Pragmatic Family Life Education: Moving Beyond the Expert-Based, Content- Driven Model of Serving Families
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Pragmatic Family Life Education: Moving Beyond the Expert-Based, Content- Driven Model of Serving Families A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Alisha Marie Hardman IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Adviser: Yvonne S. Gentzler, Ph.D. August 2014 © Alisha M. Hardman 2014 i Acknowledgements Completion of this dissertation study is a reflection upon the wonderful community of family, friends, colleagues and mentors who have supported me throughout the process. To begin with are the University of Minnesota professors who comprise my committee and who have each made a unique contribution to shaping my perspective. To my adviser Yvonne S. Gentzler, Ph.D. whose support, encouragement and guidance has been unparalleled and whom encouraged me to incorporate Marjorie Brown’s critical science approach into my dissertation study. To my supervisor, Mary S. Marczak, Ph.D., I appreciate all of the experience I have gained conducting applied research and evaluation in real-world contexts under her mentorship. To Jerome Stein Ph.D., who exposed me to John Dewey’s philosophy of education, Cremin’s ecology of education and a community based understanding of education. I gained such valuable insight and new perspectives in his courses. To Mark Vagle, Ph.D., who supported this endeavor to put diverse perspectives in “conceptual dialogue” with one another. I am so appreciative of my colleagues and friends whose moral and instrumental support have been invaluable. I am thankful to Dylan Galos for consulting with me and helping me select an appropriate quantitative data analysis strategy and to Emily Becher who served as my dissertation writing “buddy” during our long writing days in the basement of Magrath Library. Last, but certainly not least, I could not have completed this milestone without the continuous love, support and encouragement from my parents, partner Phil, and best friend Mandy. I am grateful to each of you. ii Abstract The field of family life education (FLE) is shifting from an expert-based, content- driven model of education that is rooted in a positivistic epistemology of practice to a more collaborative, strength-based model that integrates scientific knowledge from family sciences with the values and experiences of families in communities. This study employs John Dewey’s version of pragmatism as the guiding epistemology of practice for this emerging approach to FLE. A pragmatic approach to FLE is proposed through a summary and synthesis of concepts derived from a variety of perspectives, disciplines and fields that comprise the overall conceptual framework, which is comprised of two parts. The first is the philosophical framework, which draws from three principal perspectives: (a) family science, (b) critical science, and (c) human ecology. The second is the practical framework, which extends Bronfenbrenner’s (2001/2009) bioecological model of human development to inform the development of interventions aimed as families; integrates concepts from disciplines and fields such as: the attunement perspective, helping relationships, home economics, and positive psychology in order to inform strategies and approaches for outreach and engagement; and finally reviews principles central to the philosophy of education. The study employs a convergent, multi-level intervention mixed methods design and is based on the evaluation of an existing demonstration project entitled Co-Parent Court. The existing Co-Parent Court evaluation design utilized a quasi-experimental, randomized control group with a pre, post and follow-up survey. Co-Parent Court is used as a critical case to explore and examine the pragmatic model of FLE articulated in this iii study. Findings indicate that intervention parents were more likely to be doing well on several substantively significant dimensions of family well-being than those in the control group. Lessons learned regarding what worked and what did not work in the particular case of the Co-Parent Court project are discussed in order to ground the findings in the immediate programmatic context. Additionally, eight promising principles of a pragmatic approach to FLE were developed based on a triangulation of practitioner wisdom (stakeholder interviews) and social science theory (conceptual framework) in order to contribute knowledge to the field of FLE generally. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………...i Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………ii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………..vi List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………vii 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..1 The Need for this Study……………………………………………………..6 The Study Thesis, Design and Approach……………………………………7 Research Questions………………………………………………………….9 2. Literature Review…………………………………………………………………..11 Family Education…………………………………………………………..11 Epistemology of Practice…………………………………………………..32 Conceptual Framework: Pragmatic Family Life Education……………….46 Pragmatic Model of Family Life Education……………………………….91 3. Methods……………………………………………………………………………..95 Mixed Methods Research Design………………………………………….98 Research Paradigm: Pragmatism…………………………………………..99 Mixed Methods Design: Convergent, Intervention, Multilevel…………..102 Protections of Human Participants………………………………………..107 Research Questions……………………………………………………….108 Quantitative: Quasi-Experimental Survey Design………………………..108 Qualitative: Case Study…………………………………………………...119 v Mixed Methods Analytical Approach…………………………………….129 4. Findings……………………………………………………………………………134 Contextual Frame of Reference…………………………………………..134 Co-Parent Court Program Model…………………………………………139 Qualitative Findings………………………………………………………142 Quantitative Findings……………………………………………………..176 5. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………183 Evaluation Findings……………………………………………………….183 Lessons Learned: What Worked? What Didn’t Work?...............................188 Promising Principles……………………………………………………….202 Limitations & Unique Contributions………………………………………204 Concluding Comments…………………………………………………….208 References……………………………………………………………………………..211 Appendix A. Overall Assessment of My Family’s Well-Being……………………………..232 B. Stakeholder Interview Protocol………………………………………………..233 C. Critical Factors Codebook……………………………………………………..235 D. Conceptual Framework Codebook…………………………………………….236 vi List of Tables 1. Family Life Education Content Areas ……………………………………………3 2. Dimensions of Family Education Perspectives ………………………………….13 3. A Statement of Principles………………………………………………………..25 4. Classification of 6 Virtues and 24 Character Strengths………………………….69 5. Practically Oriented Conceptual Framework…………………………………….91 6. Demographics of Mothers and Fathers in Control and Intervention Groups…...111 7. Post Survey Completion………………………………………………………..115 8. Demographic Characteristics of Key Program Stakeholders…………………...121 9. Critical Factors and Features of Project Design and Practice…………………..143 10. Sensitizing Concepts Derived from the Practical Framework………………….163 11. Quotes Illustrating the Conceptual Framework………………………………...165 12. Frequencies of Father’s Reports of Key Family Life Outcomes……………….177 13. Odds Ratios (95% CIs) of Fathers’ Reports of Family Life Outcomes by Program Group in Baseline Adjusted Multinomial Regression Model…………………..178 14. Frequencies of Mother’s Reports of Key Family Life Outcomes………………180 15. Odds Ratios (95% CIs) of Fathers’ Reports of Family Life Outcomes by Program Group in Baseline Adjusted Multinomial Regression Model…………………..181 16. What Worked: Strengths of the Co-Parent Court Model……………………….189 17. What Didn’t Work: Challenges of the Co-Parent Court Model………………..195 18. Promising Principles: The Family Engagement Model………………………...203 vii List of Figures 1. Philosophic Framework………………………………………………………….48 2. Bronfenbrenner’s Concentric Circles Ecological Model………………………...63 3. Centralized, Decentralized and Distributed Networks…………………………..85 4. Convergent Mixed Methods Design……………………………………………103 5. Intervention Mixed Methods Design…………………………………………...104 6. A Convergent, Multilevel, Intervention Design of a Mixed Methods Study of a Pragmatic Model of Family Life Education……………………………………105 1 Chapter One Introduction Family education is a complex concept that has meant many various things to different people across space and time. As such, it is valuable to consider an orienting framework for interpreting the nature of family education. Thomas and Lien (2009) conceptualized an all-encompassing definition of family education that accurately captures the entire scope and landscape of the concept when they claimed that, Family education is defined here as education of, for, and about families that is carried out by families, educational institutions, and communities. It involves the efforts of families themselves, professional educators, and community members and entities. It is both a phenomenon and a field of practice. Family education as a phenomenon occurs worldwide and has been a function of families and communities across human history and prehistory. Its professionalization has been spurred in Western societies with the growth of industrialization in the 19th and 20th centuries. (p. 36) This description acknowledges that family education is a phenomenon that occurs within families and communities and as such, elevates families to the role of active agents in their own educational processes. However, the professionalization of family education and its development as a field of practice and concomitant