interventions for parents of these communities (McGregor & Knoll, 2015) to improve parental intention for involvement in schooling. Without a further understanding of how these variables relate to and predict parental intentions for involvement, strategies employed by these programs to increase the parental involvement of immigrant and refugee families may be less effective and the families may not take full advantage of these programs (Lee & Zhou, 2014). This study may help in identifying determinants of parent involvement, or lack thereof, in immigrant and refugee populations that can subsequently be used to develop interventions (Hindman et al., 2012).

The purpose of this proposed quantitative, descriptive, and correlational study is to assess key variables posed in TPB as possible determinants of parent intention for school involvement behavior (i.e., parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) and ascertain whether they are significantly related to and can predict the reported intentions of involvement of immigrant and refugee parents in their children’s early childhood education programs. By assessing these constructs that are pivotal to TPB, a test of this theory within the context of immigrant and refugee families with children enrolled in Head Start or Early Head Start may be accomplished. Using a survey instrument to collect data, the goals will be to (1) identify parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, parental intention, and perceived behavioral control regarding parent involvement, and (2) investigate how, if at all, these variables correlate with and serve to predict parent involvement, as TPB would suggest, in this population. The dependent variable will be the level of parental involvement, and the predictors will be the determinants of behaviors as outlined in TPB (i.e., parent attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, parental intentions, and perceived behavioral control) as reported by immigrant and refugee families with children enrolled in Head Start and Early Head Start programs.

The population under study targets an expected 800-1000 parents/caregivers who are foreign born (i.e., first-generation immigrants or refugees) (Krogstad, 2015; Winsler et al., 2014), living in East San Diego, California, and who have children enrolled in either an Early Head Start or Head Start program. A census of this population will be conducted with the goal of obtaining a sample of 110 parents/caregivers whose children participate in these programs. A power analysis using G-Power software yielded an estimated sample size of 110 for a linear regression with four predictors (power of 0.8, type one error of 0.05, and medium size effect) (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). Parents will be asked to complete the Parental Involvement Project (PIP) Parent Questionnaire (see Appendix A) a 28-item survey that has been found to be reliable and valid for measuring attitudes and beliefs (13 items), subjective norms (3 items), perceived behavioral control (5 items), and parental intentions (7 items). All items are evaluated using six-point Likert scales. Data collection will provide an opportunity to describe how these variables present in immigrant and refugee families and examine their ability to predict parent intentions towards involvement. The findings can serve to further inform the TPB about its applicability to immigrant and refugee parents who have children attending Head Start and Early Head Start. Step-wise multiple regressions will be used to assess the significance of the contributions of each predictor to explain the variation of the dependent variable (Field, 2013).

Q1. What are the attitudes and beliefs of immigrant/refugee parents/caregivers regarding parent involvement in AKA Head Start and Early Head Start programs?

Q2. What are the subjective norms of immigrant/refugee parents regarding parental involvement in AKA Head Start and Early Head Start programs?

Q3. What are the perceived behavioral control perceptions of immigrant/refugee parents regarding parent involvement in AKA Head Start and Early Head Start programs?

Q4. What are the parental intentions of immigrant/refugee parents regarding parent involvement in AKA Head Start and Early Head Start programs?

Q5. How do attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavior control, and parental intentions relate to and contribute to the prediction of parent involvement by parents/caregivers in AKA Head Start and Early Head Start programs?

Hypotheses

H50. The attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, intentions, behavioral control perceptions, and perceived control of immigrant and refugee parents do not significantly relate to or predict parents’ level of involvement in AKA Head Start and Early Head Start programs.

H5a. One or more of attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, intentions, behavioral control perceptions, or perceived behavior control perceptions are significantly correlated to and significantly contribute to the prediction of parental involvement by immigrant/refugee parents in AKA Head Start and Early Head Start programs.

Theoretical Framework Overview

Ajzen's theory of planned behavior (TPB) (1991) is used to explain and predict intentional behavior based on personal beliefs about outcomes of behaviors. This theory was developed by Ajzen in the late 1980s as an extension of the theory of reasoned action. It can be used to describe the dynamic and complex nature of parental engagement in a child’s life and education (Bracke & Corts, 2012). The TPB offers a viable theoretical lens for examining parental involvement, which is the most important determinant of parental behavioral dispositions. Moreover, to understand planned behavior and parental involvement, social attitudes and personality traits are included in an attempt to predict and explain human behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The TPB focuses on the motivations of an individual to engage in a particular behavior, and the theory has the potential to be a useful framework for conducting research into parental involvement (Perry & Langley, 2013). The central tenet of the theory is the intention to perform a particular behavior, as defined by three independent determinants of intentions: attitude and belief toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991). First, an attitude refers to an individual’s values for the outcomes of behavior as associated with his or her beliefs related to the behavior and his or her evaluation of performing a behavior. Second, subjective norms are an individual’s perceptions of social pressures that exist for performing the behavior. This concept is comprised of beliefs about social expectations and the need to adhere to those expectations. Third, perceived behavioral control is related to an individual’s perception of how difficult the task will be to perform (Ajzen, 1991). Furthermore, it is based on beliefs about factors that are for or against performing the behavior and the perceived power of those factors. In general, the intention of performing a behavior is strong when the performance of a particular behavior elicits a favorable attitude from the individual is positively associated with subjective norms, and it is easy to perform with few obstacles (Ajzen, 1991). If the surrounding social environment is conducive to the behavior, and the individual is confident in their ability to perform the behavior then the persons' intention is stronger to engage in behavior, and thus, it is more likely they will do (Ajzen, 1991). Ajzen stressed that interventions designed to change behavior could be directed at one or more of its determinants (attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, or perceptions of behavioral control). Changes in one of these determinants should produce changes in behavioral intentions and, given adequate control over the behavior, intentions should be carried out under appropriate circumstances (Ajzen, 1991). Subsequent parental involvement may succeed in producing corresponding changes in attitudes, subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioral control because intentions are directed by behavioral, normative, and control beliefs (Kiriakidis, 2015). However, the behavioral intention may vary towards different behaviors and for different populations. For example, intention to perform one behavior may be primarily determined by the attitude toward the behavior, while another behavioral intention may be determined largely by normative influence. Similarly, intention to perform a particular behavior may be primarily under the attitudinal influence in one population, while more influenced by normative influence in another population (Montano & Kasprzyk, 2015). Thus, to design effective interventions to influence behavioral intentions, it is important first to determine the degree to which that intention is influenced by attitudes and beliefs, perceived norms, and perceived behavioral controls (Montano & Kasprzyk, 2015). Parent interventions will be ineffective unless individuals are in fact capable of carrying out their newly formed intentions (Girardelli & Patel, 2016). Ajzen also noted that there should be an active link from intentions to behavior to facilitate the success of an intervention (Ajzen, 1991). One of the most efficient ways to intervene to help develop intentions is to induce individuals to form a plan with specific details of when, where, and how the desired behavior of, in this case, parents will be performed (Lin, 2012).

Girardelli and Patel (2016) provided the importance of behavioral intentions in the function of the three constructs of attitudes toward the target behavior, perceived norms, and perceived behavioral control/self-efficacy. Attitudes toward the target behavior are defined as a latent disposition or tendency to respond with some degree of favorableness or un-favorableness to a psychological object. Perceived norms refer to what is considered an acceptable or permissible behavior in a group or society. Perceived norms capture the total social pressure that the environment exerts on an individual to perform, or not perform a given behavior. Perceived behavioral control is defined as the extent to which people believe that they are capable of performing a given behavior, that they have control over its performance.

Conducting research on parental involvement by using Ajzen’s theory in immigrant and refugee families may be useful (Perry, 2013) because through this perspective, benefits for the child, family, and complementary school development can be examined (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012). However, to apply TPB to immigrant and refugee families such as African, Asian or Hispanic/Latino, researchers need a better understanding of the issues in practice for these populations (Paat, 2013). Since, they may have several specific factors that impede family involvement such as a lack of knowledgeable resources, emotional, language, cultural, and physical barriers (Garbacz et al., 2016). From these points of view, the gaps often happen between this theory and its practices (Dobson & Beshai, 2013) because there are a number of issues, controversies, and assumptions involving the translation of theory into practice (Udo-Akang, 2012). However, the gap between theory and practice is framed as a knowledge transfer problem, and researcher’s continuous refinement and development based on learning from the application of theory into the field are never completed (Udo-Akang, 2012). It is important to choose theory-testing rather than theory-building because the theory is needed in explaining and predicting parental involvement with the TPB in distinct populations (Udo-Akang, 2012). It is critical to investigate and understand the behavior from the perspective of the study population because some individuals in certain demographic groups may hold beliefs about positive outcomes of the behavior and thus hold more positive attitudes and stronger intention to carry out the behavior. In addition, they may be more likely than others to engage in the behavior (Montano & Kasprzyk, 2015).

Researchers have examined parental involvement through the application of other theories to include identifying theory, parental investment theory, socio-ecological theory, role theory and social exchange theory; however, the theories have been limited in explaining and predicting parental involvement in early childhood education (Perry & Langley, 2013). According to Perry and Langley (2013), such theories assume that active involvement of parents only relies on the parents' will and desire to be involved in their children's education. As an alternative theory to help explain and predict parental involvement, Perry and Langley (2013) suggest using Ajzen's TPB and stress that TPB is “versatile enough to account for the dynamic and complex nature of parental engagement” (p. 181). What remains unknown is whether the TPB model will hold for parental engagement in schools with parents of particular cultures and status, in this study such as those with immigrant and refugee status.

In the proposed study, Ajzen’s version of TPB (1991) is used as a basis of a model to test how intentional behaviors of parents and personal beliefs about outcomes from their behaviors may affect their perceived levels of participation in their child’s school. The model constructed of this proposed study includes the TPB constructs of attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and parental intention for involvement (Bracke & Corts, 2012). The descriptive and correlational design will allow for assessing the key variables posed in TPB as determinants of behavior (i.e., parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and parental intentions) and then analysis of whether they are significantly related to and can predict the intentions to be involved of immigrant and refugee parents, in their children’s early childhood education programs. The dependent variable will be the parent’s reported intentions for involvement, and the predictors will be the determinants of behaviors as outlined in TPB that is parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (Bracke & Corts, 2012). The approach used in this study is an appropriate technique for testing whether TPB constructs fit a model for an observed set of correlations among the constructs in the model (Girardelli & Patel, 2016). Testing a theory is crucial to most good quantitative research design (Park & Park, 2016). Survey methods will be used to measure the four constructs of TPB with the three predictor variables and the single dependent variable of parent intention (Bracke & Corts, 2012). The survey method allows the researcher to remain objective, minimizing bias and staying value-free (Smith, 2015). The quantitative design control biases so that facts, instances, and phenomena can be understood in an objective way (Park & Park, 2016). Moreover, a quantitative design prefers “the accumulation of facts and causes of behavior through isolation, measurement, and evaluation of variables, focusing on predictability and control over time” (Park & Park, 2016, p. 4). This design best aligns with the purpose and goals of the study proposed.

In this study, the quantitative methodology utilizes a non-experimental design, so manipulating variables are not a part of this process (Smith, 2015). Furthermore, this study aims to answer questions related to how much of a phenomenon exists, so qualitative methods are not appropriate to use (McCusker & Gunaydin, 2014). Based on the purpose of this study, a quantitative design is the most appropriate method, since it creates numerical data that can be analyzed to determine relationships between the multiple predictor variables posed in TPB (Park & Park, 2016). A regression model will be used to investigate whether the TPB determinants of behavior significantly relate to and predict the involvement of immigrant/refugee parents in their children’s early childhood education programs, specifically Early Head Start and Head Start programs.

According to the Alpha Kappa Alpha Head Start and Early Head Start (AKA-HS/EHS) report in 2014-2015, there were 1,381 children, including Hispanic or Latino (803) and Non-Hispanic (578) who attended twelve Head Start centers in East San Diego, California. A target of 800-1000 parents/caregivers who are identified as immigrant or refugee, living in this area, and have children enrolled in either an Early Head Start or Head Start program will be solicited to participate in the survey with the hopes of obtaining the sample size required of 110 completed surveys.

The Parent Involvement Project (PIP) survey will be the instrument used for data collection. The questionnaire contains 28 items developed by Hoover-Dempsey, Walker, Jones, and Reed (2002). All items are measured on a six-point Likert scale for attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and parental intentions. The Likert scale ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree, with the additional option of I Don’t Know. For example, parents are asked to rate each statement based on how much they disagree or agree. The options are 1 indicating Strongly Disagree, 2 indicating Disagree, 3 indicating Don’t Know, 4 indicating Agree Just a Little, 5 indicating Agree, and 6 indicating Strongly Agree.

After receiving Northcentral University Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and the AKA Head Start administrative office’s approval, the researcher will have a meeting with participants in their children’s centers. During the drop off time at each of 12 centers, the researcher will briefly explain the purpose of the study to the parents/caregivers and ask them to voluntarily participant if they are interested in cooperating with the research via a consent form (see Appendix B) (Fowler, 2009). The informed consent document communicates to participants the voluntary nature of participation, the level of involvement, the absence of deception, and that participation will remain anonymous. If consent is granted, they will be asked to complete a brief demographic information questionnaire regarding their immigrant/refugee status (see Appendix C). Eligible participants will then receive a survey package with a cover letter (see Appendix D) and PIP survey (see Appendix A). The cover letter to parents details the purpose of the study. All papers will be translated into their home language (i.e., Arabic, Hmong, Russian, Spanish or Vietnamese) to ensure parents/caregivers understand explanations clearly. A self-addressed and stamped envelope will be included to return the survey. A reminder postcard will be sent two weeks later to encourage participation for those who may not have completed a returned survey (Blaxter, Hughes, & Tight, 2014). Those who complete the survey will be sent a gift card of ten dollars.

Parental involvement has a significant impact on early childhood education (McCormick, Cappella, O’Connor, & McClowry, 2013). It has been found to increase the academic functioning of young children, especially for immigrant children who grow up with at least one foreign-born parent and speak a home language other than English (Demircan & Erden, 2015; Winsler et al., 2014). Therefore, it is important to study the involvement of immigrant and refugee parents in preschool because their historical, socio-demographic characteristics, and academic concerns are possibly different with regard to parental attitudes and beliefs, perceived control, subjective norms, and subsequent behavioral intentions (Hindman et al., 2012). A lack of parental involvement is a factor in at-risk children’s academic achievement (Demircan & Erden, 2015; Hindman et al., 2012). On the other hand, parent/caregiver involvement improves children’s success (Bracke & Corts, 2012; Demircan & Erden, 2015; Porumbu & Necşoi, 2013). Little is known about how the theory of planned behavior might explain parent involvement of immigrant and refugee children at Early Head Start and Head Start programs (Ntuli, Nyarambi, & Traore, 2014). This proposed quantitative study may contribute to understanding parents’ perceptions of their involvement in Head Start programs and factors that might contribute to their involvement. The research is important because it may build toward the possible understanding of how or if parental involvement and engagement practices for immigrant/refugee parents or caregivers will be effective. The findings in this study may encourage school and childcare center directors and teachers to expand their repertoire of strategies to involve parents from diverse language, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds. The results of this proposed study may reveal implications of improving current parent involvement policies and practices for engaging immigrants and refugees, and they may be able to overcome the barriers of involvement if the schools can improve their programs. Subsequently, these parents may be able to better support their children and the school (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012; Smith, 2014).

The testing of Ajzen’s TPB with regards to parent involvement in early childhood program has never been tested relative to immigrant and refugee parents/caregivers in the context of Head Start and Early Head Start programs; therefore, more information concerning parents’ attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral controls, and subsequent behavioral intentions may contribute to improving the effectiveness of the program. By using Ajzen’s TPB model (1991), the results from this study may contribute to the knowledge of potential outcomes of parental involvement, such as the following: affirmation of parents’ and caregivers’ positive attitudes about school participation, clarification of the dissonance between parents’ professed attitudes, beliefs, values, and intentions and in their actual behaviors, and rationale for a norm-based initiative that might increase parental involvement (Bracke & Corts, 2012).

Definition of Key Terms

Attitude toward behavior. An attitude toward a behavior is an individual’s positive or negative evaluation of self-performance of the particular behavior. The concept is the degree to which performance of behavior is a positive or negative value. It is determined by the total set of accessible behavioral beliefs linking behavior to various outcomes and other attributes (Ajzen, 1991).

Behavioral belief. Behavioral belief is an individual’s belief about consequences of a particular behavior. The belief is based on the subjective probability that the behavior will produce a given outcome (Ajzen, 1991).

Behavior intention. Behavior intention is an indication of an individual’s readiness to perform a given behavior and is assumed to be an immediate antecedent of behavior (Ajzen, 1991).

Head Start. Head Start (1964) provides comprehensive services for children of ages 3 to 5 and their families. It supports the school readiness of dual-language learners with culturally sensitive family engagement practices. It also builds relationships with families to support positive parent-child relationships, family well-being, and connections to peers and community. The Head Start program is federally funded for low-income children under the age of mandatory school attendance (Head Start, 1964).

Early Head Start. The Early Head Start program (1964) was established to assist and promote the physical, cognitive, social and emotional development of infants and toddlers up to age 3.

Immigrants. Immigrants are people who move into the United States in order to find a settlement and become citizens (Poureslami et al., 2013).

Intention. The intention is the perceived likelihood of performing a behavior. It is a direct function of the attitude about the behavior and subjective norm associated with the behavior (Ajzen, 1991).

Perceived behavioral control. Perceived behavioral control is an individual’s perceived ease or difficulty of performing the particular behavior. Perceived behavioral control is determined by the total set of accessible control beliefs (Ajzen, 1991).

Refugee. A refugee is defined as a person who flees from persecution, invasion, or political danger in their home country and is unable to return (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2007).

Southwest Asian groups. Southwest Asia is sometimes described as the Near East or the Middle East. The people of its area are Greek Cypriots, Turks, Jews, Arabs, Kurds, Iranian, Iraqi, and Afghani (Poureslami et al., 2013).

Subjective norm. Subjective norm is an individual’s perception of the particular behavior, which is influenced by the judgment of significant others, such as parents, spouses, friends, and teachers. It refers to the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform a behavior (Ajzen, 1991).

Southeast Asian groups. Southeast Asia is made up of many thousands of tropical islands and a mainland area. The nations are Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, Cambodia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Indonesia, and East Timor (Lee & Zhou, 2014).

Summary

Parental involvement in schooling activities for toddlers and preschoolers is important to the children’s later school success because it creates higher levels of proactive learning behaviors, greater receptive vocabulary, and lower levels of conduct problems (Bracke & Corts, 2012; Hindman et al., 2012; Manz et al., 2014). However, parents who are immigrants/refugees have low parental involvement due to their attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral controls, and subsequent parental intentions (Demircan & Erden, 2015; Manz et al., 2014; Poureslami et al., 2013). These factors serve as the key variables posed in TPB determinants of behavior and are important to determining whether they are significantly related to and able to predict the parental intention for involvement of immigrant and refugee parents in their children’s early childhood education programs. By assessing these constructs that are pivotal to TPB, testing this theory within the context of immigrant and refugee families with children enrolled in Head Start or Early Head Start can be accomplished. Using the theoretical framework provided by the TPB, it will be possible to understand in a systematic manner—the effect of the variables in intention and behavior that may frame parents’ decisions to involve or not involve in their children’s education (Girardelli & Patel, 2016). Due to immigrant and refugee children’s educational risk in community and societal contexts, these parents need to support programs starting with their children’s early preschool enrollment. Without understanding the theory of planned behavior, teachers and educators may encounter some of the adverse outcomes of lack of parental involvement. Encouraging immigrant and refugee parents to have good intentions and have high academic expectations for their children’s education is possible (Castro et al., 2015). For example, the perception of participation as a social norm might help increase the likelihood of parental involvement; however, the theoretical models of parents’ participation in school activities from toddler to preschool need better development (Manz et al., 2014). Applying Ajzen’s theory (1991) of planned behavior to parent involvement in Head Start and Early Head Start may strengthen immigrant and refugee family practices. However, to provide evidence of this theory’s usefulness, a theory of planned behavior-based model must be tested. Testing the TPB model based on immigrant and refugee parents’attitudes/beliefs, norms, and perceived behavioral control may lead to the results that allow them to increase parental involvement, thereby, raising children’s education standards. In conclusion, this study may be helpful for Head Start and Early Head Start program’s administrators, directors, teachers, and policy-makers alike to find ways to promote parental involvement.

Table of Contents

Chapter 3: Research Method 1

Research Design 4

Population and Sample 6

Materials/Instrumentation 8

Operational Definitions of Variables 14

Study Procedures 15

Data Collection and Analysis 18

Assumptions 22

Limitations 22

Delimitations 23

Ethical Assurances 23

Summary 24

References 27

Appendices 30

Appendix A. Parent Survey 31

Appendix B. Informed Consent Form 38

Appendix C. Parent Demographic Data 42

Appendix D. Cover Letter 43

Appendix E. Head Start Executive Director and Center Director Consent Letter 46

Appendix F. Pre-Notice of Parent Survey 50

Appendix G. Recruitment Letter 52

Appendix H. Permission of Using the Parent Involvement Project (PIP) Letter 54

Appendix I. The Evidence of Permission Was Granted to Use the Instrument 55

Appendix J. Table 1. Head Start & Early Head Start Enrollment, 2015 56

Chapter 3: Research Method

Parental involvement in children’s academics, both in early childhood centers and at home, is crucial for school readiness; however, parent involvement in schooling for toddlers and preschoolers is limited for immigrant and refugee parents in Head Start and Early Head Start (Hindman et al., 2012; Manz et al., 2014). Based on the lack of current knowledge, further research on variables which are related to high and/or low parent involvement and identification of those that may serve as barriers or promoters of parent involvement is warranted (Hindman et al., 2012; Manz et al., 2014), particularly for immigrant/refugee parents who are foreign born and first-generation (Krogstad, 2015; Winsler et al., 2014). This population has low involvement in their children’s education, a potentially critical barrier to their children’s achievement, possibly due to specific attitudes and beliefs (Demircan & Erden, 2015; Manz et al., 2014; Poureslami et al., 2013). While researchers have identified barriers to parental participation in their child’s education, many have not framed their studies using a theoretical framework to ground the study and whereby parent involvement behavior may be determined and predicted (Kiriakidis, 2013).

The problem to be addressed in this study is the limitation of immigrant and refugee parent involvement in Head Start and Early Head Start to support their child’s education (Hindman et al., 2012; Manz et al., 2014). Specifically, this study will address the lack of knowledge regarding what variables are related to high and/or low parent involvement and identification of those that may serve as barriers to or promoters of parent involvement in this population. Some of the barriers for immigrant and refugee families are likely their pre-conceived beliefs about education (Cheatham & Ostrosky, 2013) as well as differences that arise due to language and culture (Cheatham & Ostrosky, 2013). The variables, as defined within the theory of planned behavior (TPB), that contribute to parental intentions are attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991; Bracke & Corts, 2012; Perry & Langley, 2013), and these have not been thoroughly examined such that this knowledge can be applied to help devise interventions for parents of these communities (McGregor & Knoll, 2015) to improve parental intention for involvement in schooling. Without further understanding of how these variables relate to and predict parental intentions for involvement, strategies employed by these programs to increase the parental involvement of immigrant and refugee families may be less effective and the families may not take full advantage of these programs (Lee & Zhou, 2014). This study may help in identifying determinants of parent involvement, or lack thereof, in immigrant and refugee populations that can subsequently be used to develop interventions (Hindman et al., 2012).

The purpose of this proposed quantitative, descriptive, and correlational study is to assess key variables posed in TPB as possible determinants of parent intention for school involvement behavior (i.e., parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) and ascertain whether they are significantly related to and can predict the reported intentions of involvement of immigrant and refugee parents in their children’s early childhood education programs. By assessing these constructs that are pivotal to TPB, an expansion of this theory within the context of immigrant and refugee families with children enrolled in Head Start or Early Head Start may be accomplished. Using a survey instrument to collect data, the goals will be to (1) identify parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, parental intention, and perceived behavioral control regarding parent involvement, and (2) investigate how, if at all, these variables correlate with and serve to predict parent involvement, as TPB would suggest, in this population. The dependent variable will be reported parental intentions for involvement, and the predictors will be the determinants of behaviors as outlined in TPB (i.e., parent attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) as reported by immigrant and refugee families with children enrolled in Head Start and Early Head Start programs.

The population under study targets an expected 800-1000 parents/caregivers who are foreign born (i.e., first-generation immigrants or refugees) (Krogstad, 2015; Winsler et al., 2014), living in East San Diego, California, and who have children enrolled in either an Early Head Start or Head Start program. A census of this population will be conducted with the goal of obtaining a sample of 110 parents/caregivers whose children participate in these programs. A power analysis using G-Power software yielded an estimated sample size of 110 for a linear regression with three predictors (power of 0.8, type one error of 0.05, and medium size effect) (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). Parents will be asked to complete the Parental Involvement Project (PIP) Parent Questionnaire (see Appendix A). It is a 28-item survey that has been found to be reliable and valid for measuring attitudes and beliefs (13 items), subjective norms (3 items), perceived behavioral control (5 items), and parental intentions (7 items). All items are evaluated using six-point Likert scales. Data collection will provide an opportunity to describe how these variables present in immigrant and refugee families and examine their ability to predict parent intentions towards involvement using the three predictor variables of attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. The findings can serve to further inform the TPB about its applicability to immigrant and refugee parents who have children attend Head Start and Early Head Start. Step-wise multiple regressions will be used to assess the significance of the contributions of each predictor to explain the variation of the dependent variable (Field, 2013). Survey methods will be employed as they are the most appropriate method for collecting quantitative data needed to measure study variables as posed in TPB to ascertain whether they are significantly related to and can predict the involvement of immigrant and refugee parents in their children’s early childhood education programs (Girardelli & Patel, 2016). This chapter includes discussion of the research design, population/sample, materials/instrumentations, operational definations of variables, study procedures, data collection and analysis, assumptions, limitations, delimitations, ethical assurances, and ethical guarantees that apply in the proposed study.

Research Design

This study will use quantitative, descriptive, and correlational designs to answer the research questions posed. A quantitative design is the most appropriate method since it creates numerical data that can be analyzed to determine relationships between the multiple predictor variables in TPB (Park & Park, 2016). A regression model will be used to investigate whether the TPB determinants of behavior significantly relate to and predict the parental intentions for involvement of immigrant and refugee parents in their children’s early childhood education programs. The descriptive and correlational design will allow for assessing the key variables posed in TPB such as the determinants of behavior (i.e., parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and parental intentions) and then analyzing whether they are significantly related to and can predict the intentions to be involved, by immigrant and refugee parents in their children’s early childhood education programs. The approach that will be employed in this study is an appropriate technique for testing whether TPB constructs fit a model for an observed set of correlations among the constructs in the model (Girardelli & Patel, 2016).

A cross-sectional design will be used to collect data to assess variables posed in TPB gathered at a single point in time using valid and reliable instruments (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). A cross-sectional survey requires less dedication from research participants, takes less time to complete, and does not contain many obstacles related to finding and maintaining a sample population (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010) as opposed to a longitudinal study that must take place across at least two waves of times (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). This method of data collection is equated with surveys that must be carefully designed prior to the research occurring (Fowler, 2009). This design allows the researcher to collect data that can measure variables quantitatively, allowing statistical analyses of the sample that can then be generalized to a target population. The design allows researchers to remain objective, separate from the subject matter, minimize bias, and remain value-free (Smith, 2015). The correlational research design seeks to control preferences, so those facts, instances, and phenomena can be understood in an objective way (Park & Park, 2016). Moreover, accumulating the aspects of behavior through isolation, measurement, and evaluation of variables, researchers focus on a somewhat predictable fashion in which a correlation exists as one variable increases and another variable either increases or decreases (Park & Park, 2016). The strength of this research design is in the information that researcher can report in the form of numbers and can test a formulated hypothesis prior to the actual collection of data (McCusker & Gunaydin, 2014). McCusker and Gunaydin pointed out that when using this design, it requires the extraction of information in a larger volume and emphasis on statistical information rather than individual perceptions. The weakness of the survey method may occur if the answers from sampled respondents are not accurately measurable and become erroneous. To avoid this problem, the researcher must design questions well to intentionally measure the responses collected in the survey (Fowler, 2009). Moreover, the researcher must carefully estimate sampling error through data collection based on the responses of qualified individuals on a survey questionnaire because they can carry out the effect of potential sources of error (Fowler, 2009). This study uses a survey designed by Hoover-Dempsey, Walker, Jones, and Reed (2002). The validity and reliability of the survey were previously established in studies by Hoover-Dempsey, Walkers, and Sandler (2002; 2005). The survey consists of 28 questions based on a six-point Likert scale assessing the following variables: attitudes/beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and parental intentions. The survey will take approximately 20 to 30 minutes and be returned to the researcher in person or by mail to receive a gift card. By using a survey design, there are some advantages such as inexpensive unit cost which usually is lower than personal interviews (Fowler, 2009); however, some disadvantages include parents may not submit surveys in the mail within a timeframe (Fowler, 2009). The following section discusses how the sample will be obtained in this study.

Population and Sample

The population for this study includes all immigrant and refugee parents or caregivers from Alpha Kappa Alpha Head Start and Early Head Start programs (AKA-HS/EHS). According to AKA HS/EHS’s 2015 annual report, a subgroup of immigrant and refugee parents or caregivers with ethnic and racial diversity for potential generalizability was identified (Hindman, Miller, Froyen, & Skibbe, 2012). In 2015, AKA Head Start programs served 1,167 children from low-income families. According to the Poverty Guidelines published by a federal government, they are eligible for HS and EHS services. All AKA Head Start centers provide full day and part day child care services to families year-round for 10.5 hours per day, Monday through Friday from 7:00 am to 5:30 am, and 3.5 hours per day, Monday through Thursday from 8:15 am to 11:45 am or 1:15 pm to 4:45 pm. Of the enrolled children from 3 to 5 years, 44% of the AKA HS and EHS populations are immigrant and refugee families consisting of the following demographics: Spanish (34%), Middle Eastern and South Asian (8%), East Asian (1%), African (1%). The AKA Early Head Start program serves 214 children under three years of age of which 43% are identified as immigrant or refugees—Spanish (37%), Middle Eastern and South Asian (5%), East Asian (1%) (AKA Head Start/Early Head Start Annual Report 2014-2015; see Appendix J).

A target of 800 to 1000 parents or caregivers who potentially meet the participant criteria will be solicited to participate in the survey with the hopes of obtaining the sample size requirement of 110 completed surveys. To participate, a parent or caregiver must be first-generation, foreign born, and considered an immigrant or refugee. They must be living in East San Diego, California and have children enrolled in either an Early Head Start or Head Start program. A power analysis yielded an estimated sample size of 110 for a linear regression with four predictors (power of 0.8, type I error of 0.05, and medium size effect of 0.1) (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009); however, all attempts will be made to obtain the largest possible sample.

This study will use a census sampling procedure by attempting to reach all parents that meet the criteria for inclusion in the study. The sample is readily available to be obtained in person at the 12 sites of AKA HS/EHS. Sampling and gathering data errors occur in data collection from a sample that does not adequately represent population (i.e., of those individuals who complete and return surveys) (Fowler, 2009). In this case, not all the sampling elements are included completely; however, this study assumes no problems with survey distribution. Individuals will self-select themselves into the sample by choosing to complete the survey (Fowler, 2009). The researcher will ask AKA Head Start executive director and center directors to collaborate with the project to ensure all immigrant/refugee parents/caregivers have a chance to participate. In this way, the researcher will avoid a bias that affects the relationship between a sample of respondents and the population (Fowler, 2009). To avoid a problem of bias, the researcher will attempt to gather data from every member of the sample population or sampling frame as surveys are distributed at a center’s gate where parents/caregivers will drop-off their children.

Materials/Instrumentation

This study will use a self-administered paper-based survey method for several reasons. First, the sample in this population may not have a computer or Internet access on a regular basis to do an email survey. Second, the researcher is able to identify and access the sample population with relative ease at AKA Head Start centers. Third, the participants, the parents or caregivers, could read and interpret survey questions in their own language and then answer with restricted selection options, such as circling a number or checking a mark, which eliminate the need for someone else to read the questions for respondents (Fowler, 2009). Fourth, parents or caregivers are likely to cooperate with the researcher by presenting their perceptions about parental involvement using this method. Finally, some parents or caregivers are usually busy working and have no time to do a survey, or have a little time to be at home with their child and self-administered surveys allow them to complete the survey at their own convenience (Fowler, 2009). The method of the self-administered survey is most appropriate for this study; however, there are some disadvantages to this approach. First, hundreds of paper surveys will cost the researcher for printing, postages, and self-addressed stamped envelopes. Second, it will take a longer time to return surveys, from three to four weeks for respondents, as well as a longer time for researchers to administer the survey (Fowler, 2009). The researcher will also need additional time to enter the paper surveys’ responses into an electronic format (Blaxter, Hughes, & Tight, 2014), such as Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 22.0. Furthermore, there is more time for tracking completed surveys and incentives (i.e., creating an Excel worksheet listing potential respondents who completed the survey and whether an incentive was provided to them) (Survey Administration Guidelines, 2009).

The Parent Involvement Project (PIP) survey (Appendix A) will be the instrument used for data collection. Permission will be obtained prior to using this instrument (Appendix I). The questionnaire contains 57 items developed by Hoover-Dempsey, Walker, Jones, and Reed (2002). All items are measured on a six-point Likert scale with subscales for attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and parental intentions for involvement. The Likert response scale ranges from (1) strongly disagree to (6) strongly agree, with the additional option of I Don’t Know. The following options are 1 indicating Strongly Disagree, 2 indicating Disagree, 3 indicating Don’t Know, 4 indicating Agree Just a Little, 5 indicating Agree, and 6 indicating Strongly Agree. Parents will be asked to rate each statement based on how much they disagree or agree. The survey will take approximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete.

The Parental Involvement Project (PIP) questionnaire has been tested for reliability and validity (Hoover-Dempsey, Sandler, & Walker, 2005) and will be used in this study to assess key variables posed in TPB as possible determinants of parent intention for school involvement behavior (i.e., parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) and ascertain whether they are significantly related to and can predict the reported intentions of involvement of immigrant and refugee parents in their children’s early childhood education programs. The data will be gathered using one survey the Parent Involvement Project (PIP). The survey has five sections: (1) parental attitudes and beliefs, (2) subjective norms, (3) perceived behavioral controls, (4) parent’s intention to become involved, and (5) household demographics information.

The first part, parental attitudes and beliefs is a learned predisposition to respond to an object or class of objects in a consistently favorable or unfavorable way (Kiriakidis, 2015). This variable is measured using statements that reflect parental attitudes and beliefs. The goal is to ascertain individual’s behavioral attitudes and beliefs toward getting involved in children’s education and the patterns of parental behavior that follow the beliefs based on parents’ motivations for being involved (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). This subscale includes 24 items (e.g., My child’s learning is mainly up to the teacher and my child) with responses ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 6 = strongly disagree. The subscale score for these items ranges from 24 to 144. Subjective norms are an individual’s perception of significant others’ beliefs; a person is influenced by the judgment of significant others such as teachers, parents, friends, or spouse (Ajzen, 1991). The scale consists of six statements constructed to reflect subjective norms (e.g., I think most parents at my child’s center are actively involved) with responses ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 6 = strongly disagree. The subscale score for these items ranges from 6 to 36. Peceived behavioral controls (PBC) represent an individual’s perceived ease or difficulty of performing a particular behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Any behavior is rarely under complete volitional control and identified in relation to the individual. Many external and internal factors can potentially inhibit the intended execution of any behavior; therefore, the predictive role of PBC would depend on the degree to which the behavior is under volitional control and the potential role of external and internal factors to interfere with the behavior (Kiriakidis, 2015). Thus, the greater the behavior depends on these factors being enacted, the greater the predictive and explanatory role of the PBC (Ajzen, 1991). These factors are assumed to reflect experience as well as anticipated impediments and obstacles. The subscale includes 17 statements regarding their ability to be involved (e.g., I have enough time and energy to attend special events at school) with responses ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 6 = strongly disagree. The subscale score for these items ranges from 17 to 102. The dependent variable of parental intentions represents an indication of an individual parent’s readiness to perform a given behavior, in this case parent involvement in schooling (Ajzen, 1991). The intention is in turn determined by attitudes and beliefs towards a parental behavior, subjective norms or pressures, and perceived control to perform the behavior and the actors’ motivation to comply (Kiriakidis, 2015). The subscale includes ten statements (e.g., Your child’s teacher asks you to schedule a conference to discuss your child’s progress) with responses ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 6 = strongly disagree. The subscale score for these items ranges from 10 to 60. The final section of the survey includes the household demographic questionnaire requesting participants report their family’s general information, such as their age, language speaking at home, and immigration status. Demographic data regarding those features will be collected to ensure all participants into the emerging adult age range of 18 years and up. The demographic questionnaires are utilized to determine the background of immigrant and refugee families to be eligible for the study.

In the 57-item survey, the questions consistently reflect the construct that is measured with the credibility and interpretation of research findings (Field, 2013). The subscales demonstrate a high level of internal consistency, the reliability of the proportion of variance attributable to the true score of the latent variable (Field, 2013). The reliability scale utilized is the Cronbach alpha (α) because the survey consists of many Likert items (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). The coefficient alpha distinguishes between the amount of variation, which is stemmed from the latent variable, and the amount attributable to error. The alpha ranges in value from 0.0 to 1.0; however, when assessing the internal consistency, a scale below .60 is unacceptable; between .60 and .65 is undesirable; between .65 and .70 is minimally acceptable; between .70 and .80 is respectable; between .80 and .90 is magnificent (Field, 2013). The reliability of the scale was reported by Hoover-Dempsey, Sandler, and Walker (2002). The subscale reliability of the 24 items measuring a parent’s attitudes and beliefs is acceptable (α = .77). The subjective norms subscale is based on a parent’s perceptions of receiving general invitations of participating in a child’s school and has a reported subscale reliability that is respectable (α = .78). The subscale of the perceived behavioral control consists of 17 items and has a subscale reliability reported as α = .83. Finally, the parental intention subscale is composed of ten items with a reported subscale reliablility at α = .78 (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005).

Field (2013) stated that an instrument is valid when it measures what it sets out to measure (e.g., Is the scale of Parental Involvement Project questionnaires helpful to measuring parental behavior?). For this study, the concern is whether the survey is accurately measuring parental involvement constructs of parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and intentions and how well these factors affect the prediction of parent/caregiver involvement. Their empirical work on developing the constructs is included in the report of Hoover-Dempsey and her colleagues (1995; 1997; 2002; 2005). They focused on the three factors of parents’ motivations and considered them the most useful in the model of parental involvement: (1) An active role construction of involvement (i.e., parents believe that being involved in their children’s education is important to their learning development). (2) Parental perceptions on being invited to be involved through teachers, school or office staff (i.e., greeting parents warmly, teacher’s request for supporting educational activities at home, or having parents attend a perent-teacher conference) which creates a social norm to encourage parents’ involvement. (3) Parents’ life context is also critical in three areas. The parents’ understanding of their own skills and knowledge that influence their thinking about the types of involvement activities they will take on. The parents’ perceptions on their available time and energy for involvement that influence their decisions. The family culture, which plays a significant role in their ideas about the ways they can and should be involved in supporting their child’s learning (e.g., even when children’s centers invite parents, their culture traditionally limit parent or caregivers’ role in children’s formal schooling) (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). The design of this study includes three independent variables and one dependent variable which are operationally, fully defined in the following section.

Operational Definitions of Variables

The proposed investigation includes three independent variables considered as predictor variables and a single dependent variable—an outcome variable. The three independent variables will be (a) attitudes and beliefs, (b) subjective norms, and (c) perceived behavior control. The single dependent variable will be the parent’s reported intentions for involvement. Each section or variable will be operationally defined as follows:

Attitudes/Beliefs. Parental attitudes and beliefs will be measured using 24 items with responses ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 6 = strongly disagree. The individual items responses will be summed for all items on the subscale to create an interval level measure for this variable. The subscale score for these items will range from 23 to 144 with a low score indicating somewhat negative attitudes and beliefs regarding parent involvement and a high score indicating relatively positive attitudes and beliefs regarding parent involvement.

Subjective norms. Subjective norms will be measured using six items constructed to reflect subjective norms. These responses will range from 1 = strongly agree to 6 = strongly disagree. The individual item responses will be summed for all items on the subscale to create an interval level measure for this variable. The subscale score for this variable will range from 6 to 36 with a low score indicating somewhat negative subjective norms regarding parent involvement and a high score indicating relatively positive subjective norms regarding parent involvement.

Perceived behavioral controls. Perceived behavioral controls will be measured using 17 items regarding the parents’ ability to being involved. The response selection ranges from 1 = strongly agree to 6 = strongly disagree. The individual item responses will be summed for all items on the subscale to create an interval level measure for this variable. The subscale score for these items ranges from 17 to 102 with a low score indicating little perceived control regarding parent involvement and a high score indicating considerable perceived control regarding parent involvement.

Parental intentions. Parental intentions will be measured using ten items. The response selection ranges from 1 = strongly agree to 6 = strongly disagree. The individual item responses will be summed for all items on the subscale to create an interval level measure for this variable. The subscale score for these items ranges from 10 to 60 with a low score indicating weak intentions to engage in parent involvement and a high score indicating strong intentions to engage in parent involvement.

Study Procedures

The researcher will first seek approval from Northcentral University Institutional Review Board (IRB). Approval to conduct research will also be sought and granted by both the AKA Head Start executive director and center directors. The primary role of the IRBs and executive director review are to ensure human subject and organization’s protection (Trochim & Konnelly, 2008). The researcher will receive permission from gatekeepers before research begins and will make a telephone call, email, and post-office mail to the Head Start executive director and center directors to request permission to conduct survey research with parents/caregivers. The research materials and instruments will be sent to all gatekeepers at the same time within an email. Each contains (a) a letter of asking permission to survey (Appendix E), (b) a cover letter of introduction to the research project and information about the nature and purpose of the study (Appendix D), and (c) a copy of the survey (Appendix A). The researcher will then make a scheduled appointment with the Head Start executive director and each of the 12 center directors, as first and second gatekeepers, to discuss whether the research inquiry could proceed and the process of how to contact parents/caregivers and distribute surveys they would prefer. The discussion will determine a plan with the times of soliciting the participants during drop off and pick up. The plan to collect the data or information will be achieved after the researcher gets approval from the Head Start executive director and center directors. Once approved, the distribution of parent surveys will begin with a pre-notice (Appendix F). This pre-notice letter will be put into each child’s mailbox at all 12 Head Start/Early Head Start centers for parents/caregivers. This first contact is so the researcher can notify potential respondents of the upcoming survey for the immigrant or refugee parents/caregivers who are available to volunteer to participate in this project. A few days after passing out the pre-notice, during the drop off of children at each of twelve centers, the researcher will meet parents or caregivers and briefly explain the purpose of the study and allow them to ask any questions and ask if they will be interested in cooperating with the research voluntarily (Fowler, 2009). They will be given a survey package with (1) survey, (2) a consent form (Appendix B), (3) a cover letter (Appendix D), and (4) a self-stamped envelope for participants to return the survey and consent signature to the researcher’s address if they prefer this mode. All document materials will be translated into their home language (i.e., Arabic, Spanish, Hmong or Vietnamese) to ensure parents/caregivers comprehend explanations thoroughly.

In the cover letter, the researcher will communicate (a) the purpose of this study; (b) a request for their voluntary participation with no repercussions for not participating; (c) the importance and usefulness of participation, and (d) a reason of why the survey is being done which serves as an informed consent document; (e) information of the non-risk’s level of involvement and absolute non-deception; (f) respondents’ names and information being confidential (i.e., names of respondents are not associated with the results in any reporting) and remained anonymous (i.e., names of respondents are not known); (g) the name and contact information of the research supervisor for this project at the Northcentral University (NCU) for further question regarding the survey that respondents can inquire of; and (h) a timeline for completing and returning the survey with an offered incentive for the survey respondents (Fowler, 2009). The researcher will offer a gift if the survey is completed on the same day or the participants may take the surveys home and return them in two to three weeks to receive their gift card.

The next contact will be a reminder postcard that encourages the participants who may not have completed and returned the survey and will be placed in each child’s mailbox (Blaxter, Hughes, & Tight, 2014). The final contact will be a thank-you letter for respondents’ time and consideration, accompanied with a gift card of ten dollars for those who returned the survey materials within the timeline. This gift card and a thankful letter will be into parents’ mailboxes in their child’s classroom.

Data Collection and Analysis

All surveys should be completed and collected within a four-week time-frame. Once the survey of opportunity has passed, the survey results will be entered into a spreadsheet. The data from the spreadsheet will be entered into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 22.0 (SPSS) for final statistical analysis. A power analysis yields an estimated sample size of 110 for a linear regression with four predictors (power of 0.8, type I error of 0.05, and medium size effect of 0.1) (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009); however, the researcher will have a goal of collecting data from at least 150 participants to account for missing data or incomplete surveys. The goal is to achieve response rates at 30% to 40% (Fowler, 2009). Missing data rate of 15% to 20% are common in educational studies (Dong & Peng, 2013). Dong and Peng (2013) found that 36% of studies had no missing data, 48% had missing data, and about 16% cannot be determined. Missing data reduces the statistical power of a trial and causes directly related to the quality of statistical inferences, which refers to the probability that the test will reject the null hypothesis (Dong & Peng, 2013; Kang, 2013). The missing rate of 5% or less is inconsequential; however, if there is more than this rate, then the bias of statistical analysis likely happens (Dong & Peng, 2013). Moreover, the impact of missing data on quantitative research can be serious because there is loss of information, decreased statistical power, increased standard errors, and weakened generalizability of findings (Kang, 2013). In survey processes, missing data can be caused by several reasons: (1) respondents may refuse or forget to answer a question because of privacy issues, (2) the person taking the survey does not understand the question due to a lack of experience or reading skill, (3) respondents lose interest or has not enough time to complete the questionnaires, (4) respondents does not show up on the survey’s day, (5) databases have missing data because there is a mismatch of variables between databases. The missing data will be handled by applying the multiple imputation approach (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). In this approach, replacing with a set of plausible values is the strategy for the missing values in which they contain the natural variability and uncertainty of right values (Kang, 2013). Researchers suggest the first step is before a data set with missing values is analyzed by statistical procedures, it needs to be edited in some ways into a complete data set. Failure to edit the data properly can make it unsuitable for a statistical procedure and the statistical analyses are vulnerable to the violations of assumptions (Dong & Peng, 2013). Second, begin with a prediction of the missing data by using the existing data from other variables. Then the missing values will be replaced with the predicted values, and a full data set called the imputed data set is created. This process iterates the repeatability and makes multiple imputed data sets (Kang 2013). Kang stressed each multiple imputed data set produced is analyzed using the standard statistical analysis procedures for complete data, thereby giving multiple analysis results. By combining these analysis results, a single overall analysis result is produced. In addition to restoring the natural variability of the missing values, it incorporates the uncertainty due to the missing data, which results in a valid statistical inference (Kang, 2013). Moreover, restoring the natural variability of the missing data can be achieved by replacing the missing data with the imputed values using the regression method, or the predictive mean matching method can be used if the missing variables are continuous (Dong & Peng, 2013). Furthermore, multiple imputation turns out to be robust to the violation of the normality assumptions and produces appropriate results even in the presence of a small sample size or a high number of missing data (Dong & Peng, 2013). In short, upon receiving the data will be screened for accuracy to clarify any problems or errors (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). This study will use well-developed multi-item scales. SPSS includes a missing value analysis module that allows examination of the patterns of data completion in a descriptive way. This test allows the researcher to see whether the data significantly departs from missing data completely at a random assumption (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). In general, the mean, standard deviation, and frequencies will be checked on the amount of missing data, and the regression method will be then utilized to impute the missing values. Handling the missing data by using the SPSS Missing Value Analysis software will help solve any missing data problems (Kang, 2013). Cronbach’s alphas will be used to compute and determine the internal consistency reliability of each construct and subscale in these measures (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008).

Descriptive summary statistics, including the calculations of means, standard deviations, and ranges for attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavior controls, and parental intentions will be obtained to answer the first three research questions. Because this study has one dependent variable and multiple independent variables, the researcher will use a multiple regression analysis to determine the amount of variation in the dependent variable explained by the independent variables to answer research question four. The step-wise multiple regression to be employed has the following assumptions that must be met: linearity, collinearity, independence of errors, normality, and homoscedasticity. Statistical SPSS software will be used to test each assumption. These assumptions can be tested through a visual inspection of data plots, skewness, kurtosis, Q-plots, P-plots, and VIF statistics (Field, 2013). Skewness and kurtosis can be checked in the statistical tables and normality can be checked through histograms of the standardized residuals (Field, 2013). If the assumption of normality is not met then researcher will determine the reasons for why the data is not normal (e.g., the underlying distribution is nonnormal, outliers or mixed distribution of scores on each of the variables may contain, a low discrimination gauge is used, skewness is present in the data) (Foster, Barkus, & Yavorsky, 2006) and corrective procedures such as transformations may be performed if needed. If the assumption of linearity is not met then the original correlation matrix will be examined to identify any item that do not correlate with the subscale and elimination of such items might be considered with subscale reliabilities being recomputed (Foster, Barkus, & Yavorsky, 2006). If the assumption of no multicollinearity is not met then one of the variables will be removed which has a low value on the tolerance and return the analysis. Alternatively, the researcher may combine the correlated independent variables by using their total or mean as an independent variable (Foster, Barkus, & Yavorsky, 2006). If the assumption of homoscedasticity is not met then a transformation of the variables may be conducted or use of a weighed least squares regression may be considered (Foster, Barkus, & Yavorsky, 2006). Summary statistics of demographics regarding ages and gender will be computed and reported to describe the sample. To answer researcher question four, SPSS results on the three main tables: Model Summary table to report the R and R^2 and adjusted R^2 and standard error to indicate how well the data fit the model, the ANOVA table to report the F-ratio and significant for the overall regression model, and the Coefficients table to identify the coefficients for each independent variable and if it is a significant variable in the regression model (Laerd Statistics, n.d.).

Assumptions

The assumptions in this study include: (a) the application of the theory of planned behavior is appropriate to be utilized in predicting/explaining and gaining a deeper understanding of the immigrant and refugee parents/caregivers’ intentions with regard to parental involvement, (b) participants will answer all survey questions truthfully and honestly, (c) the variables of parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and parental intention regarding parent involvement are complex and may or may not be fully measured by the survey employed, and (d) the survey instrument used is valid and reliable.

Limitations

The following limitations are present in this study. A possible limitation for immigrant and refugee families is a language barrier, although the survey will be translated into their primary language. Also, parent reading levels might impact comprehension of each question or prevent parents/caregivers from volunteering to take the survey (Keys, 2015). The surveys are being sent home, and participants may have no opportunity to get clarification on items, thereby inaccurately interpreting the questions. Because the scope of this study includes only immigrant/refugee families, findings are limited to the sample obtained from those enrolled in Head Start and Early Head Start programs in the vicinity. This study is limited by the use of a convenience sample.

Delimitations

The problem of parental involvement in children’s education in Head Start or Early Head Start programs is the focus of the study, although there are other problems with immigrant/refugee families. Findings are delimited to only those variables being measured in relation to parent involvement and the theory of planned behavior. The criteria for participants’ enrollment in this study are first-generation foreign born and immigrant and refugee families which may eliminate some families from participating even though they might consider themselves a part of this population. This study is delimited to only the geographic regions in the San Diego County, California being sampled and who are enrolled in Head Start programs.

Regarding the parental behavior, Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (TPB) (1991) is a useful method to explain and predict intentional behavior based on personal beliefs about the outcomes of behaviors. It can be used to describe the dynamic and complex nature of parental engagement in their child’s life and education (Bracke & Corts, 2012). In addition, the TPB offers a viable theoretical lens for examining parental involvement, the most important determinant of parental behavioral dispositions. However, based on these goals, an emotional variable in the theory of planned behavior may not capture all aspects of parents/caregivers and their intentions for parent involvement.

Ethical Assurances

When conducting research with human participants, the researcher should always ensure research is ethically conducted. There are no elements of risk or deception to be used in this study. Other considerations include privacy, informed consent, anonymity, secrecy, being truthful, and confidentiality (Moreno, Goniu, Moreno, & Diekema, 2013). The federal regulations define a human subject as a living individual about whom an investigator obtains data through interaction with the individual or identifiable private information (Moreno, Goniu, Moreno, & Diekema, 2013). Informed consent, confidentiality, and protection of individuals are central to the guidelines on research ethics (Blaxter, Hughes, & Tight, 2014). There is a statement in the cover letter for consent to participate; and the researcher will require a signed informed consent form before collecting data from parents/caregivers and will keep the consent forms and information confidential and separate from data after collection (Moreno, Goniu, Moreno, & Diekema, 2013). The researcher assurances and trusts include the absence of deception, the voluntary nature of participation, and the non-risks involved. Further, it is critical to protect the participant identities (Fowler, 2009). Their names, e-mail addresses, postal addresses and telephone numbers will not appear on the survey. Data and results from the survey will not include their names, and the survey will not be shared with anyone other than researcher and the committee at Northcentral University. With regards to participants’ information on all documents such as a consent form and demographic information, they will be destroyed after seven years of being kept in the researcher’s personal locked files (Fowler, 2009). The collected information is utilized only in support of this study and for only educational purpose. The final reports of the study will contain no names of parents’/caregivers, protecting their confidentiality.

Summary

To apply the theory of planned behavior to predict/explain and gain a deeper understanding of the immigrant and refugee parents/caregivers’ intentions and behaviors with regard to parental involvement, it is necessary to utilize the quantitative method and a cross-sectional survey design. A descriptive and correlational design will be utilized to identify the parents’ intention and behaviors and answer the research questions posed. Upon receiving immigrant and refugee parents’ 57-item survey, their responses will be input into SPSS. The instrument used in collecting data from the parents or caregivers will have four sections, measuring perceptions of parents or caregivers regarding parental attitudes/beliefs, subjective norms, perceived behavioral controls, and parental intentions. The surveys collect data using a 1 to 6-point Likert scale. The instrument used has sufficient reliability and validity. Descriptive statistics for parents or caregivers’ survey responses and inferential data analysis will be used within SPSS to answer the research questions. The procedure includes calculations of means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages of parental intention of involvement. Subscale reliabilities and correlations will be reported. A stepwise multiple regression will be used to answer research question four.

Appendices

Appendix A: Parent Survey

Instructions:

All items in the scale use a strongly disagree to strongly agree response format. Please refer to the following scale for your response:

1 = strongly disagree

2 = disagree

3 = I don’t know

4 = agree just a little

5 = agree

6 = strongly agree

For each statement below, please circle one answer that most closely matches your opinion. If you do not know or you do not have enough information to answer, please select “I don’t know”.

I. Parent’s Role Construction (Attitudes/Beliefs) 24 Items:

1. It’s my job to explain continuity of care assignment to my child.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

2. It’s my job to make sure my child understands his or her self-care.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

3. I make it my business to stay on top of things at children center.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

4. I assume my child is doing all right when I don’t hear anything from his or her teacher.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

5. The teacher must let me know about a problem before I can do something about it.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

6. I get most of my information about my child’s progress from my teachers.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

7. My child’s learning is mainly up to the teacher and my child.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

8. I like to spend time at my child’s school when I can.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

9. It’s important that I let the teacher know about things that concern my child.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

10. I find it helpful to talk with the teachers.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

11. My child’s teachers know me.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

12. Your child’s teacher asks you to help your child study at home.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

13. Your child’s teacher asks you to talk with your child about his/her school day.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

14. Your child’s teacher asks you to work with your child on specific home activities.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

15. Your child’s teacher asks you to look over your child’s approach learning.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

16. Your child’s teacher asks you to schedule a conference to discuss your child progress.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

17. Your child’s teacher sends home a note asking you to send supplies for a class party.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

18. Your child’s teacher asks you to send supplies for an educational activity in the classroom.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

19. Your child’s teacher asks you to attend a children program at the school in the evening or weekend.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

20. Your child’s teacher asks for parents to volunteer a few hours of time to the classroom.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

21. Your child’s teacher asks for parents to help organize a day at the school.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

22. Your child’s teacher asks for volunteers to chaperone a class trip.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

23. Your child’s teacher asks you to come to school to talk about your work or a special interest of yours.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

24. Your child’s teacher asks you to help out in the classroom (for example, read to children).

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

II. Parent’s perceptions of Invitations for Involvement (Subjective Norms) 6 Items:

1. Teachers at this school are interested and cooperative when they discuss my child.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

2. I feel welcome at this children center.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

3. Most parents at my child’s center are able or willing to be actively involved with the center.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

4. Parent activities are scheduled at this children center so that I can attend.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

5. This children center lets me know about meetings and special school events.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

6. This children center’s staff contacts me promptly about any problem involving my child.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

III. Parent’s knowledge and skills for involvement (Perceived Behavioral Controls) 17 Items:

1. I know about volunteering opportunities at my child’s school.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

2. I know how to communicate effectively with my child about the school day.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

3. I know how to explain things to my child about continuity of care assignment.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

4. I know about special events at school.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

5. I know enough about the subjects of my child’s education to help him or her.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

6. I know how to communicate effectively with my child’s teacher.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

7. I know how to supervise my child’s playing as learning.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

8. I have the skills to help out at my child’s school.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

9. I know effective ways to contact my child’s teacher.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

10. I have what I need (for example, telephone, internet, email) to communicate effectively with my child’s teacher.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

11. I have the materials I need to help my child with playing at home.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

12. I have enough time and energy to communicate effectively with my child about the school day.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

13. I have enough time and energy to help out at my child’s center.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

14. I have enough time and energy to communicate effectively with my child’s teacher.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

15. I have enough time and energy to attend special events at my child’s center.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

16. I have enough time and energy to help my child with playing as a learning at home.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

17. I have enough time and energy to supervise my child’s play at home.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

IV. Types of Involvement (Parental Intentions) 10 Items:

1. I kept an eye on my child’s progress.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

2. I got advice from the teacher.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

3. I contacted the teacher with questions about schoolwork or activities.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

4. I helped my child with reading at home.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

5. I communicated with my child’s teacher.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

6. I talked with my child about the school day.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

7. I supervised my child’s playing at home.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

8. I helped out at my child’s school.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

9. I attended special events at my child’s center.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

10. I spent time at my child’s center.

1 2 3 4 5 6

strongly disagree disagree I don’t know agree just a little agree strongly agree

Your Family: Please mark answer for each item.

a. Your child at this school is a girl___ a boy ___ a girl and a boy ___ two girls ___ two boys ___

b. When your child was born (Please pick one child if you have two):

Month _____ Year _____

c. What is your relationship to the child?

___ Mother ___ Stepmother ___ Grandmother

___ Father ___ Stepfather ___ Grandfather

___ Other (please describe) __________________

d. What is your current age? _________ years old

e. How much formal schooling have you completed?

___ Some high school ___ High school diploma ___ College degree

___ Vocational school ___ some college ___ Graduate degree

f. How do you describe yourself? Immigrant ____ Refugee _____

g. How long have you been living in the United States? 1 year ___ 2 years ___ 3 years ___ 4 years ___ 5 years ___ more than 5 years ___

h. Marital Status: Married____ Divorced or separated____ Never married____

i. What language do you speak at home?

Arabic ___ English ___ Spanish ___ Vietnamese ___

Other (please describe) _____________

Thank you for taking the time to complete these questionnaires. Your assistance in providing information is very much appreciated.

Appendix B: Informed Consent Form

Introduction:

. I am a doctoral student in Northcentral University. I am conducting this research in order to study parental involvement and parent attitudes towards school and community. The findings will help me learn about involvement in your child’s education. It is a part of my doctor of philosophy program; I would like to invite you to take a survey.

Activities:

If you join in this research, you will be asked to complete the survey with 57 questions. The questions will take 30 minutes.

Conditions:

You are eligible to participate in this study if you:

· Are parents or caregivers who are foreign born (i.e., first-generation immigrants or refugees)

· Have at least one child enrolled in either Early Head Start or Head Start program

· Live in East San Diego, California

· Are between 18 and 65 years old

· Can read and interpret survey questions in your own language and answer with restricted selection options.

You are not eligible to participate in this study if you:

· Are a Native American

· Cannot read and interpret survey questions in your own language and answer with restricted selection options

· Are under 18 or over 65 years old

· Have children not enrolled in either Early Head Start or Head Start program

· Do not live in East San Diego, California

This survey will provide four languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, and Vietnamese. I hope to include you on a sample of 110 people in this research.

Risks:

There is a minimum of risk in this study. Some risks may include a disclosure of the parent responses. To reduce the impact of this risk, you can skip any questions or stop at any time if you feel discomfort at answering some questions.

Benefits:

If you participate in this research, there is no benefit to you. However, parents and adults who are for children’s education will be able to help children succeed by understanding about increasing parent involvement.

Privacy:

I will keep your identity confidential. Your name will be separated from your responses.

Some people, who will have access to your information, may include my Chair or dissertation Committee. The NCU Institutional Review Board may view my data and your information.

Your information will be protected by being locked in a cabinet. The papers will be kept in a locked case while transporting them. After keeping data for 7 years, they will be destroyed.

Confidentiality:

The information you provide will be kept confidential to the extent allowable by law. There are some steps I will take to keep your identity confidential. I will not ask for your name; however, if you wish to provide your name, I will keep your name separate from your answers.

The Institutional Review Board may review my data and your information. Your information will be secured by being locked in a filing cabinet and on a computer file with a password. While transporting it, the papers will be secured in a locked case. Your data will be kept for 7 years. Afterward, I will delete electronic data and destroy paper data.

Voluntary Participation:

Your participation in this survey is entirely voluntary. You are not required to participate or provide answers if you are not comfortable before or after you start taking the survey. There is no penalty whether you choose to participate. You will not lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You will receive a gift card worth ten dollars for the time you spent on the survey.

Identifying Information:

1. Would you like to participate in the research? Yes ____ No _____

2. If “Yes”, do you want to fill out the identifying information linked to the survey?

Yes____ No ____

If “Yes”, please enter your name: ____________________________________

3. Have you read and agreed to the terms of the informed consent? Yes ___ No ____

If “Yes”, you are welcome to take the survey. If “No”, I wanted to thank you for your interest and you may not move on to complete the survey because you have not read and agreed to the terms of the informed consent. You are not required to provide a signature if you decide not to participate, but you can participate if you choose to sign.

Researcher Signature Printed Name Date

_______________________ _______

Appendix C: Parent Demographic Data

The following questions will help us plan the activities to meet your family’s needs. Please mark the answer for each item.

1. What is your current age? _________ years old

2. How do you describe yourself? Immigration ______ Refugee ______

___ Arabic ___ Asian ___ Hispanic or Latino

___ Spanish ___ African ___ Other (please describe) _________

3. What language do you speak at home?

Arabic ___ English ___ Spanish ___ Russia ___ Hmong ___ Vietnamese ___

Other (please describe) _____________

4. Your child at this school is a: Girl _____ Boy ______

5. When your child was born: Month _____ Year _____

6. What is your relationship to the child?

___ Mother ___ Grandmother

___ Father ___ Grandfather

___ Stepmother

___ Stepfather

___ Other (please describe) __________________

Appendix D: Cover Letter

Dear Parents,

My name is Stevin Luch. I am a doctoral student in the Early Childhood Education program at Northcentral University, Arizona. I would like to invite you to participate in this study because you are a parent of a young child with some educational needs. As a parent or caregiver, your involvement in your child’s education needs is valuable and important to your child’s preschool at Head Start or Early Head Start programs.

The following information is provided to help you make an informed decision about to participate in this study. This research study aims to examine what your behavioral intention to perform the parental involvement in child’s education. The estimated number of participants asked to participate in this study is 150 individuals. You are selected because your child’s Early Head Start/Head Start classroom has been chosen for this study. However, your participation is voluntary, and there is no risk to you.

Title:

Application of the theory of planned behavior to explaining parental involvement of immigrant and refugee populations in Head Start and Early Head Start programs.

Purpose:

The purpose of this study is to learn how immigrant and refugee parents’ involvement affects children’s achievement and academic success in Head Start and Early Head Start.

Procedure:

If you participate, you will be asked to complete 57-item questionnaires regarding parent involvement. The questionnaires will take about 20 to 30 minutes to complete. By taking your time to fill out this survey, you are contributing to a critical project.

Benefits:

By participating in this survey, you will have the opportunity to provide your opinions regarding the parent involvement in Head Start and Early Head Start programs and the effects from involvement has on children’s achievement. Your valuable answers will help provide guidance to extention agents when they begin the program planning process.

Compensation:

You are being offered a gift of ten dollars to compensate you for the time spent in the survey.

Risks and/or Discomforts:

There is no risk associated with this research. Some of the questions may make you feel uncomfortable; you are free not to answer any question you wish.

Confidentiality:

Any information obtained in this study will be kept strict confidential. Upon your acceptance of this agreement, any data associated with you will be identified only by a unique number — not your name, address, or contact information. Three years after the study has the conclusion, all records will be destroyed. The information obtained in this study may be published in education journals, but these data will be reported as aggregated data. Any direct quotes from you will remain anonymous.

Northcentral University

Appendix E: Head Start Executive Director and Directors’ Letter of Consent

Dear _________________:

I am a doctoral student in Early Childhood Education Program at Northcentral University, Arizona. I am conducting a study about parent involvement in early childhood education. I am writing the letter to request the executive center and center directors to allow me to distribute the survey papers to parents or caregivers when they are dropping off or picking up their children.

The Study: Your centers are invited to be part of a research study regarding parent involvement in children’s education. Please read this form and bring any questions you may have before agreeing to have children’s parents to be part of the study. If you agree, your centers would allow me to distribute the surveys at your preschool. Only for parents who have signed consent forms, the study includes:

Compensation: Upon completion of the survey questionnaires, each parent will receive the gift of ten dollars ($10) for their participation.

Confidentiality: The records of this study will be kept confidentially to the extent permitted by law. In publications, I will not include any information that will make it possible to identify, for example, the preschool centers, classrooms, teachers, children or family members. Research records will be stored securely in a locked file cabinet in my office, and only researchers will have access to the records for a period of three years. Afterward, the records will be shredded to ensure confidentially to all participants.

Risks: There is a minimum risk in this study. The results of this study may be published, but center director/teachers’ name will not be used.

Voluntary participation: Participation in this study is voluntary. The consent form will be sent to parents with self-stamped envelope.

Contact information for questions: I would be glad to answer your questions that may arise regarding the study. Please direct me with your questions or comments via e-mail at , by phone at or reach my chair

Thank you for your cooperation,

Northcentral University

January 23, 2018

4019 Marron Street

San Diego, CA 92115

Head Start Center Director’s Permission Letter

Dear Center Directors:

I am writing this letter to introduce myself. I am a doctoral student from Northcentral University, Arizona. I am also a substitute teacher at your AKA Head Start programs. I will conduct research to evaluate important variables in the theory of planned behavior to find possible determinants of parent intention for school involvement, such as parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. These findings will help me to determine whether they are significantly relate to and use them to predict the reported intentions of parent involvement in children’s centers.

According to the permission that was signed by the Head Start Executive Director Yolanda Perez on …………, 2017. I would like to have your permission if I could put Pre-Notice of Parent Survey letter into children’s mailboxes at your center. It will be distributed sometimes starting from April through May. After a few days of sending out the recruitment letters, please allow me to distribute survey packages at the center’s gate during the time of drop-off or pick-up. Please help me conduct the survey and authorize me to do so by signing your name below.

I am glad to have this form with your signature to be submitted to the Northcentral University Institutional Review Board (IRB). With your permission, the IRB will send an approval letter, which grants me to recruit participants or start to collect data.

Thank you for your consideration regarding the research opportunity.

Northcentral University

Appendix F: Pre-Notice of Parent Survey

Dear parents/guardians:

I am a doctoral student in Northcentral University, Arizona. I would like to invite you to complete a survey because you are the parent of a child in a Head Start program. As a parent or caregiver, your involvement in your child's education is valuable and important for preschool in AKA Head Start or Early Head Start.

The following information is to help you decide to join. This research aims to examine your intentions to join in your child’s school activities. The number of parents I hope to have in this study is 110. Your participation is appreciated.

The purpose of this survey is to learn how the participation of immigrant and refugee parents' involvement is influenced by different variables. I will ask you to complete 57 questions related to parent involvement. The questions will take 30 minutes. You will receive a gift card of ten dollars. It is to compensate for the time you spend on the survey. There are minimal risks for you in this study. Some questions may make you feel uncomfortable. You are free to not answer any question.

Any information obtained in this study will remain confidential. Seven years after the study has concluded all records will be destroyed.

You can ask any question related to this research. I am available to answer your questions. Please contact me at A. Please remember that this research is completely independent from the Head Start program. It is not funded by or being administered by the office of Head Start. Your child’s enrollment in Head Start or Early Head Start, or any other social service program you are enrolled will not be affected by participating in this study.

Thank you for considering this research opportunity.

Northcentral University

Appendix G: Recruitment Letter

The day of …… April 2018

Dear parents/guardians:

I am a doctoral student in Northcentral University, Arizona. I am studying early childhood education, focused on parental involvement in the AKA Head Start program.

I am writing this letter to explain why I invite you to participate in my research. While many parents have significant influence on their children’s education, there are some problems and barriers restricting parents’ participation in children’s school program. I will ask you some questions on attitudes and beliefs, norms, and behaviors about being involved in your child’s education. I am researching parental involvement in children’s education that should be able to help children succeed when they are transferred to a higher level.

This study will include parents who are immigrants or refugees and who have children enrolled in AKA Early Head Start or Head Start. With your permission, I will ask you to answer 57 questions. It will take 30 minutes of your time. This survey will be provided with four languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, and Vietnamese. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and not combined with AKA Head Start programs and will not affect your rights in any way. You may decline to join in the study or to withdraw by writing on the survey: "I don't want to participate" or by not returning the survey.

The study will start from April 2018 to May 2018. If you choose to participate, you are provided with a stamped envelope for the survey that can be mailed to me. Or, you seal the envelopes and send them with your child to school.

This study will be used for education’s purpose. This study has a minimal risk to you. Your name will not be placed on the survey and I will not use any name. I will use only data and results from this survey as group data. This data will only be shared with my dissertation chair and committee members at my. Please mail two separate self-stamped envelopes. One is for the Informed Consent form and survey, and another one is for the Contact Information sheet. Please remember this is an independent study. It is not funded by or administered by the Office of Head Start. By participating in this study, your child’s enrollment in Head Start or Early Head Start, or any other social service program you are enrolled in will not be affected.

Best regards,

Northcentral University

(Please keep this letter in your record)

Appendix H: Permission of Using the Parent Involvement Project (PIP) Letter

August 25, 2017

4019 Marron Street

San Diego, CA 92115

(619) 212-3486

Dear Dr. Darlene Whetsel,

I am pursuing a doctoral degree from Northcentral University in Prescott Valley, Arizona. My research will include the Parent Involvement Project (PIP) questionnaires, (prepared by you, 2002). I anticipate using these questionnaires to test the theory of planned behavior to explaining parental involvement of immigrant and refugee populations in Head Start and Early Head Start programs, San Diego, California.

This letter is requesting your permission to use your archival questionnaires that are total 57 items of the Parent’s role Construction of beliefs and behavior.

Appendix I: The Evidence of Permission Was Granted to Use the Instrument

Appendix J: Table 1. Head Start & Early Head Start Enrollment, 2015

Mr. Alex,

Here are the sample chapter 4 and 5 from my instructor.

Chapter 4: Findings

The purpose of this quantitative, correlational study was to examine how measures of (1) teacher training, (2) teacher knowledge, (3) teacher personal valuing or concerns for teaching students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms, (4) availability of adequate resources for teaching students with dyslexia, and (5) teacher previous experience with students with dyslexia relate to and predict both teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and toward willingness to provide instructional accommodations to students with dyslexia by urban high school teachers. The predictor variables were teacher training, teacher knowledge, teacher personal valuing or concerns for teaching students with dyslexia, availability of adequate resources for teaching students with dyslexia, and teacher previous experience with students with dyslexia. The criterion variables were teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and teachers’ attitudes toward willingness to provide classroom instructional accommodations to students with dyslexia. Aspects of six survey instruments were combined to create the instrument that was used to collected data using an online survey. A total of 135 inclusion teachers of urban-high school students with dyslexia participated in the study. The two research questions explored in this study were:

RQ1. How are measures of teacher training, teacher knowledge, teacher personal valuing or concerns for teaching students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms, availability of adequate resources for teaching students with dyslexia, and teacher previous experience with students with dyslexia related to one another and to teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and towards the willingness to provide classroom instructional accommodations to students with dyslexia by urban high school teachers?

RQ2. How do measures of teacher training, teacher knowledge, teacher personal valuing or concerns for teaching students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms, availability of adequate resources for teaching students with dyslexia, and teacher previous experience with students with dyslexia predict teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and towards the willingness to provide classroom instructional accommodations to students with dyslexia by urban high school teachers?

This chapter presents the findings from this quantitative correlational study based on the posed research questions and hypotheses. The findings are presented in three parts. First presented are the descriptive statistics of the data collected. Second, the results of the statistical analysis of the relationships among the independent variables and the effects of each independent variable on the dependent variable are presented. Third, the evaluation and interpretation of the findings followed by a brief summary of the chapter are provided.

Results

Upon approval from Northcentral University’s IRB and the Urban School District, teachers were invited to participate through their school’s e-mail address. Included in the email to all high school teachers in the school district was a Survey Monkey link through which the teachers could choose to participate in the study. If teachers clicked on the survey link, they were provided with the screening questions for participation, purpose and description of the study, and the informed consent form. If a teacher met the criteria for participation and gave consent to participate, the survey link opened in a window to allow completion of the survey.

Sample demographics. A total of 157 high-school teachers attempted to complete the survey; however, only 135 teachers successfully completed the survey by answering all the survey questions. Table 1 shows the demographics of the inclusion teachers who completed the survey. Of the 135 participants who successfully completed the survey, 59 teachers were male (44%) and 76 were female teachers (56%). Additionally, of the 135 inclusion teachers who took the survey, 25 were special education teachers (19%) and 110 were regular education teachers (81%). Out of the 135 teachers, 16 teachers (12%) had teaching experience of less than five years, 40 teachers (30%) had teaching experience between 6 and 10 years, 39 teachers (29%) had teaching experience between 11 to 15 years, 26 teachers (19%) had teaching experience between 16 and 20 years, and, 14 teachers (10%) had teaching experience of more than 21 years. Among those who participated in the study, 79 teachers (59%) held a bachelor’s degree, 51 teachers (38%) held a Master’s degree, and, 5 teachers (3%) held a doctorate degree. In terms of age groups, 11 teachers (8%) were between 21 to 30 years old, 57 teachers (42%) were between 31 to 40 years old, 41 teachers (31%) were between 41 to 50 years old, and, 26 teachers (19%) were more than 50 years old. When data collection was completed, SPSS version 23 was used to process and analyze data. This quantitative correlational study utilized Pearson’s correlation analysis to measure the degree of association between two variables and multivariate regression analysis to assess the magnitude and behavior of the relationship of the predictor variables to the criterion variables. Table 1 provides study variables by demographic characteristics.

Table 1

Study Variables by Demographic Characteristics

The corresponding values with the demographic information in Table 1 represents the mean values of the independent variables and dependent variables per each demographic analyzed. For example, the mean value of attitudes for males who participated in this study was 3.29. The mean value of attitudes for teachers with teaching experience of between 0 and 5 years who participated in this study was 3.36. The mean value of males’ willingness to provide instructional accommodation to students with dyslexia was 4.59 and the mean value of teacher’ concerns who hold a bachelor’s degree was 3.17.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables.

Descriptive statistics. Table 2 presents descriptive statistics using all participants for the independent variables (training, knowledge, concerns, availability of resources, and experience) and dependent variables (attitude and willingness). As can be observed from Table 2, the mean scores derived for independent variables were training (M=1.13, SD= 0.46), knowledge (M=1.46, SD= 0.79), concerns (M=3.13, SD= 0.44), availability of resources (M=1.72, SD= 0.63), experience (M=2.36, SD= 0.43). While the mean score derived for attitude toward inclusion of students with dyslexia was (M=3.29, SD= 0.41), and the mean score derived for willingness to provide instructional modifications to students with dyslexia was (M=4.47, SD= 0.92). The mean scores for concerns, willingness, and attitude were very high, while the mean scores for training, knowledge and availability of resources were very low. High mean score for concerns was unexpected however, it might be the way the questions were framed. The mean score for attitude was also high despite low scores for training and availability of resources. High attitude mean might be as a result of teachers’ experience (high mean score) working with students with dyslexia however, high mean scores in both attitude and willingness was suspicious given the super low means in concerns, training, and resources. Therefore, provision of resources and training to inclusion teachers in this district is critical.

Table 3

Psychometric Characteristics for the Averaged Subscale Scores

Subscale reliabilities. Table 3 shows the psychometric characteristics for the seven subscale scores. The seven subscales were (a) attitude, (b) training, (c) willingness, (d) knowledge, (e) concerns, (f) availability, and (g) experience. Researchers disagree on the minimum acceptable value for Cronbach’s alpha (McBurney & White, 2013; Spiliotopoulou, 2009). However, some researchers have suggested that a value of 0.7 or greater is indicative of a reliable scale (Washburn, Binks-Cantrell, & Joshi, 2014). According to this restrictive criterion, all the subscales used in this study should be deemed reliable with the exception of experience which only reported a moderate reliability. Hellweg and Schuster-Amft, (2016) and Spiliotopoulou (2009) reported that one reason for underestimated alpha would be when the number of items are less than four. These alpha results are consistent with those previously reported by the developers of these scales. The previous reliability coefficients obtained by the developers of these subscales were (a) Attitude- 0.737 (Gwernan-Jones & Burden, 2010), (b) Training- 0.9 (Aladwani & AL Shaye, 2012), (c) Willingness- 0.73 to 0.91 (Leyser, Vogel & Wyland, 2000), (d) Knowledge 0.90 (Aladwani, & AL Shaye, 2012), (e) Concerns- 0.65 to 0.83 (Forlin, Earle, Loreman & Sharma, 2011), (f) Availability- 0.89 (Murray, Wren, & Keys, 2008) and, (g) Experience- 0.51 to 0.8 (Gething & Wheeler, 1992).

Assumption tests. Normality of variable residuals, one of the assumptions of multiple regression analysis was examined. To test for normal distribution of the sample data, P-P plots were constructed for the residuals of the variables of attitude toward inclusion of students with dyslexia and willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia.

Figure 1. Attitude Model: Normality of Residuals

Figure 1 shows the results of the residuals for Attitude. As can be observed, the sample was normally distributed and the relationship was approximately linear.

Figure 2. Attitude Model: P-P Plot of Residuals

Figure 2 shows a P-P plot constructed for the residual of the variable of Attitude toward inclusion of students with dyslexia. The P-P plots were generated to test the assumption of normality (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Assumption of normality is met when points on the plot closely fall to the diagonal line. As can be observed, the P-P plot met the assumption of normality; therefore, an adequate level of normality was assumed for the sample taken for this study.

Figure 3. Willingness Model: Normality of Residuals

Figure 3 shows that the residuals for the Willingness variable. As can be observed, the sample data collected was relatively normally distributed and the relationship was approximately linear. Figure 4 presents the P-P plot constructed for the residual of the variable of Willingness to provide modified instructions to students with dyslexia and demonstrated an adequate level of normality.

Figure 4. Willingness Model: P-P Plot of Residuals

To determine the linearity and homoscedasticity between the study variables, scatterplots of residuals were generated (see Figure 5 and Figure 6). Observation of the scatterplots indicated that the relationships between the variables were linear in nature and that the test of homoscedasticity was met (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). To determine multicolianearity between study variables P-P plots were constructed for the residuals of the dependent variables (see Figure 2 and 4) that demonstrated an adequate level of normality for both attitude and willingness to provide modified instructional instructions to students with dyslexia (Chatelain & Ralf, 2014).

Figure 5. Scatterplot for Attitude Model to Tests for Outliers.

Scatterplots are used to investigate the assumption of linearity between the independent variables and dependent variables (Bucher, Dette, & Wieczorek, 2011). Ideally, all vertical and horizontal points should be between +3.29 and -3.29. Figure 5 includes the scatterplot for Attitude to test for outliers. Observation of the scatterplot revealed that majority of the points were between -3.29 and +3.29 in the horizontal and vertical level except a point at -5 vertically and at -4 horizontally that were outliers. These two outliers could not invalidate the assumption of linearity (Pinho, Nobre & Singer, 2015), thus the assumption of linearity was met (Cano, Carazo, & Salmerón, 2013).

Figure 6. Scatterplot for Willingness Model to Tests for Outliers.

The scatterplot in Figure 6 indicates symmetrical distribution of data points around a diagonal line, thus confirming the assumption of linearity (George, Seal, & Aban, 2014). Additionally, observation of the scatterplot for the willingness model test for outliers revealed majority of the points were between -3.29 and +3.29 in the horizontal and vertical level except for the one point vertically at -5. This one outlier could not invalidate the assumption of linearity (Pinho, Nobre & Singer, 2015), thus the assumption of linearity was met.

Table 4

Outlier measures.

Outlier Measures |Std Res| < 3, Cook’s Dist < 1

Cook’s distance was used to assess for outliers. Although the standard Cook’s distance test for outliers revealed a violation of this assumption (see Table 4), an examination of the scatterplot of Figure 5 and Figure 6 show that there were only a few outliers which should not invalidate the model (Pinho, Nobre & Singer, 2015). The assumption of multicollinearity was tested by observing P-P plots (Figure 2 and Figure 4). Observation of the P-P plots revealed that the assumption of multicollinearity was met for the sample taken for this study. The assumption for homoscedasticity was tested by generating scatter plots (Figure 5 and figure 6). Observation of the scatter plots revealed that the majority of the plots were between +3.29 and -3.29. Only a few outliers were observed in these plots, hence the assumption of homoscedasticity was met.

RQ1. The first research question posed was: How are measures of teacher training, teacher knowledge, teacher personal valuing or concerns for teaching students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms, availability of adequate resources for teaching students with dyslexia, and teacher previous experience with students with dyslexia related to one another and to teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and towards the willingness to provide classroom instructional accommodations to students with dyslexia by urban high school teachers?. The purpose of this question was to determine the relationships among the five independent variables and the two criterion variables. The correlation matrix calculated to answer this question is in Table 5.

Table 5.

Correlation Matrix for all Study Variables. R(p)

** correlation values are significant at p < .001 (two-tailed).

*values are significant at the p < .05 (two-tailed)

Table 5 identifies significant negative correlations between the experience variable and measures of proper training (r= -0.27, p< 0.001), knowledge about dyslexia (r=0.37, p<0.001), concerns about students with dyslexia (r=-0.46, p<0.001), and availability of resources for teaching students with dyslexia (r=0.37, p<0.001). Significant positive correlations were found between the availability of resources for teaching students with dyslexia variable and measures of knowledge about dyslexia (r=0.51, p<0.001), as well as concerns about students with dyslexia (r=0.39, p<0.001). The only independent variable that had a significant correlation with urban-high school teachers’ willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia was training (r=0.33, p<0.001). The three variables that had a significant relationship with urban-high school teachers’ attitudes were (a) teachers’ concerns about students with dyslexia (r=0.38, p<0.001), (b) availability of resources for teaching students with dyslexia (r=0.37, p<0.001), and (c) teachers’ experience in teaching students with dyslexia (r= -0.26, p<0.002). Given the significant positive and negative correlations found, the null hypothesis was rejected.

RQ2. The second research question posed was: How do measures of teacher training, teacher knowledge, teacher personal valuing or concerns for teaching students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms, availability of adequate resources for teaching students with dyslexia, and teacher previous experience with students with dyslexia predict teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and towards the willingness to provide classroom instructional accommodations to students with dyslexia by urban high school teachers? The purpose of this question was to assess the magnitude and behavior of the relationship of the five predictor variables to the two criterion variables through multivariate regression analysis. The results from the multiple regression analysis of the independent variables as predictors of the dependent variable are in Table 6.

Table 6

Multiple Regression: Study Variables as Predictors of Attitude and Willingness

Both multiple regression models demonstrated significant predictive capacity. The Attitude model has predictor variables accounting for 21.8% of the variance in Attitude (R2=0.218) while the Willingness model reveals predictor variables accounting for 13.1% of the variance in Willingness (R2=0.131). The Attitude model indicates that availability of resources [F(1,135)=7.185, p=0.002, R2=0.218, b=0.281] and teachers’ concerns [F(1,135)= 7.185, p=0.005, R2 =0.218, b=0.283] are the only two variables that significantly contribute to the prediction of Attitude. Overall, availability and concerns accounted for 22% of the variance in Attitude. The willingness model indicates that training [F(1,135)=3.899, p<0.001, R2=0.131, b=0.349] is the only variable that significantly contributes to the prediction of Willingness. Overall, training accounted for 13% of the variance in Willingness. The null hypothesis was rejected.

Evaluation of Findings

The following were the hypotheses for RQ1:

H10. No measures of teacher training, teacher knowledge, teacher personal valuing or concerns for teaching students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms, availability of adequate resources for teaching students with dyslexia, and teacher previous experience with students with dyslexia are related to one another or to teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and towards the willingness to provide classroom instructional accommodations to students with dyslexia by urban high school teachers.

H11. One or more measures of teacher training, teacher knowledge, teacher personal valuing or concerns for teaching students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms, availability of adequate resources for teaching students with dyslexia, and teacher previous experience with students with dyslexia are related to one another or to teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and towards the willingness to provide classroom instructional accommodations to students with dyslexia by urban high school teachers.

Using the results of the correlational analyses, the null hypothesis for RQ1 was rejected because significant positive and negative correlations were found among the variables. It is important to note that the measure for Experience variable was designed such that a lower score indicates more experience. For example, when the experience variable was low (meaning more experience), then the knowledge variable, the concern variable, and the availability variable were high. Significant positive correlations were found between the availability variable, the knowledge variable, and the concerns variable. Meaning that the more concerns a participant had, the less the experience and the lower the availability of resources.

This study was guided by the theory of planned behavior that stipulates that the main causes for choices of a behavior are the persons’ intent to engage in that behavior and the person’s outward behavioral control (French, Darker, Eves, & Sniehotta, 2013). These current findings are not surprising because they are consistent with those revealed by Washburn, Matesh and Binks (2011). Washburn, Matesh and Binks revealed that trained teachers held more positive attitudes towards inclusionary practices, whereas inexperienced teachers held more negative attitudes towards inclusive education. These

findings are also supported by Doktor (2010) who revealed that most teachers graduate from college without the proper training required to teach students with dyslexia and lacked the skills to developing students’ Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) Additionally, results from this study are consistent to that of Nonis and Jernice (2011) who reported that teachers without knowledge about dyslexia tend to be frightened by the mere presence of students with dyslexia in their classroom and that the support with classroom resources lessens the fear in regular education teachers and increases their confidence in teaching in inclusionary classrooms. Teachers’ limited availability of resources for teaching students with dyslexia as noted by the low mean score for that variable may be the cause of the negative attitudes some teachers have toward accepting students with dyslexia in their classrooms. Lack of enough resources and training might induce some form of concern or discomfort when interacting with students with dyslexia (Berry, 2010). Results from this study revealed that teachers’ experience, availability, and teacher concerns predicted teacher’s attitudes. Teachers with more experience as noted from the mean score for this variable were more likely to accept students with dyslexia in inclusion classrooms. Therefore, teachers’ daily interaction with disabled students is likely to reduce stereotypes and the negative attitudes towards students with dyslexia (Crowson & Brandes, 2010). Crowson and Brandes reported that the majority of the participants with positive attitudes had more contact with disabled students. A previous study conducted by Rice (2009) revealed that teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia might be influenced by teacher variables, such as training, special resources, and experience in teaching students with dyslexia. The results from this study supports Rice’s study in the areas of teachers’ experience and availability of resources but conflicts with Rice’s findings in the area of training.

Findings from this study revealed that even more experienced teachers were ill equipped to teach students with dyslexia because there were significant negative correlations between the experience variable and measures of proper training (r= -0.27, p< 0.001), knowledge about dyslexia (r=0.37, p<0.001), concerns about students with dyslexia (r=-0.46, p<0.001), and availability of resources for teaching students with dyslexia (r=0.37, p<0.001). Additionally, findings from this study revealed that there was a positive correlation between teachers’ attitude towards including students with dyslexia and (a) teachers’ concerns about students with dyslexia (r=0.38, p<0.001) and, (b) availability of resources for teaching students with dyslexia (r=0.37, p<0.001). This finding indicates that when teachers report higher concern, more experience and availability of resources they have a more positive attitude towards supporting the learning process of students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms (Pellerin, 2013). If these factors do not exist and the attitude is low, then teachers are less likely to provide inventive adaptations and individualized instruction that will benefit students with dyslexia (Chien-Hui & Rusli, 2012). A Previous study by Rice (2009) reported that training is a predictor for teachers’ attitude. These findings were unexpected given that training did not play a role in predicting teachers’ attitude. However, it is possible that the correlation between knowledge and concerns may indicate that the more they know about students with dyslexia, the more they get concerned about including them in inclusive classrooms.

Training was the only variable that predicted Willingness. While training significantly determines teachers’ willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia, without knowledge, experience and resources, training alone may not be enough, especially given that it was not related to attitude. The findings confirm the alternative hypothesis that one or more measures of teacher training, teacher knowledge, teacher personal valuing or concerns for teaching students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms, availability of adequate resources for teaching students with dyslexia, and teacher previous experience with students with dyslexia are related to one another or to teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and towards the willingness to provide classroom instructional accommodations to students with dyslexia by urban high school teachers. The null hypothesis was rejected.

The two hypotheses associated with RQ 2 were:

H20. Teacher training, teacher knowledge, teacher personal valuing or concerns for teaching students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms, availability of adequate resources for teaching students with dyslexia, and teacher previous experience with students with dyslexia will not predict teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and towards the willingness to provide classroom instructional accommodations to students with dyslexia by urban high school teachers.

H21. Teacher training, teacher knowledge, teacher personal valuing or concerns for teaching students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms, availability of adequate resources for teaching students with dyslexia, and teacher previous experience with students with dyslexia will statistically significantly predict teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and towards the willingness to provide classroom instructional accommodations to students with dyslexia by urban high school teachers.

Analysis of the findings from the multiple regression revealed that Training (=0.349, p<0.001) was the only variable having significant predictive value for urban-high school teachers’ willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia. In predicting urban-high school teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of students with dyslexia, the variable of concern (i.e., teachers’ concerns about students with dyslexia (=0.281, p=0.002) and availability (i.e., availability of resources for teaching students with dyslexia (=0.283, p=0.001) were the only variables contributing to its variance. Based on this findings, the null hypothesis was rejected.

Findings from this study revealed that teachers who reported higher training (which had the lowest mean of all variables) had higher willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia, meaning that the lower the training, the lower the willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia. No other variables investigated in this study contributed significantly to predicting willingness to employ a strategy or not employ the strategy. This finding would appear expected as numerous studies link training to willingness to employ a strategy or not employ a strategy (Cassady, 2011; Ross-Hill, 2009). However, this puts a lot of weight on the Training as the only variable that contribute to changing willingness and surprising that no other variables contributes to predicting Willingness. Results also revealed that Training only accounted for 13% of the variance in Willingness so clearly there is much more room for other variables to play in the role of Willingness but they were not included in this study. Variables such as teacher efficacy and teacher collaboration need further investigation in this school district as they have been found to play a role in teachers’ willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms (Ross-Hill, 2009). Providing urban-high school teachers with the training and skills needed to provide diverse instructional strategies will improve teachers’ willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia in inclusive classroom. Lack of enough training is likely to cause stress and confusion to teachers leading to lack of confidence in providing modified instructions to inclusive classrooms (Cassady, 2011).

Results also revealed that the higher the reported Concerns and Availability the more the positive the Attitude or the lower the Concerns and Availability the lower the Attitude. Previous studies reported that the fewer the concerns a teacher had the better the attitude (Forlin, Earle, Loreman, & Sharma, 2011) but this does not seem to be the case here, hence this finding were unexpected and needs further exploration. It is likely that the teachers’ experiences (with high mean scores) may be compensating for the teachers’ concerns. The more the experience a teacher have dealing with students with dyslexia, the more the awareness a teacher have a bout the manifestation of dyslexia and the more the concerns a teacher have about improving the academic performances of students with dyslexia which might lead to a more positive attitude.

Additionally, it was surprising to note that knowledge and training, which would be presumably and in the past research have been linked to improving attitude did not play a similar role in this study. It would seem that the higher the teachers’ concerns (high mean scores), the more the sympathy the teachers have towards this population of students and the positive the attitude regardless of lack of training and knowledge about students with dyslexia. However, the variance accounted for training was 21% so, there is much room for other variables to play a role in Attitude but they were not investigated in this study. Cassady (2011) reported that variable such as inclusion guidelines and teacher commitment, teacher-student ratio (class size), teacher beliefs and values, and teachers’ involvement in decision making play a role in teachers’ attitudes but were not investigated in this study.

It was surprising that even after 42 years since Congress enacted the PL 94-142 Act in 1974 that ended the exclusion of students with disabilities from regular education classrooms, some urban high school teachers still lack enough training for providing instructional modification to students with dyslexia. And even after teachers likely have experience as supported with the low mean in Table 1 (low mean means more experience) and knowledge (see Table 1) from years of teaching in inclusion classes of students with dyslexia, these have not contributed to improving the willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia. Regardless of possibly many efforts and programs towards inclusion for all, only training seems to contribute to teachers’ willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia. Lack of proper training may be the cause of teachers concerns regarding inclusion of students with dyslexia. However, these findings were somewhat expected given that urban school districts often lack enough funds for acquiring proper teaching supplies such as instructional material kits, students’ textbooks, lesson plan guides, and teachers’ guide books for teaching in inclusion classrooms (Nonis & Jernice, 2011). Possibly, lack of resources, including financial resources would be limiting the ability of the urban school districts from hiring experts on dyslexia and sponsoring teachers to attend professional development on how to teach and provide instructional accommodations to students with dyslexia (Charalambous & Hill, 2012). Thus, when availability of resources do exist from a teacher’s perspective, especially within an urban setting, this might contribute to teachers’ recognizing that the district is willing to support their efforts and result in an improved attitude. The findings also revealed that when teachers do report higher availability, it is a predictive of teachers’ attitude towards accepting students with dyslexia. This result was expected since availability of resources enables teachers to design classroom lessons suitable for instructing students with dyslexia.

The results from the multiple regression revealed that training teachers to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia can improve their willingness to make modification without necessarily improving their attitude. These findings mirror the study conducted by Kosko and Wilkins (2009) who revealed that coursework for teacher educators in college do not contain effective instructional accommodations for students with dyslexia. Thus resulting in colleges producing teachers without skills on how to make reasonable instructional accommodations for students with dyslexia in their inclusion classrooms (Desimone & Parmar, 2006b). Knowledge, experience, and availability of resources which would normally predict teachers’ willingness to provide instructional accommodation to students with dyslexia did not play a role in this study. In light of these results, it would seem that availability of enough resources would improve teachers’ attitude without necessarily improving teachers’ willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia. Additionally, you would expect that teachers’ concerns, especially concerns on professional competency to provide instructional accommodation would play a role in teachers’ willingness, but that was not the case in this study. But it would seem that higher concerns (high mean scores) would predict teachers’ attitude without necessarily predicting teachers’ willingness. This was unexpected and certainly needs further investigation.

Summary

A quantitative correlational study was conducted to determine if the predictor variables relate to each other and also predicted both teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and willingness to provide instructional accommodations to students with dyslexia by urban high school teachers. One hundred and thirty-five urban-high school teachers, 59 males (44%) and 76 females (56%) participated in the survey. Data was analyzed by Pearson correlation to answer research RQ 1 and evaluate the corresponding hypotheses. RQ 2 was answered via multiple regression and evaluate the corresponding hypotheses. Findings from this study revealed that teachers’ concerns and availability of resources significantly predicted teachers’ attitude toward the inclusion of students with dyslexia. The higher the reported Concerns and Availability the more the positive the Attitude or the lower the Concerns and Availability the lower the Attitude. Availability of classroom resources is likely to guide teachers on how to present classroom activities such as classroom instructions and sequencing classroom tasks (Brown, 2009). It was surprising that knowledge and training, which in the past research have been linked to improving teachers’ attitude, did not play a similar role in this study. Therefore, the null hypothesis for RQ1was rejected.

Teachers’ training was the single significant predictor of teachers’ willingness to make instructional accommodation to students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms. It was surprising that variable such as knowledge, experience, and availability of resources which would normally predict teachers’ willingness to provide instructional accommodation to students with dyslexia did not play a role in this study. Therefore, the null hypothesis for RQ2 was rejected. Training accounted only for 13 % variance in willingness. That means that there are other variables that certainly play a role in teachers’ willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms but were not investigated in this study

Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions

The enrollment of students with dyslexia in inclusion classrooms was heightened because of the legislation of the individual with Disability Act of 1975, (Bell, 2013; Blecker & Boakes, 2010; Cawthon, Leppo, Jin Jin & Bond, 2015; McFall & Fitzpatrick, 2010). The disability legislation required teachers to make realistic instructional accommodations in order to allow full involvement of students with dyslexia in the educational process (Schreuer & Sachs, 2014). However, practicing teachers in inclusion classrooms of students with dyslexia report they do not have the skills or knowledge on how to provide the appropriate instructional accommodations to students with dyslexia (Scanlon & Baker, 2012).

The problem addressed by this study is that while teachers of students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms may endorse inclusionary education, their pedagogy may not reflect strategies influenced by proper training for, sufficient knowledge of, and personal valuing for students with dyslexia (Anke et al., 2011; Bradshaw, 2009). Teachers are further challenged by the lack of available resources and professional experiences required when working with students with dyslexia. The relationship between teachers’ attitudes and provision of instructional accommodation is not fully understood because the role of the teachers’ training, knowledge about dyslexia, available resources, teachers’ concerns about dyslexia, and teachers’ previous experiences with students with dyslexia had not been factored into this relationship (Aladwani & Al Shaye, 2012; Crowson & Brandes,2010).

The purpose of this quantitative, correlational study was to examine how measures of (1) teacher training, (2) teacher knowledge, (3) teacher personal valuing or concerns for teaching students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms, (4) availability of adequate resources for teaching students with dyslexia, and (5) teacher previous experience with students with dyslexia relate to and predict both teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and toward willingness to provide instructional accommodations to students with dyslexia by urban high school teachers. The participants were purposively sampled from a population of urban-high school teachers in New Jersey according to the inclusion criteria set for the study that included: (a) tenured or tenure track teachers 21 years old and above, (b) teachers must be currently teaching in an urban high school, and (c) teachers must be engaged in an inclusion classroom setting of students with dyslexia (Cozby & Bates, 2012).

Through this correlational study, an explanation of how the predictor variables relate to and predict both teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and toward willingness to provide instructional accommodations to students with dyslexia by urban high school teachers was explored. During the analysis stage, the first research question was addressed by using Pearson’s correlation analysis and the second research question was addressed by using multivariate regression analysis. Pearson’s correlational analysis measures the degree of association among variables (Imai, 2011). Thus, correlation analysis allowed the assessment of the relationship among teacher training, teacher knowledge, teacher personal valuing or concerns for teaching students with dyslexia, availability of adequate resources for teaching students with dyslexia, and teacher previous experience with students with dyslexia to teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and towards the provision of instructional accommodations given to students with dyslexia by urban high school teachers (Souza et al., 2014). Meanwhile, multivariate regression analysis estimates the extent to which the proportion of variance of a specific set of predictor variables are associated with the variation in a set of criterion variables (Imai, 2011). Multivariate regression analysis allowed the assessment of the magnitude and behavior of the relationship of five predictor variables (level of proper training, knowledge about students with dyslexia, availability of resources, previous experience with students with dyslexia, and personal valuing or concerns about students with dyslexia) to the two criterion variables (teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms and teachers’ attitude towards the willingness to provide classroom instructional accommodations for students with dyslexia). All analysis was conducted using a 0.05 level of significance and through the use of the statistical software SPSS Version 23.

Before any data collection activities commenced, written approvals from the data collection site, Jersey City School Districts and Northcentral University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) committee were attained. The participants who met the participation criteria set for this study were given an online informed consent form to read and agree to prior to the start of the survey. An introduction letter that stated the purpose and description of the study, anonymity and confidentiality, voluntary participation, security of the participants’ information and discontinuation of taking the survey without any penalties was also provided. All data collected are stored on a password protected computer and will be deleted after 7 years.

Some of the limitations of the study were that assessing causality was not possible because in a correlational design none of the variables were manipulated and this was not a true experiment. Hence, no cause and effect can be inferred based on the findings. Additionally, internal threats such as history, maturation, diffusion of treatment, regression, testing instrument, and resentful demoralization may alter the outcome of a similar future study (Creswell, 2009). None of the instruments used in this study had open-ended questions thus limiting the responses the participants gave and inhibited the ability to conduct the most thorough analysis and interpretation possible of the problem. Participants in this study might have viewed their responses as a statement about their suitability for their teaching position and tried to choose answers that might not have truly represented their beliefs. To mitigate this problem, the participants were assured in the introduction letter that their responses would be anonymous and that the final report would not identify the name of their school district.

The following information is outlined in this chapter (a) the implications and limitations related to the two research questions, (b) recommendations describing the opportunities for practical applications of the findings, (c) future research that may help teachers and administrators understand more about where additional help may be needed for students, teachers, parents, and the school to better serve students with dyslexia, and finally, (d) a conclusion that summarizes the research findings.

Implications

The objective of this quantitative, correlational study was to contribute to the current literature regarding teachers’ level of receptiveness, hesitancy, or neutrality of students with dyslexia in urban-high schools and help administrators possibly identify what faculty variables contribute to faculty understanding, accepting, and embracing students with dyslexia and identify what they might be able to do to increase competencies in teaching students with dyslexia. Researchers investigating teachers’ attitude toward students with dyslexia have revealed that inclusion teachers do not have adequate knowledge, training, and skills to teach students with dyslexia in line with the inclusion policy (Cohen, Hoz, & Kaplan, 2013; Ness & Southall, 2010), which ultimately affects teaching efficiency (Ahsan, Sharma, & Deppeler, 2012). When inclusion teachers of students with dyslexia do not understand the nature of dyslexia, the characteristics of dyslexia, and the difficulties students with dyslexia experience, they are not likely to address the individual needs of students with dyslexia (Williams & Lynch, 2010; Sandholtz & Ringstaff, 2013). When inclusion teachers have the training on the manifestation of dyslexia and have the knowledge on how to recognize students with signs of dyslexia, they are likely to make realistic instructional accommodations and deliver a curriculum in a way that provides more opportunities to students with dyslexia in their classrooms (Charalambous & Hill, 2012; Crowe, 2010). With limited training and knowledge about dyslexia and modifications needed to accommodate students with dyslexia in inclusion classrooms, inclusion teachers get frustrated and overwhelmed by the demands of implementing diverse strategies that can cater for individual needs of students with dyslexia (Charalambous & Hill, 2012; Dixon, 2014; Kosko & Wilkins, 2009; Wai, Chan, & Zhang, 2014).

Additionally, teachers of inclusion who have limited knowledge and more concerns about students with dyslexia tend to have a negative reservation about including students with dyslexia in their classroom because; students with dyslexia cause some form of anxiety (Gabor, 2010; Sónia, 2012; Nonis & Jernice, 2011), feelings of general discomfort (Yildiz, et al., 2012), uncertainty (Chung, et al.,) or vulnerability when interacting with students with dyslexia (Washburn, et al., 2011). Hence, teachers with negative attitudes toward students with dyslexia are not likely to provide a suitable classroom environment where students with dyslexia can make meaningful academic progress (Berry, 2010; Charalambous & Hill, 2012; Dixon, 2014).

In this study, teachers reported that availability of resources predicted their attitude toward inclusion of students with dyslexia. Provision of classroom resources and human experts on dyslexia to inclusion teachers lessens the fear in teachers and increase their confidence in teaching inclusionary classrooms (Nonis & Jernice, 2011). Human resources, especially the teaching staff, inclusion experts, and the school administration ensure that there is collaboration between teachers and that the whole school is supportive of inclusionary practices (Scanlon & Baker, 2012). When school administrators are involved, they tend to ensure that teachers have enough extra time needed to plan and share concerns as a team (Chiner & Cardona, 2013) and are likely to supply resources such as instructional material kits, students’ textbooks, lesson plan guides, and teachers’ guide books that shape the quality of instruction and students’ learning activities in inclusionary classrooms (Charalambous & Hill, 2012). With availability of adequate classroom resources, the burden of presenting classroom activities such as classroom instructions and sequencing classroom tasks is lessened (Brown, 2009) and teachers’ attitudes to inclusion classrooms are improved. When teachers feel ill-equipped to teach students with dyslexia, they tend to be reluctant in accepting students with dyslexia in their classrooms (Sokal, 2012); and, without adequate resources, teachers feel they are not prepared to support the learning processes of students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms (Pellerin, 2013). However,

when teachers have enough resources and have positive concerns about including students with dyslexia, their attitude towards these students improves. This finding imply that without needed resources teachers likely have a lack of confidence in teaching in inclusionary classrooms (Nonis & Jernice, 2011) and are not able to provide grade level support to students with dyslexia (Csizér et al., 2010). Without grade level support, teachers’ attitude will not improve and without needed classroom instructional modifications, students with dyslexia are likely to be frustrated with school, their academic performance may drop, and they may end up dropping out of school (Björklund, 2011). So, in order to improve teachers’ attitude towards inclusion of students with dyslexia, provision of resources to inclusion teachers is a critical requirement in this urban school district.

In this study, the participating teachers reported quite high means on teachers’ attitude and willingness to provide instructional modification considering the super low mean scores for training, knowledge, and resources. Previous research on attitude and willingness have revealed that training, resources and knowledge play a role in both attitude and willingness. In light if the results from this study, this might imply that social desirability is at play here. Since the teachers should be willing to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia and have a positive attitude toward students with dyslexia so they self-reported higher than they actually are or that despite the lack of training, knowledge, and resources available these teachers have a good attitude and willingness to help these students because this is their job, this is what they signed for, to help students learn, and they take their job seriously and are willing to do what it takes to serve the students they encounter with as much concern and care regardless of any special needs they might have. However, with the low training and knowledge and available resources averages found in the study you have to wonder if this implies they are ill equipped to do so. Given that the participating teachers reported limited knowledge and training and resources (low mean scores) implies that there is much that can be done to possibly help these teachers to do their job even better, especially if they have a positive attitude and willingness to do so. Lack of training has consistently appeared in literature related to both school personnel and inclusion teachers of students with dyslexia (Bell, 2013; Gwernan-Jones & Burden, 2010; Ness & Southall, 2010) and the need to address this aspect of needed teacher professional development is clearly implied here as well. Once teachers receive the necessary training, their ability provide instructional modifications to students with dyslexia will be enhanced (Nonis & Janice, 2011)

In the context of the current study, teachers’ experience with teaching students with dyslexia was significantly negatively correlated with the variables training, knowledge, concerns, and availability of resources for teaching inclusive classrooms. The results indicate that this sample of urban-high schoolteachers report they have a higher level of experience (i.e., higher mean score from Table 1) accompanied by low levels of training, knowledge, and necessary resources. (i.e., lowest means from Table 1). Since teachers reported high attitudes and willingness (high mean scores from Table 1) despite low mean scores in training, availability, and knowledge, it would imply that high experience is compensating for low training, availability, and resources or that teachers are reporting what is socially acceptable. Given that this results were not expected and that knowledge, availability and experience accounted for 22% of variance in attitude, certainly, there are other variables that are playing a role in teachers’ attitude but were not investigated in this study. It is likely that the more the resources these teachers will receive, the more likely their attitude will be positive and the more knowledge these teachers will acquire about students with dyslexia, the more likely their attitude will improve.

The only independent variable that had a significant predictive effect on willingness to provide instructional accommodation to students with dyslexia was training. In light of this finding, the null hypothesis was rejected. This finding emphasize the critical role training plays. In the context of all the variables included in this study, training was the only one that emerged as impacting teachers’ willingness to provide instructional accommodation. Without the necessary training on the learning processes of students with dyslexia, urban-high school teachers are not able to implement research based instructions that accommodate individual learning differences of students with dyslexia (Washburn et al., 2011) and are not likely to provide inventive adaptations and individualized instructions that will benefit students with dyslexia (Chien-Hui & Rusli, 2012). These teachers might have a number of students with dyslexia currently in their classrooms but lack of training likely limits not only what they are willing to do but what they even know how to do to address these students’ needs. It is likely that the more training the teachers have, the more likely they will report being willing to provide instructional accommodation to students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms. Training can be offered to in-service teachers through regular professional development. Without this training, these urban-high school teachers will continue teaching students with dyslexia without the skills and knowledge needed to provide instructional modifications. The critical role that training plays in teachers’ willingness to, and likely ability to as well, cannot be overstated.

Recommendations

Teachers reported they lacked enough resources, proper training, and knowledge to teach students with dyslexia (i.e., observed from their super low means). Teachers and school administrators in urban-high schools can benefit from these findings by determining future actions using these results. Since teachers reported that availability of resources was a predictor of teacher’s attitudes, school administrators must consider what resources teachers require to successfully meet the needs of these students. It is therefore recommended that this school district should provide inclusion teachers with the necessary resources for teaching students with dyslexia. Provision of classroom resources including experts in dyslexia is likely to improve teachers’ attitude. If the district’s administrators would make an effort to allocate more classroom resources and in hiring human experts with a thorough knowledge about the manifestation of dyslexia, teachers’ confidence in teaching students with dyslexia will improve. Experts in dyslexia will also be handy in supporting inclusion teachers of students with dyslexia and identifying suitable diverse instructional modifications demanded by students with dyslexia (Wai, Chan, & Zhang, 2014). This finding mirrors the one conducted by Ryun and Kim (2011) who reported that availability of resources predicted teachers’ attitude towards inclusive classrooms. Provision of appropriate support to the teachers is likely to enable teachers to execute their teaching responsibilities efficiently (Woolfson & Brady, 2009) and change teachers’ attitude from negative to positive. Without these remedies, teachers will not be equipped with appropriate strategies and resources needed to teach in inclusive classrooms of students with dyslexia (Darling-Hammond, 2010; McLeskey, Landers, Williamson, & Hoppey, 2010) regardless of a positive attitude and willingness to make accommodation. Without positive teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of students with dyslexia, teachers are not likely to be effective in teaching students with dyslexia.

Teachers in this urban school district reported that they do not have enough training to provide diverse instructions in inclusion classrooms and their knowledge level about students with dyslexia was low. A practical recommendation to teachers in this district is to seek professional development required to develop their skills in teaching students with dyslexia, and administrators need to find time to allow for teachers to increase their knowledge. Since training accounted for 13% of variance in teachers’ willingness, there are other variables that must be playing a role in teachers’ willingness but were not investigated in this study. It is therefore recommended that a qualitative study be conducted in this school district to determine what, if any, other variables that are playing a role in teachers’ willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia. The teacher education programs in colleges teachers in this district attended might also need to consider their role in providing pre-service teachers with the training, adequate knowledge, and experience with students with dyslexia as this is an area often noted as lacking in teacher education program (Chiner & Cardona, 2013; Doktor, 2010; Secer, 2010). A practical recommendation for teachers’ colleges where the participants attended would include adding a program that require classroom visitations for pre-service teacher to alleviate teachers’ concerns and increase teachers’ knowledge about students with dyslexia and provide first-hand experience in handling students with dyslexia. Therefore, teacher education colleges where these teachers attended or other professionals need to provide professional development workshops to in-service teachers and better prepare pre-service teachers with awareness of the characteristics of students with dyslexia, knowledge about dyslexia, and skills on how to teach and make adequate curriculum modifications to students with dyslexia. These findings are a supported by several previous studies that reported that teachers in inclusive classrooms of students with dyslexia with no proper training felt unprepared to teach students with dyslexia and were not likely to apply teaching strategies that would positively impact students with dyslexia (Berry, 2010; Charalambous & Hill, 2012; Crowe, 2010; Dixon, 2014; Washburn, et al., 2011). Results from this study revealed that training predicted teachers’ willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia (i.e., the mean score for training was very low), indicating that if teachers receive proper training through profession development opportunities, willingness, believed to facilitate the effective inclusion of students with dyslexia would improve (Scanlon & Baker, 2012; Youman & Mather, 2013). However, training accounted only for 13% variance in willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia. Therefore, there are other variable not explored in this study but are playing a role in teachers’ willingness to provide instructional modifications to students with dyslexia. It was surprising that knowledge and resources, which have been previously reported to predict teachers’ willingness, did not play a role in this study; therefore, a further qualitative investigation is recommended to get in-depth information about why these variables do not play a role here. Training also did not play a role in predicting teachers’ attitude meaning that training teachers will improve teachers’ willingness without necessarily improving teachers’ attitude.

Teachers’ concerns were also a predictor of teaches’ attitude. The findings reveal that the more the concerns the teachers have the better the attitude. This was surprising and unexpected. These findings were in conflict with that reported by Agbenyenga (2007), Chagpinit, Greaves, Frydenberg (2007), Forlin and Chambers (2011), and

Forlin, Earle, Loreman and Sharma (2011) who reported that there was a significant negative correlation between attitude and concerns. Forlin and Chambers (2011) reported that teachers who had positive attitudes toward students with dyslexia tended to have fewer concerns about including students with dyslexia and vice versa. May be it is the way the questions were framed or may be the school district has implemented an effective teacher collaboration. Cahill and Mitra (2008) and Santoli, Sachs, Romney, and McClurg (2008) reported that effective collaboration ensure that general education teachers work with special education teachers, parents, school administrators, and experts in dyslexia to come up with strategies for supporting inclusion teachers of students with dyslexia. In addition, Collaboration between general and special education teachers ensure that they design best practices strategies in accommodating students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms. Involvement of parents in effective collaboration is important because parents are likely to provide more information about the child with dyslexia thus enabling the teachers to further understand the needs of the student (Tucker & Schwartz, 2013) which might improve teacher’ attitude to inclusion of students with dyslexia while having more concerns to inclusion of students with dyslexia. However, teacher collaboration was not explored in this study and provides a gap that can be investigated in future. Despite more concerns about including students with dyslexia, inclusion teachers’ collaborations with human experts on dyslexia lessens the fear of facing a student with dyslexia in inclusion classroom in and increase teachers’ confidence in teaching inclusion classrooms (Nonis & Jernice, 2011). However, teacher collaboration was not investigated in this study and certainly creates an opportunity for further investigation in this school district. Given that inclusion teachers’ commitment and attitudes are a critical element in successful inclusion, it is recommended that school administrators should address teachers’ concerns by consulting with the teachers to ensure that the teachers understand the policies pertaining to the successful inclusion of students with dyslexia (Starling et al, 2012). The district administrators should also make an effort to involve inclusion teachers in decision making. Active involvement of the teachers in formulating inclusive policies will create a sense of ownership and improve teachers’ knowledge as well as reduce teachers’ concerns regarding inclusion of students with dyslexia (Fareo, 2015). To improve teachers’ knowledge, the school administrators should strive to create a districtwide culture that will include increased awareness about the characteristics of students with dyslexia and knowledge of the best practices for teaching students with dyslexia.

This study was conducted in one urban high school in New Jersey. In light of this, a varied sample and sample size was limited. In the future, a larger national sample should be obtained for a similar study to obtain data that will be more representative of where inclusion teachers of students with dyslexia are situated in regard to attitude towards and willingness to provide instructional modifications to students with dyslexia. Given that teacher education programs in colleges are responsible for preparing pre-service teachers on how to differentiate instruction, there is also a need to further examine the competency of the curriculum the colleges use to prepare pre-service teachers to diversify instructions in classrooms of students with dyslexia. Also of importance to note is that this study did not take into consideration the class size of students with dyslexia. Since none of the instruments used in this study had open-ended questions, a qualitative study is recommended that could include teacher interviews to acquire more in-depth information about teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia. Another possible future study could explore the effect of class size on teacher’s attitude towards inclusion of students with dyslexia would include a research question such as “What are the effects of class size on teaching inclusion classrooms of students with dyslexia?” The researcher may use a survey to gather data from urban-high school teachers by using a validated instrument. The goal would be to identify what influence class size has on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion of students with dyslexia in urban high schools. Future researchers could use the same design used to gather data for this study but would include participants from all the urban high schools across the United States.

Conclusions

The purpose of this quantitative, correlational study was to examine how measures of (1) teacher training, (2) teacher knowledge, (3) teacher personal valuing or concerns for teaching students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms, (4) availability of adequate resources for teaching students with dyslexia, and (5) teacher previous experience with students with dyslexia relate to and predict both teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and toward willingness to provide instructional accommodations to students with dyslexia by urban high school teachers. Participants were purposively sampled from a population of urban-high school teachers in New Jersey according to the inclusion criteria set for the study. Only teachers who were (a) tenured or tenure track teachers 21 years old and above, (b) currently teaching in an urban high school, and (c) engaged in an inclusion classroom setting of students with dyslexia participated in this study. Explanation of how the predictor variables relate to and predict both teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and toward willingness to provide instructional accommodations to students with dyslexia by urban high school teachers was explored. After receiving approval from Northcentral University’s IRB and the urban-high school district in New Jersey, participants completed an anonymous online survey compiled from six different surveys developed to measure the variables specified in the model posed. The first research question was addressed by using Pearson’s correlation analysis to measure the degree of association between variables, while the second research question was addressed by using multivariate regression analysis to determine the combination of the variables that would predict each of the criterion variables. The teachers’ attitudes toward students with dyslexia and teachers’ willingness to provide instructional accommodations were treated as continuous criterion variables and the teachers’ level of training and knowledge were treated as continuous predictor variables. Results from the study indicated that teachers’ experience, availability of resources, and teachers’ concerns predicted teachers’ attitude. When teachers report higher concern, more experience, and availability of resources, they have more positive attitude towards supporting the learning process of students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms. Analysis from the multiple regression revealed that Training was the only variable having significant predictive value for urban-high school teachers’ willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia. Findings from this study should be treated with caution because they are based on teachers’ self-report; therefore, participants’ responses may not reflect the true attitude and concerns about students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms. Teachers’ concerns and availability of resources only accounted for 22% variance in attitude. Therefore, other variables likely playing a role in teachers’ attitude towards inclusion of students with dyslexia should be investigated in future. The influence of severity of dyslexia, class-size, teacher collaboration, teachers’ self-efficacy, teacher co-teaching, and the urban-high district’s culture towards inclusion were not considered as these factors have been previously reported to influence teachers’ attitude (Ji‐Ryun & Kim, 2011). Teachers’ Training accounted for 13% variance in willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia. Therefore there are other factors not explored playing a role in teachers willingness to provide instructional modifications to students with dyslexia. In light of the findings of this study, the outcomes of students with dyslexia will not improve if inclusion teachers remain skeptical. Therefore, the need for proper training, provision of support stuff, and adequate resources is urgent. Teachers’ training significantly predicted teachers’ willingness to provide instructional modification to students with dyslexia. This finding is supported by Nonis and Jernice (2011) who reported that teachers lack the training in providing the diverse needs of students with special needs in inclusive classrooms. Based on this finding the practical recommendation for inclusion teachers in this urban-high schools would include seeking professional development on the areas of diverse methods of providing instructional accommodation to students with dyslexia in inclusive classrooms. Practical recommendation for urban-high schools administrators would include making an effort to allocate more classroom resources, including hiring human experts with a thorough knowledge about the manifestation of dyslexia. Experts will support inclusion teachers helping them identify suitable diverse instructional modifications demanded by students with dyslexia (Wai, Chan, & Zhang, 2014).

Since concerns and knowledge predicted teachers’ attitude about including students with dyslexia, it was recommended that teachers’ colleges where the participants attended would include adding a program that require classroom visitations for pre-service teacher to alleviate teachers’ concerns and provide first-hand knowledge in handling students with dyslexia. In this study, none of the variables measured were manipulated which means the researcher was only able to assess the relationships between variables without assessing causality therefore no cause and effect can be inferred based on the findings. This study was conducted in September; at the beginning of a school year when teachers especially those with new ninth grade students had not had enough time to acquaint themselves with the new students with dyslexia or not gotten all the supplies needed to teach students with dyslexia for the year or had not been assigned to a professional development on how to provide instructional accommodation to students with dyslexia. Therefore, a future research in this urban-school district would include conducting this research at a different time of the year to determine if these variables still predict teachers’ attitude and willingness to provide instructional accommodation to students with dyslexia. This study contributes to the current literature regarding teachers’ level of receptiveness or hesitancy of teaching students with dyslexia. Teachers and school administrators in urban-high schools can benefit from these findings by determining future actions using these results.

Change_Lables_Sur_2018 (4).sav