Parental Involvement And Student Creativity: A Three-Level Meta-Analysis

Parents play a crucial role in shaping their children’s creative development through various forms of involvement.

This influence can be understood through the lens of Ecological Systems Theory, which posits that a child’s development is affected by multiple interacting environmental systems.

Parents, as part of the microsystem, directly impact a child’s creative potential through their behaviors, attitudes, and the home environment they create.

Parental involvement can foster creativity by providing autonomy support, offering creative learning experiences, and encouraging independent thinking.

However, certain parental behaviors, such as psychological control, may hinder creative development. Understanding these dynamics is essential for promoting creativity in educational and family contexts.

Fan, H., Feng, Y., & Zhang, Y. Parental Involvement and Student creativity: A three-level Metaanalysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1407279. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1407279

Key Points

• The primary methods of this meta-analysis include a systematic literature search, coding of study characteristics, calculation of effect sizes, and three-level random effects meta-analytic modeling.
• Parental involvement was found to have a small but significant positive correlation (r=0.101) with student creativity across 37 independent samples.
• Factors like type of parental involvement (autonomy support, psychological control, behavioral control, content support) significantly affected the relationship between parental involvement and creativity.
• Grade level, parental gender, cultural region, and publication type did not significantly moderate the parental involvement-creativity relationship.
• The research, while enlightening, has certain limitations such as small sample sizes for some subgroup analyses and inability to analyze moderating effects of creativity measurement tools.
• This study provides important insights into how different types of parental involvement may foster or hinder creativity development in students across educational levels and cultural contexts.

Rationale

This meta-analysis aimed to synthesize and clarify inconsistent findings from previous empirical studies on the relationship between parental involvement and student creativity.

The rationale for conducting this research stems from several key factors:

1. Theoretical predictions vs. empirical findings: The Ecological Systems Model of Creativity Development (ESMCD; Yeh, 2004) posits that parental involvement positively impacts student creativity. However, previous empirical studies have yielded mixed results, including positive, negative, and non-significant correlations between these variables (Niu, 2007; Jankowska & Karwowski, 2019; Oh et al., 2014). This discrepancy between theory and empirical evidence necessitated a comprehensive synthesis of existing research.
2. Importance of creativity: Creativity is increasingly recognized as crucial for both individual development and national prosperity in the 21st century (Pang & Plucker, 2012; OECD, 2020). Understanding factors that influence creativity development, such as parental involvement, is therefore of great importance.
3. Multidimensional nature of parental involvement: Previous research has identified various types of parental involvement (e.g., autonomy support, psychological control, behavioral control, content support) that may differentially impact student outcomes (Xu et al., 2024). A meta-analysis allows for examination of how these different types of involvement relate to creativity.
4. Potential moderating factors: Various factors such as student grade level, parental gender, cultural region, and publication type may moderate the relationship between parental involvement and creativity (Cho & Lin, 2011; Liu et al., 2013; Niu & Sternberg, 2003). A meta-analytic approach enables investigation of these potential moderators across multiple studies.
5. Need for quantitative synthesis: While previous reviews have examined parental involvement and its effects on various student outcomes (e.g., van der Zanden et al., 2020), no meta-analysis has specifically focused on the relationship between parental involvement and creativity. This study addresses this gap in the literature.

By conducting this meta-analysis, the researchers aimed to provide a clearer understanding of the overall relationship between parental involvement and student creativity, as well as identify factors that may influence this relationship.

This knowledge can inform both theory development and practical interventions to foster creativity in educational settings.

Method

The researchers conducted a systematic literature search and meta-analysis following these steps:

1. Literature search: Comprehensive searches were performed across major Chinese and English databases, including CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, SAGE, Wiley, Springer, Taylor and Francis, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, JSTOR, and Web of Science. Search terms combined parental-related words with involvement and creativity terms.
2. Inclusion criteria: Studies were included if they reported correlation coefficients (or statistics that could be transformed into correlations) between parental involvement and student creativity, focused on K-12 or undergraduate students, reported sample sizes, and provided information on measurement instruments.
3. Exclusion criteria: Studies on creative self-efficacy or parenting styles (as opposed to parental involvement) were excluded.
4. Coding: Study characteristics were coded, including sample size, type of parental involvement, student grade level, parental gender, cultural region, and publication type.
5. Effect size calculation: Correlation coefficients (r) were used as the effect size measure. When necessary, other statistics were transformed into r values.
6. Statistical analysis: A three-level random effects meta-analytic model was employed to account for dependencies between effect sizes from the same study.
7. Moderator analyses: Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine potential moderating effects of involvement type, grade level, parental gender, cultural region, and publication type.
8. Publication bias: Multiple methods (e.g., funnel plot, trim and fill, Egger’s regression) were used to assess potential publication bias.
9. Quality assessment: The Basic Quality Assessment of Primary Study (BQAPS) tool was used to evaluate the quality of included studies.

The researchers did not explicitly state adherence to PRISMA guidelines, but the described methodology generally aligns with PRISMA recommendations for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Search strategy and terms:

The literature search combined the following terms:

• Parental terms: “parental,” “paternal,” “maternal”
• Involvement terms: “involvement,” “assistance”
• Creativity terms: “creativity,” “creative thinking”

These terms were searched in title, abstract, and keyword fields across multiple databases. Additional searches utilized public search engines and reference lists of relevant reviews.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria:

Inclusion criteria:

1. Reported correlation coefficients (or convertible statistics) between parental involvement and student creativity
2. Sample population of K-12 or undergraduate students
3. Reported sample sizes for independent samples
4. Provided information on measurement instruments for parental involvement and creativity

Exclusion criteria:

1. Studies focused on creative self-efficacy rather than creativity
2. Studies on parenting styles rather than parental involvement
3. Studies using multiple regression analyses (due to difficulty in effect size recovery)

Statistical measures:

The researchers employed the following statistical analyses:

1. Effect size calculation: Correlation coefficients (r) were used as the effect size measure. Fisher’s Z transformations were applied for calculations and then converted back to r values.
2. Three-level random effects model: This approach accounted for dependencies between effect sizes from the same study, estimating variance at the sample, outcome, and study levels.
3. Heterogeneity assessment: I² and Tau² statistics were used to evaluate between-study variance.
4. Moderator analyses: Subgroup analyses were conducted using meta-regression techniques to examine potential moderating variables.
5. Publication bias assessment: Rosenthal’s Fail-safe N, funnel plot analysis, trim and fill method, and Egger’s regression were employed to detect potential publication bias.
6. Quality assessment: The Basic Quality Assessment of Primary Study (BQAPS) tool was used to evaluate study quality.

All statistical calculations were performed using R software, with the metafor and meta packages for meta-analytic procedures.

Results

Main effect:

• A small but significant positive correlation (r = 0.101, 95% CI [0.061, 0.140]) was found between parental involvement and student creativity across all studies.

Moderator analyses:

1. Parental involvement type:

• Significant moderating effect (F(3,66) = 17.591, p < 0.001)
• Autonomy support: r = 0.144, 95% CI [0.092, 0.194]
• Content support: r = 0.131, 95% CI [0.084, 0.179]
• Behavioral control: r = 0.133, 95% CI [0.045, 0.218]
• Psychological control: r = -0.117, 95% CI [-0.189, -0.045]

2. Grade level:

• No significant moderating effect (F(4,60) = 0.900, p = 0.552)
• Effect sizes ranged from r = 0.081 to r = 0.150 across grade levels

3. Parental gender:

• No significant moderating effect (F(2,67) = 0.300, p = 0.742)
• Effect sizes: Maternal (r = 0.096), Paternal (r = 0.065), Both parents (r = 0.108)

4. Cultural region:

• No significant moderating effect (F(1,64) = 0.098, p = 0.756)
• Eastern cultures: r = 0.085, 95% CI [0.044, 0.125]
• Western cultures: r = 0.098, 95% CI [0.021, 0.174]

5. Publication type:

• No significant moderating effect (F(1,68) = 0.934, p = 0.337)
• Journal articles: r = 0.111, 95% CI [0.066, 0.154]
• Dissertations: r = 0.062, 95% CI [-0.029, 0.151]

Heterogeneity and publication bias:

• Significant heterogeneity was observed (Q = 639.949, p < 0.001; I² = 90.843%)
• Publication bias analyses suggested minimal impact of bias on results

Insight

This meta-analysis provides several key insights into the relationship between parental involvement and student creativity:

1. Overall positive relationship: The small but significant positive correlation (r = 0.101) between parental involvement and creativity supports the theoretical predictions of the Ecological Systems Model of Creativity Development (ESMCD; Yeh, 2004). This finding suggests that, in general, parental involvement can play a role in fostering student creativity.
2. Differential effects of involvement types: The significant moderating effect of parental involvement type reveals that not all forms of involvement are equally beneficial for creativity development. Autonomy support, content support, and behavioral control were positively associated with creativity, while psychological control showed a negative relationship. This nuanced understanding extends previous research by highlighting the importance of considering specific parental behaviors rather than overall involvement levels.
3. Consistency across contexts: The lack of significant moderating effects for grade level, parental gender, and cultural region suggests that the relationship between parental involvement and creativity may be relatively consistent across these contexts. This finding is particularly interesting given previous research suggesting potential differences in creativity development across cultures (e.g., Niu & Sternberg, 2003) and age groups (e.g., Said-Metwaly et al., 2021).
4. Importance of autonomy support: The strongest positive correlation was found for autonomy support (r = 0.144), aligning with self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2020) and emphasizing the importance of fostering intrinsic motivation and independence in creative development.
5. Negative impact of psychological control: The negative correlation between psychological control and creativity (r = -0.117) highlights the potential detrimental effects of certain parental behaviors on creative development. This finding underscores the need for parents and educators to be mindful of how control is exercised in supporting students.

These insights extend previous research by providing a comprehensive synthesis of the parental involvement-creativity relationship and identifying specific forms of involvement that may be most beneficial or harmful to creativity development.

The findings suggest that future research should focus on:

1. Investigating the mechanisms through which different types of parental involvement influence creativity (e.g., mediating factors such as intrinsic motivation or cognitive flexibility).
2. Exploring potential interactions between parental involvement and other factors in the broader ecological system (e.g., school environment, peer relationships) in shaping creativity.
3. Developing and testing interventions to promote beneficial forms of parental involvement (e.g., autonomy support) while minimizing potentially harmful behaviors (e.g., psychological control).
4. Examining how the relationship between parental involvement and creativity may change over time through longitudinal studies.
5. Investigating cultural nuances in parental involvement and creativity that may not have been captured by the broad East-West dichotomy used in this meta-analysis.

Strengths

The study had several methodological strengths, including:

1. Comprehensive literature search: The researchers conducted a thorough search across multiple databases in both English and Chinese, reducing the risk of language bias.
2. Rigorous inclusion criteria: Clear inclusion and exclusion criteria were established to ensure the relevance and quality of included studies.
3. Three-level meta-analytic model: This approach accounted for dependencies between effect sizes from the same study, providing a more accurate estimation of the overall effect and heterogeneity.
4. Multiple moderator analyses: The study examined several potential moderating variables, allowing for a nuanced understanding of factors influencing the parental involvement-creativity relationship.
5. Publication bias assessment: Multiple methods were employed to detect and account for potential publication bias, increasing confidence in the results.
6. Quality assessment: The use of the BQAPS tool to evaluate study quality adds transparency and aids in interpreting the reliability of included studies.
7. Use of advanced statistical software: The employment of R and specialized meta-analysis packages allowed for sophisticated analyses and modeling.

Limitations

The study had several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results:

1. Small sample sizes for subgroup analyses: Some moderator analyses, particularly those examining parental gender and cultural regions, had relatively small numbers of effect sizes, potentially limiting the power to detect significant differences.
2. Inability to analyze creativity measurement tools: Due to the diversity of creativity measures used across studies, the researchers were unable to examine potential moderating effects of different assessment methods.
3. Cross-sectional nature of included studies: Most primary studies were cross-sectional, limiting causal inferences about the relationship between parental involvement and creativity.
4. Broad cultural categorization: The use of a simple East-West dichotomy for cultural comparisons may have obscured more nuanced cultural differences in parental involvement and creativity.
5. Potential for unmeasured confounding variables: The meta-analysis could not account for all potential confounding factors that might influence the relationship between parental involvement and creativity.
6. Reliance on self-report measures: Many included studies relied on self-report measures of parental involvement and creativity, which may be subject to bias.
7. Limited age range: The study focused primarily on K-12 and undergraduate students, potentially limiting generalizability to younger children or older adults.

These limitations suggest the need for caution in interpreting and generalizing the results, particularly for subgroup analyses with smaller sample sizes.

Future research should address these limitations by conducting larger-scale studies, employing more diverse and objective measures of creativity, and exploring cultural nuances beyond broad regional categories.

Implications

The findings of this meta-analysis have several important implications for research, practice, and policy:

1. Parenting practices: Parents should be encouraged to adopt autonomy-supportive behaviors and provide content support to foster creativity in their children. Conversely, they should be cautioned against the use of psychological control, which may hinder creative development.
2. Educational interventions: Schools and educational programs aimed at enhancing creativity should consider incorporating parent education components that promote beneficial forms of parental involvement.
3. Cultural considerations: The relative consistency of findings across cultural regions suggests that general principles of supporting creativity through parental involvement may be applicable across diverse contexts. However, culturally-sensitive adaptations of interventions may still be necessary.
4. Developmental perspective: The lack of significant grade-level effects implies that parental involvement remains important for creativity across educational stages. This highlights the need for sustained parental engagement throughout a student’s academic career.
5. Gender-neutral approaches: The absence of significant parental gender effects suggests that both mothers and fathers can play important roles in fostering creativity, emphasizing the value of involving both parents in creativity-enhancing efforts.
6. Policy development: Educational policies aimed at promoting creativity should consider the role of parental involvement and provide resources to support positive parent-child interactions.
7. Measurement and assessment: The diversity of creativity measures used in primary studies underscores the need for more standardized and comprehensive assessments of creativity in educational research.
8. Interdisciplinary collaboration: The complex nature of creativity development and the various factors influencing it call for increased collaboration between researchers in psychology, education, and related fields.
9. Longitudinal research: While this meta-analysis provides valuable insights, there is a need for more longitudinal studies to examine how the relationship between parental involvement and creativity may change over time.
10. Holistic approach: The findings emphasize the importance of considering parental involvement as part of a broader ecological system influencing creativity. Future interventions should adopt a holistic approach that addresses multiple factors in a child’s environment.

These implications highlight the significant real-world impact of understanding the relationship between parental involvement and creativity.

By applying these findings, educators, parents, and policymakers can work together to create environments that nurture and enhance creative potential in students.

References

Primary reference

Fan, H., Feng, Y., & Zhang, Y. Parental Involvement and Student creativity: A three-level Metaanalysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1407279. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1407279

Other references

Cho, S., & Lin, C. Y. (2010). Influence of family processes, motivation, and beliefs about intelligence on creative problem solving of scientifically talented individuals. Roeper Review, 33(1), 46-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.530206

Jankowska, D. M., & Karwowski, M. (2019). Family factors and development of creative thinking. Personality and individual differences, 142, 202-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.030

Liu, G., Zhang, S., Zhang, J., Lee, C., Wang, Y., & Brownell, M. (2013). Autonomous motivation and Chinese adolescents’ creative thinking: The moderating role of parental involvement. Creativity research journal, 25(4), 446-456. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.843401

Niu, W. (2007). Individual and environmental influences on Chinese student creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(3), 151-175. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2007.tb01286.x

Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Societal and school influences on student creativity: The case of China. Psychology in the Schools, 40(1), 103-114. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10072

Oh, J. S., Lee, H. C., & Yoo, P. K. (2014). A Study on the Relationship between the Parents’ Learning Involvement and Children’s Intellectual Curiosity and Scientific Creativity of the Gifted Elementary Students of Science and General Students. Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education, 26(5), 1119-1128. https://doi.org/10.13000/JFMSE.2014.26.5.1119

OECD. (2020). What students learn matters: Towards a 21st century curriculum. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Pang, W., & Plucker, J. A. (2012). Recent transformations in China’s economic, social, and education policies for promoting innovation and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(4), 247-273. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.17

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

Said-Metwaly, S., Fernández-Castilla, B., Kyndt, E., Van den Noortgate, W., & Barbot, B. (2021). Does the fourth-grade slump in creativity actually exist? A meta-analysis of the development of divergent thinking in school-age children and adolescents. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 275-298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09547-9

van der Zanden, P. J., Meijer, P. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2020). A review study about creativity in adolescence: Where is the social context?. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38, 100702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100702

Xu, J., Guo, S., Feng, Y., Ma, Y., Zhang, Y., Núñez, J. C., & Fan, H. (2024). Parental homework involvement and students’ achievement: A three-level meta-analysis. Psicothema, 36(1), 1-14.

Yeh, Y. C. (2004). The interactive influences of three ecological systems on R & D employees’ technological creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 11-25. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1601_2

Keep Learning

To further engage with this research paper in a college class setting, consider the following Socratic questions for discussion:

1. How might the relationship between parental involvement and creativity differ in early childhood (ages 2-5) compared to the K-12 and undergraduate populations studied in this meta-analysis?
2. The study found that psychological control negatively impacted creativity. What specific parental behaviors might constitute psychological control, and how could these behaviors be modified to support creativity instead?
3. Given the small but significant positive correlation between parental involvement and creativity, what other factors might play a more substantial role in fostering creativity in students? How might these factors interact with parental involvement?
4. How could the findings of this study be applied to develop a school-based intervention program aimed at enhancing both parental involvement and student creativity?
5. The study didn’t find significant differences between Eastern and Western cultures. What cultural nuances or subcategories might be worth exploring in future research on this topic?
6. How might the relationship between parental involvement and creativity be influenced by socioeconomic factors? Why weren’t these factors examined in this meta-analysis, and how could they be incorporated in future research?
7. The study focused on traditional measures of creativity. How might the results differ if we considered more diverse or domain-specific forms of creativity (e.g., musical, artistic, or entrepreneurial creativity)?
8. Given the rapid changes in technology and education, how might the nature of parental involvement in fostering creativity evolve in the coming decades? What new challenges or opportunities might arise?
9. How could the insights from this study be applied to adult education or lifelong learning contexts, where direct parental involvement may no longer be relevant?
10. The study found positive effects for autonomy support and content support. How might these two types of support be balanced effectively, especially as students progress through different educational stages?