PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT IN ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: A REVIEW OF

THE LITERATURE

Mark Stevens and Jered Borup

ABSTRACT

Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to overview what extant research says about parental
involvement in online learning environments.
Methodology/approach The approach in this chapter is a systematic review of literature focusing
on engagement frameworks.
Findings Parents have the potential to be the key to overcoming key concerns about attrition and
achievement in online settings. However, research has been silent as to how to engage parents
more fully as learn- ing coaches for their children.
Research implications Research about parental involvement in online learning should consider
the roles of both teacher and parent as they coordinate their efforts to improve student
engagement. Research also needs to look at what parents need to know about helping their
students be successful and how to provide the training and expertise to parents that will help
them learn critical support skills.
Originality/value This chapter is particularly timely in light of the dramatic growth in online
learning and the resulting concerns about achievement and attrition that are particularly acute
among at-risk populations.

Keywords: Parental engagement; parental involvement; online learning; supporting students

online

INTRODUCTION

K-12 online course enrollments have grown dramatically in the past 15 years ( Queen & Lewis,
2011 ; Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, & Rapp, 2013 ). However, this growth has not come
without some concern. The con- cern that has garnered the most attention has been online
learning’s attri- tion rates that tend to be higher than those found in face-to-face environments
( de la Varre, Irvin, Jordan, Hannum, & Farmer, 2014 ). For instance, Freidhoff (2015) reported
that during the 2013 2014 academic years over 76,000 K-12 students in Michigan took at least
one online course an increase of 38% from the previous year. These students com- pleted or
passed 57% of their online courses, and 71% of their face-to-face courses. This attrition
phenomenon is currently under-researched, but some researchers have pointed to adolescent
students’ lack of self- regulation and metacognitive skills, making it difficult for them to fully
and consistently engage in online learning environments ( Barbour & Mulcahy, 2004 ;
Cavanaugh, 2007 ; Freidhoff, 2015 ; Rice, 2006 ). Unlike face-to-face courses that provide
students with a highly structured environment where they learn in the presence of a classroom
teacher, online courses rely predo- minantly on asynchronous communication that provides
students with a high level of flexibility in when and where they complete assignments. Teachers’
physical separation from students also makes it more difficult for them to monitor and motivate
students who become disengaged. As a result, adolescent online learners require different
support systems than are found in face-to-face environments.

Although online learning support systems are still emerging, the U.S. Department of Education
(2010) argued that family engagement should be an important part of any attempt to improve
learning outcomes. This claim is supported by extensive research in traditional educational
settings that has shown a strong relationship between student achievement and parental
engagement ( Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Faraleigh, 1987 ; Lareau & Horvat,
1999 ; Sui-Chu & Willms, 1996 ; Zellman & Waterman, 1998 ). However, parental engagement
can also prove difficult for teachers to secure. As a result, Harris and Goodall (2009) stated that
parental engagement is simultaneously “the worst problem and the best solution” (p. 286).
Unfortunately, researchers examining parental engagement have focused almost exclusively on
face-to-face environments, and relatively lit- tle is known regarding parental engagement in
online settings. In this chap- ter, we will review the current research on parental engagement in
online learning settings in an attempt to add some clarity to how parents can posi- tively impact
their online students’ learning.

PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT DEFINITIONS AND FRAMEWORKS

It should be noted that the term parent has varying definitions. For instance, the United States
Code defines a parent as a natural, adoptive, or foster par- ent of a child ( Title 20, 2014 ).
However, for the purposes of this chapter we have adopted the broader definition commonly
used by public schools that extends beyond legal guardians and caregivers to include any adult
who has developed close long-lasting relationships with the student ( NCLB Act of 2001, 2002 ;
Title 20, 2014 ; U.S. Department of Education, 2004 ).

Defining who parents are has proved easier than developing a frame- work to describe what
parents of an online student do to support their chil- dren’s learning. Graham, Henrie, and
Gibbons (2014) explained that more established fields have widely accepted frameworks, but
less mature fields such as parental engagement in online settings struggle to establish
meaningful frameworks. Currently established frameworks exist for exam- ining parental
engagement in face-to-face settings, but frameworks are less developed in the field of K-12
online learning ( Borup, West, Graham, & Davies, 2014 ). As a result, some researchers have
sought guidance from face-to-face frameworks when examining online learning environments
( Black, 2009 ; Hasler-Waters, 2012 ). However, Whetten (1989) explained “meaning is derived
from context” and warned against applying frame- works outside their limits of generalizability.
In the following sections, we will first discuss two frameworks that identify how and why
parents become involved in their students’ learning in face-to-face learning environ- ments,
followed by the emerging frameworks in K-12 online learning (see Table 1 ).

Face-to-Face Frameworks

Epstein (1987) developed a parental engagement framework based on the analysis of data
collected from 1,200 parents and 3,700 elementary teachers and principals in traditional face-to-
face settings. Her work described four overlapping types of parental engagement. First, parents
had basic parent- ing responsibilities, such as attending to their child’s basic physiological needs
(e.g., food, safety, clothing, health, and shelter) and educational needs (e.g., providing required
school supplies and a quiet place to work). Second, parents were responsible for attending to
communications from the school and teacher, and then acting on the information received. Third,
parents should support their students in homework activities. Parents’ support of students’
homework activities has perhaps the most direct impact on student learning, and can occur with
or without direct guidance from the instructor. Lastly, parents provided support by volunteering
at school and community organizations and by attending school events ( Epstein, 1987 ).

Similar to Epstein (1987) , Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 2005) identified several types
of parental support or “mechanisms of influence” in face-to-face elementary and middle school
settings. They added that these mechanisms can be provided at home or at school. First, they
explained that parents’ encouragement and positive feedback could positively impact student
engagement. Second, they highlighted that parents could model how to appropriately engage in
instructional activities with a positive

attitude towards learning. Third, they stated parents should recognize and reinforce students’
positive learning actions. The final aspect of their framework focused on the need for parents to
be involved in instructional activities that range from basic memorization to critical analysis
( Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995, 2005 ).
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 2005) not only identified how parents engage in their
students’ learning, but also why parents become engaged. They maintained parental engagement
was influenced by parents’: (1) belief that they should be involved, (2) conviction that their
engagement would promote the success of their children, (3) recognition, born from observation
of their children and the schools, that their engagement is neces- sary, (4) perception of specific
invitations from the school, their children, or the teacher to be engaged, and (5) perception of
their knowledge, skills, and available time and energy ( Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995,
2005).

Online Frameworks

Epstein (1987) and Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 2005) presented parental engagement
frameworks developed to describe parental engage- ment at face-to-face elementary and middle
schools. Although insightful, contextual differences make it difficult to generalize to online
settings especially to online settings with adolescent learners. As a result, some work has been
done to develop frameworks in K-12 online settings. For instance, when examining parental
engagement in online elementary and middle schools, Hasler-Waters (2012) identified four roles
that parents can fulfill to improve student engagement. First, parents can act as organizers who
plan student work schedules and gather necessary resources. Second, Hasler-Waters explained
that parents can act as instructors by assisting stu- dents in the construction of knowledge. Third,
parents can serve as motiva- tors when they encourage students to persevere through learning
challenges and reinforce their appropriate engagement in learning activities. Finally, parents
fulfill the role of manager by adapting learning approaches to meet individual student needs
while they leverage available resources to accom- plish that goal ( Hasler-Waters, 2012 ).

As stated previously, Hasler-Waters (2012) focused on parental support in online elementary and
middle school settings. However, the majority of online enrollments are at the high school level,
which highlights the need to consider online learning frameworks that have been developed for
use in secondary education. One such framework was developed by Curtis (2013)
following her analysis of interviews and survey responses with parents at a full-time online high
school. Curtis explained that parents had three pri- mary responsibilities: motivate, monitor, and
mentor. Motivating was defined similarly to Hasler-Waters (2012) and included parents’ efforts
to encourage and reinforce engagement in learning activities. Curtis broadly defined monitoring
as setting students’ learning schedule, preparing learn- ing materials, communicating with the
teacher, asking students about their performance, and checking their students’ learning
management system (LMS). Parents fulfilled their mentoring responsibilities by showing the stu-
dent they cared about them and guiding students through online learning activities.
Lastly, the Adolescent Community of Engagement (ACE) framework was developed by Borup
et al. (2014) using existing research describing how parents, teachers, and peers can work to
positively impact adolescent student engagement. Their concept of parental engagement included
the following ele- ments: (1) facilitating interactions, (2 ) organizing, and (3) instructing. First,
parents can facilitate interactions by nurturing students and providing for their basic needs,
monitoring and motivating students to fully engage in learning activities, and volunteering for
school activities to model to students the importance of education ( Borup et al., 2014 ). Second,
parents can organize each student’s physical learning space and schedule. Lastly, parents can
improve student engagement by instructing their students. Although parents are typically not
content experts, Borup et al. (2014) argued that parents can instruct students on learning skills,
work with students on assignments, and share their previously obtained knowledge with students.
In summary, most of the frameworks stat ed that parents have instructional responsibilities. Four
of the five framewor ks, including all three online learning frameworks, explained that parents
can be important motivational figures for their students (see Table 1 ). The frameworks
developed within the context of online learning also placed a greater e mphasis on monitoring
and organizing students’ learning.
RESEARCH ON PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT IN ONLINE LEARNING
In this section, we will discuss the empirical research that has examined parental engagement in
K-12 online settings. Our review of the literature confirmed Hasler-Waters, Menchaca, and
Borup (2014) previous finding that while the number is growing, there are few empirical studies
related to parent engagement in K-12 online settings. We will first review the existing literature
related to levels of parental engagement. Following, we will dis- cuss research that has identified
the different types of parental engagement. Lastly we will discuss the impact parental actions can
have on the learning of their online students.

Levels of Engagement

Research has found that parents can vary greatly in their levels of parental engagement. Litke
(1998) first highlighted this issue in his qualitative research at an online learning program for
junior high school students. More specifically he grouped parents as (1) absentee, (2) supportive,
or (3) participatory. First, he identified and defined absentee parents as those who worked
outside the home and had little time to engage in their students’ learning. About a third of parents
were grouped in this category. Second, he defined supporters as parents who would ask students
about their pro- gress, but would only occasionally speak with teachers or provide students with
assistance. However, these parents would become more engaged when they perceived poor
student performance. Nearly half of all parents were categorized as supporters. The remaining
parents were categorized as parti- cipatory parents who consistently engaged in their students’
learning.
Litke’s (1998) categorization was supported by quantitative research conducted 15 years later at
an online high school ( Borup, Graham, & Davies, 2013 ). Borup and his colleagues surveyed 79
parents in an online freshman English course regardin g the amount of time parents spent
interacting with their students an d instructor regarding the course. Parents reported spending an
average of 86 minutes interacting with their students per week about the course, and nine
minutes interacting with the online teacher per week. However, the levels of interaction parents
reported varied greatly. For instance, 40% of parents reported they had no interaction with the
online teac her. In contrast, only five parents reported not communicating with thei r students
regarding the course, but the average amount of reported i nteraction had a high standard
deviation (SD = 74.3).
Hasler-Waters et al. (2014) summarized that parental engagement should be viewed as a
continuum with little to no engagement on the left and full engagement on the right. They also
contended that schools and teachers can increase parental engagement by instituting policies that
help parents understand the import roles that they play in their students’ learn- ing. Other
researchers suggest that parents increase this instructional activ- ity following low student
performance ( Black, 2009 ; Borup, Graham, & Davies, 2013 ; Litke, 1998 ). As a result,
teachers who keep parents informed of student performance and request parents’ support when
needed may increase parental engagement.
Types of Engagement
Researchers have also explored ways that parents can engage in their stu- dents’ learning. We
organized this research according to elements pre- viously identified in the frameworks discussed
above.
Nurturing and Mentoring
When parents nurture and mentor students, they provide for their needs that extend beyond the
boundaries of the course. The nature of parenting forms close and enduring relationships that
enable parents to best recognize their child’s needs. However, Noddings (1984) explained that
recognizing their child’s needs is not enough, and the caregiver needs the skills and
competencies to respond. As a result, parents typically partner with schools to provide their child
with educational opportunities that parents cannot provide alone. Epstein (1995) also contended
that schools should support students by assisting parents in accessing health, nutrition, and other
basic services necessary to successfully nurture learners. Staker (2011) added that online schools
likewise cannot fulfill their responsibilities unless parents also fulfill their basic parental
responsibilities, such as “providing [students] a place to sleep, dental visits, love and nurture” (p.
28). Staker added that this results in a highly interdependent support system and emphasized that
when one part is not working well, “the rest of the parts of the system fail also” (p. 28).
In addition to responding to students’ immediate needs, parents can help mentor students in their
efforts to achieve long-term goals. For instance, research indicates that parents can mentor their
students by assist- ing them in their decision to enroll in online courses ( Curtis, 2013 ).
Researchers have also found that this decision can be active, purposeful, and made for a variety
of reasons ( Beck, Maranto, & Lo, 2013 ; Erb, 2004 ). Those reasons can include negative
occurrences, such as bullying and aca- demic failure at schools attended previously ( Beck et al.,
2013 ; Ferdig, 2010 ). Researchers confirmed that parents enroll their students in online courses
for positive reasons, such as the opportunity to recover credits missed and to take advanced
classes not offered at their base brick-and- mortar school (Erb, 2004; Hasler-Waters et al., 2014 ;
Mills, 2003 ). Similarly, parents living in more isolated locations enroll their students in online
courses to compensate for the limited portfolio of courses offered by their local school ( Ahn,
2011 ; Erb, 2004 ).
 Erb (2004) provided a deeper understanding of parental mentoring through her study involving
14 parents who moved their students from their local public school district into the Central
Pennsylvania Digital Learning Foundation (CPDLF) virtual school. None of the parents based
their decision to enroll their students in CPDLF on the positive benefits of online learning ( Erb,
2004 ). Instead, parents of CPDLF students “felt pushed from the traditional school setting by an
environment that was not acceptable to them, and administrators who would not or could not
help” ( Erb, 2004 , p. 119). These push factors included:
• a lack of school discipline
• bullying by peers or teachers
• large class sizes
• low teacher quality
• administrators who were unwilling or unable to meet students’ academic and emotional needs
• tobacco, alcohol, and drug use by other students
• health concerns such as eating disorders, depression, and migraine head- aches ( Erb, 2004 ).
Not only do parents encourage st udents to take online courses, they can also encourage students
to drop o nline courses if they perceive the courses inhibit the student from reac hing academic
and extracurricular goals. For instance, de la Varre et al. (2014) examined why rural online
students dropped out of online cours es and found that at times parents advised them to do so
when they worried that the course was lowering students’ grade point avera ge, detracted from
students’ extracurricular activities, or believed that the course content “went against their
family’s values” (p. 10).
Communicating

Epstein (1987) explained that parents are responsible for attending to school-related interactions
that support the learning of their students. This is especially true in online learning environments,
because teachers are phy- sically separated from students and rely on parent communication
when students have become unresponsive ( Borup et al., 2014 ; Litke, 1998 ). Borup, Graham,
and Drysdale (2013) found that while most parents attend to communications from teachers,
some were unresponsive especially parents of low performing students. It is possible that
parents’ ability to respond to teacher communications was dependent on parents’ time con-
straints and self-efficacy in their ability to impact student learning ( Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler,
2005 ). Low parent teacher communication may also be a product of programs that require
teachers to have student loads that exceed those found in traditional face-to-face settings ( Black,
2009 ; Hawkins, Barbour, & Graham, 2011 ). It is also possible that low parent teacher
communication is a result of programs’ failure to institute and enforce parent teacher
communication policies. The failure of tea- chers to communicate with parents in a timely
manner can create the impression that parental communication is not valued. As a result, online
programs should work to ensure teachers spend an acceptable amount of time communicating
with teachers ( Black, 2009 ). Unfortunately, Cavanaugh et al. (2009) found that a third of the 81
surveyed online programs reported they did not have a written policy regarding parent teacher
communication. Establishing regular teacher-parent communication is especially important
because it can help facilitate the types of parental engagement discussed below.
Organizing
Sorensen (2012) contended parents of online learners should assist students by providing them
with an organized learning space that is free from distractions. Researchers have also found that
parents can aid students by organizing students’ learning schedules ( Hasler-Waters, 2012 ;
Hasler-Waters & Leong, 2011 ; Tunison & Noonan, 2001 ). Teachers com- monly help students
organize their learning schedule by setting regular assignment due dates. Parents can then help
students organize their time into smaller learning chunks based on individual needs and
preferences ( Borup et al., 2014 ; Hasler-Waters, 2012 ). Parents may also experience pro- blems
when organizing student work space and time at home. Sorensen’s (2012) research involving 92
online learning parents found they sometimes struggled to keep their students on pace to
complete work by the teacher- set deadlines. The challenges that led to these struggles included
parents not knowing what assignments were expected, students failing to follow a work
schedule, and students failing to complete assignments ( Sorensen, 2012 ).

Monitoring and Motivating

Online classes provide students with added flexibility in their approach to learning, increasing
the need for parents to monitor their work ( Clark, 2007 ). For instance, parents can monitor
student performance and online behavior using analytic data provided by the LMS. Parents’
physical proximity to students also allows them to observe and monitor students’ offline
behavior. Parental monitoring is especially important in online learning environments because
the same Internet that is used to provide students with the course content also provides students
with countless distractions ( Harms, Niederhauser, Davis, Roblyer, & Gilbert, 2006 ). As a result,
students are more likely to stay on task if someone is physically present to monitor their learning
( Borup et al., 2014 ; Murphy & Rodrı ́ guez-Manzanares, 2009 ). Parental monitoring is also
important because many students lack the self-regulatory skills that are required to be successful
in online courses ( Barbour & Reeves, 2009 ). Russell (2004) stated that parent monitoring
activities should also focus on issues of student academic honesty, because teachers’ and
students’ physical separation creates an academic trustworthiness monitoring void that parents
must fill. Researchers also recognized that parents of online learners can monitor for technical
problems and work schedule issues ( Russell, 2004 ; Sorensen, 2012 ).
Although parental monitoring serves as an essential aspect of online education, researchers have
found that parental monitoring activities can be short lived, indicating some parents do not fully
understand the impact their support can provide in this area ( Boulton, 2008 ; Litke, 1998 ). As a
result, Boulton (2008) explained that teachers should help parents better understand their
monitoring responsibilities. Parents may also have mis- conceptions regarding students’ online
behavior. Therefore schools can provide parents with student assessment scores and other
analytic data to increase parent’s awareness of how students are spending time online ( Bailey,
Carter, Schneider, & Vander Ark, 2013 ; Borup et al., 2014 ; Eyal, 2012 ). Bailey, Schneider, and
Ark (2013) also advocated for learning systems that would automatically notify parents when
students exhibited a decline in effort and/or performance.
Challenges to effective monitoring by parents can also grow out of inter- personal relationships.
Curtis (2013) determined parents of less successful students could experience conflict with them
when engaged in supportive monitoring. Although the exact cause of the conflict is unknown,
partici- pants in Curtis’ research explained that the benefits of monitoring out- weighed the costs.
Too much monitoring can also make it difficult for students to develop independent learning
skills that would benefit them later in life ( McNeal, 2012 ). As a result, one online provider
recommended that as online students mature, parents should “step back, but not away” ( K12
Inc., 2014 , para. 12).
As parents monitor student behavior and performance, it is important they also reinforce student
successes and motivate reluctant students to more fully engage in learning activities. It is
difficult to overstate the impor- tance of motivation in online learning. Weiner (2003) found that
motiva- tional issues were the “key ingredient” to online learners’ success “because it plays such
an integral part in every aspect of online learning” (p. 46). As a result, Murphy and Rodrı ́ guez-
Manzanares (2009) argued that for online students to succeed, it is important they have
“someone at home who is actively encouraging or pushing them” (p. 11). More specifically,
Grolnick and Slowiaczek (1994) found that parents can motivate students by helping them
understand that their performance is linked to their behavior and instilling the belief that they
have the ability to succeed. These actions position students to have confidence they can exercise
a level of control over their learning and attain success ( Lowes & Lin, 2015 ). Parents can be
especially effective at motivating students because they can use a more extensive set of rewards
and punishments than teachers can offer alone. Bailey, Schneider, et al. (2013) added that
parents’ knowledge of their students’ interests allows them to effectively motivate students.
Similarly, Curtis (2013) found parents were able to use intimate knowledge of student needs to
motivate them to improve achievement and move toward increased levels of self-sufficiency.

Bempechat and Shernoff (2012) determined that students were more likely to develop persistent
and dili gent work habits when they perceived parents were interested in their learning. Borup et
al. (2014) argued that one way for parents to show their online students that they are interested in
their learning and value education is to volunteer at school activities. Student observation of
parents’ own cognitive development, combined with active parental interest in sc hool, can also
increase student motiva- tion ( Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems, & Holbein, 2005 ) especially when
children love and respect their parents ( Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995 ).
While it is true that some students prove unresponsive to their parents’ motivational efforts
( Boulton, 2008 ; Cavanaugh, Gillan, Kromrey, Hess, & Blomeyer, 2004 ; Moore, 1989 ), Curtis
(2013) argued that parents are the best equipped to motivate students. She summarized, “If
students are unwilling to be involved in their own education, and parents are unable to motivate
them, it is rare that an outside force such as the school, would be able to either” (p. 109).
Unfortunately parents tend to underestimate the motivational effect they can have on students to
engage in learning activities ( Borup, Graham, & Davies., 2013 ; Boulton, 2008 ; Litke, 1998 ).
For instance, Borup, Graham, and Drysdale (2013) asked parents and stu- dents to rate the
motivational effect parents have on student learning and found that parents rated their ability to
motivate their students significantly lower than did their students. Borup et al. (2014) also argued
that both teacher and parents could be more effective if they coordinated their efforts, and
Hasler-Waters (2012) found that teachers and parents can improve their efforts when they share
effective motivational strategies with one another.
Instructing
Lowes and Lin (2015) explained that “students not only need to learn a subject online but need to
learn how to learn online” (p. 18). Parents are typically not content experts but can provide
important auxiliary instruc- tional support. Researchers have explained that parents can help their
stu- dents learn the content by instructing them on specific online learning skills ( Lee &
Figueroa, 2012 ; Russell, 2004 ; Sorensen, 2012 ). For instance, Black (2009) found parents
provided instructional support to their online students in the following ways:
• basic support that teaches students to follow directions, to pursue infor- mation especially
fascinating to them, and to work hard when frustrated;
• homework support that leads students to approach the work with a posi- tive attitude, and view
it as fun;
• differentiation support that enables students to work at their own pace, take breaks when
frustration sets in, and focus on strategies that help them learn best;
• critical thinking support that teaches students to ask questions clarifying that which was not
understood ( Black, 2009 ).
Hasler-Waters (2012) also described parents who read assignment instructions with their
students and helped them search for needed informa- tion. In addition, parents can assist students
with technological issues when able ( Lee & Figueroa, 2012 ; Liu, Black, Algina, Cavanaugh, &
Dawson, 2010 ).
Although parents can provide important auxiliary instructional support, they typically lack the
content expertise to directly instruct students on spe- cific course material, especially in older
grades with more difficult and complex learning activities and content. Cooper (1989) found that
in face- to-face environments parental engagement can become “parental interfer- ence” (p. 87)
especially when parents’ efforts go beyond supporting students to actually doing the work for
them. Online programs should be especially aware of the benefits and drawbacks to parental
instructional support and work with parents, so they understand and fulfill their roles in ways that
facilitate not inhibit student learning.
Impact of Parental Engagement
Although the educational community largely believes parental engagement is important, little
research has actually quantitatively examined its effect in online learning environments and the
existing results have been mixed. For instance, Borup, Graham, and Davies (2013) used parent
and student surveys to measure the quantity of time 82 parents spent interacting with their
students and the instructor regarding an online freshman English course. The quantity of parental
interactions was then correlated with sev- eral course outcomes, including final grades, perceived
learning, and course satisfaction. In general, the quantity of parental interactions was negatively
correlated with course outcomes despite students’ claims that their interac- tions with their
parents and their parents’ interactions with the instructor motivated them to learn the course
content. The authors concluded that more meaningful correlations could be identified if
researchers looked beyond the overall quantity of interactions and examined the quality of
parental interactions.
To this end, Black (2009) used Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (2005) framework to measure
parents’ encouragement, modeling, reinforcement, and instruction. His initial analysis of 452
parent survey responses found no significant relationships between these parental behaviors and
stu- dents’ end-of-course grades. However, when Black analyzed a subgroup of the 164 parent
survey respondents whose students also completed an accompanying survey he found two
significant relationships: a positive correlation between parental reinforcement and course grade
and a nega- tive correlation between parental instructing and course grade. Unlike Black (2009)
and Borup et al. (2014) , Beck et al. (2013) studied the satis- faction levels of 232 parents and
269 special education students in a grade 7 12 cyber school and found a positive relationship
between levels of parent engagement and student satisfaction and performance. This may
indicate that special education students react differently to parental engagement and additional
research is needed exploring varying subpopu- lations of students.
Borup, Graham, and Drysdale (2013) and Black (2009) cautioned against a too simplistic
interpretation of these nonsignificant and negative correlations. Instead, they hypothesized that a
large percentage of parental interactions with students came as a result of students’ low academic
per- formance. Borup, Graham, and Drysdale (2013) explained, “If a large pro- portion of
parental interaction occurred in reaction to poor student performance, the correlation that results
from examining a large group of students could mask the true benefit of parental involvement on
individual student learning” (p. 52). This is supported by Curtis’ dissertation research that found
parents of successful students spent little time monitoring their students’ learning once their
students had demonstrated the ability to fol- low an established working schedule.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND RESEARCH
Research has found that levels of parental engagement can vary greatly and parents tend not to
fully understand the importance of their roles. Hasler-Waters et al. (2014) identified four factors
that can positively impact levels of parental engagement: school policies, parent demographics,
stu- dent perceptions, and student needs. Although schools have little control over parent
demographics and student perception, researchers have stressed the importance of schools
creating policies that help parents to better understand and respond to student needs ( Black,
2009 ; Borup et al., 2014 ; Boulton, 2008 ; Hasler-Waters & Leong, 2014 ). Litke (1998)
described one program that required parents to sign a contract promising they would maintain a
high level of engagement in their students learning. However, this strategy appeared ineffective
and some parents “passed [their] responsi- bility back to the students who, to the teacher’s
further dismay, did not meet the deadlines” (para. 30). As a result, online programs should use
more varied and continuous strategies to ensure parental engagement. Borup et al. (2014)
explained that “parents and instructors are more likely to effectively and efficiently collaborate
once a sense of closeness has been formed and parents and instructors have established a degree
of social presence” (p. 21). As a result, personalized conversations and improved parent teacher
relationships are likel y to have a greater effect than one- way mass or automated communica
tions that push information from teachers to parents. Cavanaugh et al. (2009) found that two-
thirds of the 81 schools they surveyed had policies regarding parent teacher commu- nication,
with communication fre quency requirements ranging from weekly to quarterly. All of the
policies required teachers to communicate more frequently with low performing students.
Although these policies help to understand the quantity of parent teacher communication, more
research is needed to determine the quality and impact of those interactions.
Similar to de la Varre, Keane, and Irvin (2011) recommendation that at-school facilitators have
an in-depth conversation with the online teacher at the start of each semester, we believe that
similar conversations between teachers and parents could have a positive effect on parental
engagement. For instance, Mountain Heights Academy, a cyber-charter school, requires parents
and students to physically attend a registration and orientation meeting where teachers can meet
with parents and students in person in an attempt to lay a foundation for future mediated
communications. Archambault, Kennedy, and Bender (2013) described another program that
held several webinars with parents at the start of the semester that afforded parents the
opportunity to ask questions and helped them better understand their responsibilities. Additional
support was then targeted for parents of unengaged students to help them better understand “the
struc- ture and mechanics of the online platform” (p. 13). Administrators may also look to
leverage parent organizations to facilitate parent parent communication in ways that can foster a
strong community of practice among parents ( Wenger-Trayner, 2014 ). The development of
parent liaison programs that mediate between the school and parents could also be help- ful for
parents with special needs. For example, outreach programs have proved helpful for immigrant
populations in traditional school settings and could have similar effects in online programs
( Yeonjai, Choi, & Nguye ∼ n, 2009 ).
As stated previously, currently there is little research examining parental engagement and the
need for additional research is high. First, additional research is needed that seeks to understand
the different types of parental engagement. This type of research has the potential to expand or
refine the frameworks that currently exist. A variety of methodologies and types of data would
prove helpful. Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989) explained that “all methods have inherent
biases and limitations, so use of only one method to assess a given phenomenon will inevitably
yield biased and lim- ited results” (p. 265). It is recommended that researchers use a variety of
methods to examine a phenomenon and then use the obtained data to identify and triangulate
findings. For instance, researchers can use surveys, interviews, participant reflections, and
observations, as well as actual com- munications between parents and teachers to better
understand the nature of parent engagement.
Work should also move beyond defining types of parental engagement to identifying
relationships between types of engagement and learning outcomes. Graham, Henrie, and
Gibbons (2014) distinguished frameworks that “explore” phenomenon from frameworks that
seek to “explain” rela- tionships that exist between variables. Currently most of the work has
developed “explore” frameworks ( Hasler-Waters, 2012 ; Curtis, 2013 )and only the ACE
framework has attempted to “explain” relationships between parental and student engagement.
Although researchers can identify and examine these relationships qualitatively, the authors of
the ACE frame- work ( Borup et al., 2014 ) recommended that researchers seek to develop and
validate instruments to quantitatively measure the varying types of parental engagement and
course outcomes. The use of those types of instruments could be used to understand and compare
the strength of hypothesized relationships and provide helpful information to practitioners as
they work to develop and evaluate parental engagement programs. Different learning models
likely require varying levels of parental engagement. Researchers should also work to better
understand parental engagement in a variety of contexts with varying types of learners.
REFERENCES
Ahn, J. (2011). Policy, technology, and practice in cyber charter schools: Framing the issues.
Teachers College Record , 113 (1), 1 26.
Archambault, L., Kennedy, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Cyber-truancy: Addressing issues of
attendance in the digital age. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 46 (1), 1 28.
Bailey, J., Carter, S. C., Schneider, C., & Vander Ark, T. (2013). Data backpacks: Portable
records & learner profiles. In J. Bailey, C. Schneider, & T. Vander Ark (Eds.), Navigating the
digital shift: Implementation strategies for blended and online learning (pp. 101 123). Retrieved
from http://digitallearningnow.com/site/uploads/2013/10/ DLN-ebook-PDF.pdf
Bailey, J., Schneider, C., & Vander Ark, T. (2013). Navigating the digital shift: Implementation
strategies for blended and online learning. Digital Learning Now! Retrieved from
http://digitallearningnow.com/site/uploads/2013/10/DLN-ebook-PDF.pdf
Barbour, M., & Mulcahy, D. (2004). The role of mediating teachers in Newfoundland’s new
model of distance education. The Morning Watch , 32 (1). Retrieved from http://www.
mun.ca/educ/faculty/mwatch/fall4/barbourmulcahy.htm
Barbour, M., & Reeves, T. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature.
Computers & Education , 52 (2), 402 416.

Beck, D., Maranto, R., & Lo, W. J. (2013). Parent involvement and student/parent satisfaction in
cyber schools. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), Paper presented at the society for
information technology & teacher international conference 2013 (pp. 229 236). Chesapeake,
VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from
http://www.editlib.org/p/48099

Bempechat, J., & Shernoff, D. J. (2012). Parental influences on achievement motivation and
student engagement. In S. L. Christensen, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of
research on student engagement (pp. 315 342). New York, NY: Springer. Black, E. W. (2009).
An evaluation of familial involvements’ influence on student achievement in K-12 virtual
schooling . Doctoral dissertation. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. UMI No.
3367406.
Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Davies, R. S. (2013). The nature of parental interactions in an online
charter school. American Journal of Distance Education , 27 ,40 55.

Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Drysdale, J. S. (2013). The nature of teacher engagement at an
online high school. British Journal of Educational Technology , 45 (5), 793 806.
doi:10.1111/bjet.12089

Borup, J., West, R. E., Graham, C. R., & Davies, R. S. (2014). The adolescent community of
engagement: A framework for research on adolescent online learning. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education , 22 (1), 107 129.

Boulton, H. (2008). Managing e-learning: What are the real implications for schools? The
Electronic Journal of E-Learning , 6 (1), 11 18. Cavanaugh, C. (2007). Student achievement in
elementary and high school. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp.
157 168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cavanaugh, C., Barbour, M., Brown, R., Diamond, D., Lowes, S., Powell, A., ... Van der Molen,
J. (2009). Research committee issues brief: Examining communication and inter- action in online
teaching . Vienna, VA: iNACOL. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/
wp-content/uploads/2015/02/iNACOL-ExamingCommunicationAndInteraction-2009. Pdf

Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of dis-
tance education on K-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis . Naperville, IL: Learning Point
Associates.

Clark, T. (2007). Virtual and distance education in North American schools. In M. G. Moore
(Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 473 490). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of research on homework. Educational Leadership , 47 (3), 85 91.

Curtis, H. (2013). A mixed methods study investigating parental involvement and student
success in high school online education . Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest
Publication number 3599425.

de la Varre, C., Keane, J., & Irvin, M. J. (2011). Dual perspectives on the contribution of on-site
facilitators to teaching presence in a blended learning environment. Journal of Distance
Education , 25 (3).

de la Varre, C., Irvin, M. J., Jordan, A. W., Hannum, W. H., & Farmer, T. W. (2014). Reasons
for student dropout in an online course in a rural K-12 setting. Distance Education , 35 (3), 324
344.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, H., Roberts, D. F., & Faraleigh, M. J. (1987). The
relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development , 58 (5), 1244
1257.
Epstein, J. L. (1987). Parent involvement: What research says to administrators. Education and
Urban Society , 19 (2), 119 136. doi:10.1177/0013124587019002002
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappen , 76 (9), 701
712. doi:10.2307/2967352
Erb, R. E. (2004). From traditional public school to cyber charter: How parents decide .
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Pennsylvania State University, Philadelphia, PA.
Eyal, L. (2012). Digital assessment literacy—The core role of the teacher in a digital environ-
ment. Educational Technology & Society , 15 (2), 37 49.
Ferdig, R. E. (2010). Understanding the role and applicability of K-12 online learning to support
student dropout recovery efforts . Lansing, MI: Michigan Virtual University. Retrieved from
http://www.mivu.org/Portals/0/RPT_RetentionFinal.pdf
Freidhoff, J. R. (2015). Michigan’s K-12 virtual learning effectiveness report 2013 2014 .
Lansing, MI: Michigan Virtual Learning Research Institute. Retrieved from http://
media.mivu.org/institute/pdf/er_2014.pdf
Gonzalez-DeHass, A., Willems, P., & Holbein, M. (2005). Examining the relationship between
parental involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychology Review , 17 (2), 99 123.
Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for
blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended
learning: Research perspectives (Vol. 2, pp. 13 33). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for
mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 11 (3), 255
274. doi:10.3102/01623737011003255
Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parent’s involvement in children’s schooling: A
multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development , 65 , 237 252.
Harms, C. M., Niederhauser, D. S., Davis, N. E., Roblyer, M. D., & Gilbert, S. B. (2006).
Educating educators for virtual schooling: Communicating roles and responsibilities. The
Electronic Journal of Communication , 16 (1 2). Retrieved from http://www.cios.
org/EJCPUBLIC/016/1/01611.HTML
Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2009). Do parents know they matter? Raising achievement through
parental engagement . New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Hasler-Waters, L. (2012). Exploring the experiences of learning coaches in a cyber-charter
school: A qualitative case study. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest. Publication No.
3569079.
Hasler-Waters, L., & Leong, P. (2011). New roles for the teacher and learning coach in blended
learning for K-12. In T. Bastiaens & M. Edner (Eds.), Proceedings of world con- ference on
educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2011 (pp. 2716 2725).
Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Hasler-Waters, L., & Leong, P. (2014). Who is teaching? New roles for teachers and parents in
cyber charter schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education , 22 (1), 105 128.

Hasler-Waters, L., Menchaca, M. P., & Borup, J. (2014). Parental involvement in K-12 online
and blended learning. In R. Ferdig & K. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of research on K-12 online
and blended learning (pp. 303 323). Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press. Retrieved from
http://press.etc.cmu.edu/content/handbook-research-k-12-online-and-blended- learning-0
Hawkins, A., Barbour, M. K., & Graham, C. R. (2011). Strictly business: Teacher perceptions of
interaction in virtual schooling. The Journal of Distance Education , 25 (2).
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s educa-
tion: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record , 97 (2), 311 331.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2005, March). The social context of parental
involvement: A path to enhanced achievement. Final performance report for the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement (Grant No. R305T010673). Presented to Project
Monitor, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/pea-body/family-school/Reports.html
K12 Inc. (2014). How a K 12 education works . Retrieved from http://www.k12.com/what-is-
k12/ how-k12-education-works#.U-UHvIBdXkI
Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion race, class and
cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education , 72 (1), 37 53.
Lee, M., & Figueroa, R. (2012). Internal and external indicators of virtual learning success.
Distance Learning , 9 (1), 21 28.
Litke, D. (1998). Virtual schooling at the middle grades: A case study. The Journal of Distance
Education , 13 (2), 33 50.
Liu, F., Black, E., Algina, J., Cavanaugh, C., & Dawson, K. (2010). The validation of one par-
ental involvement measurement in virtual schooling. Journal of Interactive Online Learning , 9
(2), 105 132.
Lowes, S., & Lin, P. (2015). Learning to learn online: Using locus of control to help students
become successful online learners. Journal of Online Learning Research , 1 (1), 17 48.
McNeal, R. B. (2012). Checking in or checking out? Investigating the parent involvement reac-
tive hypothesis. The Journal of Educational Research , 105 (2), 79 89. doi:10.1080/
00220671.2010.519410
Mills, S. C. (2003). Implementing online secondary education: An evaluation of a virtual high. In
C. Crawford (Ed.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher edu- cation
international conference (pp. 444 451). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE).
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance
Education , 3 (2), 1 6.
Murphy, E., & Rodrı ́ guez-Manzanares, M. A. (2009). Teachers’ perspectives on motivation in
high school distance education. Journal of Distance Education , 23 (3), 1 24.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education . Los Angeles,
CA: University of California Press.
Queen, B., & Lewis, L. (2011). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary
school students: 2009 10 . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Rice, K. L. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12 context. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education , 38 (4), 425 449.

Russell, G. (2004). Virtual schools: A critical view. In C. Cavanaugh (Ed.), Development and
management of virtual schools: Issues and trends . Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Sorensen, C. (2012). Learning online at the K-12 level: A parent/guardian perspective,
International Journal of Instructional Media , 39(4), 297 308.
Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning: Profiles of emerging models. Innosight
Institute. Retrieved from http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-content/
uploads/2011/05/The-Rise-of-K-12-Blended-Learning.pdf
Sui-Chu, E. H., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade
achievement. Sociology of Education , 69 (2), 126 141.
Title 20 Education Act of 2004. Chapter 33, Subchapter 1, U.S.C. § 1401, No. 23, Definitions
(2014).
Tunison, S., & Noonan, B. (2001). On-line learning: Secondary students’ first experience.
Canadian Journal of Education , 26 (4), 495 511.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Title IX General provisions Elementary . Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg107.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Supporting families and communities: Reauthorizing the
elementary and secondary education act . Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www2.
ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/faq/supporting-family.pdf
Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2013). Keeping pace with K-12
online & blended learning: An annual review of policy and practice . Evergreen Education
Group. Retrieved from http://kpk12.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/EEG_KP2013-lr.pdf
Weiner, C. (2003). Key ingredients to online learning: Adolescent students study in cyberspace
The nature of the study. International Journal on E-Learning , 2 (3), 44 50.
Wenger-Trayner, E. (2014). Communities of practice: A brief introduction . Retrieved from
http://wenger-trayner.com/w p-content/uploads/2015/04/07 -Brief-introduction-to-com munities-
of-practice.pdf
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? The Academy of
Management Review , 14 (4), 490 495. doi:10.2307/258554
Yeonjai, R., Choi, S., & Nguye ∼ n, T. S. T. (2009). Building bridges between refugee parents
and schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice , 12 (4), 347
365, doi:10.1080/13603120802609867
Zellman, G. L., & Waterman, J. M. (1998). Understanding the impact of parent school invol-
vement on children’s educational outcomes. The Journal of Educational Research , 91 (6), 370
380.