**Abstract**

This chapter focuses on the benefits and constraints of parent involvement in children's reading promotion. The first part reviews the existing literature about the effectiveness of parent involvement in reading programs and identifies general trends of research findings. Given the fact that empirical evidence about the effectiveness of reading programs with parents is rather vague, usually lacking information about implementation fidelity, some explorative investigations about factors that might explain training success are presented in the second part. The investigations are based on data from a Swiss Paired Reading study where implementation fidelity was exhaustively examined. Children with very big gain (*n* = 20) and very little gain (*n* = 17) in reading fluency were compared regarding diverse aspects: child characteristics, parent characteristics (family background), and implementation factors. Results reveal that children benefiting from the reading program attached higher importance to reading in general, they read more in spare time and they reported higher effort during the training. The number of books at home also revealed to be a determinant factor. Yet, implementation factors gave no reason for explaining differences in improvement. The study discusses beneficial circumstances of parent involvement in reading programs.

**Keywords:** reading programs, parent involvement, effectiveness, struggling readers, paired reading, Grade 3, training success

## **1. Introduction**

During school age, a considerable part of parenting consists in offering help for homework or other school-related matters. School relies much on this kind of support parents give to their children in everyday life. Parents are propitious persons to meet the individual needs of their child, and compared to school, family environment facilitates highly adaptive and intense one-to-one interaction with the child [1]. Parents usually consider it as their duty to help their child and, therefore, respond positively to invitations either from the school, teacher, or child [2]. Moreover, given the fact that reading is crucial for a successful and

fulfilled life [3], parents see it as a particular benefit to help their child develop his or her reading competence [4].

However, parental help for academic work is not unproblematic. First, parents usually lack the necessary content knowledge and pedagogical skills [4, 5]. Second, impulsiveness is higher in family than in school context, which easily can result in conflicts. Research showed that conflicts arise more frequently in families with struggling students (who need help most), sometimes due to bad grades or excessive academic expectations [6]. "Teaching-learning" situations are considered to be atypical at home, and they may disrupt sensitive parent-child relations if they occur too regularly with conflicts [7]. Finally, conflicts with parents can even have a negative impact on the child's achievement [8].

Given this controversy about benefits of parental help in school-related settings, this chapter gives an overview of contemporary trends in empirical research about parent involvement in reading promotion. The focus lies on investigating the effectiveness of parental support in reading, and more specifically, in training methods like Paired Reading (PR) [9]. Favorable aspects for successful training are explored based on data from a recent PR study [10].

#### **2. Impacts of parent involvement in reading programs**

It is widely acknowledged that family background has an impact on the child's reading achievement [3]. The most important background factors that are associated with academic achievement are socio-economic status, parents' educational level, and migration background. In addition to those distal factors, proximal factors, such as cultural practices, parent-child communication, or number of books at home, are as much as significant [4, 11]. Therefore, there is much evidence to assume that family effects on reading are existent even without any planned efforts through intervention. But how about reading interventions that involve parents actively? In the following, an overview on recent literature about the effectiveness of reading programs involving parents is presented.

#### **2.1 Effectiveness of reading programs involving parents**

Research on parent tutoring has been reported since the 1970s, but reviews usually found severe design problems and limited descriptions of intervention characteristics in earlier studies [12]. Recent studies and meta-analyses have been much more rigorous, this applies also to the domain of reading promotion. Most of the reading programs that involve parents are subsumed under the term "family literacy programs." Family literacy programs basically aim at extending literacy experiences and improving reading of children outside school to prevent delays in children's literacy development [13]. They emphasize the intergenerational character of language and literacy learning to acquire skills and cultural practices valued in the community. However, the field of such programs is quite large, and programs can include a broad range of activities and address different target groups. An important number of family literacy programs focuses on preschool children and include activities such as shared book reading [14]. Though, there are some programs that focus on children at school (formal education), sometimes establishing a cooperation between home and school.

#### *2.1.1 Meta-analyses on studies at preschool*

The meta-analysis of [15] focusing on parent-preschooler reading (joint-book reading activities) found an overall effect size of *d* = 0.59 for language growth,

**33**

*Benefits and Constraints of Parent Involvement in Children's Reading Promotion: General…*

emergent literacy, and reading achievement on a basis of 34 studies. The effects did not depend on socio-economic status of families or on methodological features of the reviewed studies. Reference [16] that reviewed 16 studies on dialogic book reading with preschool children showed moderate effects on vocabulary, but only for very young children (under 4 years) and for children who were not at risk for language impairments. The meta-analysis of [17] also focused on 15 family literacy programs in early childhood (preschool) and reported overall weak effects on coderelated (*d* = 0.24) and comprehension-related (*d* = 0.17) measures. The authors found that studies that were methodologically less sound (e.g., no randomization) had generally higher effects. Other moderator analyses testing differential effects due to program or study features showed no significant differences. The meta-analysis of [18] focused on 67 interventions promoting word-learning and vocabulary at preschool and kindergarten. The effect size for instructions provided by parents was *d* = 0.76. Finally, a work of [19] focused on bilingual family literacy programs reporting the effects of three studies, most of them conducted with preschool children. Given the limited number of studies, they did not conduct a meta-analysis but still highlighted the potential and importance of bilingual family literacy programs

So-called family literacy programs at primary school are infrequent. To our knowledge, there is only the meta-analysis of [12] that focused on parent tutoring in reading at primary level. The author investigated a total of 37 studies differentiating between group and single-subject studies. In most cases, outcome variables were reading fluency, word recognition, reading comprehension, or mixed measures. The mean weighted effect size for group design studies was *d* = 0.55, and for singlesubject studies, the median percentage of non-overlapping data (PND) was 94%, which can be interpreted as very effective [12]. Only one treatment characteristic (length of training) moderated the outcome, the others which were examined (written instruction, modeling, supervised practice, duration of training session, opportunities for consultation, and monitoring) did not. Likewise, study features such as grade, skill area, and the type of assessment were investigated as possible

A few meta-analyses included studies of both preschool and formal education level. Sénéchal and Young [14] reviewed 16 studies on parent-child reading activities from kindergarten to Grade 3 and differentiated between (a) parents reading to their children (*d* = 0.18), (b) parents listening to their children read (*d* = 0.52), and (c) parents tutoring their children in specific reading skills (*d* = 1.15). Moreover, the authors found that the more children and parents were actively involved in the activities (e.g., dialogic reading), the higher were the effects. However, the duration of the intervention, reading level of children, and socio-economic background did not moderate effectiveness. Another meta-analysis of [13] including 30 studies on family literacy programs found a small but significant overall effect of *d* = 0.20 on reading skills. Effects on comprehension-related skills were a bit higher than on code-related skills (decoding and fluency). Programs at primary school level were more effective

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93136*

in a world of transnational movement.

*2.1.2 Meta-analyses for formal (primary) education*

moderators of outcome, without any effects found.

*2.1.3 Meta-analyses focusing on both preschool and formal education*

than at preschool. Again, randomized studies showed lower effects.

To sum up, the meta-analyses investigating the overall effects of family literacy programs globally indicate rather heterogeneous findings going from small (d ≥ 0.20) to high effects (d ≥ 0.80), certainly due to diverse methodological

*Benefits and Constraints of Parent Involvement in Children's Reading Promotion: General… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93136*

emergent literacy, and reading achievement on a basis of 34 studies. The effects did not depend on socio-economic status of families or on methodological features of the reviewed studies. Reference [16] that reviewed 16 studies on dialogic book reading with preschool children showed moderate effects on vocabulary, but only for very young children (under 4 years) and for children who were not at risk for language impairments. The meta-analysis of [17] also focused on 15 family literacy programs in early childhood (preschool) and reported overall weak effects on coderelated (*d* = 0.24) and comprehension-related (*d* = 0.17) measures. The authors found that studies that were methodologically less sound (e.g., no randomization) had generally higher effects. Other moderator analyses testing differential effects due to program or study features showed no significant differences. The meta-analysis of [18] focused on 67 interventions promoting word-learning and vocabulary at preschool and kindergarten. The effect size for instructions provided by parents was *d* = 0.76. Finally, a work of [19] focused on bilingual family literacy programs reporting the effects of three studies, most of them conducted with preschool children. Given the limited number of studies, they did not conduct a meta-analysis but still highlighted the potential and importance of bilingual family literacy programs in a world of transnational movement.

#### *2.1.2 Meta-analyses for formal (primary) education*

So-called family literacy programs at primary school are infrequent. To our knowledge, there is only the meta-analysis of [12] that focused on parent tutoring in reading at primary level. The author investigated a total of 37 studies differentiating between group and single-subject studies. In most cases, outcome variables were reading fluency, word recognition, reading comprehension, or mixed measures. The mean weighted effect size for group design studies was *d* = 0.55, and for singlesubject studies, the median percentage of non-overlapping data (PND) was 94%, which can be interpreted as very effective [12]. Only one treatment characteristic (length of training) moderated the outcome, the others which were examined (written instruction, modeling, supervised practice, duration of training session, opportunities for consultation, and monitoring) did not. Likewise, study features such as grade, skill area, and the type of assessment were investigated as possible moderators of outcome, without any effects found.

#### *2.1.3 Meta-analyses focusing on both preschool and formal education*

A few meta-analyses included studies of both preschool and formal education level. Sénéchal and Young [14] reviewed 16 studies on parent-child reading activities from kindergarten to Grade 3 and differentiated between (a) parents reading to their children (*d* = 0.18), (b) parents listening to their children read (*d* = 0.52), and (c) parents tutoring their children in specific reading skills (*d* = 1.15). Moreover, the authors found that the more children and parents were actively involved in the activities (e.g., dialogic reading), the higher were the effects. However, the duration of the intervention, reading level of children, and socio-economic background did not moderate effectiveness. Another meta-analysis of [13] including 30 studies on family literacy programs found a small but significant overall effect of *d* = 0.20 on reading skills. Effects on comprehension-related skills were a bit higher than on code-related skills (decoding and fluency). Programs at primary school level were more effective than at preschool. Again, randomized studies showed lower effects.

To sum up, the meta-analyses investigating the overall effects of family literacy programs globally indicate rather heterogeneous findings going from small (d ≥ 0.20) to high effects (d ≥ 0.80), certainly due to diverse methodological

*Parenting - Studies by an Ecocultural and Transactional Perspective*

negative impact on the child's achievement [8].

based on data from a recent PR study [10].

**2. Impacts of parent involvement in reading programs**

of reading programs involving parents is presented.

*2.1.1 Meta-analyses on studies at preschool*

**2.1 Effectiveness of reading programs involving parents**

or her reading competence [4].

fulfilled life [3], parents see it as a particular benefit to help their child develop his

However, parental help for academic work is not unproblematic. First, parents usually lack the necessary content knowledge and pedagogical skills [4, 5]. Second, impulsiveness is higher in family than in school context, which easily can result in conflicts. Research showed that conflicts arise more frequently in families with struggling students (who need help most), sometimes due to bad grades or excessive academic expectations [6]. "Teaching-learning" situations are considered to be atypical at home, and they may disrupt sensitive parent-child relations if they occur too regularly with conflicts [7]. Finally, conflicts with parents can even have a

Given this controversy about benefits of parental help in school-related settings, this chapter gives an overview of contemporary trends in empirical research about parent involvement in reading promotion. The focus lies on investigating the effectiveness of parental support in reading, and more specifically, in training methods like Paired Reading (PR) [9]. Favorable aspects for successful training are explored

It is widely acknowledged that family background has an impact on the child's reading achievement [3]. The most important background factors that are associated with academic achievement are socio-economic status, parents' educational level, and migration background. In addition to those distal factors, proximal factors, such as cultural practices, parent-child communication, or number of books at home, are as much as significant [4, 11]. Therefore, there is much evidence to assume that family effects on reading are existent even without any planned efforts through intervention. But how about reading interventions that involve parents actively? In the following, an overview on recent literature about the effectiveness

Research on parent tutoring has been reported since the 1970s, but reviews usually found severe design problems and limited descriptions of intervention characteristics in earlier studies [12]. Recent studies and meta-analyses have been much more rigorous, this applies also to the domain of reading promotion. Most of the reading programs that involve parents are subsumed under the term "family literacy programs." Family literacy programs basically aim at extending literacy experiences and improving reading of children outside school to prevent delays in children's literacy development [13]. They emphasize the intergenerational character of language and literacy learning to acquire skills and cultural practices valued in the community. However, the field of such programs is quite large, and programs can include a broad range of activities and address different target groups. An important number of family literacy programs focuses on preschool children and include activities such as shared book reading [14]. Though, there are some programs that focus on children at school (formal education), sometimes establishing a cooperation between home and school.

The meta-analysis of [15] focusing on parent-preschooler reading (joint-book reading activities) found an overall effect size of *d* = 0.59 for language growth,

**32**

procedures and study basis. However, there is a tendency that recent studies show lower effects because of stronger orientation on school practice and higher methodological standards [20]. A more recent study of [21] that fulfills high standards of methodology (quasi-experimental design, controlling for cognitive abilities, and family background variables) with *N* = 713 primary students (Grade 4) found effects on reading motivation for one part of the sample that involved parents into the reading homework, but no effects on reading comprehension or reading self-concept were found. A Canadian study that involved parents in a summer book reading program with students from Grades 3 and 5 found moderate effects on reading comprehension, fluency, and receptive vocabulary [22]. A recent German study found small, but significant effects on reading comprehension of first graders and moreover detected positive effects on parent self-efficacy beliefs [23]. Some studies highlight the importance of emotional aspects when parents read with their child. For example, [24] found that affective quality of shared reading in the first grade contributed significantly to the child's reading of challenging texts in the third grade. Thus, it seems to be crucial in which way parents interact with their child during reading activities ([25, 26] see Section 3.2). Furthermore, there is evidence to believe that family literacy programs, without explicitly addressing children's behavior, may equally have a significant impact on the social-emotional development of children [27].

#### **2.2 Effectiveness of Paired Reading (PR) with parent tutors**

PR, developed by Topping [28], is a method that focuses on training reading fluency, which is considered to be a precondition for acquiring reading comprehension [29, 30]. The method consists of guided oral reading in a one-to-one tutoring, which is particularly beneficial for struggling readers. The procedure of the training is highly structured, integrates error correction, and it takes also into account the importance of motivation in learning by offering the child the possibility of self-initiated sequences of reading alone [31]. Furthermore, the tutor gives positive feedback whenever the child reads a difficult word successfully, which enhances learning [32]. PR is ideal for reading promotion in the family environment, in case, parents receive training in advance—a prerequisite which accounts for any type of reading program [33, 34].

The only systematic literature review on PR at elementary school level was conducted by Topping and Lindsay [35], however, without specifying tutor type (parent/volunteer) or reading ability of the target group. The authors reported overall positive effects on reading accuracy and comprehension (in terms of mean ratio gains); however, many studies did not have an experimental design and if so, the effects were smaller. Though, many of the reviewed studies lacked in detailed description of methods (training course yes or no, duration of program, target group, etc.), which makes it difficult to draw conclusions for practice. In a more recent publication, [36] reported mean effect sizes for parent tutored projects of *d* = 1.6 (accuracy) and *d* = 1.4 (comprehension).

Recent studies about PR with parent tutors have a sounder methodological basis (all of them have an experimental design), and some provide information about child and family characteristics and/or aspects of implementation. In general, the authors reported positive effects of PR conducted by parents. A South African study found increased reading accuracy and comprehension for fourth graders struggling with reading [37]; a Chinese study reported better word recognition and reading fluency for preschool children [38]; a Canadian study detected effects on general academic abilities and phonological awareness but no effects on reading

**35**

*Benefits and Constraints of Parent Involvement in Children's Reading Promotion: General…*

ability at kindergarten level [39]; a US American study with second, third, or fourth graders struggling with reading only found effects on reading accuracy, rate, and comprehension for children who completed the training as intended (*n* = 7) [40]; and finally, our own study comparing parent and volunteer tutors (*N* = 198 third graders) revealed only effects of the volunteers' group on reading fluency (*d* = 0.21); however, the effects did not last at follow-up (5 months after posttest). Thus, children who trained with parent tutors did not develop significantly better

The aim of this literature review is to give an overview on research about family reading programs, and more specifically, about PR, without reporting details of each work. What this review brings to light though is that it is difficult to establish conclusions about the effectiveness of parents' activities to promote reading of their children. In sum, meta-analyses have brought evidence for the effectiveness of parental involvement in reading promotion and mostly report small, but significant effects. However, those meta-analyses are usually based on studies with diverse program characteristics (age, target group, type of program, duration, etc.) and substantial methodological discrepancies among the studies (small sample size, self-selected samples, lack of random assignments to conditions, etc.). Furthermore, implementation quality (quality of instruction and implementation check) was hardly ever considered in those studies [41], although it is assumed that the participants of a program conduct it in quite different ways [42]. Thus, the effects need to be interpreted with care; the variability in implementation fidelity might partly be responsible for the wide variability in the effects found [43]. Moreover, providing evidence for differential effects between programs (e.g., program/training duration) is somehow problematic, if imple-

Possibly, well-instructed parents can conduct reading programs successfully, but in the light of the problematic aspects of parent involvement in academic work highlighted in the introduction, a careful consideration of individual prerequisites and processes of program implementation that could explain training success (or failure) is needed. Understanding which specific factors are likely to lead to a successful training outcome would help to implement parent reading programs in a

To date, little is known about differential effects of reading programs involving parents; only a few studies investigated factors that moderated program outcomes. In the following, findings of previous studies about differential effects are gathered and completed by assumptions that can be deduced from widely recognized theories or evidence-based findings about the factors that foster learning, distinguishing between child characteristics, parent characteristics, and implementation factors

Do effects of parent reading programs depend on the child's reading performance? There is quite a broad evidence about individual differences in the

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93136*

**2.3 Evidence from the revisited literature**

mentation fidelity has not been considered [44].

**3. Investigating relevant factors for training success**

more purposeful way.

(for an overview, see **Table 1**).

**3.1 Child characteristics**

than the control group [10].

*Benefits and Constraints of Parent Involvement in Children's Reading Promotion: General… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93136*

ability at kindergarten level [39]; a US American study with second, third, or fourth graders struggling with reading only found effects on reading accuracy, rate, and comprehension for children who completed the training as intended (*n* = 7) [40]; and finally, our own study comparing parent and volunteer tutors (*N* = 198 third graders) revealed only effects of the volunteers' group on reading fluency (*d* = 0.21); however, the effects did not last at follow-up (5 months after posttest). Thus, children who trained with parent tutors did not develop significantly better than the control group [10].

#### **2.3 Evidence from the revisited literature**

*Parenting - Studies by an Ecocultural and Transactional Perspective*

**2.2 Effectiveness of Paired Reading (PR) with parent tutors**

PR, developed by Topping [28], is a method that focuses on training reading fluency, which is considered to be a precondition for acquiring reading comprehension [29, 30]. The method consists of guided oral reading in a one-to-one tutoring, which is particularly beneficial for struggling readers. The procedure of the training is highly structured, integrates error correction, and it takes also into account the importance of motivation in learning by offering the child the possibility of self-initiated sequences of reading alone [31]. Furthermore, the tutor gives positive feedback whenever the child reads a difficult word successfully, which enhances learning [32]. PR is ideal for reading promotion in the family environment, in case, parents receive training in advance—a prerequisite which accounts for any type of

The only systematic literature review on PR at elementary school level was conducted by Topping and Lindsay [35], however, without specifying tutor type (parent/volunteer) or reading ability of the target group. The authors reported overall positive effects on reading accuracy and comprehension (in terms of mean ratio gains); however, many studies did not have an experimental design and if so, the effects were smaller. Though, many of the reviewed studies lacked in detailed description of methods (training course yes or no, duration of program, target group, etc.), which makes it difficult to draw conclusions for practice. In a more recent publication, [36] reported mean effect sizes for parent tutored projects of

Recent studies about PR with parent tutors have a sounder methodological basis (all of them have an experimental design), and some provide information about child and family characteristics and/or aspects of implementation. In general, the authors reported positive effects of PR conducted by parents. A South African study found increased reading accuracy and comprehension for fourth graders struggling with reading [37]; a Chinese study reported better word recognition and reading fluency for preschool children [38]; a Canadian study detected effects on general academic abilities and phonological awareness but no effects on reading

development of children [27].

reading program [33, 34].

*d* = 1.6 (accuracy) and *d* = 1.4 (comprehension).

procedures and study basis. However, there is a tendency that recent studies show lower effects because of stronger orientation on school practice and higher methodological standards [20]. A more recent study of [21] that fulfills high standards of methodology (quasi-experimental design, controlling for cognitive abilities, and family background variables) with *N* = 713 primary students (Grade 4) found effects on reading motivation for one part of the sample that involved parents into the reading homework, but no effects on reading comprehension or reading self-concept were found. A Canadian study that involved parents in a summer book reading program with students from Grades 3 and 5 found moderate effects on reading comprehension, fluency, and receptive vocabulary [22]. A recent German study found small, but significant effects on reading comprehension of first graders and moreover detected positive effects on parent self-efficacy beliefs [23]. Some studies highlight the importance of emotional aspects when parents read with their child. For example, [24] found that affective quality of shared reading in the first grade contributed significantly to the child's reading of challenging texts in the third grade. Thus, it seems to be crucial in which way parents interact with their child during reading activities ([25, 26] see Section 3.2). Furthermore, there is evidence to believe that family literacy programs, without explicitly addressing children's behavior, may equally have a significant impact on the social-emotional

**34**

The aim of this literature review is to give an overview on research about family reading programs, and more specifically, about PR, without reporting details of each work. What this review brings to light though is that it is difficult to establish conclusions about the effectiveness of parents' activities to promote reading of their children. In sum, meta-analyses have brought evidence for the effectiveness of parental involvement in reading promotion and mostly report small, but significant effects. However, those meta-analyses are usually based on studies with diverse program characteristics (age, target group, type of program, duration, etc.) and substantial methodological discrepancies among the studies (small sample size, self-selected samples, lack of random assignments to conditions, etc.). Furthermore, implementation quality (quality of instruction and implementation check) was hardly ever considered in those studies [41], although it is assumed that the participants of a program conduct it in quite different ways [42]. Thus, the effects need to be interpreted with care; the variability in implementation fidelity might partly be responsible for the wide variability in the effects found [43]. Moreover, providing evidence for differential effects between programs (e.g., program/training duration) is somehow problematic, if implementation fidelity has not been considered [44].

Possibly, well-instructed parents can conduct reading programs successfully, but in the light of the problematic aspects of parent involvement in academic work highlighted in the introduction, a careful consideration of individual prerequisites and processes of program implementation that could explain training success (or failure) is needed. Understanding which specific factors are likely to lead to a successful training outcome would help to implement parent reading programs in a more purposeful way.

#### **3. Investigating relevant factors for training success**

To date, little is known about differential effects of reading programs involving parents; only a few studies investigated factors that moderated program outcomes. In the following, findings of previous studies about differential effects are gathered and completed by assumptions that can be deduced from widely recognized theories or evidence-based findings about the factors that foster learning, distinguishing between child characteristics, parent characteristics, and implementation factors (for an overview, see **Table 1**).

#### **3.1 Child characteristics**

Do effects of parent reading programs depend on the child's reading performance? There is quite a broad evidence about individual differences in the


#### **Table 1.**

*Supposed differential effects for child characteristics, parent characteristics, and implementation factors.*

acquisition of literacy between good and poor readers [45, 46]; but we do not know much about differential effects of programs depending on the child's reading level. One meta-analysis focusing on preschool level reported moderate, but substantially reduced effect sizes when children were at risk for language impairments [16]. In our own study comparing parent and volunteer tutors' effectiveness in a PR training for children with poor reading fluency1 , we only found differential effects in the volunteer condition, saying that children with an initially higher reading level benefitted more from the training (at posttest: *d* = 0.47; at 5-month follow-up: *d* = 0.39). However, this effect could not be found within the parent group [10].

Besides the initial reading level, it is assumable that the child's general disposition toward reading, which can be reflected in reading motivation and reading frequency during spare time, is relevant for training success. Knowing that reading performance and motivation correlate in a moderate way, we can assume that poor readers are not very motivated readers and thus do not necessarily read for pleasure [47, 48]. Though, if there *are* differences among struggling readers, possibly children who are more motivated readers and read more frequently would benefit more from a training. This assumption is supported by a study that found reading behavior to be a critical variable in explaining differential pathways in reading competence development [49]. Furthermore, perceived utility values like the importance that a child attaches to reading might be beneficial for training outcome [50]. When specifically addressed within interventions (by reflecting personal relevance of a matter for future; in this particular case: math), utility values even turned out to be an important factor to foster self-concept and achievement [51]. Thus, it is assumable that children with higher utility values attributed to reading might benefit more from the training. Always in relation with motivational aspects mentioned previously, it is relevant which effort one puts into a task. The role of volition in learning has been studied in detail by many scholars (e.g., [52, 53]) but still seems to be much neglected in learning situations. However, in reading programs, and particularly

**37**

graders.

*Benefits and Constraints of Parent Involvement in Children's Reading Promotion: General…*

in family context, the volitional disposition of the child is a crucial factor that

The empirical evidence whether parent characteristics might be responsible for differential effects of reading programs conducted by parents is unclear. Several researchers (e.g., [6, 43, 54]) investigated the assumption that high-SES parents might be more skilled in implementing family literacy programs than low-SES parents, because they are more likely to dispose of the required strategies (e.g., sensitivity and responsiveness) [26]. However, findings are inconsistent [41]. Studies that examined differential effects of SES found that SES or family income did not moderate program effects [15, 38] (both at preschool level). Still, the empirical evidence is scanty, and further research, especially for primary school level, is clearly needed. Associated factors, related to the family background, might be the parents' occupational status and cultural capital [1, 55]. Besides these factors, proximal factors such as parental expectations play a prominent role in predicting child achievement (e.g., [56–58]). The extent to which parental expectations moderate training effects is a question that still needs to be investigated. At least one study showed that parental expectations regarding the training success was significantly higher for parents of children with lower reading performance [4]. Whether higher expectations moderate training success still need though to be empirically

The impact of implementation fidelity on program effectiveness has already been discussed previously. Thus, differential effects on training success can be expected from implementation factors like the total instructional time or number of training sessions held (intensity/duration of training), or other aspects of program content (is the program implemented as intended?). However, previous research showed that higher training intensity (in terms of quantity of training sessions) or duration of training (in terms of weeks or months) is not necessarily associated with training success [33, 59]. In our own study, the number of training sessions was not a significant predictor of reading outcomes nor did it moderate them [10]. This finding is in line with some meta-analyses [14, 17], but not solely (e.g., length of training moderated outcome [12]). Besides this, little is known about the aspects of implementation fidelity other than intensity that would explain program success, especially in reading programs involving parents. A peer and cross-age tutoring PR study that investigated this topic revealed no significant positive correlation between any core element of PR implementation and progress in attainment [60]. However, implementation that considers motivational aspects of learning (e.g., provide positive feedback) [32] actively involves the child into reading activities [14] and applies thoroughly scaffolded tutoring procedures (Cohen et al. in Topping et al. in [60, 61], p. 241) that are supposed to foster read-

Altogether, the question about relevant factors for training success in programs that involve parents is still much of a mystery. To date, only few studies investigated differential effects within family literacy programs. Therefore, in the following, the previously presented assumptions about possible factors that explain training success will be explored on data of a PR study with third

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93136*

might explain training success or failure.

**3.2 Parent characteristics**

established.

**3.3 Implementation factors**

ing, presumably would bring higher training effects.

<sup>1</sup> Children with dyslexia were not supposed to participate.

in family context, the volitional disposition of the child is a crucial factor that might explain training success or failure.
