1. Introduction
Research on learning environments (home and classroom) and students’ academic success emphasizes the student-mediating and/or student-cognition paradigm, which maintains that students’ learning environments are important factors for their academic success [1,2,3,4]. Studies indicate that mediators, such as parental engagement practices, parenting styles, family educational expectations, and family cultures, are key protective factors that influence students’ attitudes and achievement outcomes. Protective factors in the home learning environment may serve to guide children’s responses, strategies, and self-efficacy on educational-related activities and/or challenges [5,6]. Glasman and Albarracin [7] emphasize the importance of investigating home learning environments to identify factors that may contribute to the development of self-directed behaviors and positive attitudes toward academic achievement for students.
Moreover, research shows that children may encounter numerous challenges arising from deficiencies in the home learning environment [8,9,10]. Khanolainen et al. [11] found that children’s academic performance is influenced by the quality of their home learning environment and is directly affected by parental academic difficulties. Additionally, insufficient engagement in shared reading may hinder the development of reading comprehension until third and fourth grade. Furthermore, the family’s socioeconomic status and level of education consistently have positive effects on parental engagement both at school and in the community. This may suggest that these are malleable factors that can be fostered toward positive family engagement in children’s education both at home and in school [8,9,10,12,13,14].
Feng, Gai, and Chen [15] found disparities in both resource availability and early human capital investment. This disparity is particularly notable in access to books and engagement in activities such as reading, singing, and storytelling. Bilingual families typically have fewer books accessible to their children compared to their monolingual counterparts. For example, the frequency of reading to bilingual children is notably lower than that of monolingual (English-speaking) children.
Although the significance of the learning environment in students’ academic and socio-emotional development has been reported in several studies, the characteristics of bilingual students’ learning environment have been little known. Particularly, research on the effects of their parents’ socioeconomic backgrounds on bilingual students’ learning environment has been scarce. The number of bilingual students, or emergent bilinguals (a positive term describing students who continuously develop their first and second languages) in the USA has been increasing since the 1970s. This trend is expected to continue into the next decade and beyond [16]. Given the growing numbers and the diversity of bilingual students in the United States and internationally, a closer examination of bilingual students’ learning environments is essential to better support these students.
Learning environment research emphasizes the importance of the home and classroom environment in terms of influencing children’s academic outcomes through practices and resources that support child development [6,17,18,19,20]. Furthermore, empirical research in this field has revealed that positive environments are related to improved student cognition, behavioral, and affective processes [19,21]. This study aims to investigate the characteristics of bilingual students’ home learning environment by reporting the results of a large-scale parent survey and comparing the variation of these aspects as a function of parents’ length of stay in the USA, education, and income levels.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Various Aspects of Home Learning Environment Practices
The home environment has a powerful effect on overall children’s success at school as it impacts students’ learning attitudes and can predict their academic performance [1]. According to Epstein [22,23,24], parental involvement in children’s academic learning can promote children’s social outcomes, such as social skills and learning attitudes, as well as academic outcomes, including learning skills and academic performance [25,26,27]. Moreover, Peterson et al. [28] argued that a positive home environment impacts children’s life adaptation, moral development, self-esteem, learning attitudes, and academic performance. Conversely, a detrimental home environment may result in deviant behaviors, maladaptive behaviors, and self-abandonment.
Indeed, active parental engagement in the school-based activities of children promotes better relationships between teachers and parents, as well as between children and parents [29]. This connection underscores the critical role of parental involvement in creating a supportive learning environment, although the quality of engagement may vary depending on socioeconomic factors. Constructive communication among schools as well as between parents and children can positively influence students’ attitudes toward education, academic achievement, and their aspirations for attending college [30]. Jaynes [31] identified four types of parental engagement characteristics that have a statistically significant positive effect on children’s academic achievement. They include parent-child shared reading at home, teacher-parent partnership, checking homework, and teacher-parent communication. Lara-Alecio, Irby, and Ebener [32] identified several parental behaviors that contribute to high achievement among Hispanic students, including demonstrating a desire for and pursuing further education and serving as a role model for educational attainment. Engaging families in education fosters positive attitudes towards the classroom and home environment, supporting children’s academic success [33]. This indicates the importance of viewing parental involvement as a multidimensional construct that extends beyond simple participation in school activities.
Supporting student autonomy is also found to be a critical component of the learning environment, which has a substantial impact on student development [34]. According to [35], autonomy is one of the three fundamental psychological needs inherent in all humans that motivate goal-directed behaviors. Furthermore, parents need to effectively manage their children’s media consumption while supporting their learning [36], as increased screen media exposure is associated with adverse developmental outcomes, including diminished executive functioning and language abilities [37]. Another important dimension of the learning environment is parental discipline. Kwok and Fang [38] found that parental discipline methods have a significant impact on children’s well-being, indicating that parental psychological aggression has negative effects, while nonviolent discipline has positive effects on primary school students’ well-being.
2.2. Parental Support in Children’s Learning and Emotional Development
The connectivity between home and classroom environments can have a powerful effect on students’ achievement outcomes [39]. For example, parental involvement both at home and school is positively associated with children’s school readiness and significant school performance [3,40]. Barger et al. [41] emphasized the impact of parental involvement in school-related activities at home on children’s academic adjustment and engagement. Through a meta-analysis, they found a relationship between parents’ involvement in children’s schooling and children’s adjustment. This quantitative synthesis of 448 independent studies, including 480,830 families, revealed small positive associations (r = .13 to .23) between parents’ naturally occurring involvement in children’s schooling and children’s academic adjustment (i.e., achievement, engagement, and motivation) that were maintained over time. Analyses focusing on children’s academic adjustment revealed that different types of involvement (e.g., parents’ participation in school events and discussion of school with children) were similarly positively associated with such adjustment. This underscores the importance of parental presence and engagement in facilitating children’s adaptation to the academic environment. Furthermore, Mo and Singh [42] found the significant role of parental involvement in shaping students’ overall engagement in school, subsequently influencing their academic performance. By emphasizing the importance of parents’ active participation in their children’s education, these studies underscore the crucial role parents play in fostering their children’s academic success and overall well-being.
Positive academic attitudes can be fostered through improvements in the multiple learning environments (e.g., home, school, and classroom) where children reside and through the development of protective factors within those environments [6,43]. English learners develop more positive attitudes, which later influence their perspectives on future post-education pathways, when receiving support not only in the classroom learning environment [44], but also in the home learning environment [32,45]. Hurtado et al. [30] also found that these positive learning attitudes impact Hispanic students’ willingness to attend college and succeed in postsecondary education.
Research by Fishel [46] indicated that parents can provide emotional support to children in many ways, such as having dinner with them, discussing college and the future, engaging in further discussion about school activities, and so on. He found that sharing dinner with children is highly significant since conversations during this time are more conducive to children’s development compared to those in other settings. Moreover, children are more receptive to values and engage in meaningful dialogue and communication with their parents during these interactions. What’s more, the research also indicates that parents wield significant influence over their children’s desire to attend college. Brusoski et al. [47] found that regular discussions about college life and active engagement in school activities by parents have been identified as crucial factors influencing students’ willingness to pursue higher education. Not to mention, in addition to parents’ socioeconomic status and level of education, communication and interaction between parents and children significantly influence children’s desire to attend college. The findings point to the need for parental capacity building so that parents can effectively engage in their children’s lives at home.
In short, studies consistently suggest the significance of students’ learning environment in students’ academic success as well as their socio-emotional resilience. Despite the significance, few studies have investigated the characteristics of bilingual students’ learning environments and the variations in their learning environments as a function of their parents’ socioeconomic backgrounds.
2.3. Bilingual Family Socioeconomic Background
Family income and parents’ education level are essential components of a family’s socioeconomic (SES) status and are significant factors influencing students’ learning outcomes [48]. For example, research by Perkins, Finegood, and Swain [49] indicates that socioeconomic status plays an important role in literacy development in the home environment; for every additional $5000 in annual income within a family, vocabulary scores have raised an average of two points on a standard scale vocabulary measurement. Research on bilingual families also suggests that students from higher-income backgrounds demonstrate significantly greater growth in academic skills—specifically in reading, mathematics, and science—between kindergarten and Grade 5 [50]. As for the English reading accuracy skills, bilingual children at the kindergarten level were also found to be positively associated with their parents’ SES [51]. Moreover, bilingual children whose mothers have higher levels of education perform significantly better on all English proficiency measures compared to those whose mothers have lower levels of education, underscoring the importance of parental educational attainment in bilingual households [52]. Notably, the impact of SES on students’ academic performance seems to differ between bilingual vs. monolingual students. For instance, Shen and Wang [50] reported that academic growth differences in science between bilingual vs. monolingual students become larger between parents with and without a high school or higher degree. They also found that household income levels influence the academic trajectory differences between bilingual vs. monolingual students in reading and math.
Compared to monolingual families, the home learning environment in bilingual families is more complex, with cultural, linguistic, and length of stay in the USA factors influencing students’ academic performance and psychological well-being [53]. Tsytsarev and Krichmar [54] have found that perceived culture shock and length of stay in the USA had a significant impact on depression and self-esteem in American immigrants. They indicated that 38% of the variance in the level of depression was explained by the combined effects of perceived culture shock and length of stay in the USA. According to Migliettav and Tartaglia [55], adaptation and acculturation are influenced by cultural knowledge, length of stay in the new culture, and linguistic competence. This suggests that the longer bilingual speakers stay abroad, the stronger intercultural adaptation strategies they possess [56]. Studies also found that the longer the immigrant parents are exposed to American culture and education, the more freely they express emotions and use more praise [57,58].
To sum up, previous studies have consistently shown the critical role of the learning environment in students’ academic success and socio-emotional development. However, such studies have been conducted focusing primarily on monolingual students. The home learning environment of bilingual students can be considered unique and distinct from that of monolingual students, owing to their unique backgrounds as immigrants. The impact of acculturation, parenting style, family income, parent education, and length of stay in the USA on students’ academic achievement is significant [48], also indicating that bilingual students’ academic performance can be highly influenced by parents’ socioeconomic backgrounds. backgrounds are culturally distinct from monolingual households. Based on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory [20], which posits that student growth is impacted by the multifaceted interactions between environmental systems, ranging from the immediate surroundings (e.g., parents’ support) to broader societal contexts (e.g., culture, length of stay), this study aims to shed empirical light on the characteristics of bilingual students’ learning environment in an independent school district in a southern state of the USA by reporting the results of a large-scale parental survey. Specifically, the following research questions will guide the current study:
What are the general practices of bilingual students’ home learning environment (as a function of parents’ engagement in students’ learning, parents’ discussion about students’ future, parents’ emotional support for students, students’ media consumption, parents’ disciplinary practice, and parents’ support for students’ autonomy), as revealed by a parental survey?
How do these practices vary as a function of parents’ length of stay in the USA, educational levels, and income levels?
3. Methods
3.1. Participants
Nine hundred and fifty-nine bilingual parents participated in the study, representing a subset of a larger research project that included students and teachers from dual-language classrooms. These parents had children in third through seventh grades, attending six elementary schools and one middle school within a public school district. The district was in an urban area in the southwestern United States, serving a predominantly Hispanic student population (around 70%), with a high percentage of students receiving free or reduced-cost lunches (approximately 95%). The gender distribution among participating parents was 45.2% male and 54.8% female. The ethnic background of the participants was primarily Hispanic (87.6%), with smaller percentages of African Americans (1.8%), individuals of European descent (9.1%), American Indians (0.4%), Asian/Pacific Islanders (0.9%), and others (0.2%). In terms of grade levels, 21% of parents had children in third grade, 31.6% in fourth grade, 32% in fifth grade, 7.8% in sixth grade, and 7.6% in seventh grade. The majority of participants (84.5%) were from elementary classrooms, while the remaining 15.5% were from secondary classrooms where the dual language program was also implemented. In the survey, we asked the parents’ opinions about the goal of the bilingual program in which their children participated. About 82% of the participants indicated that the goal is for their children to become proficient in both languages; 8% said that it is to assist their children in learning English; 5% indicated that it is to assist their children in learning Spanish; and 3% said that the goal is to help their children use Spanish as a bridge to learning English.
Table 1 presents the frequency distributions of the parents’ length of stay in the USA, educational levels, and household income levels (independent variables). Overall, the majority of the parents have resided in the USA for six or more years and possess less than a high school degree. More than half of parents had a household income below $29,999. Due to the frequency imbalances across each level of parents’ background variables, we collapsed less frequent levels for the statistical analysis, as shown in Table 1’s third column (Collapsed Categories).
3.2. Procedure
The study procedure consisted of three main steps: survey development, survey piloting, and survey implementation.
Step 1: For the survey development, we conducted a thorough review of literature related to family/home environment research, the impact of parental engagement (both at home and school), and best practices for fostering a supportive home environment conducive to learning and college readiness.
Step 2: This phase involved piloting the survey with two distinct focus groups—one conducted in Spanish and the other in English. These groups were comprised of parents whose children were in elementary grades (K–7). The purpose of these focus groups was to refine the survey instrument, addressing any language ambiguities and revising poorly written items based on feedback from the participants.
Step 3: The final step was the actual administration of the survey to parents of children enrolled in bilingual classrooms from kindergarten through seventh grade. A bilingual member of our research team delivered the surveys to each classroom, along with an introductory letter explaining the study and providing survey instructions in both English and Spanish. Prior to distributing the survey package, parental consent forms were obtained. Parents were also asked to indicate their language preference for the survey, which helped in determining the appropriate language for the survey package. These procedures were consistently followed by our research team across all participating schools and classrooms.
3.3. Instrument and Analysis
A bilingual survey (Spanish/English) was developed, containing 74 items. The survey was designed to gather information on (a) family background, (b) characteristics of the home learning environment, (c) activities and routines in the student’s home learning environment, and (d) parental beliefs and attitudes towards the school and the classroom learning environments. This study focuses on descriptively reporting the results of parents’ responses to 20 question items inquiring about six aspects of the home learning environment: engagement in students’ learning, plans/discussions for students’ future, emotional support (family bond), students’ media consumption, disciplinary practice, and support for students’ autonomy. Table 2 presents the items used to measure each of the six traits.
Each item consists of a 5- or 6-point semi-ordinal scale (i.e., the non-ordinal option “Other” is included in each item). To statistically examine the variation of the home learning environment with respect to the parents’ length of stay in the USA, educational levels, and income levels, a series of Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed on the ordinal scores of each item.
4. Results
4.1. Engagement in Students’ Learning
Figure 1 shows the frequency distribution of parents’ responses to the five questions on parents’ engagement in students’ learning. The results show that approximately 54% of the parents indicated that they “never” volunteer to participate in their children’s classrooms; about 18% indicated that they rarely volunteer, while only about 3% said they volunteer “all the time”. In Q2, about 52% responded that their children ask them for help on homework “some of the time”. Interestingly, however, the majority (65%) of the parents indicated in Q3 that if asked for help with their children’s homework, they help the children “all of the time”. Roughly 62% indicated in Q4 that they take the initiative to read with their children at home “all of the time” or “most of the time” when it is not required for homework. When taking the initiative to read with their children, many of the parents (87%) tend to read for about 30 min or less.
To investigate the variation of these engagement practices with respect to the parents’ length of stay and educational and income levels, we carried out a series of Kruskal-Wallis tests for each item (we excluded non-ordinal categories from the analysis, i.e., Other and Wrong/Missing); due to the exploratory nature of the study, we did not adjust the Type 1 error rate. Table 3 shows the items with significant differences across the parents’ backgrounds; statistically significant differences were found in Q1 and Q3 with respect to the parents’ length of stay, educational level, and income, and in Q2 with respect to their educational level.
Table 4 displays a comparison of the mean scores for the three items presented in Table 2. It demonstrates that parents who have lived in the USA for their entire lives exhibit the highest Q1 mean score (2.06), followed by those who have resided for six or more years, and those with five or fewer years of residency in the USA. This suggests that the longer parents have lived in the USA, the more likely they are to volunteer to participate in their children’s classrooms. Additionally, there is a tendency for parents with higher educational degrees (college or graduate degrees) or higher incomes to engage as volunteers in children’s classrooms compared to those with lower degrees or incomes. Notably, children whose parents have a graduate degree, or a degree less than high school are less likely to ask for their parents’ help with their homework. However, when asked for help, parents with a graduate degree tend to offer assistance most frequently (highest mean in Q3), while those with less than a high school degree are least likely to do so (lowest mean in Q3).
4.2. Plans/Discussion for Students’ Future
Figure 2 visualizes the distribution of the parents’ responses to the two items asking about the frequency of their discussions with their children regarding their children’s future. Approximately 43% and 35% of the parents selected “all of the time” and “some of the time” in Q6, respectively, indicating that the majority of the parents do spend time discussing their children’s college entrance with them. Similarly, about 51% and 40% of them chose “all of the time” and “some of the time” in Q7, respectively, suggesting that the majority of the respondents do care about having discussions with their children about what they want to be when they grow up.
A series of Kruskal-Wallis tests found significant differences in the parents’ responses to both items with respect to their educational background: H(5) = 29.85, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.03 for Q6 and H(5) = 20.78, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.02 for Q7. Table 5 shows the score distributions of Q6 and Q7 across the parents’ educational levels. A clear pattern exists that parents with a higher educational degree have more frequent discussions with their children regarding the children’s college entrance. On the other hand, parents with a graduate degree or a high school degree tend to have more discussions with their children regarding what the children want to be in the future, while those who graduated from a technical/vocational school or had less than a high school degree tend to have fewer such discussions with their children.
4.3. Emotional Support (Family Bond)
The results of the survey indicate that the majority of the parents spend a decent amount of time eating dinner together with their children (i.e., 61% selected “all of the time” and 25% selected “most of the time” in Q8), talking with the children regarding the events of the school day (i.e., 63% selected “all of the time” and 22% selected “most of the time” in Q9), showing affection to the children (i.e., 89% selected “all of the time” and 7% selected “most of the time” in Q10), and praising their children (i.e., 82% selected “all of the time” and 12% selected “most of the time” in Q11), as displayed in Figure 3.
Kruskal-Wallis tests found a significant difference in the parents’ responses to Q10 with respect to their lengths of stay in the U.S., H(3) = 7.96, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.01. The item scores indicate that the parents who lived in the USA for their entire lives (mean of 3.95 and SD of 0.23) tend to show affection to their children (e.g., giving them a hug, saying “I love you”, etc.) more frequently than those who lived in the USA for five or less (mean of 3.89 and SD of 0.42) and for six or more (mean of 3.86 and SD of 0.44). No significant differences were found in these questions across parents’ educational and income levels.
4.4. Students’ Media Consumption
Figure 4 shows the frequency distributions of the parents’ responses to questions Q12–14, which inquire about students’ TV and computer usage. In response to Q12, approximately 55% of parents reported that their children watch TV or play video games for “1 to 2 h a day”, while around 30% stated “less than an hour a day”. Just 3% indicated that their children watch TV or play video games “more than 5 h a day”. Three hundred and sixty-seven participants (38% of 959) indicated that they did not own a computer for their children to use at home. Among the 592 participants who own a computer for their children at home, approximately 58% reported their children use it “less than an hour a day”, while around 31% stated “1 to 2 h a day”. Of these participants, the majority (55%) indicated their children use the computer for both school-related activities (e.g., homework) and entertainment (e.g., social networking sites, music).
Kruskal-Wallis tests revealed significant differences in parents’ responses to Q12 and Q13 concerning their educational and income levels, as depicted in Table 6. No significant differences were found in children’s media usage concerning the length of their parents’ stay in the USA. Table 7 presents the means and standard deviations of Q12 and Q13 across parents’ educational and income levels. The findings suggest that children whose parents graduated from graduate or technical/vocational schools tend to watch TV or play video games more frequently than those whose parents graduated from college or have a high school diploma or less. Conversely, children whose parents have less than a high school diploma tend to spend the longest time on the computer per day, followed by those whose parents graduated from technical/vocational schools. Parents with a college degree have the lowest mean score in Q13, indicating that their children spend the least time on the computer each day.
Children’s hours of watching TV or playing video games tend to increase as household income rises up to $59,999; however, children whose parents have incomes greater than $60,000 tend to spend less time engaging in these activities compared to those whose parents’ income ranges from $30,000 to $59,999. In contrast, children’s computer usage tends to decrease as their parents’ income level rises.
4.5. Disciplinary Practice
The survey results of Q15–17 are shown in Figure 5. Overall, 68% of the participating parents indicated that they discipline their children for misbehaving “all of the time”; 20% indicated “most of the time”. About 40% of the parents think that their discipline is effective “all of the time” in improving children’s behaviors, and 38% of them think that their discipline is effective “most of the time”. Notably, about 80% of parents indicated that they have discussions with their children “all of the time” about expectations that they have regarding the children’s behaviors; about 17% indicated they have the discussion with their children “some of the time”.
Kruskal-Wallis tests revealed a significant difference in Q15 as a function of parents’ length of stay in the USA, H(3) = 11.68, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.01, and in Q17 as a function of their educational level, H(5) = 11.71, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.01. The mean comparison of parents’ responses (Table 8) suggests that the shorter the parents’ length of stay in the USA, the more frequently they tend to discipline their children for misbehaving. Furthermore, with the exception of parents who graduated from a technical/vocational school, there appears to be a tendency for parents with higher educational degrees to discipline their children more frequently for misbehaviors, as evidenced by their higher mean scores in Q17.
4.6. Support for Students’ Autonomy
As shown in Figure 6, approximately 60% and 20% of the parents selected “some of the time” and “never” in Q18, respectively, indicating that parents are prone to not letting their children decide the chores they are going to accomplish. Similarly, about 56% and 24% indicated in Q19 that they let the children decide the home routine “some of the time” and “never”, respectively. In contrast, when it comes to deciding the recreational activities that the family will do on the weekend, parents tend to be more collaborative with their children; about 39% and 53% selected “all of the time” and “some of the time” in Q20, respectively. No statistical differences are found in the parents’ responses to the three items as a function of their length of stay in the USA, educational level, and income.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
This study analyzed a large-scale parental survey to investigate general practices of bilingual students’ home learning environments and their variation as a function of parents’ length of residency in the USA, education level, and income. The findings showed multidimensional relationships between bilingual students’ home learning environment and parents’ backgrounds. Specifically, parents who have lived in the United States for a longer period tend to participate more actively in their children’s learning and school activities. Previous research showed that the length of stay abroad has an impact on people’s adaptability and acculturation [55,56], which is positively related to students’ academic achievement [48]. Perhaps the longer parents have resided in the US, the more familiar they become with the American educational system and cultural expectations, contributing to increased parental involvement in students’ learning. Consistent with previous findings [54,55], it was also found that as bilingual parents extend their residence in the USA, they tend to use more emotional expressions, such as openly expressing love and praising their children.
Moreover, parents who have lived longer in the USA are more likely to adopt less punitive disciplinary practices. According to Gonzalez and Méndez-Pounds’ study [59], Hispanic parents, after immigrating to the United States, undergo a gradual change in their parenting style, moving away from disciplining as well as incorporating communication and negotiation with their children instead. It may explain why the parents in this study who stayed in the USA for shorter periods employ disciplinary measures more frequently, whereas those who stayed for longer periods do not, probably because they have gained more insights into the new culture and can adapt their disciplinary approaches to align with the new cultural norms. These findings indicate that immigrating to a foreign country substantially affects, or even alters, personal and interpersonal dynamics, including parental behaviors as well as parental relationships with their children.
We also observed a significant variation in bilingual students’ home learning environments across parents’ educational levels. For example, it was found that the higher the educational level of the parents, the more they engage in discussions with their children, such as expectations of general behaviors, matters related to college education, and the future expectations of their children, which seems to be congruent with Zedan [60], which found a clear positive correlation between parents’ educational level and socioeconomic status and the degree of their involvement. Another notable finding was that children whose parents have a graduate degree (lowest mean in Q2) or less than a high school degree (second lowest mean in Q2) tend to seek homework help less frequently. When asked for help, however, parents with a graduate degree tend to offer assistance most frequently (highest mean in Q3), while those with less than a high school degree are likely to offer help least often (lowest mean in Q3).
Based on our further analysis of the survey responses, we suspect that different reasons may exist for children of parents with these two different educational backgrounds to have different frequencies of seeking parental help with homework. For instance, approximately 97% of children whose parents hold a graduate degree have access to a computer, whereas only about 42% of parents lacking a high school degree reported having a computer for their children. Additionally, about 40% of graduate degree-holding parents noted that their children use the computer for school-related activities (Q14), compared to only about 19% of respondents with less than a high school education. Kaushal, Magnuson, and Waldfogel [61] found that parents with higher levels of education allocate a greater portion of their budget to enrichment resources and activities, such as computers, for their children. The findings seem to suggest that children of graduate degree-holding parents have more resources or make more use of computer assistance for their homework, potentially reducing the need for parental help. Conversely, children of parents with less than a high school degree may be less inclined to seek help due to not only the lack of computers for their children but also the lower likelihood of parental assistance, as indicated by the lowest mean in Q3. The lower likelihood of parental help could have contributed to a reduced frequency of these children seeking their parents’ help on homework.
Parents who have college degrees tend to involve their kids in discussions about college entrance and future career paths more often. Perhaps this is because parents with higher degrees have stronger beliefs in the advantages of getting into a college with respect to their children’s future career opportunities. On the other hand, parents with lower levels of education may have different goals or ideas about planning their child‘s education and future. These parents might focus more on current needs or underestimate, or be less aware of, the benefits of college, which might have been a reason for their lack of discussions regarding their children’s college entrance and careers.
The study also found significant relationships between parents’ income levels and their engagement in students’ learning. As parents’ income level increases, their participation in their children’s classrooms and their willingness to help children’s homework increase. This finding is congruent with Perkins et al. [49], which found that families with higher incomes were more likely to provide their children with tutoring and other forms of academic help, highlighting the significant role of household income standing in which families with higher income have more resources and opportunities to improve their children’s educational experiences. However, parents’ income levels were found to have weak relationships with their discussions for children’s future, emotional support, disciplinary practices, and support for students’ autonomy, suggesting that these aspects of the home learning environment are relatively more affected by parents’ length of stay and educational levels than their income levels.
Lastly, weak relationships were found between parents’ backgrounds and support for autonomy. Other than deciding recreational activities, most parents, regardless of their length of stay, education, and income levels, tended to be reluctant to allow their children to decide their chores and routines at home. According to Calzada, Fernandez, and Cortes [62], Mexican and Dominican immigrant mothers perceive American parents as more willing to involve their children in important matters but view themselves as being less able to support children’s autonomy and independence. Because most of the participants in this study were Hispanic, they might value children’s unquestioning obedience and prescribed prosocial behaviors, which were suggested to be distinct characteristics of Latino cultures as compared to American culture [63,64]. Previous research studies indicate a positive association between student autonomy and various aspects of their overall growth, including academic performance [65,66,67]. For instance, Su-Russell and Russell [68] reported that autonomy-supportive parenting is directly and positively associated with children’s social competencies, academic skills, and persistence. Given the critical role of autonomy-supportive parenting in students’ academic and psychological development, schools and communities should help bilingual parents realize its importance and thus properly support children’s autonomy.
One limitation of this study is that direct relationships between the practices of the home learning environment and children’s academic achievement/performance are not examined. It would be enlightening for future studies to shed empirical light on the ways in which different practices of home learning environments affect students’ academic performances, as well as the ways to support conducive home learning environments for bilingual students and their parents. Despite the limitation, our findings provided empirical descriptions of bilingual students’ home learning environments and their variations by analyzing the results of a large-scale parental survey. We hope that our findings can inform educators and policymakers to provide more tailored or targeted support for bilingual students and their parents. For example, because parents with lower educational and income levels tend to participate less in their children’s classrooms, educators and/or administrators may focus more on helping those parents recognize the importance of their active participation in supporting children’s growth and education.
Conceptualization, H.H.R. and H.C.; Data curation, H.H.R.; Formal analysis, H.C.; Funding acquisition, H.H.R.; Investigation, H.H.R., H.C., Y.Z., M.T. and M.B.; Methodology, H.C.; Project administration, H.H.R.; Resources, H.H.R.; Supervision, H.H.R. and H.C.; Visualization, H.C.; Writing—original draft, H.H.R., H.C., Y.Z., M.T. and M.B.; Writing—review & editing, H.H.R., H.C., Y.Z., M.T. and M.B. and D.D.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by TAMU (protocol code IRB2016-0759D and 16 February, 2017).
No potential conflict of interests was reported by the authors. This research involved human participants and obtained informed consent from the participants.
The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Parents’ Background.
| Background | Collapsed Categories | N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Length of Stay in the USA | ||
| Less than one year | 5 or less years | 10 (1%) |
| 1 to 2 years | 6 (1%) | |
| 3 to 5 years | 37 (4%) | |
| 6 or more years | 696 (73%) | |
| All my life, I was born in the USA | 182 (19%) | |
| Not sure | 13 (1%) | |
| Missing or Wrong Response | 15 (2%) | |
| Educational Levels | ||
| Less than high school | 452 (47%) | |
| High School Diploma/GED | 183 (19%) | |
| Some College | College Degree | 90 (9%) |
| 2-year College Degree (Associates) | 30 (3%) | |
| 4-year College Degree (BA/BS) | 68 (7%) | |
| Master’s Degree (MA/MS) | Graduate Degree | 31 (3%) |
| Doctoral Degree (PhD) | 2 (0%) | |
| Professional Degree (MD, JD) | 4 (0%) | |
| Technical/Vocational School | 40 (4%) | |
| Missing or Wrong Response | 59 (6%) | |
| Household Income | ||
| Less than $10,000 | 198 (21%) | |
| $10,000–$19,999 | 224 (23%) | |
| $20,000–$29,999 | 159 (17%) | |
| $30,000–$39,999 | 103 (11%) | |
| $40,000–$49,999 | $40,000–$59,999 | 67 (7%) |
| $50,000–$59,999 | 36 (4%) | |
| $60,000–$69,999 | Over $60,000 | 21 (2%) |
| Over $70,000 | 84 (9%) | |
| Missing or Wrong Response | 67 (7%) |
Survey Items.
| Item # | Engagement in Students’ Learning | |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Do you participate in your child’s classroom by being a volunteer (e.g., making copies, going on field trips, lunch duty, etc.)? | (4) Yes, all of the time |
| Q2 | Does your child ask you for help on homework? | (4) Yes, all of the time |
| Q3 | If your child asks for help on homework, do you help? | |
| Q4 | When it is NOT required for homework, do you take the initiative to read with your child at home? | |
| Q5 | When you take the initiative to read with your child, approximately how long do you read with him/her? | (4) 60 min or more |
| Plans/Discussion for Children’s Future | ||
| Q6 | Do you and your spouse have discussions with your child about him/her going to college? | (4) All of the time |
| Q7 | Have you and your spouse talked to your child about what he/she wants to be when he/she grows up? | |
| Emotional Support (Family Bond) | ||
| Q8 | Does the family (i.e., at least one adult and child) eat dinner together? | (4) Yes, all of the time |
| Q9 | Do you and your child talk about the events of the school day? | |
| Q10 | Do you show affection to your child? (e.g., give them a hug, saying “I love you”, etc.) | |
| Q11 | Do you praise your child? (e.g., saying “good job”, “I am glad you are doing your homework”, etc.) | |
| Student’s Media Consumption | ||
| Q12 | On average, how much time a day (i.e., Monday–Friday) does your child spend watching TV and/or playing videos games? | (4) 5 or more hours |
| Q13 | On average, how much time a day does your child spend on the computer, Monday–Friday? | |
| Q14 | What does your child use the computer for? | (-) School-related activity |
| Disciplinary Practice | ||
| Q15 | Do you discipline your child for misbehaving? | (4) Yes, all of the time |
| Q16 | Do you think that your discipline is effective in improving your child’s behavior? | |
| Q17 | How often do you have discussions with your child about the expectations you have for his/her general behavior? | (4) All of the time |
| Support for Student Autonomy | ||
| Q18 | Do you let your child decide what chores he/she is going to accomplish? | (4) Yes, all of the time |
| Q19 | Do you let your child decide what will be part of his/her routine at home? | |
| Q20 | How often do you collaborate with your child on deciding what recreational activities (e.g., going to the park, museum, shopping, movies, sporting events, etc.)? | (4) All of the time |
Q1–3 with Significant Differences.
| Item # | Parent Background | Statistics |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Length of Stay | H(3) = 32.73, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.03 |
| Educational Level | H(5) = 42.60, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.04 | |
| Income | H(6) = 48.15, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.04 | |
| Q2 | Educational Level | H(5) = 13.35, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.01 |
| Q3 | Length of Stay | H(3) = 42.88, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.04 |
| Educational Level | H(5) = 55.21, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.05 | |
| Income | H(6) = 43.81, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.04 |
Mean and SD of Q1–3 with Significant Differences.
| Variable | Level | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| Length of Stay | Entire Life | 2.06 | 0.96 | 3.80 | 0.52 | ||
| 6 or more years | 1.65 | 0.88 | 3.35 | 0.90 | |||
| 5 or less years | 1.53 | 0.90 | 3.32 | 0.94 | |||
| Education | Graduate Degree | 2.14 | 0.94 | 2.35 | 0.63 | 3.83 | 0.37 |
| College Degree | 2.01 | 0.97 | 2.75 | 0.91 | 3.72 | 0.61 | |
| High School Diploma | 1.72 | 0.84 | 2.76 | 0.97 | 3.48 | 0.82 | |
| Technical/Vocational School | 1.57 | 1.03 | 2.79 | 0.93 | 3.73 | 0.68 | |
| Less than High School | 1.86 | 0.86 | 2.56 | 0.93 | 3.22 | 0.96 | |
| Income | Over $60,000 | 2.12 | 0.88 | 3.82 | 0.46 | ||
| $40,000–59,999 | 1.85 | 0.92 | 3.70 | 0.65 | |||
| $30,000–39,999 | 1.84 | 0.93 | 3.49 | 0.83 | |||
| $20,000–29,999 | 1.76 | 0.91 | 3.42 | 0.83 | |||
| $10,000–19,999 | 1.51 | 0.83 | 3.30 | 0.93 | |||
| Less than $10,000 | 1.59 | 0.89 | 3.25 | 0.97 | |||
Mean and SD of Q6–7 across Parents’ Educational Levels.
| Variable | Level | Q6 | Q7 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| Education | Graduate Degree | 3.67 | 0.63 | 3.59 | 0.64 |
| College Degree | 3.31 | 0.84 | 3.49 | 0.64 | |
| High School Diploma | 3.24 | 0.93 | 3.54 | 0.65 | |
| Technical/Vocational School | 3.22 | 1.03 | 3.28 | 0.88 | |
| Less than High School | 3.03 | 0.97 | 3.31 | 0.75 | |
Q12–13 with Significant Differences.
| Item # | Variable | Statistics |
|---|---|---|
| Q12 | Educational Level | H(5) = 12.00, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.01 |
| Income | H(6) = 18.07, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.01 | |
| Q13 | Educational Level | H(5) = 18.44, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.01 |
| Income | H(6) = 19.45, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.01 |
Mean and SD of Q12 and Q13 across Parents’ Educational and Income Levels.
| Variable | Level | Q12 | Q13 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| Education | Graduate Degree | 1.91 | 0.80 | 1.39 | 0.64 |
| College Degree | 1.83 | 0.70 | 1.30 | 0.61 | |
| High School Diploma | 1.78 | 0.69 | 1.38 | 0.75 | |
| Technical/Vocational School | 2.05 | 0.65 | 1.41 | 0.84 | |
| Less than High School | 1.81 | 0.72 | 1.59 | 0.75 | |
| Income | Over $60,000 | 1.85 | 0.70 | 1.37 | 0.67 |
| $40,000–59,999 | 1.98 | 0.80 | 1.39 | 0.65 | |
| $30,000–39,999 | 1.90 | 0.76 | 1.31 | 0.76 | |
| $20,000–29,999 | 1.84 | 0.63 | 1.51 | 0.75 | |
| $10,000–19,999 | 1.82 | 0.71 | 1.52 | 0.71 | |
| Less than $10,000 | 1.65 | 0.68 | 1.48 | 0.73 | |
Mean and SD of Q15 and Q17 across Parents’ Length of Stay and Educational Level.
| Variable | Level | Q15 | Q17 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| Length of Stay | Entire Life | 3.50 | 0.67 | ||
| 6 or more years | 3.59 | 0.72 | |||
| 5 or less years | 3.73 | 0.60 | |||
| Educational Level | Graduate Degree | 3.95 | 0.23 | ||
| College Degree | 3.85 | 0.36 | |||
| High School Diploma | 3.78 | 0.49 | |||
| Technical/Vocational School | 3.90 | 0.30 | |||
| Less than High School | 3.75 | 0.52 | |||
References
1. Dahl, T.; Ceballo, R.; Huerta, M. In the Eye of the Beholder: Mothers’ Perceptions of Poor Neighborhoods as Places to Raise Children. J. Community Psychol.; 2010; 38, pp. 419-434. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20372]
2. Dubow, E.F.; Boxer, P.; Huesmann, L.R. Long-Term Effects of Parents’ Education on Children’s Educational and Occupational Success: Mediation by Family Interactions, Child Aggression, and Teenage Aspirations. Merrill-Palmer Q.; 2009; 55, pp. 2-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/mpq.0.0030] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20390050]
3. Tong, F.; Luo, W.; Irby, B.J.; Lara-Alecio, R.; Rivera, H. Investigating the Impact of Professional Development on Teachers’ Instructional Time and English Learners’ Language Development: A Multilevel Cross-Classified Approach. Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling.; 2017; 20, pp. 292-313. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1051509]
4. Fraser, B.J. Students’ Perceptions of Their Classroom Environments. Windows into Science Classrooms: Problems Associated with Higher-Level Cognitive Learning; Psychology Press: London, UK, 1990; pp. 199-221.
5. Rivera, H.; He, B.; Lynch, J.; Castro-Olivo, S. Studying the Learning Environment of EL Newcomer Students in the Schooling Process. Adv. Soc. Sci. Cult.; 2020; 2, pp. 1-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22158/assc.v2n1p1]
6. Masten, A.S.; Herbers, J.E.; Cutuli, J.J.; Lafavor, T.L. Promoting Competence and Resilience in the School Context. Prof. Sch. Couns.; 2008; 12, pp. 76-84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5330/PSC.n.2010-12.76]
7. Glasman, L.R.; Albarracín, D. Forming Attitudes That Predict Future Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of the Attitude-Behavior Relation. Psychol. Bull.; 2006; 132, pp. 67-78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778]
8. Griffith, J. The Relation of School Structure and Social Environment to Parent Involvement in Elementary Schools. Elem. Sch. J.; 1998; 99, pp. 53-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461916]
9. Grolnick, W.S.; Slowiaczek, M.L. Parents’ Involvement in Children’s Schooling: A Multidimensional Conceptualization and Motivational Model. Child Dev.; 1994; 65, pp. 237-252. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131378]
10. Heymann, S.J.; Earle, A. Low-Income Parents: How Do Working Conditions Affect Their Opportunity to Help School-Age Children at Risk?. Am. Educ. Res. J.; 2000; 37, pp. 833-848. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312037004833]
11. Khanolainen, D.; Psyridou, M.; Silinskas, G.; Lerkkanen, M.-K.; Niemi, P.; Poikkeus, A.-M.; Torppa, M. Longitudinal Effects of the Home Learning Environment and Parental Difficulties on Reading and Math Development across Grades 1–9. Front. Psychol.; 2020; 11, 577981. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.577981]
12. Lareau, A. Social Class Differences in Family–School Relationships: The Importance of Cultural Capital. Sociol. Educ.; 1987; 60, pp. 73-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2112583]
13. Lareau, A.; Shumar, W. The Problem of Individualism in Family–School Policies. Sociol. Educ.; 1996; 69, pp. 24-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3108454]
14. Trotman, M.F. Involving the African American Parent: Recommendations to Increase the Level of Parent Involvement within African American Families. J. Negro Educ.; 2001; 70, pp. 275-285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3211280]
15. Feng, L.; Gai, Y.; Chen, X. Family Learning Environment and Early Literacy: A Comparison of Bilingual and Monolingual Children. Econ. Educ. Rev.; 2014; 39, pp. 110-130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.12.005]
16. Park, M.; O’Toole, A.; Katsiaficas, C. Dual Language Learners: A National Demographic and Policy Profile; Fact Sheet, Migration Policy Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
17. Hammer, C.S.; Cycyk, L.M.; Scarpino, S.E.; Jury, K.A.; Sawyer, B.E. Development of the CECER-DLL Child and Family Questionnaire: A New Tool for Documenting the Language and Literacy Experiences of Latino/a Dual Language Learners. Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling.; 2022; 25, pp. 2018-2040. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1840507]
18. Wolf, S.J.; Fraser, B.J. Learning Environment, Attitudes, and Achievement Among Middle-School Science Students Using Inquiry-Based Laboratory Activities. Res. Sci. Educ.; 2007; 38, pp. 321-341. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9052-y]
19. Waxman, H.C.; Padron, Y.N.; Shin, J.Y.; Rivera, H.H. Closing the Achievement Gap Within Reading and Mathematics by Fostering Hispanic Students’ Educational Resilience. Int. J. Soc. Sci.; 2008; 3, pp. 24-34.
20. Bronfenbrenner, U. Ecology of the Family as a Context for Human Development: Research Perspectives. Dev. Psychol.; 1986; 22, pp. 723-742. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723]
21. Rivera, H.H.; Waxman, H.C. Resilient and Nonresilient Hispanic English Language Learners’ Attitudes Toward Their Classroom Learning Environment in Mathematics. J. Educ. Stud. Placed Risk; 2011; 16, pp. 182-200. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2011.585100]
22. Epstein, J.L. Toward a Theory of Family-School Connections: Teacher Practices and Parent Involvement. Social Intervention: Potential and Constraints; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 1987; pp. 121-136.
23. Epstein, J.L. School and Family Connections: Theory, Research, and Implications for Integrating Sociologies of Education and Family. Marriage Fam. Rev.; 1990; 15, pp. 99-126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J002v15n01_06]
24. Epstein, J.L. School/Family/Community Partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan; 1995; 76, 701.
25. Liu, H.; Qiu, Y.; Luo, L. Exploring Family Educational Involvement and Social Skills in Chinese Preschoolers: The Moderating Role of Parent-Child Relationship. Front. Psychol.; 2022; 13, 911421. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.911421] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35978768]
26. Lin, H.W.; Chen, Y.C. The Numbers Speak for Themselves: The Relationship Between Parental Involvement and Students’ Learning Attitudes. J. Educ. Res.; 2021; 326, pp. 74-91.
27. Pribesh, S.L.; Carson, J.S.; Dufur, M.J.; Yue, Y.; Morgan, K. Family Structure Stability and Transitions, Parental Involvement, and Educational Outcomes. Soc. Sci.; 2020; 9, 229. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/socsci9120229]
28. Peterson, G.W.; Cobas, J.A.; Bush, K.R.; Supple, A.; Wilson, S.M. Parent-Youth Relationships and the Self-Esteem of Chinese Adolescents: Collectivism Versus Individualism. Parent-Youth Relations; Routledge: London, UK, 2012; pp. 537-564.
29. Wang, M.T.; Holcombe, R. Adolescents’ Perceptions of School Environment, Engagement, and Academic Achievement in Middle School. Am. Educ. Res. J.; 2010; 47, pp. 633-662. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831209361209]
30. Hurtado, S.; Carter, D.F.; Spuler, A. Latino Student Transition to College: Assessing Difficulties and Factors in Successful College Adjustment. Res. High. Educ.; 1996; 37, pp. 135-157. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01730113]
31. Jeynes, W.H. A Meta-Analysis of the Relation of Parental Involvement to Urban Elementary School Student Academic Achievement. Urban Educ.; 2005; 40, pp. 237-269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085905274540]
32. Lara-Alecio, R.; Irby, B.J.; Ebener, R. Developing Academically Supportive Behaviors Among Hispanic Parents: What Elementary Teachers and Administrators Can Do. Prev. Sch. Fail. Altern. Educ. Child. Youth; 1998; 42, pp. 27-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10459889809603165]
33. Parker, R.; Lara-Alecio, R.; Ochoa, S.H.; Bigger, M.; Hasbrouck, J.; Parker, W. A School at Risk: Ideas for Improvement from Parents, Teachers, and Students of Three Ethnic Groups. J. Educ. Issues Lang. Minor. Stud.; 1996; 16, pp. 149-177.
34. Rolfe, S.A. Rethinking Attachment for Early Childhood Practice: Promoting Security, Autonomy, and Resilience in Young Children; Routledge: London, UK, 2020.
35. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-Determination Theory. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 6229-6235.
36. Livingstone, S. Strategies of Parental Regulation in the Media-Rich Home. Comput. Hum. Behav.; 2007; 23, pp. 920-941. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.002]
37. Anderson, D.R.; Pempek, T.A. Television and Very Young Children. Am. Behav. Sci.; 2005; 48, pp. 505-522. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764204271506]
38. Kwok, S.Y.C.L.; Fang, S.C. A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Parental Discipline on Wellbeing among Primary School Students in China: The Roles of School Attachment and Growth Mindset. Child Abuse Neglect; 2022; 124, 105435. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105435]
39. Li, X.; Yang, H.; Wang, H.; Jia, J. Family Socioeconomic Status and Home-Based Parental Involvement: A Mediation Analysis of Parental Attitudes and Expectations. Child. Youth Serv. Rev.; 2020; 116, pp. 105-111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105111]
40. McDermott, D. Thinking Mindfully About Parenting and Parenting Education. Child Welf.; 2006; 85, pp. 741-748.
41. Barger, M.M.; Kim, E.M.; Kuncel, N.R.; Pomerantz, E.M. The Relation Between Parents’ Involvement in Children’s Schooling and Children’s Adjustment: A Meta-Analysis. Psychol. Bull.; 2019; 145, 855. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000201]
42. Mo, Y.; Singh, K. Parents’ Relationships and Involvement: Effects on Students’ School Engagement and Performance. RMLE Online; 2008; 31, pp. 1-11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2008.11462053]
43. Masten, A.S.; Best, K.M.; Garmezy, N. Resilience and Development: Contributions from the Study of Children Who Overcome Adversity. Dev. Psychopathol.; 1990; 2, pp. 425-444. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400005812]
44. Walker, A.; Shafer, J.; Iiams, M. “Not in My Classroom”: Teacher Attitudes Towards English Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. NABE J. Res. Pract.; 2004; 2, pp. 130-160.
45. Auerbach, S. Engaging Latino Parents in Supporting College Pathways: Lessons from a College Access Program. J. Hisp. High. Educ.; 2004; 3, pp. 125-145. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1538192703262514]
46. Fishel, A. Home for Dinner: Mixing Food, Fun, and Conversation for a Happier Family and Healthier Kids; Amacom: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
47. Brusoski, G.C.; Golin, A.K.; Gladis, M.; Beers, S.R. Parental Encouragement and the Decision to Attend College. High Sch. J.; 1992; 75, pp. 225-232.
48. Moon, S.S.; Kang, S.Y.; An, S. Predictors of Immigrant Children’s School Achievement: A Comparative Study. J. Res. Child. Educ.; 2009; 23, pp. 278-289. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02568540909594661]
49. Perkins, S.C.; Finegood, E.D.; Swain, J.E. Poverty and Language Development: Roles of Parenting and Stress. Innov. Clin. Neurosci.; 2013; 10, 10.
50. Shen, Y.; Wang, R. Different Roles of Family Socioeconomic Status in Academic Trajectories between Emergent Bilinguals and Their Peers across Primary Years. J. Educ. Psychol.; 2024; 116, pp. 1250-1266. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2025-05939-001.html (accessed on 2 July 2024). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000891]
51. Howard, E.R.; Páez, M.M.; August, D.L.; Barr, C.D.; Kenyon, D.; Malabonga, V. The Importance of SES, Home and School Language and Literacy Practices, and Oral Vocabulary in Bilingual Children’s English Reading Development. Biling. Res. J.; 2014; 37, pp. 120-141. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2014.934485]
52. Montanari, S.; Mayr, R.; Subrahmanyam, K. Speech and Language Outcomes in Low-SES Spanish-English Bilingual Preschoolers: The Role of Maternal Education. Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling.; 2020; 25, pp. 1590-1608. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1781780] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35757277]
53. Hansen, H.R.; Shneyderman, Y.; McNamara, G.S.; Grace, L. Assessing Acculturative Stress of International Students at a US Community College. International Students at US Community Colleges; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 118-132.
54. Tsytsarev, S.; Krichmar, L. Relationship of Perceived Culture Shock, Length of Stay in the US, Depression, and Self-Esteem in Elderly Russian-Speaking Immigrants. J. Soc. Distress Homeless; 2000; 9, pp. 35-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009458513910]
55. Miglietta, A.; Tartaglia, S. The Influence of Length of Stay, Linguistic Competence, and Media Exposure in Immigrants’ Adaptation. Cross-Cultural Res.; 2008; 43, pp. 46-61. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1069397108326289]
56. Yueyue, C.; Nordin, N.A.; Panatik, S.A. A Study of Intercultural Adaptation in the Sino-American Joint Training Dual Degree Programs. Front. Educ.; 2022; 7, 1036584. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1036584]
57. Kim, E.; Hong, S. First-Generation Korean-American Parents’ Perceptions of Discipline. J. Prof. Nurs.; 2007; 23, pp. 60-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2006.12.002]
58. Kim, E.; Im, H.; Nahm, E.; Hong, S. Korean American Parents’ Reconstruction of Immigrant Parenting in the United States. J. Cult. Divers.; 2012; 19, pp. 1-24.
59. Gonzalez, N.; Méndez-Pounds, J. The Impact of Acculturation and Cultural Values on Hispanic Immigrants’ Parenting. Contemp. Fam. Ther.; 2018; 40, pp. 56-67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10591-017-9428-8]
60. Zedan, R.F. Parent Involvement According to Education Level, Socio-Economic Situation, and Number of Family Members. J. Educ. Enq.; 2011; 11, pp. 13-28.
61. Kaushal, N.; Magnuson, K.; Waldfogel, J. How Is Family Income Related to Investments in Children’s Learning?; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
62. Calzada, E.J.; Fernandez, Y.; Cortes, D.E. Incorporating the Cultural Value of Respeto into a Framework of Latino Parenting. Cult. Divers. Ethn. Minor. Psychol.; 2010; 16, 77. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016071]
63. Harwood, R.L. The Influence of Culturally Derived Values on Anglo and Puerto Rican Mothers’ Perceptions of Attachment Behavior. Child Dev.; 1992; 63, pp. 822-839. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131236]
64. Harwood, R.L.; Schoelmerich, A.; Schulze, P.A.; Gonzalez, Z. Cultural Differences in Maternal Beliefs and Behaviors: A Study of Middle-Class Anglo and Puerto Rican Mother-Infant Pairs in Four Everyday Situations. Child Dev.; 1999; 70, pp. 1005-1016. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00073]
65. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychol. Inq.; 2000; 11, pp. 227-268. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01]
66. Reeve, J. Teachers as Facilitators: What Autonomy-Supportive Teachers Do and Why Their Students Benefit. Elem. Sch. J.; 2006; 106, pp. 225-236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/501484]
67. Vasquez, A.C.; Patall, E.A.; Fong, C.J.; Corrigan, A.S.; Pine, L. Parent Autonomy Support, Academic Achievement, and Psychosocial Functioning: A Meta-Analysis of Research. Educ. Psychol. Rev.; 2016; 28, pp. 605-644. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9329-z]
68. Su-Russell, C.; Russell, L.T. Maternal Autonomy Support and Children’s Social Competencies, Academic Skills, and Persistence: Social Determinants and Mediation. J. Child Fam. Stud.; 2021; 30, pp. 757-770. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01869-0]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Zhu, Yiming 1 ; Jimenez, David D 2
; Bemani, Mohsen 1 ; Taheri, Mohammad 1
1 Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA;
2 Department of Curriculum, Instruction, & Learning Sciences, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, TX 78412, USA;