Positive or Negative and General or Differentiated Effect? Correlation between Parental Involvement and Student Achievement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper analyzes parental help and involvement as predictors of success, which are important and current aspects in the discussion within the academic community focused on education. Although the topic is timely and significant, the paper has several critical shortcomings, which are described below.

Introduction:

The paper addresses two research questions. The first is how different types of parental involvement (at-home and in-school) influence academic performance. At-home involvement includes activities such as helping with homework and discussing schoolwork, while in-school involvement includes attending meetings and volunteering. The main issue with this research question is that it is not clearly defined what helping with homework and discussing schoolwork actually mean. Is it checking the accuracy of the homework, directly instructing the child, explaining (activities related to explicit mastery of the material), or is it helping in organizing the time needed for doing homework, setting priorities, creating a physical environment, and activities related to metacognition, motivation, etc.? These are all significantly different types of help that need to be defined and analyzed as such.

The second issue with first research question is 1) the age and 2) the general achievement of students. According to the presented results, as well as the research question and hypothesis, it is clear that all students included in the research were analyzed together. This raises the question of why both primary and high school students were included if they were analyzed together. Wouldn't it be wiser to separate students by age and investigate within age groups whether different types of parental help and involvement are predictors of success? Additionally, it is highly desirable to separate students with low, medium, and high achievement within age groups to exclude the possible influence of other parameters on success. Analyzing everything together as it was done in the paper brings into question whether parental help is the only predictor of success or if there are additional predictors such as age and achievement (behind achievement are work habits, involvement in the educational process, self-regulatory activities, self-motivational regulatory techniques, which vary at different cognitive ages, etc.).

Regarding the first research question, Hypothesis 1 was proposed. It is very specifically stated, and subsequently, several references are cited (lines 116 and 117). This presentation suggests that the same hypothesis has already been confirmed, which questions the originality of this paper. The introduction mentions general family involvement in the educational process (lines 20 to 39), primarily using literature references older than 20 years. In lines 40 to 50, it is unnecessary to describe the sustainable development goals. Of course, they are important, but they are irrelevant to this research.

 

The second research question pertains to the socio-economic aspect. Here, too, all students, both primary and high school, were analyzed together. It is necessary to separate students by age and achievement in this context as well.

Materials and Methods

Due to different educational policies, it is better to provide the average age of the students rather than just stating the grade level.

It is unclear how the data on parental involvement were collected (which instrument was used). Lines 138 to 146 describe this very briefly. The meaning of the Likert scale is not indicated, nor whether the instrument is standardized or constructed for the purposes of this research. It can be assumed that the data were taken from the NABC database, but this also needs to be described more clearly since the reader is not familiar with this database.

What do the numbers in Tables 1 and 2 represent? For example, what does a mean score of 2.62 for "Help with learning, homework" indicate?

Lines 150 to 151 are unnecessary. Lines 153 to 154 repeat the hypotheses (it is unnecessary to state them again), but now they are written more generally (student achievement in general, whereas previously they were specified as mathematics and reading).

Lines 155 to 162 are inappropriately described. The authors provide an explanation of how linear regression analysis is calculated.

Subheading 3.4, lines 170 to 199, is not well written. It is not necessary to describe the performance of the SPSS program (lines 172 to 174); it is sufficient to simply state which program was used. The paper mentions that linear regression was used, but it does not specify whether simple or multiple regression analysis was employed. According to the results, it appears to be multiple regression, but it is necessary to clearly state which variable is the predictor and which is the criterion.

Results

The hypothesis is repeated again (lines 208 to 211). It is necessary to state the F-ratio value for mathematics, as it is provided for reading (lines 218 to 221). Table 3 contains unnecessary data. Constant values should not be displayed; it is sufficient to indicate only the β values, with a notation of whether they are significant (usually with an asterisk). The same applies to Tables 4 and 5. Lines 225 to 229 are unclear and difficult to follow regarding their relevance. Figure 1 needs to be described and explained in the context of the hypothesis. The figure alone, without description and connection of the results shown in Figure 1 to the other results, does not contribute to the "defense" of the hypothesis. Additionally, the abbreviations in the figure are unclear and should be clarified.

Discussion

 

The discussion is written in accordance with weak research questions and hypotheses. The impact of socio-economic variables is poorly described. This aspect is also inadequately covered in the introduction. Overall, the results are poorly argued.

As the study includes a very large number of students, it is recommended that the authors repeat the analyses taking into account the given suggestions.

Author Response

For research article

 

 

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful review of our paper. We appreciate your time and effort to provide such comprehensive feedback. Below, we address each of the points raised in your review:
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: The paper addresses two research questions. The first is how different types of parental involvement (at-home and in-school) influence academic performance. At-home involvement includes activities such as helping with homework and discussing schoolwork, while in-school involvement includes attending meetings and volunteering. The main issue with this research question is that it is not clearly defined what helping with homework and discussing schoolwork actually mean. Is it checking the accuracy of the homework, directly instructing the child, explaining (activities related to explicit mastery of the material), or is it helping in organizing the time needed for doing homework, setting priorities, creating a physical environment, and activities related to metacognition, motivation, etc.? These are all significantly different types of help that need to be defined and analyzed as such.
Response 1: Thank you for the comment. You are right it is a really big difference between different effects. We have no information about it, we know only the question. “How often does it happen in your family?” Parents (grandparents, older siblings) help with homework and learning.  We did not have data on whether or not parental support for home learning promotes autonomy, fosters a sense of competence, and is emotionally responsive to the child's needs. The focus of this study was solely on quantitative factors. We have indicated that further research is necessary in the Limitations.
Comments 2: The second issue with first research question is 1) the age and 2) the general achievement of students. According to the presented results, as well as the research question and hypothesis, it is clear that all students included in the research were analyzed together. This raises the question of why both primary and high school students were included if they were analyzed together. Wouldn't it be wiser to separate students by age and investigate within age groups whether different types of parental help and involvement are predictors of success? Additionally, it is highly desirable to separate students with low, medium, and high achievement within age groups to exclude the possible influence of other parameters on success. Analyzing everything together as it was done in the paper brings into question whether parental help is the only predictor of success or if there are additional predictors such as age and achievement (behind achievement are work habits, involvement in the educational process, self-regulatory activities, self-motivational regulatory techniques, which vary at different cognitive ages, etc.).
Response 2: Agree. We have completed the analysis. Thank you for your advice.   Comment 3: Regarding the first research question, Hypothesis 1 was proposed. It is very specifically stated, and subsequently, several references are cited (lines 116 and 117). This presentation suggests that the same hypothesis has already been confirmed, which questions the originality of this paper. The introduction mentions general family involvement in the educational process (lines 20 to 39), primarily using literature references older than 20 years. In lines 40 to 50, it is unnecessary to describe the sustainable development goals. Of course, they are important, but they are irrelevant to this research.   Response 3: Agree. Thank you for your advice. The text has been revised in order to improve it.     Comment 4: The second research question pertains to the socio-economic aspect. Here, too, all students, both primary and high school, were analyzed together. It is necessary to separate students by age and achievement in this context as well.   Response 4: Agree. We have completed the analysis. Thank you for your advice.     Comment 5: It is unclear how the data on parental involvement were collected (which instrument was used). Lines 138 to 146 describe this very briefly. The meaning of the Likert scale is not indicated, nor whether the instrument is standardized or constructed for the purposes of this research. It can be assumed that the data were taken from the NABC database, but this also needs to be described more clearly since the reader is not familiar with this database. What do the numbers in Tables 1 and 2 represent? For example, what does a mean score of 2.62 for "Help with learning, homework" indicate? Lines 150 to 151 are unnecessary. Lines 153 to 154 repeat the hypotheses (it is unnecessary to state them again), but now they are written more generally (student achievement in general, whereas previously they were specified as mathematics and reading). Lines 155 to 162 are inappropriately described. The authors provide an explanation of how linear regression analysis is calculated. Subheading 3.4, lines 170 to 199, is not well written. It is not necessary to describe the performance of the SPSS program (lines 172 to 174); it is sufficient to simply state which program was used. The paper mentions that linear regression was used, but it does not specify whether simple or multiple regression analysis was employed. According to the results, it appears to be multiple regression, but it is necessary to clearly state which variable is the predictor and which is the criterion. Response 5: Agree. Thank you for your advice. The text has been revised in order to improve it.     Comment 6: The hypothesis is repeated again (lines 208 to 211). It is necessary to state the F-ratio value for mathematics, as it is provided for reading (lines 218 to 221). Table 3 contains unnecessary data. Constant values should not be displayed; it is sufficient to indicate only the β values, with a notation of whether they are significant (usually with an asterisk). The same applies to Tables 4 and 5. Lines 225 to 229 are unclear and difficult to follow regarding their relevance. Figure 1 needs to be described and explained in the context of the hypothesis. The figure alone, without description and connection of the results shown in Figure 1 to the other results, does not contribute to the "defense" of the hypothesis. Additionally, the abbreviations in the figure are unclear and should be clarified.   Response 6: Agree. Thank you for your advice. The text has been revised in order to improve it. If you think that further amendments are needed, please let us know.   Comment 7: The discussion is written in accordance with weak research questions and hypotheses. The impact of socio-economic variables is poorly described. This aspect is also inadequately covered in the introduction. Overall, the results are poorly argued.   Response 7: Our objective has been to complement the analysis and to enhance the quality of the discusion.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a fundamental topic in educational research: the influence of parental involvement on students' academic performance. The authors present a well-structured study based on a quantitative analysis of Hungarian students in the sixth and tenth grades, using the 2019 Hungarian National Competency Assessment database. Below is a critical and academic commentary on the manuscript.

Strengths of the Article:

1. Relevance of the Topic:

   • Research on parental involvement and its impact on academic performance is of utmost importance, as it can influence educational policies and school practices. The focus on differences between families of different socioeconomic statuses adds valuable dimensions to understanding this phenomenon.

2. Quantitative Methodology:

   • The use of a quantitative approach and analysis of a national database provide a solid foundation for the study's conclusions. The large, representative sample of students in key grades allows for the generalization of the results.

3. Clear and Specific Findings:

   • The study’s results are clear and specific, highlighting that home-based parental involvement has a negative effect, while participation through parent-teacher meetings and discussions about school events has a positive effect. This provides practical and actionable information for parents, educators, and policymakers.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your positive and encouraging review of our manuscript. We are pleased to hear that you found our study on the influence of parental involvement on students' academic performance to be both relevant and well-structured.

We appreciate your recognition of the importance of this topic, particularly the focus on socioeconomic differences, as well as your endorsement of our quantitative methodology and use of the Hungarian National Competency Assessment database. We are also glad that you found our findings clear and actionable, which is precisely the impact we hoped to achieve.

Your feedback reinforces the value of our research, and we are grateful for your constructive insights. We are confident that our study will contribute meaningfully to the ongoing discussion on parental involvement in education and its implications for educational policy and practice.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful and positive review.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A couple wording changes in the abstract.  At the end it reads choppy.    Last sentence... on student academic success?  On student achievement?  It just ends with student.  That is a bit confusing.   

In the abstract, list the type of analysis.  Was this correlational or regression?  I can't tell yet from reading the abstract.  

 

Line 21.  End the sentence at by many factors.  Then start a new sentence by starting with - Identified factors that influence academic success are.... then end the sentence at "background"   I would also think you might state the education level of the parents is a factor.  Maybe that is what you mean by parental background.  But in the USA, I would think that means family status - single mother, single father, traditional family etc.  

Objectives: 

I do not believe you have hypotheses.  You are not testing anything here.  You are examining factors.  Looking at "relationships" between variables you identified from the literature to see if there are relationships and the strength of the relationships.  There are so many factors, to do an actual test would be impossible to keep out the other variables that may have influence.  

Limitations needs to be that the parental involvement was self-reported? This is not clear to me.  

 

I would give this another read through.  I am from the USA, so the English to me is European (British style English).  There are some areas that this needs edited still for clarity and verb tense.  

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I would give this another read through.  I am from the USA, so the English to me is European (British style English).  There are some areas that this manuscript needs edited still for clarity and verb tense.  

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your careful reading and the suggestions you’ve provided to improve the clarity and quality of our work.

1. Abstract Revisions: We will revise the abstract to improve its flow, particularly towards the end, and ensure that the final sentence is clear and complete. We will also specify the type of analysis used in our study—whether correlational or regression—to provide clarity to readers.

2. Line 21 Revision: We agree with your suggestion to rephrase the sentence for better readability. We will revise it to end the first sentence at “by many factors” and start the next sentence with "Identified factors that influence academic success are..." Additionally, we will clarify the term “parental background” to explicitly include parental education levels, which aligns with the factors typically considered in similar research.

3. Objectives Section: We understand your point regarding the use of the term "hypotheses." We will revise this section to reflect that we are examining relationships between variables, rather than testing specific hypotheses. This will help to clarify the purpose and scope of our study.

4. Limitations: You’re correct that the self-reported nature of parental involvement is a limitation of our study. We will add this to the limitations section to acknowledge the potential biases and limitations of self-reported data.

5. Language and Style: We will carefully review the manuscript for clarity, consistency in verb tense, and any other areas where the language could be improved. We appreciate your feedback on the differences between British and American English and will ensure that the language is clear and appropriate for an international audience. A Canadian woman conducted a linguistic check on the text.  

Thank you once again for your thoughtful suggestions. We are committed to improving our manuscript based on your recommendations and believe these changes will enhance the overall quality of our work.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please correct the numbering of the tables. The table number 5 appears twice in the table title. In row 253, it says to refer to table 4 instead of table 5.

Author Response

Thank you for your careful review and valuable feedback. We have corrected the numbering issue, ensuring each table has a unique number.