Content uploaded by Mehmet Akif Erdener
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mehmet Akif Erdener on Dec 21, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
ISSN: 2148-9955
www.ijres.net
Parents’ Perceptions of Their Involvement
in Schooling*
Mehmet Akif Erdener1, Robert C. Knoeppel2
1Balıkesir University
2Clemson University
To cite this article:
Erdener, M.A., & Knoeppel, R.C. (2018). Parents’ perceptions of their involvement in
schooling. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 4(1), 1-13.
DOI:10.21890/ijres.369197
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Authors alone are responsible for the contents of their articles. The journal owns the
copyright of the articles.
The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or
costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of the research material.
International Journal of Research in Education and Science
Volume 4, Issue 1, Winter 2018
DOI:10.21890/ijres.369197
Parents’ Perceptions of Their Involvement in Schooling
Mehmet Akif Erdener, Robert C. Knoeppel
Article Info
Abstract
Article History
Received:
5 November 2017
Parent involvement has an influence on children’s educational engagement
during the elementary years. The objective of this study was to examine the
perceptions of rural Turkish parents about their involvement in schooling with
elementary school students based on Epstein’s (1995) six types of parental
involvement (parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home,
decision-making, and collaborating with the community). This study also
investigated the differences among parent demographic characteristics
(education level, income, marital status, and age) and parent involvement at the
elementary grade level in rural areas of Turkey. 742 parents of elementary
schools in three rural settings in the city of Konya, Turkey completed
questionnaires and assessments. A quantitative analyze method is used to
analyze verified data. Findings indicated that family income had a statistically
significant impact on combined factors of parent involvement. Education level
by Age interaction, Income by Age interaction, and Education level by Income
by Age interaction had a statistically significant impact on combined factors of
parent involvement. No significant differences were found in parent involvement
among parents who are from different education levels, marital status, and age
groups in Turkey. This study showed that family income is the most significant
factor on parental involvement in schooling for Turkish parents in all regions.
Accepted:
20 December 2017
Keywords
Parent involvement
Family studies
Schooling
Family income
Parent education level
Introduction
In the last two decades, educational researchers have been interested in the positive effects parental involvement
can have on students’ academic achievements and successes. Parent involvement increases students’ academic
achievement and self-esteem (Erdoğan & Demirkasımoğlu, 2010; Desimone, 1999) while decreasing
absenteeism and behavioral problems (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002a; Epstein & Sheldon, 2002b; Michael, Dittus,
& Epstein, 2007; Sezer & İşgör, 2010; Sezer, 2016). Epstein (2005b) emphasized “parental involvement as an
essential component of school improvement, linked to the curriculum, instruction, assessments, and other
aspects of school management” (p. 179).
Parent involvement is defined as requires asking about their children’s homework, contacting a teacher, and
also, watching every single move a student makes (Knisely, 2011). In addition, parent involvement includes
parent-student communication, family rules with consequences, parental support of academics, parent-school
communication initiated at a school level versus the teacher level as well as parents checking on homework
(Knisely, 2011). The level of parental involvement in education is a significant concern among educators,
because there is a strong relationship established between parental involvement and student success (Knisely,
2011). So, countless research studies have shown a consistent relationship between parental involvement overall
and academic achievement (Jeynes, 2005a).
Furthermore, parental involvement is an important ingredient for the remedy for many problems in education
and it has positive influences on students’ academic achievements (Fan & Chen, 2001). On the other hand, Fan
and Chen (2001) said that parental supervision had a weak relationship with students’ academic achievement;
though parental aspiration or expectation for children’s educational achievement had a considerably stronger
relationship with students’ academic achievement. Additionally, Coleman and McNeese (2009) claimed that
“the relationships between parental involvement and student motivation and parental involvement and academic
achievement both showed a negative correlation, which was unexpected” (p. 468).
On the contrary, parental involvement is an important factor in promoting the successful transition of youth with
disabilities (Geenen & Powers, 2001), and influences not only student’s motivation but also teacher’s
2
Erdener & Knoeppel
willingness to increase their performance (Jeynes, 2005a). Parent involvement is an efficient social investment
with a payoff far greater than its costs and it provides students equity and equal opportunity in education
(Currie, 1997; Desimone, 1999). Moreover, parent involvement promotes a strong belief about children’s well-
being (Desimone, 1999; Heclo, 1997; Sezer, 2013). Michael et al. (2007) explained that family, school, and the
community partnerships increase resources for student learning, strengthen families, and sustain healthier
communities.
Education policies support parent involvement, and the partnerships of home, school, and the community. The
Turkish Ministry of Education was supporting the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNICEF) started a
project that is called “Haydi Kızlar Okula.” The purpose of the project was to provide girls, between the ages of
6 and 14 years, who did not go to school, had chronic absenteeism, and high drop-out rates, the opportunity to
go school with the goal closing the gender gap (Haydi Kızlar Okula, 2009; Tezci, 2005). The second purpose of
the campaign was to inform parents about the importance of education, and to provide them the opportunity to
be involved in the education process. To achieve this goal, teams were created by the Ministry of Education that
visited families door to door. The campaign was started in 2003 and in four years, it successfully enrolled
222,800 of the 273,447 girls in elementary and middle schools among who were not previously enrolled in any
school (The Ministry of Education, 2011). The project required collaboration among parents, schools, and the
community including local governors, religious leaders, journalists, and intellectuals.
Families influence their children’s educational engagement, and occupational aspirations (Rosenberg & Lopez,
2010), and they are their children’s first teachers (Erdoğan & Demirkasımoğlu, 2010). Epstein (2001) explained
that children learn from their families, teachers, peers, relatives, part-time employers, and other adults in the
community, so bridges among home, school, and community are certainly important. Additionally, family and
community involvement in schools might increase the academic achievement of students, ensure better school
attendance, and improve school programs and quality (Michael et al., 2007). Research by Epstein (2001)
stressed the following points: 1) families care about their children’s success; nevertheless, most parents need
more information from schools to be productively involved in their children’s education; 2) students learn more
than academic skills at home, at school, and in the community; 3) peers, families, and the organization of
activities in schools and classrooms positively or negatively influence students; and 4) community-based
programs supporting school and families might effectively increase students’ chances of success. Additionally,
Epstein (2005a) suggested that educators, parents, and community partners might work collaboratively to design
and conduct activities, so these activities improve student achievement, promote school goals for student
attendance and behavior, and create a positive climate of partnership. She also described how these activities
might be designed by teams including the principal, teachers, school council and parents who are accountable
for their plans and work. Such activities are also influential in the acquisition of self-regulatory learning skills
that also contribute to the lifelong learning of students (Aktan & Tezci, 2013).
Epstein conducted research over several decades using a model of parent involvement that she based on
Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) social ecological model (Epstein, 1985; 1987). She categorized parent involvement
into six major types: (1) parenting, (2) communicating, (3) volunteering, (4) learning at home, (5) decision
making, and (6) collaborating with the community. These types are parenting involvement are defined below.
Parenting activities demonstrate how schools increase the understanding of families about student needs and
interests, as well as assist families to meet their parenting responsibilities at each grade level to influence child
growth and development (Epstein et al., 2009).
Communicating activities increase two way communications from home to school and from school to home in
order to develop understanding and cooperation between school and home. It is important for school personnel
to establish clear communication with families who speak languages other than English at home (Epstein et al.,
2009).
Volunteering activities encourage parents and community members to share their time and talents to help
schools, teachers, and students. These parents and community members might assist schools in the library,
computer room, playground, and cafeteria for after school activities, celebrations, sport activities and other
events (Epstein et al., 2009).
Learning at home activities guide parents to help their children with homework; to increase reading skills; to
select courses and school programs; to plan postsecondary education, and to benefit from other learning
opportunities (Epstein et al., 2009).
3
Int J Res Educ Sci
Decision Making activities encourage parents to become involved in the decision making process about school
programs, activities, and their children’s future academic plan. It informs all parents about school policies and
provides opportunities for parents to support their school and students (Epstein et al., 2009).
Collaborating with the community activities help to increase the cooperation among schools, families,
organizations, community groups, and agencies. Community resources include human, economic, material, and
social resources. Such resources assist schools to improve student success and create a safe learning
environment (Epstein et al., 2009).
In the light of this model, Epstein (Epstein, 2005a; Epstein et al., 2002; Epstein et al., 2009) gave
recommendations about how schools should work with families and communities. Schools need to establish
action teams that focus on reading, writing, math, behavior, a positive school climate and other school
improvement goals. Each action team has a one year action plan (Epstein, 2005a), and these plans must
emphasize all six types of family and community involvement to create productive involvement at school, at
home, and in the community (Epstein et al., 2002). Also, Epstein’s (2005a) study showed that the action teams
for school improvement developed curriculum content and instructional approaches in classrooms as well as
increased the number of families and community partners from diverse cultural groups who were involved in
their students’ education. Epstein and Sanders (1998) studied home-school and community partnership
organizations to ensure all students have equal opportunities and to make families aware of children’s
development and the schooling process.
Moreover, Epstein (2005a) explained that home-school and community partnership programs help teachers and
families focus on helping students learn positive character traits such as honesty, listening, respecting others,
and being a friend. Well-designed programs build bridges among home, school, and the community and create
a sustained school culture and positive school climate to increase students’ achievement (Epstein, 2001; Tezci,
2011). Also important are home, school, and community advocacy efforts that encourage school health
programs in states, districts, schools, and classrooms nationwide (Michael et al., 2007).
Parents’ demographic characteristics (e.g., parents’ education level, socioeconomic status, and marital status)
have been found significantly related to parent involvement in education. Parents with post-secondary
education have a positive effect on children’s interest in literacy activities (Baroody & Dobbs-Oates, 2009). In
addition, these parents encourage their young children’s self-concept development (Ayhan, 2008). There is a
correlation between parent’s education level and student academic achievement (Hortacsu, 1995) and students
with educated parents have less behavioral problems in the school (Hill et al., 2004). In addition, Cooper (2010)
noted that families’ socio-economic status during kindergarten may have an impact on their children’s transition
through the early years of schooling. Poverty negatively affects parent involvement because, these families lack
the time, and money (Erdoğan & Demirkasımoğlu, 2010), which means that they may not provide cognitively
stimulating materials for their children (Cooper, Crosnoe, Suizzo & Pituch, 2010).
Additionally, Epstein and Sanders (1998) reported that parents of elementary students are more involved than
parents of children in secondary schools; mothers are more involved than fathers; and more educated parents are
more involved than less educated parents. In addition, marital status is influential on student achievement
(Jeynes, 2005b), and intact families have a positive impact on their children’s academic achievement (Cooper,
2010). Epstein and Sanders (1998) said researchers in many nations are working to understand the relationship
between school, home and community by using many different research methods to build knowledge in their
field. While parent education level and parent income affect parental involvement, one of the important factors
is to increase parental involvement is teachers’ willingness and smiling faces during meetings with parents
(Erdener, 2014). Parents everywhere care about their children and want them to be successful (Epstein &
Sanders, 1998, p. 392). Snyder et al. (2009) said that all teachers and staff in the school, parents and the
community developed to specifically target the positive development of student behavior and character. So, the
interaction of family, teacher and the community assists students to gain not only the knowledge, attitudes,
norms, and skills but also improves values, self-concept, family bonding, communication, and appreciation of
school.
Statement of the Problem
Families support children’s learning and growth from cradle to career, so they impact child development across
all grades (Rosenberg & Lopez, 2010). Parents’ demographics (e.g., parents’ education level, socioeconomic
status, and marital status) may be influential on parent involvement. There is a relationship between parents’
4
Erdener & Knoeppel
demographic characteristics and parent involvement (Baroody & Dobbs-Oates, 2009; Cooper, 2010; Cooper et
al., 2010; Crosnoe, 2001; Englund et al., 2004; Epstein & Sanders, 2002; Erdoğan & Demirkasımoğlu, 2010;
Hill et al., 2004; Hortacsu, 1995; Suizzo & Soon, 2006). Many studies have investigated the relationship
between parental involvement and student achievement or success, and parent’s demographics and parental
involvement. Epstein and her colleagues have studied the effects of parent involvement which they categorized
into six major types: (1) parenting, (2) communicating, (3) volunteering, (4) learning at home, (5) decision
making, and (6) collaborating with the community on student academic achievement and behaviors.
In contrast, investigations into the relationship between parent’s demographic characteristics and parent
involvement in Turkey are minimal. The extant knowledge about cultural influences on parents’ perceptions of
their involvement in schooling is limited. Therefore, this study analyzed Turkish parents’ perceptions of their
involvement in schooling at elementary schools in Turkey. The research also analyzed the differences between
Turkish parent’s demographic characteristics (e.g., parents’ education level, socioeconomic status, and marital
status) and Epstein’s six types of parental involvement.
Purpose of the Study
Studies have shown that parent involvement in schooling positively affect students’ academic achievement
(Epstein, 2001; Erdoğan & Demirkasımoğlu, 2010). Determining the effective level of parent involvement may
be associated with parents’ demographics. The primary purpose of this study was to investigate Turkish
parents’ perceptions of their involvement in schooling at elementary grades in rural areas of Turkey. The
second purpose of this study was to explore the cultural influences on Turkish parents with their involvement in
schooling. Thirdly, this study examined the differences among parent demographic characteristics (education
level, income, marital status, and age) and parent involvement at the elementary grade level in rural areas of
Turkey. The assessment of parent involvement was developed by Epstein using her model of parent
involvement as six types: (1) parenting, (2) communicating, (3) volunteering, (4) learning at home, (5) decision
making, and (6) collaborating with the community. Finally, this study explored the potential differences among
Epstein’s six aspects of parent involvement and rural parenting practices in Turkey. Understanding parents’
perceptions about parent involvement may help educators understand the weaknesses and strengths of the
relationship among home, school, and the community. So that school administrators and teachers may more
effectively promote parent involvement in schooling.
This research explored following question: What is the difference among parents’ perceptions when grouped
parent education level, income, marital status, and age on Epstein’s six factors of parent involvement as
described (parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making, and collaborating with
the community) in Turkey?
First of all, parent involvement in education is a key component for students’ academic success. Many studies
showed a positive correlation between parental involvement and student achievement (Epstein, 2001; Erdoğan
& Demirkasımoğlu, 2010; Jeynes, 2005a; Shaw, 2008). The significance of this study was to examine the
perceptions of rural Turkish parents regarding effective parental involvement with elementary school students
based on Epstein’s (1995) six types of parental involvement. Therefore, this study’s results may indicate more
effective means of parental involvement. The findings of this study provided significant information that will
extend knowledge about the phenomenon of parent involvement.
Theoretical Framework
Human development is a process that is affected by interaction with changing environments (Bronfenbrenner,
1977). The theoretical framework used in this study is Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecoloogical theory that focused on
the interactions between the environment and the individual. Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory (1977;
1986) included five systems: 1) Microsystems, 2) Mesosystem, 3) Exosystem, 4) Macrosystem, and 5)
Chronosystem. Bronfenbrenner (1977) explained that the ecological theory is a lifespan theory and the mutual
accommodation progressive happens between the individual and changing environment. There are reciprocal
interactions between these systems and the child (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). The child is at the center of the
systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1977); the relationship existing between the family and the school is a powerful factor
affecting the capacity of a child to learn in the classroom (Bronfenbrenner, 1986).
5
Int J Res Educ Sci
According to Bronfenbrenner’s theory, the microsystem includes the interactions between the developing person
and environment (e.g., home, school, workplace, etc.). There is a direct interaction between the child and
school, the child and family, and the child and peers. The mesosystem includes the interrelations among major
settings containing the developing person (e.g., home, school, neighborhood, peers, religious affiliation, etc.).
The exosystem includes the major institutions of the society such as the neighborhood, the mass media, agencies
of government (local, state, and national), policies in education, communication and transportation facilities, and
informal social networks (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). The exosystem is an extension of the mesosystem and it
directly and indirectly affects the child. Finally, the macrosystem includes institutional patterns of the culture or
subculture, such as the economic, social, educational, legal, and political systems, and also social interchanges
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Bronfenbrenner (1977; 1986) explained that children are affected by parents and
school independently and interactively. Each interaction between the child and the systems influences child
development and characteristics (Bronfenbrenner, 1986).
Parent involvement is a process of child development in social and educational environments. Furthermore,
Epstein’s (2010) overlapping spheres of influence model demonstrates the relationships of the school, family,
and community for a child’s success in school. Epstein (2010) recognized the child at the center as the focus
within the family, school, and community. Children have interactions with their families, their schools, and
their communities (Epstein, 1995). Families, their schools, and communities influence a child’s academic
achievement and success (Epstein, 1995). Epstein (2010) stated that each component of the external structure of
the overlapping spheres might act and interact with others and these actions influence student learning and
development.
Method
Research Design
Instrument
This research study used a survey designed to identify the Turkish parents’ perceptions of their involvement in
schooling. The researcher adapted a survey by Epstein et al. (2009, p. 324-329). The survey included Epstein’s
six categories of parental involvement with an additional category of parental expectations. The survey
contained 29 parent involvement statements distributed among six categories of parental involvement. The
survey questions were based on 5-point Likert scale for perceptions ranging from a low score of 1 (never) to a
high score of 5 (frequently). Additionally, the instrument included a section on parent demographic
information. This section helped the researcher investigate the differences between parents’ demographic
characteristics and their school involvement as measured by Epstein’s survey and model of parent involvement.
Participants
The targeted populations in this study were parents of elementary schools students (grades 1-5) currently
enrolled in a public school system in rural areas of the city of Konya, Turkey. Participants were selected from
these parents by a cluster sampling technique (Huck, 2011). The researcher delivered the survey to schools and
schools sent the survey home with students to give to their parents. Both electronic as well as paper copies of
surveys were made available. The parents received the survey and a request letter that explained the intent of
the study and asked for their participation in the study. Parents were asked to complete the survey and return it
to schools. Parents were not required to provide any identifying information. The anonymity of the subjects
strengthens the validity of the instrument and the study. The means and standard deviations of participants’
demographic characteristics in this study are represented in Table 1.
Three hundred sixty-eight (49.6%) participants did not have a high school diploma, 199 (26.8%) graduated from
high school, 76 (10.2%) had some college coursework, 93 (12.5%) had bachelor’s degrees, and 6 (0.8%) had
graduate degrees. Moreover, three hundred ninety-one (52.7%) families were low income families, and had
1,000 Turkish liras (TL) or less monthly; 245 (33%) families had between 1,000 and 2,500 TL; 83 (11.2%)
families have gotten between 2,500 and 5,000 TL; 15 (2%) families had between 5,000 and 10,000 TL; and 8
(1.1%) families had 10,000 or more TL monthly. The last two groups were high-income families.
6
Erdener & Knoeppel
Table 1. Parent demographics
N
Min
Max
Sum
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std.
Error
Statistic
ED_LEVEL
742
1
5
1396
1.88
.040
1.077
INCOME
742
1
5
1230
1.66
.031
.837
AGE
742
1
5
2394
3.23
.024
.651
MARITAL
742
1
5
832
1.12
.020
.536
Valid N
742
Additionally, four (.5%) participants were 18 or 19 years old. These participants were probably the brother or
sister of the students. Sixty (8.1%) participants were between 20 and 29 years of age; four hundred sixty two
(62.3%) participants were between 30 and 39 years of age and this group had highest number of children who
enrolled the elementary school in Turkey. One hundred ninety-six (26.4%) participants were between 40 and 49
years old, and 20 (2.7%) parents of guardians were in 50 years and older. Furthermore, six hundred ninety-six
(93.8%) participants had been married once, and 20 (2.7%) participants were remarried. The cumulative
number of married families was seven hundred sixteen (96.5%), which reflects the intact family structure is high
in Turkey. Thirteen (1.8%) participants were separated, 8 (1.1%) participants were widowed, and 5 (0.7%)
participants were never married.
Analysis Overview
Once all surveys were returned, data analysis followed. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS) (version 21.0). The researcher interpreted data using Exploratory Factor analysis and
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). Factor analysis provided the researcher with the ability to
reduce and cluster the complexity of the variables, so it was easier for the researcher to investigate the problem
(Huck, 2011; Mertler & Vannaatta, 2010). Davidov and Beuckelaer (2010) explained that some questions might
have different meanings and content for individuals from different cultures or who speak languages. The
survey’s original language was English, and the researcher translated it into Turkish. As such, Davidov and
Beuckelaer (2010) suggested that the researcher needed to evaluate the reliability of the survey instrument.
Factor analysis was used in this study to test for equivalence of the survey questions across cultural groups.
Field (2009) stated that MANOVA included many dependent variables in the same analysis and considered the
relationship between outcome variables. In addition, Mertler and Vannaatta (2010) explained that MANOVA
incorporated two or more dependent variables in the same analysis with nominal and ordinal independent
variables. MANOVA is designed to test the significance of group differences, and dependent variables that
share a common conceptual meaning should have some degree of linearity (Mertler & Vannaatta, 2010).
Results and Discussion
The data were collected from 742 elementary school students’ parents in Turkey. A factor analysis was
performed using the Principal Component extraction method and revealed the presence of 5 factors with
eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining a total of 57.897 percent of variance. The Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) was
0.959 for sampling adequacy. Cronbach’s alpha was used to check the reliability of the study; the reliability was
0.945 of 29 items. Despite these results indicating a strong model, one of the five factors was very weak,
according to the Pattern Matrix. Questions 6, 11, 12, 27, 28, and 29 were removed and the factor analysis was
rerun with Principal Component Analysis. An inspection of the scree plot displayed a clear break after the
fourth factor. KMO was 0.948 with very good communalities, and the reliability was 0.934 of 23 items by
using Cronbach’s alpha. Direct Oblimin was used as a rotation method to interpret these four factors.
After the factor analysis was conducted, the factors were determined according to related questions and
Epstein’s typology labels. Factor 1 was labeled Parenting, and contained six items. The reliability of the
Parenting factor was 0.836 of 6 items by using Cronbach’s alpha. Factor 2 was labeled the Decision-Making,
and contained six items. The reliability of Decision-Making factor was 0.828 of 6 items by using Cronbach’s
alpha. Factor 3 was a mix of three questions relating to Communicating and four questions relating to the
Volunteering, and overall contained seven items. The researcher labeled this factor as School Interaction. The
reliability of the School Interaction factor was 0.852 of 7 items by using Cronbach’s alpha. The last factor was
7
Int J Res Educ Sci
labeled Learning at Home and contained four items. The reliability of the Learning at Home factor was 0.848 of
4 items by using Cronbach’s alpha.
These four new factors were the dependent variables of this study. Then, the full Multivariate Analysis of
Variance (MANOVA) was conducted. The output of MANOVA includes the test for homogeneity of variance
(Box’s test), so the interpretations begins with the results of Box’s test (Mertler & Vannaatta, 2010). The results
of the Box’s test of equality of variance, F (360, 13082.290) = 1.228, p = 0.002. The Box’s test was significant
and the groups were unequal, so the Pillai’s Trace was chosen. “The multivariate normality implies that the
sampling distribution of the means of each dependent variable in each cell is normally distributed” (Mertler &
Vannaatta, 2010, p. 122), because of the possible violation of normality might be assessed by interpreting the
results of Box’s test. Nonetheless, Mertler and Vannaatta (2010) explained that a violation of this assumption of
homoscedasticity will not prove fatal to analysis; despite this, a more robust multivariate test statistics, Pillai’s
Trace, was used to interpret the multivariate results.
The results of the multivariate test of parent involvement indicated that family income [Pillai’s Trace = 0.047, F
(16, 2424) = 1.814, p = 0.024, partial ƞ2 = 0.012] is significantly affecting the combined dependent variables of
Parenting, Decision-Making, School Interactions and Learning at Home. Education level by Age interaction
[Pillai’s Trace = 0.08, F (28, 2424) = 1.765, p = 0.008, partial ƞ2 = 0.020] is significantly affecting the
combined dependent variables of Parenting, Decision-Making, School Interactions and Learning at Home.
Income by Age interaction [Pillai’s Trace = 0.079, F (28, 2424) = 1.738, p = 0.01, partial ƞ2 = 0.020] is
significantly affecting the combined dependent variables of Parenting, Decision-Making, School Interactions
and Learning at Home. Education level by Income by Age interaction [Pillai’s Trace = 0.064, F (24, 2424) =
1.652, p = 0.024, partial ƞ2 = 0.016] significantly affect the combined dependent variables of Parenting,
Decision-Making, School Interactions and Learning at Home. Education level, Marital status, and Age do not
statistically affect the combined dependent variables of Parenting, Decision-Making, School Interactions and
Learning at Home. The results of multivariate test of parent involvement are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Multivariate test of parent involvement
Multivariate Testsa
Effect
Value
F
Hypothesis
df
Error df
Sig.
Partial Eta
Squared
Noncent.
Parameter
Intercept
.008
1.146b
4.000
603.00
.334
.008
4.585
ED_LEVEL
.036
1.377
16.000
2424.000
.143
.009
22.028
INCOME
.047
1.814
16.000
2424.000
.024
.012
29.021
AGE
.015
.585
16.000
2424.000
.898
.004
9.356
MARITAL
.037
1.402
16.000
2424.000
.131
.009
22.428
ED_LEVEL *
AGE
.080
1.765
28.000
2424.000
.008
.020
49.411
INCOME * AGE
.079
1.738
28.000
2424.000
.010
.020
48.656
ED_LEVEL *
INCOME * AGE
.064
1.652
24.000
2424.000
.024
.016
39.646
Note. Computed using alpha = .05
A Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted as a follow-up test. Income [F (4, 606) = 3.131, p
= 0.015, partial ƞ2 = 0.020] significantly affects the Parenting, and also [F (4, 606) = 2.62, p = 0.034, partial ƞ2
= 0.017] significantly affects the School Interactions. Education by Income interaction [F (9, 606) = 2.45, p =
0.01, partial ƞ2 = 0.035], and Education by Marital status interaction [F (3, 606) = 2.833, p = 0.038, partial ƞ2 =
0.014] significantly affects the Learning at home. In addition, Education by Age interaction [F (7, 606) = 3.23,
p = 0.002, partial ƞ2 = 0.036] significantly affects the Decision-Making. The results of Univariate ANOVA are
presenting on Table 3.
Four factors of parent involvement were found to exist after conducting the factor analysis. They were named:
(1) parenting, (2) decision making, (3) school interactions, and (4) learning at home. Three of the factors
contained almost the same questions that Epstein’s factors had; as such, similar names were used for these
factors. The collaborating with the community factor was not found to exist in this study. The cultural
differences in the Turkish education system or decreased number of questions in the instrument might have been
the cause of the change in the number of factors. The new factors are described as the following: First,
parenting is an awareness of every step of child growth and development. Parents might be supported with
more information from teachers about parenting. Second, Decision-Making is defined as being a part of Parent
and Teacher Organizations at school so that parents are involved in the decision-making process for school
8
Erdener & Knoeppel
programs, and events. Involvement in Decision-Making may also be defined as parents discussing post-
secondary and career plans with their children. Third, school-interactions are defined as communicating with
schools and the community and volunteering for school activities and events. School-Interactions improve
parents’ and teachers’ awareness about their child’s talents, skills, and abilities. This helps teachers apply useful
teaching methods and it helps parents to understand their children’s capability so that they can better support
them in their schooling. Last, learning at home is defined as parents monitoring and discussing the schooling
process at home with their children. This can help parents to create better home conditions while sharing real
life experience with their children.
Table 3. Parent demographics’ effects on parent involvement
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Source
Dependent Variable
Type III
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
Partial
Eta
Squared
Noncent.
Parameter
Corrected
Model
Parenting
180.133a
135
1.334
1.442
.002
.243
194.628
Decision Making
172.679b
135
1.279
1.364
.008
.233
184.128
School Interaction
207.104c
135
1.534
1.741
.000
.279
235.074
Learning at Home
197.298d
135
1.461
1.629
.000
.266
219.905
Intercept
Parenting
.255
1
.255
.276
.600
.000
.276
Decision Making
.319
1
.319
.341
.560
.001
.341
School Interactions
.056
1
.056
.064
.801
.000
.064
Learning at Home
2.070
1
2.070
2.307
.129
.004
2.307
INCOME
Parenting
11.591
4
2.898
3.131
.015
.020
12.523
Decision Making
5.491
4
1.373
1.464
.212
.010
5.855
School Interactions
9.231
4
2.308
2.620
.034
.017
10.478
Learning at Home
3.733
4
.933
1.040
.386
.007
4.161
ED_LEVEL
* AGE
Parenting
11.287
7
1.612
1.742
.097
.020
12.195
Decision Making
21.203
7
3.029
3.230
.002
.036
22.609
School Interactions
5.851
7
.836
.949
.468
.011
6.641
Learning at Home
3.628
7
.518
.578
.774
.007
4.044
INCOME *
AGE
Parenting
11.914
7
1.702
1.839
.077
.021
12.873
Decision Making
11.001
7
1.572
1.676
.112
.019
11.730
School Interactions
9.762
7
1.395
1.583
.138
.018
11.080
Learning at Home
9.531
7
1.362
1.518
.158
.017
10.623
ED_LEVEL
* INCOME *
AGE
Parenting
5.356
6
.893
.964
.448
.009
5.787
Decision Making
9.514
6
1.586
1.691
.121
.016
10.144
School Interactions
8.850
6
1.475
1.674
.125
.016
10.046
Learning at Home
9.940
6
1.657
1.846
.088
.018
11.079
Error
Parenting
560.867
606
.926
Decision Making
568.321
606
.938
School Interactions
533.896
606
.881
Learning at Home
543.702
606
.897
Total
Parenting
741.000
742
Decision Making
741.000
742
School Interactions
741.000
742
Learning at Home
741.000
742
Corrected
Total
Parenting
741.000
741
Decision Making
741.000
741
School Interactions
741.000
741
Learning at Home
741.000
741
Note. a. R Squared = .243 (Adjusted R Squared = .074)
b. R Squared = .233 (Adjusted R Squared = .062)
c. R Squared = .279 (Adjusted R Squared = .119)
d. R Squared = .266 (Adjusted R Squared = .103)
e. Computed using alpha = .05
The four factors were used as dependent variables to conduct the Multivariate Analysis of Variance
(MANOVA). The findings indicated that family income level significantly affected the combined parent
involvement factors of Parenting, Decision-Making, School Interactions and Learning at Home. On the other
9
Int J Res Educ Sci
hand, parent education level, marital status, and age did not significantly affect the combined dependent
variables of Parenting, Decision-Making, School Interactions and Learning at Home. As earlier research
indicated, educated parents have a positive effect on children’s interest in literacy activities and motivation in
early ages (Ayhan, 2008). In addition, in a study in of parents of fourth grade students in Ankara, Turkey,
Hortacsu (1995) found that educated parents also affected children’s cognitions, development, and their
academic achievement. Nevertheless, this study was conducted in rural areas, and the number of parents who
had bachelors and graduate degrees were low. More than 96% of participants had intact families, so the sample
did not include a large enough number of participants who were separated, widowed, and never married.
Although, education level, marital status, and age did not significantly affect the combined parent involvement,
there were some interactions among the independent variables that showed significant differences on parent
involvement factors. The interaction between education level and age significantly affected the combined
dependent variables of parent involvement. Also, the interaction between family income and age significantly
affected the combined dependent variables of parent involvement. The finding is consistent with previous
studies (Cooper, 2010; Erdoğan & Demirkasımoğlu, 2010; Hill et al., 2004; Reynolds, 1991) that indicated that
parents who work in minimum wage jobs might not be involved in many school activities because they lack the
time. Furthermore, poverty might limit these parents ability to obtain resources for their children’s education.
Finally, the interaction among education level, family income, and age, as well as the interaction among family
income, and age significantly affected the combined dependent variables of parent involvement.
Moreover, the results of the follow-up test, the Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), indicated that some
interactions of independent variables, and income separately affected the Parenting, the Decision-Making, the
School Interactions and the Learning at Home factors. Income statistically affected the Parenting, and the
School Interactions factors. The interaction between education and income, and also education and marital
status statistically affected the Learning at Home factor. More than half of families earned the minimum wage,
and almost 80% of families had low income in rural areas of the city of Konya. There are not private schools,
so all parents send their children to public schools. Nevertheless, high income and middle income families
might send their children to private learning centers and might also be able to afford tutoring expenses, and
transportation. In addition, the government provides free textbooks for all children; however, there were many
other schooling materials such as technology, the internet, new books etc. In the last decade, teachers have
promoted the use of technology by students for their homework and projects. Although, high income and
middle-income families might offer these materials to their children, low-income families cannot afford the
internet, computers, and touchpad for their children.
Also, high income parents and one of the middle income levels were involved in school interactions for all three
districts. These families had good communication with teachers. They were attending school activities and
events. These parents also joined the school activities as volunteers. They were informed about how to monitor
their children’s schooling process.
In addition, the interaction between education and age statistically affected the Decision-Making factor.
Educated parents in the Çumra district were involved in school interactions for all age groups except parents
who had bachelor’s degrees between the ages of 20-29 and 40-49. None of the parents in Akşehir had graduate
degrees. The most involved parents in Cihanbeyli were in the age groups of 20-29 years and 40-49 years. All
parents in this region were significantly involved in school interactions except those who had less than a high
school degree. The most involved parents in this region had bachelor’s degree and they were from the middle
age groups. Therefore, highly educated parents from the middle and young age groups were involved in school
activities and regularly communicated with teachers. The importance of education has increased among the
Turkish people during the last two decades. Thus, educated parents paid attention to the significance of
education for their children and they take the time to become involved in their children’s schooling. In Çumra
district, low income parents for all age groups were more likely to be involved in both the decision-making and
the learning at home process more than high income families. High income and middle income parents who are
in the 30-39 years of age were only involved in the decision-making process in Çumra. In addition, high income
and middle income parents for different age groups were most likely to be involved in the decision-making and
the learning at home process in Cihanbeyli and Akşehir districts. These parents joined the Parent and Teacher
Organizations to make decision about school programs and activities. Also these parents discussed and
monitored the schooling processes at home with their children. In the Çumra district, many people work at
farming and breading livestock, so there are many low income families. This is an important finding because it
was contrary to existing literature that low income parents are less involved in the decision making process at
school than higher income families. Although this only happened in one region, the finding was noteworthy.
10
Erdener & Knoeppel
The study had several limitations. Survey research is a design that permits the collection of data from large
numbers of participants, but depends on the participants’ willingness to respond to a written data collection
instrument (Pinsonneault & Kraemer, 1993). Surveys are useful in collecting participants’ perceptions about
behavior, but are limited by the participants’ honesty, willingness to answer questions, and their recall of
situations or events. All these limitations of the research design of surveys pertain to this study (Green, Camilli,
& Elmore, 2006).
Conclusion
The findings of this study extended the work of previous research on parent involvement in the schooling
process. This investigation revealed how the partnership between home and school is necessary in Turkey.
Significant differences were found between family income levels on combined parent involvement factors.
Also, there were significant differences between the parent demographic characteristics on combined or separate
parent involvement factors.
Many parents agreed that educated parents and society affect student achievement because these groups of
people have better communication with teachers and principals (Erdener, 2014). Parent involvement has an
influence on children’s educational engagement for all school levels (Erdener, 2016). Educated parents are
involved in the decision making process about their children’s post-secondary education plans, career plans, and
parents think that students from high income families are more successful. In addition, parents claimed that
family problems prevented their involvement in the schooling process. For the most part, poverty was the cause
of these problems. The parent’s comments suggested that parents agreed that parent involvement is definitely
significant for students’ academic achievement and behaviors problems, but they still believed that schools are
responsible for schooling.
Therefore, the education system might require professional development for the school administrators and
teachers about increasing parent involvement in their children’s schooling. A school administrators' fairness and
working in harmony can make it easier for teachers to increase their job motivation levels (Deniz & Erdener,
2016b). Principal might increase their instructional supervision about teachers’ classroom activities and lead
them to communicate with parents (Deniz & Erdener, 2016a). Also, teacher candidates might be informed about
why parent involvement is necessary and how they can provide the partnership between home, school and the
community in bachelor’s degree. Some courses might be offered for educators by the school of education.
Recommendations
The significance of parent involvement in schooling has been occurred in Turkey. Next studies and researches
will solve the problems which are the barrier of parent involvement. Future researches might be about teacher
attitudes about parent involvement in different regions.
Acknowledgements
This study is a part of a doctoral dissertation. The research was supported by a grant from the Turkish Ministry
of National Education. We sincerely thank Dr. Curtis Brewer, Dr. Bonnie Holaday, Dr. Jane Clark Lindle, and
Dr. Russ Marion for their guidance.
References
Aktan, S., & Tezci, E. (2013). Matematikte öz düzenleyici öğrenme stratejileri ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenilirlik
çalişmasi [The study of validity and reliability of self regulated learning strategies scale in
mathematics]. e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, (8),1, 46-62.
Ayhan, A. (2008). Altı yaş grubundaki çocukların kavram gelişimlerinin cinsiyete, anne-baba ögrenim
düzeyine ve ana okuluna devam süresine göre incelenmesi [An examination of six-year-old children’s
concept development with respect to gender, parents’ education level and time spent in preschool].
Cagdas Egitim Dergisi, (350), 33-38.
11
Int J Res Educ Sci
Baroody, A., & Dobbs-Oates, J. (2009). Child and parent characteristics, parental expectations, and child
behaviors related to preschool children’s interest in literacy. Early Child Development and Care,
181(3), 345–359.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist,
32, 513 - 531.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives.
Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723 - 742.
Coleman, B & McNeese, M.N. (2009). From home to school: The relationship among parental involvement,
student motivations, and academic achievement. International Journal of Learning, 16 (7), 459-470.
Cooper, C. E. (2010). Family poverty, school-based parental involvement, and policy-focused protective
factors in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(4), 480-492.
Cooper, C. E., Crosnoe, R., Suizzo, M. A., & Pituch, K. A. (2010). Poverty, race, and parental involvement
during the transition to elementary school. Journal of Family Issues, 31(7), 859-883. doi:
10.1177/0192513X09351515
Crosnoe, R. (2001). Academic orientation and parental involvement in education during high school.
Sociology of Education, 74, 210-230.
Currie, J. M. (1997). Choosing among alternative programs for poor children. The Future of Children, 7, 113-
131.
Davidov, E., & Beuckelaer, A. D. (2010). How harmful are survey translations? A test with Schwartz’s human
values instrument. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(4), 487-510.
Deniz, Ü. ve Erdener, M. A. (2016a). Okul müdürlerinin sergilediği öğretimsel denetim davranışlarına ilişkin
öğretmen görüşleri. Tüfekçi, Ö. K. (Ed.). Sosyal bilimlerde stratejik araştırmalar (ss. 69-81).
Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Deniz, Ü. ve Erdener, M. A. (2016). Öğretmenlerin iş motivasyonlarını etkileyen etmenler. Tüfekçi, Ö. K.
(Ed.). Sosyal bilimlerde stratejik araştırmalar (ss. 29-41). Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: Do race and income matter? The
Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 11-30.
Englund, M. M., Luckner, A. E., Whaley, G. J. L., & Egeland, B. (2004). Children’s achievement in early
elementary school: Longitudinal effects of parental involvement, expectations, and quality of
assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 723-730.
Epstein, J.L. (1985). Home and school connections in schools of the future: Implications of research on parent
involvement, Peabody Journal of Education, 62 (2), 18-41. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01619568509538471
Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practices and parent
involvement. In K. Hurrelmann, F. Kaufmann, and F. Lösel (Eds.). Social intervention: Potential and
constraints, (pp. 121-136). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 76(9), 701-712.
Epstein, J. L. (2001). Building bridges of home, school, and community: The importance of design. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6(1/2), 161-168.
Epstein, J. L. (2005a). A case study of the partnership schools comprehensive school reform (CSR) model.
Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 151-170.
Epstein, J. L. (2005b). Attainable goals? The spirit and letter of the No Child Left Behind Act on parental
involvement. Sociology of Education, 78(2), 179-182.
Epstein, J. L. (2010). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving
schools (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Epstein, J., & Sanders, M. G. (1998). What we learn from international studies of school-family-community
partnerships. Childhood Education, 74(6), 392-94.
Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2002). Family, school, and community partnerships. In M. H. Bornstein
(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 5. Practical issues in parenting (pp. 407-437). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2002).
School, family, and community partnerships. Your handbook for action (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S. B., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K., Jansorn, N., Van Voorhis, F. L.,
Martin, C. S., & Williams, K. J. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook
for action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2002a). Improving student behavior and school discipline with family and
community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35(4), 4-26.
12
Erdener & Knoeppel
Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2002b). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance through
family and community involvement. Journal of Educational Research, 95(5), 308-318.
Erdener, M. A. (2014). The Factors Which Contribute or Limit Parent Involvement in Schooling. NWSA-
Education Sciences, 9(1), 36-47.
Erdener, M. A. (2016). Principals and Teachers Practices about Parent Involvement in Schooling. Universal
Journal of Educational Research, 4(12A), 151-159., doi: 10.13189/ujer.2016.041319 (Yayın No:
2981226)
Erdoğan, Ç., & Demirkasımoğlu, N. (2010). Ailelerin eğitim sürecine katılımına ilişkin öğretmen ve yönetici
görüşleri [Teachers’ and school administrators’ views of parent involvement in education process].
Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi [Educational Administration: Theory and Practice], 16(3),
399-431.
Fan, X. & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis.
Educational Psychology Review, 13 (1), 1-22.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Geenen, S., & Powers, L. E. (2001). Multicultural aspects of parent involvement in transition planning.
Exceptional Children, 67(2), 265-282.
Green, J. L., Camilli, G., & Elmore, P. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of complementary methods in education
research. Philadelphia: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Haydi Kızlar Okula. (2009). The purpose of the girls’ education campaign. Retrieved from
http://haydikizlarokula.meb.gov.tr/index.php
Heclo, H. H. (1997). Values underpinning poverty programs for children. The Future of Children, 7, 141-148.
Hill, N. E., Castellino, D. R., Lansford, J. E., Nowlin, P., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E. (2004). Parent academic
involvement as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations: Demographic variations
across adolescence. Child Development, 75(5), 1491-1509.
Hortacsu, N. (1995). Parents’ education levels, parents’ beliefs, and child outcomes. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 156(3), 373-383.
Huck, S. W. (2011). Reading statistics and research (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Jeynes, W. H. (2005a). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school
student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3), 237-269. doi:10.1177/0042085905274540
Jeynes, W. H. (2005b). Effects of parental involvement and family structure on the academic achievement of
adolescents. Marriage & Family Review, 37(3), 99-116. doi: 10.1300/J002v37n03_06
Knisely, K. (2011). Literature Review: How much does parental involvement really affect the student’s
success? Retrieved from http://kniselymtt.pbworks.com/f/EDCI6300_kknisely_LiteratureReview.pdf
Mertler, C. A., & Vannaatta, R. A. (2010). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical
application and interpretation (4th ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Michael, S., Dittus, P., & Epstein, J. (2007). Family and community involvement in schools: Results from the
school health policies and programs study 2006. Journal of School Health, 77(8), 567-587.
doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2007.00236.x
Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. L. (1993). Survey research methodology in management information
systems: An assessment. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(2), 75-105.
Reynolds, A. J. (1991). Comparing measures of parental involvement and their effects on academic
achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(3), 441-462.
Rosenberg, H., & Lopez, M. E. (2010, April). Family engagement from cradle to career. Family Involvement
Network of Educators (FINE) Newsletter, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/publications-
resources/browse-our-publications/family-engagement-from-cradle-to-career
Sezer, F., & İşgör, İ. Y. (2010). İlköğretim ve ortaöğretim kurumlarındaki öğrencilerin problem alanlarının
tespiti (Erzurum ili örneği). Millî Eğitim Dergisi, 39(186), 235-247.
Sezer, F. (2013). Factors that affect psychological wellbeing. Education Sciences, 8(4), 489-504
Sezer, F. (2016). Causes of failure from students’ point of view Öğrenci gözüyle başarısızlığının
nedenleri. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(3), 4818-4830.
Shaw, C. A. (2008). A study of the relationship of parental involvement to student achievement in a
Pennsylvania career and technology center. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania
State University. State College, PA.
Snyder, F., Flay, B., Vuchinich, S., Acock, A., Washburn, I., Beets, M., & Li, K.K., (2009). Impact of a
social-emotional and character development program on school-level indicators of academic
achievement, absenteeism, and disciplinary outcomes: A matched-pair, cluster-randomized, controlled
trial, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(1), 26-55, DOI:
10.1080/19345740903353436
SPSS Inc. (2011). SPSS Base 20.0 for Windows. IBM inc., Chicago, IL.
13
Int J Res Educ Sci
Suizzo, M.A., & Soon, K. (2006). Parental academic socialization: Effects of home-based parental
involvement on locus of control across U.S. ethnic groups. Educational Psychology, 26, 827-846.
Tezci, E. (2011). Turkish primary school teachers’ perceptions of school culture regarding ICT
integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(3), 429-443.
Tezci, E. (2015). Türkiye'de ilköğretim politikaları. (Ed.: Gümüş, Arife) Türkiye'de Eğitim Politikaları (s.237-
272). Ankara: Nobel Yay.
The Ministry of National Education of the Republic of Turkey. (2011). Haydi Kizlar Okula. Retrieved from
http://www.meb.gov.tr/
Turkish Statistical Institute. (2011). Education statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?tb_id=14&ust_id=5
Author Information
Mehmet Akif Erdener
Balıkesir University
Necatibey School of Education
Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership
Altıeylül, Balıkesir / Turkey
Contact e-mail: erdener@balikesir.edu.tr
Robert C. Knoeppel
Clemson University
Professor & Chair of Educational & Organizational
Leadership Development
Clemson, SC / USA 29634