To investigate whether the parents’ current involvement varied in terms of their age- range, educational level, gender and between parents with and without children with SEN, one-way ANOVAs and independent sample t-tests were used. Where statistically significant differences were identified for the ANOVA, Hochberg’s GT2 post-hoc test was conducted to identify where the differences were coming from. To further confirm the results error bars with 95% confidence intervals were generated. The mean overall and SD for the parents’ current involvement was M = 2.75, SD = 0.61.
5.5.3.1 Age-range
Table 5-27: Descriptive statistics of age-range variation in parents’ current involvement
Variable Age-range N Mean SD
Current involvement ≤ 20 12 2.90 .52
21-30 125 2.75 .63
31-40 155 2.78 .61
41-50 191 2.75 .61
51-60 37 2.58 .57
Table 5-27 shows that age-ranges 21– 30, 31– 40 and 41– 50 had means and SDs that were close. These were (M = 2.75, SD = 0.63), (M = 2.78, SD = 0.61) and (M = 2.75, SD = 0.61) respectively. Amongst the groups, parents aged 20 and below had
the highest mean (M = 2.90, SD = 0.52) and those within 51-60 years had the lowest.
Figure 5-22: Error bar of age-range and current involvement
The 95% confidence intervals in Figure 5-22 show that the means of the parents aged 20 and below and those who were 51-60 years were different. The one-way between groups ANOVA that was conducted to compare whether parents’ current involvement varied with their age-range showed that there were no statistically significant difference of age-range on the parents’ current involvement F (4, 515) = .979, p = .419.
5.5.3.2 Educational level
Table 5-28: Descriptive statistics of educational level variation in parents’ current involvement
Variable Educational level N Mean SD
Current involvement MSLC 185 2.70 0.63
GCE 85 2.65 0.65
Diploma 177 2.85 0.56
Table 5-28 shows that differences in the means exist. The means of the MSLC holders (M = 2.70, SD = 0.63) and degree holders (M = 2.76, SD =0.60) were close. Diploma holders had the highest mean (M = 2.85, SD = 0.56).
Figure 5-23: Error bar of educational level and parents’ current involvement The 95% confidence intervals in Figure 5-23 confirm that differences exist between the means of the various groups and especially between diploma holders and GCE holders. The one-way between groups ANOVA that was conducted to compare whether parents’ current involvement varied with their educational level show that there was a statistically significant difference between educational level and parents’ current involvement F (3,516) = 2.715, p = .044 and the adjusted R2 = .010. This indicates that 1% of the variation in the parents’ current involvement is accounted for using the predictor variable educational level.
Due to the statistically significant difference identified by the ANOVA represented by p=.044, Hochberg’s GT2 post-hoc test was conducted. The post–hoc test results (see Appendix K) show that there was no statistically significant differences even though the overall ANOVA result show (p=.044) a statistically significant difference. This shows that, even though differences in means exist, these differences were not statistically significant. The conclusion is that, educational level is showing an effect on parents’ current involvement in IE, but the post–hoc test was unable to identify where this difference was coming from.
5.5.3.3 Gender
Table 5-29: Descriptive statistics of gender variation in parents’ current involvement
Variable Gender N Mean SD
Current involvement Male 245 2.82 0.55
Female 275 2.69 0.65
The independent sample t-test conducted to explore variations in parental current involvement based on gender shows that there was a statistically significant difference t (518) = 2.304, p = .022, adjusted R2 = .008 indicates that 0.8 % of the variation in the parents’ current involvement is accounted for using the predictor variable gender.
Table 5-29 confirm the statistically significant result obtained from the t-test. The table shows that males (M = 2.82, SD = 0.55) have a higher mean than females (M = 2.69. SD = 0.65). The 95% confidence intervals in Figure 5-24 confirm that males are scoring higher on the average. The conclusion is that gender does have an effect on parents’ current involvement in IE. Males report being more currently involved than females.
5.5.3.4 Having a child with or without SEN
In this section, comparisons have been done between the current involvement of parents with and without children with SEN using the means and SDs. The results are presented in Table 5-30. An Independent sample t-test and 95% confidence intervals have been used to further ascertain which of the two groups were more currently involved in their children’s IE.
Table 5-30 shows that the means of the two groups of parents are close across the responses. Parents without children with SEN in all instances recorded higher means than the parents with children with SEN. This shows that the parents without children with SEN report being more involved in IE than the parents with children with SEN. It must be noted however that, the differences between the two groups are small.
Table 5-30: Comparing categories of parents and their involvement
Child with SEN?
Yes No
Parent’s current involvement M SD M SD
1. I take care of my child’s personal care 3.64 0.68 3.68 0.65
2. I attend PTA meetings 3.13 0.94 3.33 0.86
3. I provide all information the school will need about my child
3.19 0.85 3.29 0.87
4. I contribute to decision-making in my child’s School
2.70 1.07 3.02 0.92
5. I create a conducive home environment for Learning
2.70 0.94 2.91 0.91
6. I help my child with his/her home work 2.60 1.07 2.92 0.98 7. I contact the school for information about
my child’s progress
2.54 1.06 2.61 0.99
8. I set learning goals with my child 2.27 1.06 2.55 1.05 9. I go to the school to look through my child’s
books and discuss issues with the teacher 1.86 0.94 2.04 1.01 10. I volunteer my services to the school 1.58 0.96 1.81 0.95
Rated on a 4 point scale where 1 = Never and 4 = Always
When the means and SDs of both groups were computed in Table 5-25 ‘‘I set learning goals with my child’’ recorded a low mean (M = 2.46, SD = 1.06) showing that many of the parents did not do this. However, the results in Table 5-30 (M =2.55, SD = 1.05) show that more parents without children with SEN were setting
learning goals with their children as against fewer parents (M = 2.27, SD = 1.06) with children with SEN.
The independent t-test conducted to explore variations in parental current involvement based on parents with or without children with SEN showed a statistically significant difference t (518) = 3.499, p = .001, adjusted R2 = .02. The adjusted R2 indicates that 2.1% of the variation in the parents’ current involvement is accounted for using the predictor variable parents with or without children with SEN.
Table 5-31: Descriptive statistics of parents’ current involvement variation based on parents with or without children with SEN
Variable Child with SEN? N Mean SD
Current involvement Yes 172 26.2 0.66
No 348 2.82 0.57
Table 5-31 confirms the statistically significant result obtained from the t-test. The table shows that parents without children with SEN (M = 2.82, SD = 0.57) recorded a higher mean than parents with children with SEN (M = 2.62, SD = 0.57). The 95% confidence intervals in Figure 5-25 confirm that parents without children with SEN are scoring higher on average. The conclusion is that having a child with or without SEN does have an effect on parental current involvement in IE. Parents without children with SEN report being more currently involved in their children’s IE than parents with children with SEN.
Figure 5-25: Error bar of parents with and without children with SEN and parents’ current involvement