CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the study
Parent-child relationship is critical for psychosocial development because of diverse
ways that parents guide the life and experience of their offsprings. From big decisionssuch as what neighbourhood the family lives in, whether or not the child attends
preschool, and so on- to small ones- such as how to respond to a child’s request for more
playtime, more information, or more dessert, - parents’ child-rearing choices affect the
emotional well-being, intellectual growth, and social competence of their children .Mead
(1935) emphasized the significance of childhood experiences in the family. To her,
children take the roles of their parents by pretending to be their mothers and fathers while
they play. Oyideran (1981) also emphasized that modes of child rearing practices greatly
influence the intellectual attitude or abilities of the students.
In families, children receive their initial socialization and also develop their
psychological traits, behavioural patterns and cognitive habits that will reflect on their
academic performance in schools. In contrast, because of inappropriate modes of
parenting styles and lack of appropriate school involvement of many homes in the study
area, children’s academic performance is adversely affected. According to Epstein (2001)
types of home climate either positively or negatively affects emotional functioning and
academic performance of children.
1
It is widely recognized that if children are to realize their potential from schooling, they
will need the full support of their parents. Attempts to enhance parental involvement in
school or education should be in the hearts of governments, educators, and parents. It is
anticipated that parents should play a role not only in the promotion of their own
children’s achievements but more broadly in the school improvement and the
democratization of school governance. According to Howell (2002), the European
Commission, for example, holds that the degree of parental participation is a significant
indicator of the quality of schooling.
When parents participate in their children’s schooling, they may experience more
academic and social success. Epstein (2001) suggests that parents who are informed and
involved in their children’s school can positively influence their children’s attitude and
academic performance. Parental awareness and interest in their children’s learning and
school activities is important for children of school age, which may lead to positive
behaviours. Importantly, Epstein’s (2001) research shows that parental involvement can
have a positive impact on student’s academic work at all grade levels.
Epstein’s (2001) research offers a comprehensive parent involvement model and perhaps
the most frequently used and current model. Epstein’s typology suggests effective parent
involvement model on; (1) parenting (2)communication (3) learning at home (4)
decision-making (5) volunteering and (6) collaborating with the community. The
researcher will not consider the first, fifth and the sixth because the first is the
researcher’s independent variable (IV).The fifth is directly associated with the Parents
2
Teacher Association (eg.decision-making) whiles the sixth is also more associated with
the community involvement.
Maintaining a warm and supportive home, showing interest in children’s progress at
school, helping with homework, discussing the value of a good education and possible
career options staying in touch with teachers and the school staff are reflections of
parents’ expectations and dreams for their children’s academic achievement which are
the strongest factors influencing students’ school performance (Philips,1998). According
to Stegelin (2001), parental involvement can influence students’ academic achievement
regardless of the student’s age or subject.
We believed we could succeed only with dedication and hard work but for many in this
country, the Ghanaian dream is fading as the gap between the rich and poor continues to
widen. Children are told that if they studied hard they could ``make great men or women
out of themselves’’. While this is true, it seems as if the rules have changed and the
stakes are higher.
Numerous studies have been done to confirm the assumption that students do better when
their parents are involved in their education (Philips, 1998). According to Philips (1998),
students succeed in school when their parents are involved in their children’s education;
the results would be higher grades in test, and examination scores as well as more self
confidence, better attendance and regularly completed assignments, fewer placement in
remedial classes, more positive attitudes and behaviour in school, higher graduation rates,
and grater enrolment in secondary schools.
3
Henderson, (cited in Philips, 1998) found that parents are involved in school in four
ways. The parents serve as teachers of their children at home and serve as volunteers and
supporters at school. The next two include parents becoming advocates for their children
and decision-makers in school in such areas as school policy and budget. This study
focuses on three types of parents’ school involvement namely; learning at home,
communication, and decision-making, and to determine which type of the parents’ school
involvement yields higher academic achievement.
Without research to indicate the effect of parental involvement in students’ academic
performance, many parents may feel it is too late to become involved in their children’s
lives. When we consider how complicated our children’s lives have become as they travel
through their teen years, parents owe them, as responsible parents and educators, our
involvement in their school lives.
The kind of parenting that helps children develop a positive sense of self, to interact
positively with others, and to be competent at school has no simple and universal answer
because there is no guaranteed cause-and-effect relationship between how a parent rears a
child and how a child turns out. Indeed, parents adopt many reflective styles ranging from
quite strict to very permissive, from intensely involved to rather relaxed involvement. A
child reared in one style may not markedly be different from a child reared in another
(Baumrind, 1991)
According to Baumrind (1967), home climate has been identified as one of these three
types of parenting: authoritarian, authoritative, permissive type. The authoritarian
parents have been found to rely more heavily on power- assertive and coercive discipline.
4
The parents' word is law, not to be questioned, and misconduct brings strict punishment.
According to Spinetta & Rigler (1972), authoritarian parents are less warm, affectionate
and sympathetic with their children. Maturity demands are high and parent-child
communication is rather low. Authoritarian parents are found spanking their children
frequently, enforcing rules rigidly and not explaining them, and show rage toward the
children. Children of authoritarian parents are typically less skilled, have lower selfesteem and show high aggressiveness.
According to McIntyre (1990), children of authoritarian parents are often unhappy,
fearful, anxious about comparing themselves with others, fail to initiate activity, and have
weak communication skills because it is only their physiological needs that are provided.
Such children find it difficult to ask questions in class and are uncooperative in-group
work, hardly express their thoughts in class hence have stagnant knowledge. According
to Baumrind (1967), such children do less well in school.
Children reared in authoritative homes are usually disciplined not because of the absence
of punishment, but because of the authoritative parents’ show commitment to maintaining
a reciprocally cooperative interaction with the children. Children in this home show
higher self-esteem, outgoing, independent but at the same time are more likely to comply
with parental requests and show more altruistic behaviour as well. They are also selfconfident and achievement-oriented. Such students express their thought in class; ask
questions where they do not understand, and are normally group leaders. Hyman (1988)
emphasized that children of authoritative parents get better grades in school.
5
Paulson (1994) also emphasized that permissive parents are tolerant and warm but
exercise little authority. Such children usually share bed with their parents even during
their early adolescence. (Maccoby &Martin, 1983). They are not properly monitored and
therefore do what they want to learn to control their behaviours. The parenting style that
will make such children have self-respect, independence and competence is lacking (i.e.
unprovided esteem needs). Such children cannot do independent work in class and cannot
think critically. Paulson (1994) emphasized that such children do slightly less well in
school.
‘’There is no way in which parents can evade having a determining effect upon their
children’s personality, character, and competence” (Baumrind, 1978). The functions of
parenting and parents’ involvement greatly influence how children develop (Arendell,
1997). Therefore, as a trainee in counselling, the researcher is concerned with effective
parenting styles and parental involvement by most parents in upbringing their children.
1.2 Statement of the problem
The researcher has observed certain features of the family's culture in the study area.
First, parents differed in their warmth, or nurturance toward their offsprings. Secondly,
parents varied in their strategies to control their children’s actions through explanation,
persuasion, and /or punishment. Third, parents also differed in the quality of
communication, decision making, and in helping their children to learn at home. These
differences in the family culture affect the children's academic performance (Steinberg &
Dornbusch, 1991).
6
The researcher has observed that parents spend a lot of time during P.T.A meetings
discussing the poor academic performance of their children and blame the teachers. The
teachers on the other hand put the blame squarely on the parents. Considering the parents
viewpoint regarding the poor academic performance, the question is posed, how many of
these parents are involved in their children’s schooling? What child-rearing strategies do
they use and how effective are these strategies?
Despite the government’s effort to improve the infrastructure and to provide free school
uniforms, the researcher has observed that the parent- teacher communication that can
motivate students to learn; strategies such as monitoring students to learn at home, and
creating a book-friendly environment to contribute to the development of the children’s
literacy skills and positive attitudes toward learning seem to be lacking.
The study therefore is necessitated by the desire to investigate the effect of parenting
styles (i.e. authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive) in conjunction with parental
involvement (communication, learning at home and decision-making) on student’s
academic performance.
1.3 Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study is twofold. The main purpose was to investigate the effects of
parenting styles and parental involvement on the students’ academic performance. The
second was to investigate whether differences in parenting styles and parental
involvement depend on the demographic variables of the students’ parents of educational
background, marital status, and sex.
7
1.4. Research hypotheses
The following were the research hypothesis for the study.
i. There will be statistically significance difference in students’ academic
performance and variation of their parents’ parenting styles
ii. There will be statistically significance difference in students’ academic
performance and variation of their parents’ school involvement
iii. There will be a statistically significant interaction effect between parenting styles
and school involvement on academic performance.
iv. There will be a significant
contribution of parenting styles and parental
involvement on the students academic performance
v. There will be statistically significant differences in parenting styles and selected
parents demographic variables of educational background, marital status, and
sex.
vi. There will be statistically significant differences in parents’ school involvement
and selected parents’ demographic variables of educational background,
marital status, and sex
1.5. Assumptions of the study
The following were the basic assumptions of the study. It is assumed that the:
i.
Study area will be accessible for the researcher to carry out his work.
ii.
Sample of the study is a true representative of the population of the study
iii.
Instrument will measure exactly what it is purported to measure
iv.
Respondents will be able to appropriately give answers to the items in the
questionnaire.
8
1.6. Significance of the study
The parents-students relationship has a significant impact on the students’ experiences
during their course of study. On the other hand, poor quality of the relationship between
students and their parents can cause the students to terminate their schooling prematurely.
This study provides a framework for further research into factors that promote or impede
students’ academic performance. One of the major priorities of parents is to identify those
determinants on their children academic performance. It is only after specifying the
determinants of academic performance, that effort for improvement would be
meaningful.
Moreover, the study can provide the necessary basis for a systematic method of parental
evaluation. Evaluation of relationships in terms of students academic performance and
help determine the most effective type of parenting and parents school involvement that
help improve the quality of students education, and potentially decrease the number of
students dropping out and leaving the school unfinished. Accordingly, this study presents
an effort to assist teachers to understand some possible causes of students’ poor academic
performance and device ways of assisting them. In addition, the study will aid parents to
realize the influence of their school involvement and parenting style as a contextual
element in shaping their children academic outcomes. Finally, the study will help
students to develop their potential as they discover the role of their parents’ school
involvement and parenting styles in adapting to diverse learning situations.
It is therefore hoped that this investigation will serve as a guidepost to parents and other
stakeholders of education to be conscious that both parenting styles and parents school
involvement play an important role on the students’ academic performance. As a result,
9
Ghana Education Service and the stakeholders will be encourage to organize public
lectures on potentials of parenting style and parents school involvement on academic
performance of students.
1.7 Delimitation of the Study
The study was limited to both third year students and their parents’ viewpoints on the
child-parent relationship. The reason of this delimitation is that according to Baumrind
(1966), parents and children have different perceptions of their relationship hence the
mean of their viewpoint is the researcher’s interest. Another delimitation is that students
within one municipality were recruited to participate in the study. Lastly, the parents’
assessment on the parenting styles and parental involvement were gathered based on the
perspective of the students.
1.8: Definition of Terms and Abbreviation and Explanation of Acronyms
The following terms and abbreviations used in the study are as follows:
Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ)-A research instrument designed by Buri
(1991) which is used to assess the three types of parenting styles: Authoritative Style,
Authoritarian Style, and Permissive Style.
Parental Involvement Questionnaire (PIQ)-A research instrument designed by the
researcher
to
assess
the
parents’
school
involvements:
Learning
at
home,
Communication, Decision-Making
Responsiveness/Acceptance- this is one of two constructs that functions in establishing
typology of parenting styles. Responsiveness is synonymous with supportiveness, and
10
describes the parent’s process of using sensitivity to the child’s desires and needs when
communicating with their children while simultaneously passing on a certain level of
self-assertion and self-regulation traits.
Demandingness/Control – This is the second constructs that functions if establishing
typology of parenting style. Demandingness is synonymous with control, and is
characterized by the range of parental supervision, disciplinary methods and inclination
to confront when the child disobeys, which will ultimately integrate the child into the
family system.
Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) - A computer progamme usually
employed by social scientists for statistical analysis.
Senior High School (S.H.S) – A 4- year post Junior High School education that leads to
tertiary education. The Junior High School is a 3 – year post primary education in Ghana
that leads to Senior High School.
Parent Teacher Association (PTA) - A formal organization composed of parents,
teachers, and staff that are intended to facilitate parental participation in a school.
1.9: Organization of the Study
The study comprised five chapters. The first chapter is the introduction that deals with
background to the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, study
hypotheses, significance of the study and delimitations. It also dealt with terms or
acronyms which may not be familiar to readers.
11
Chapter two touches on the review of related literature and framework for the study while
chapter three discussed the methodology for data collection. This covers; research design,
rationale for adopting quantitative approach, population of the study, study area,
instrumentation, pilot study, reliability and validity, procedure for data analysis, and data
analysis.
Chapter four covers the presentation and analysis of data collected as well as discussion
of the results obtained. Finally chapter five was devoted to summary of findings,
conclusions, limitations, implications and limitations for theoretical, educational and
counseling for future research.
12
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. Introduction
Whether it is within a high depth level of discourse among researchers in an academic
institution, or a discussion between school educators, the topic of parental involvement
and parenting style is likely to surface when discussing problems in students' academic
achievements.
This chapter will focus on the literature as it pertains specifically to parenting styles (i.e.
authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive) and parental involvement (learning at home,
communication, and decision- making,). The literature review will focus on the impact
these variables have on the academic performance (dependent variables).
2.2. Theoretical Framework
The theory and models that are used as the background of the study included;

Baumrind’s (1966) model of parenting style

Epstein’s (2001) typology of parental involvement
2.2.1 Baumrind’s (1966) Model of Parenting Styles
The most influential proposal on child-rearing has come from Baumrind (1966) model of
parenting style. Her proposal came about when she looked at combinations of the
following dimensions:
13
1. Warmth or nurturance
2. Level of parents’ expectations, which she describes in terms of “maturity
demands”
3. The clarity and consistency or rules and
4. Communication between parent and child.
Baumrind (1966) saw the following three specific combinations of the characteristics:

The permissive style is high in nurturance but low in maturity demands, control,
and communication.

The authoritarian style is high in control and maturity demands but low in
nurturance and communication.

The authoritative style is highest in all of the variable said
Maccoby and Martin (1983) extended Baumrind’s category system, proposing a model
on styles of child-rearing. They emphasized two dimensions: the degree of demand or
control and the amount of acceptance/rejection or responsiveness. The intersection of
these two dimensions created four types, three of which corresponded fairly closely to
Baumrind’s authoritarian, authoritative and permissive types. Maccoby and Martin’s
fourth type, the uninvolved neglecting style, was not identified by Baumrind. The figure
below illustrates the Maccoby and Martin’s (1983) variation.
14
Level of control or demand
Level of acceptance / responsiveness
High
High
Low
Low
Authoritative
reciprocal
Authoritarian
assertive
power
Permissive
indulgent
Neglecting uninvolved
Figure 2.1 Maccoby and Martin expanded on Baumrind's categories in this twodimensional typology
Based on the view of Baumrind (1966) and Maccoby and Martin (1983) the researcher
can deduce that children’s academic performance can be improved or weakened by the
type of home climate. A child growing up in a home that the parents are characterized by
high control and maturity demands but low in nurturance and communication (Baumrind,
1966) and for that matter low level of acceptance/responsiveness and high level of
control or demand, will make the child less skilled and have lower self-esteem, high
aggressiveness or other indications of being out of control. According to Baumrind
(1991) children with these attitudes do less in school because they are nonconformist to
school rules and regulations and their frequently being punished makes the teachers hate
them and also makes them unaccepted by the students and therefore they may experience
lack of teachers monitoring. And this would invariably influence their academic
performance. Parents who are high in control, warmth, communication, nurturance and
15
maturity demands set clear limits and of the same time respond to their children needs.
(Maccoby and Martin, 1983). Authoritative parents are quite willing to discipline their
child appropriately if the child misbehaves. These parents are less likely to use physical
punishment but rather use “time out” or other mild punishment, but it is important to
understand that these parents are not wishy-washy. Maccoby and Martin (1983) further
emphasized that such children are cheerful, outgoing and eager. These behaviour of
asking questions in class, participate fully in group activities and consult teachers and
their mates on where they did not understand. To Maccoby and Martin (1983), such
children usually get better grades in elementary schools, high school, or colleges.
Children who are from high level of acceptance/responsiveness but with the parents who
are low level of control or demand usually perform below expectation (Maccoby and
Martin, 1983). Permissive parents do not restrict their children’s activities, decisions and
desires. The children are allowed to do what they want to do and are not expected to obey
rules and regulations of behaviour. They lack control over matters or are not serious in
their studies and therefore achieve less in school
2.3. The concept of parenting style
Practically every undergraduate and graduate textbook on child development will
mention three major styles of parenting including authoritative, authoritarian, and
permissive. The researcher Baumrind (1966) who defined each construct according to
observable behaviours by parents and children first proposed these constructs. In her
early work, Baumrind (1968) presented children from authoritative parents as more selfreliant and self-controlled who had parents that were controlling and demanding, but had
16
a degree of reciprocity regarding communication with child. These parents used firm and
consistent control communicating with the child in a warm, reciprocal, and verbal “give
and take” style.
Authoritarian parents use a firm style too; however they are characterized as “strict”
expecting absolute obedience to parental authority and reacting punitively to individuality
that is expressed by child. Additionally, authoritarian parents are characterized by lack of
warmth and detachment. Finally, permissive parents, the opposite of authoritarian
parenting, are characterized by frequent expressions of warmth and affection by parents
but discipline infrequently and do not enforce rules of household. Therefore, children of
these households are more likely to regulate their own behaviour independently. How is a
parenting typology determined?
2.4. Dimensions of parenting style
Baumrind (1991) explains that two researchers, Schaefer, and later Becker, analyzed data
from studies examining the child-parent relationships noting that “two orthogonal
factors” emerged: demandingness and responsiveness. Parenting styles are then
described in relation to these two terms. For ease of reading, each dimension is divided
into sublevels, each of which can be measured and yield a total score that would
designate a particular parenting style. The sublevels of responsiveness (synonymous with
supportiveness), consist of warmth reciprocity, and attachment; and the sublevels of
demandingness (synonymous with control), consist of monitoring and discipline.
17
Warmth refers to the parent’s emotional expression of love; however, a warm and loving
parent may well be a firm disciplinarian too. Reciprocity is described as regarding the
child’s wishes and feelings with sincere value. The final sublevel of responsiveness is
attachment, which is the extent of emotional connection a child has with his/her parent(s).
Demandingness embodies how well and efficient the parent supervises the child, and the
sublevels of monitoring and discipline are likely self-explanatory. Regardless, monitoring
involves how parents approach establishing rules of the household, then enforcing those
rules and how well they supervise the child. Are all parents’ coercive, giving threats or
promises without reasons, do the parents use firm direct confrontation, or is the
confrontation in the form of a friendly conversation or demeaning manner? As noted
earlier, discipline was a sublevel, which refers to the type of discipline the parents
implement for infractions of misbehaviour.
Is the discipline inconsistent, providing
tenuous support to child, it is in a punitive form that is hostile, or is it consistent and fair?
Loading each dimension into the parenting typologies yields a particular parenting style.
Therefore, if each sublevel within responsiveness was measured and the results yield high
in each dimension of warmth, reciprocity, and attachment and a high score was yielded
across each dimension in demandingness, then that parent would have high
responsiveness and high demandingness-characteristics of the parenting typology
authoritative parenting. Briefly, authoritative parenting, as noted would consist of high
responsiveness and high demandingness, authoritarian would consist of low
responsiveness and high demandingness, and permissive or indulgent parenting type
would be responsive but low demanding (Jackson et al., 1998; Steinberg et al., 1995;
18
Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991). Extending Baumrind’s (1966) work,
Maccoby and Martin (1983) found through analysis of demandingness and
responsiveness another parenting style emerged which Baumrind (1991) termed it as
neglectful.
2.4.1. Authoritative parenting
Authoritative parents involve a demonstration of high levels of demandingness coupled
with high levels of responsiveness. Authoritative parents expect conformity to parental
standards from their children while at the same time encourage autonomy and self-will.
Authoritative parents encourage discussion of their expectation and provide their children
with the rationale behind them. They are demanding of their children in that they guide
firmly and articulate their expectations clearly, yet are also responsive in that they
provide encouragement, love, and understanding.
Authoritative parents are accepting of their children’s qualities while communicating
expectations for future standards of conduct. Unlike authoritarian parents, authoritative
parents do not hide their imperfections, nor do they expect infallibility in their children
viewed. Mistakes are viewed as learning experiences, rather than as punishable offences.
Unlike any other pattern, authoritative parenting upbringing generates competence and
deterred problem behaviour (Baumrind, 1971, 1991). Glasgow, Dornbusch, Troyer,
Steinberg, and Ritter (1997) points out, in comparison to the other parenting styles that,
authoritative parenting is the most successful in fostering personal and social
responsibility in adolescents, without limiting their emerging autonomy. Jackson et al
(1998) indicated that authoritative parenting was reflective of better conflict resolution,
19
and “significantly lower odds of reporting substance use and violence-related behaviours
than peers whose parents were defined as permissive”.
2.4.1.1 Authoritative style and child qualities
Children of authoritative parents were found to be purposeful, cooperative, assertive, selfreliant, and highly achievement oriented (Baumrind, 1971, (1991). Other qualities of
children of authoritative homes are:

Lively and happy disposition

Self-confident about ability to master tasks

Well developed emotion regulation

Developed social skills

Less rigid about gender-typed traits (especially: sensitivity in boys and
independence in girls).
2.4.2 Authoritarian parenting
The authoritarian parenting centre on control. Authoritarian parents tend to raise obedient
youths who do not question authority (Baumrind, 1991; Jackson, et al., 1998).
Authoritarian parents exhibit high demandingness and low responsiveness toward their
children. They attempt to control their children in accordance to a set of exterior o
standards that are typically in adherence to the views of some higher authority. In order
words, authoritarian parents may look to their religious leaders for such standards, rather
than creating their own. They value unquestioned obedience, and commonly use
punishment for noncompliance or any type of demonstration of self- will from the child.
20
They value work, respect for authority, and preservation of tradition, attempt to instill
such values in their children. Authoritarian parents do not value discussion with their
children concerning parental expectations, but instead believe children should accept
adult authority without question. According to Jackson et al (1998), children of
authoritarian parents tend to have both low self-esteem and less social competence in
school. Again, youths from authoritarian parenting are more likely to report positive
school performance compared to permissive but not compared to authoritative parenting
(Dornbusch et al,. 1987; Jackson et al,. 1998). However, Lamborn et al. (1991) point out
that because youths of authoritarian parents are raised stricter “they score well on
measures of obedience and conformity and also do well in school”. Lamborn et al.
(1991) continue, suggesting that although they perform well in school, they “have paid a
price where self-confidence is concerned” regarding the potential of their academic
abilities.
2.4.2.1 Authoritarian style and child qualities
Children reared under the authoritarian parenting pattern are found to be reasonably
achievement oriented, yet hostile and uncooperative (boys), or dependent and submissive
(girls) (Baumrind, 1991). Other qualities of children reared authoritarian home have the
following qualities:

Anxious, withdrawn, and unhappy disposition

Poor reactions to frustration (girls are particularly likely to give up and boys
especially hostile)

Do well in school (studies may show ac hortative parenting is comparable).
21

Not likely to engage in antisocial activities (especially: drug and alcohol abuse,
vandalism, gangs)
2.4.3. Permissive parenting
Obviously, this parenting style would be associated with low levels of responsiveness and
some high levels of demandingness. The permissive parent attempts to behave in a no
punitive, acceptant and affirmative manner towards the child’s impulses, desires, and
actions. She (the parent) consults with him (the child) about policy decisions and gives
explanations for family rules. She makes few demands for household responsibility and
orderly behaviour. She presents herself to the child as a resource for him to use as he
wishes, neither as an ideal for him to emulate, nor as an active agent responsible for
shaping or altering his ongoing or future behaviours. Permissive parents affirm their
children’s desires and actions, and avoid the use of power and control. They are, in a
sense, a friend to their children without the guidance exercised by authoritative parents.
They allow the child to regulate his own activities as much as possible, and do not
encourage him to obey externally defined standards. They also attempt to use reasons and
manipulation, but not overt power to accomplish their ends (Baumrind, 1971, 1991).
2.4.3.1. Permissive style and child qualities
Children of permissive parents tend to be similar to of authoritarian parents, in that they
are often hostile and uncooperative. These children are also lacking in self-control, are
purposeless, and are not very achievement oriented (Baumrind, 1991). Other qualities of
children permissive parents are as follows:
22

Poor emotion regulation (under regulation)

Rebellious and defiant when desires are challenged.

Low persistence to challenging tasks

Antisocial behaviours
2.5. Psychological Effects of Parenting Styles
The literature exploring the psychological attributes associated with different parenting
styles appears to support the contention that parenting style has an effect on development.
In exploring developmental outcomes in adolescents, Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, and
Dornbusch(1991) surveyed 4,100 adolescents to determine the type of parenting style
used by their parents and the adolescents levels of psychosocial development and levels
of distress. After grouping the adolescents into their parental types: authoritative,
authoritarian, and permissive, they were given measures of psychosocial development
and internalized distress. Components of psychosocial development that were measured
included social competence, work orientation, and self-reliance. Internalized distress
referred to health problems and psychological symptoms of anxiety, tension, and
depression. In this sample, adolescent who came from authoritative homes scored highest
in psychosocial development and lowest in internalized distress. They were more
competent and confident than adolescents from other types.
Adolescents from authoritarian backgrounds scored reasonably well in psychosocial
development, but tended to have low self-perceptions and confidence, and higher levels
23
of internalized distress. Finally, adolescents from permissive backgrounds scored
reasonably high in social competency and self-perception, but low in work-orientation.
Similarly, Kurdek, and Fine (1994) conducted a two-sample study to determine if family
acceptance (responsiveness) and family control (demandingness) influenced the
adjustment of young adolescents in the areas of psychosocial competence and selfregulation. In the first sample, psychosocial competence was assessed by measuring
levels of self-esteem and self-efficacy, and self-regulation was measured by self-reports
of academic performance and aggressive behaviours. In the second sample, adjustment
was assessed by peer ratings of likability, which the authors suggest are linked to
psychosocial competence and self-regulation. The findings of this study were found to be
consistent with previous literature showing acceptance and control to be influential on the
adjustment of adolescents. Adolescents from families of high in both acceptance and
control had the highest levels of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-regulation.
2.6. Parenting styles and academic performance
Parenting style has been found to predict child well-being in the domains of social
competence, academic performance, psychosocial development, and problem behaviour.
Research based on parents interviews, child reports and parents observations consistently
find:

Children and adolescents whose parents are authoritative rate themselves and
are rated by objective measures as more socially and instrumental competent
24
then those parents who are non-authoritative (Baumrind, 1991, Weiss &
Schwarz; 1996; Miller et al, 1993)

Children and adolescents from authoritarian families (high in demandingness
but low in responsiveness) tend to perform moderately well in school and be
uninvolved in problem behaviour, but they have poorer social skills, lower
self-esteem, and higher levels of depression (Maccoby and Martin, 1983). In a
survey of 7,836 adolescents in the San Francisco Bay area, Dornbusch et
al.(1987) found that Asian American parents were more authoritarian than
European American parents, the authoritarian parenting styles was associated
with lower academic grades.

Children and adolescents from permissive homes (high in responsiveness, low
in demandingness) are more likely to be involved in problem behavior and
perform less well in school, but they have higher self-esteem, better social
skills, and lower levels of depression (Maccoby and Martin, 1983).
In general, parental responsiveness predicts social competence and psychosocial
functioning, while parental demandingness is associated with instructional competence
and behavioural control (i.e., academic performance and deviance).
In reviewing the literature on parenting style, one is stuck by the consistency with which
authoritative upbringing is associated with both instrumental and social competence and
lower levels of problem behaviour in both boys and girls at all developmental stages. The
benefits of authoritative parenting and the detrimental effects of uninvolved parenting are
evident as early as the preschool years and continue throughout adolescence and into
25
early adulthood. Although specific differences can be the found in the competence by
each group, the largest differences are found between children whose parents are
unengaged and their peers with more involved parents. Differences between children
from authoritative homes and their peers are equally consistent, but somewhat smaller
(Weiss & Schwarz, 1996).
Just as authoritative parents appear to be able to balance their conformity demands with
their respect for their children’s individuality, children from authoritative homes appear
to be able to balance the claims of external conformity and achievement demands with
their need for individuation and autonomy (Kozol, 1991).
2.7. Epstein’s (2001) typology of parental involvement
Much contemporary research on parental involvement has been drawn on the work of
Joyce Epstein. Epstein (2001) typology of parental involvement is illustrated in the figure
below.
26
Types of parental 2001)
has drawn typology
Involvement
Definition
1. parenting
1. providing housing,health,nutritions, safety;
parenting skills in parents-child interactions;
home conditions to support study.
2. Communication
2. school-home/home-school communication
3. volunteering
3. in school help in classrooms/events
4. Learning at home
4. Help with
choices/options
5. Decision-Making
homework,
help
with
educational
5.Membership of Parent-Teacher-Association(PTA) or
School-Management-Committee(SMC
6. Collaborating with the
6. Community contributions to school/school contributions
community
to community
Figure 2.2 Epstein’s (2001) conceptual framework for family-school involvement
The researcher did not discuss the first, fifth and the sixth constructs in the study
because the first is the researcher major independent variable (IV), the fifth is directly
associated with decision- making (e.g. through P.T.A.), while the sixth is also more
associate with the community involvement which is usually done through the ParentTeacher-Association.
2.7.1. Type 1: communicating between school and home
Research suggests that the association between school- home communication and
students was relatively small (Sui-Chu & Willms, 1996) with varied outcomes and
whether the desired outcomes were standardized scores or students’ grade. Grades are
27
slightly more impacted than achievement test scores (Desimone, 1999) which may be the
result of parent(s) communicating with the school and/or teacher at the time were
impacted. McNeal (1999) indicates that because school-home communication and levels
parent involvement vary by income level with the type the involvement, this suggest that
some groups may feel comfortable communicating than others. This implies that parent
involvement programs should develop positive communication strategies unique to the
context of their own community. Parent involvement programs that review and adapt
effective strategies used by schools with similar family and community background
characteristics might be beneficial.
2.7.2. Type 2: learning activities to involve parents with students at home
Desimone (1998), referring to studies by Muller (1995), concluded that school-level
involvement had less effect on academic performance than parent-child involvement. The
findings show that parent-child discussion is significantly related to increased academic
achievement for whites and African-Americans; however, the link was not significant for
Hispanics or Asians (McNeal, (1999). Sui-Chu & Willms (1996) found that home
discussion of school activities was one of the stronger predictors of students’ academic
performance. Although the dynamics of parent-child discussion about school are not
clearly understood, it reflects positively on students’ academic achievement (Balli et al,
1998).
The employment status of mothers affects child supervision after school, the nature of
parent-child activities during this time, and the degree to which the parent is able to
become involved in after-school activities. Better availability of supervised after-school
28
activities for adolescents, flexible work schedules that permit parents to participate in
school activities in school functions, and school policies that accommodate working
parents are three areas for possible improvement (Muller, 1995).
Parent(s) helping students with homework or checking homework had a negative
relationship with academic achievement (Wang & Wildman, 1994). Some researches’
believe this is an intervention strategy or a negative outcome of parental monitoring of an
adolescent seeking his or her own independence. The findings suggest that perhaps a
more proactive parent stance might prevent problems before they occur. Providing
alternative school-based strategies for assisting adolescents with their homework in ways
they find acceptable might be considered. The negative relationship may simply be due to
parents who are trying to help a student who needs help.
Based upon initial findings from parent involvement programmes, students’ academic
work and attitudes improve when students conduct interactive homework with family
members (Epstein, 1984).
2.7.3. Type 3: Decision making
This includes parents in decisions about school programs via the Parents Teachers
Association (PTA) and school improvement committees (Desimore, 1999). Being
involved in these organizations allows parents to learn about school programsmes,
policies and curriculum (Epstein, 1984). Consequently, parents can suggest ideas for
school improvements and voice opinions about the quality of the school and school
29
programmes. Desimore (1999) emphasized that such parents discuss their expectations
with their children.
2.8. The concept of Parental Involvement
The child’s first place of contact with the world is the family. The child, as a result,
acquires initial education and socialization from parents and other significant persons in
the family. The parents are, in short, the child’s first teacher. They are the first and
primary source of social support for young children. In the Ghanaian setting, the
responsibility for raising a child is a collective one. When parents are involved in the
education of their children, the children tend to model their parents’ attitude and actions
(Georgiou, 1997). Suffice it to say that parents have profound influence on every aspect
of child’s life.
Available and accessible research evidence have indicated that students with parents who
are involved in their education tend to have fewer behavioural problems and better
academic performance and less likely to drop out of school than students whose parents
are not involved in their school ( Rich, Van Dlen&Mallox,1979)
Corroborating the above, Reynolds (1994) demonstrated that a significant relationship
existed between parental involvement and academic performance. According to
Fantuzzo, Davis, and Ginsberg (1995), the term parental involvement refers to a variety
of parental behaviours that directly or indirectly influences children’s cognitive
development and school achievement. Illustrative examples of these parents’ behaviours
presented in the empirical literature, are: attending parent-teacher conferences, being a
30
member of a Parent- Teacher-Association (PTA), helping with homework, discussing
school activities with the child’s school progress, monitoring the child’s out-of-school
activities, and talking regularly with the child.
Although the dynamics of parent involvement and student academic performance at the
senior high level are not clearly understood, current efforts of purposeful parent
involvement strategies make a difference (Baker and Soden (1998). The leadership of
every high school, regardless of school enrolment size or community socio-economic
composition, has an obligation to engage in discussions about purposeful parent
involvement. There is no evident research documenting a negative effect as a result of the
implementation of a well – designed parent involvement strategy (Eccles et al., 1993).
According to Leler (1983), the earlier in a child's educational process parent involvement
begins, the more powerful the effect. He further emphasized that the most effective forms
of parent involvement are those, which engage parents in working directly with their
children on learning activities at home.
It is very clear that parental involvement is beneficial. It can definitely benefit the
student in question, but it can also be benefit the teachers, school, the parents themselves
and the community, as well as other children in the family. Everything possible should be
done by the school system to encourage the parents to become involved. This is
especially true of the headmaster of the school, and it is his or her leadership that will
guide the teachers in the direction of emphasizing the importance of parental
involvement.
31
2.9. Major factors of Parental Involvement
According to Leler (1983), there are three main factors of parental involvement in the
education of their children;

Parents' beliefs about what is important, necessary and on behalf of their
children;

The extent to which parents believe that they can have a positive influence
on their children's education; and

Parents' perceptions that their children and school want them to be
involved.
When schools encourage children to practice reading at home with parents, the
children make significant gains in reading achievement compared to those who only
practice at school. Parents who read to their children, have books available, guide T.V
watching, and provide stimulating experiences contribute to students' academic
performance (Clark, 1990). According to him when parents come to school regularly,
it reinforces the view in the child's mind that school and home are connected and that
school is an integral part of the whole family life.
2.10. Parental involvement as school success strategy
Simon (2001) theorized that parents' involvement has made an impact on a child's
learning and motivation. The study looked at various types of involvement including,
learning at home (home instruction), decision-making, communication and
participation in school governance.
32
Epstein et al (2002) discuss parental involvement as educational tool needed to
achieve academic success. Simon (2001) specifies the importance of a quiet time and
place for homework. There was also a discussion on the negative impact of television,
but the positive impact of praise. Beck and Murphy (1999) state that communication
is a vital component for school success. Parents who prepare their children talk about
setbacks, possible stressors and coping skills.
Individual differences in children's academic achievement were studied by Fan &
Chen (2001) relative to differences in the parental involvement. They found the
children of authoritative parenting and parental involvement to be positively related
with academic achievement. Children with higher test scores come from more
supportive homes. The parents of senior high schools were asked about conveying
positive feeling, conversing with the student, answering student's questions and
assisting them in learning at home.
2.11. Importance of parenting style and parental involvement
D' Agostino et al (2001) show the role of the family and the specific interactions
between a child and parent have been determined to be powerful indicators of
development. Some specific interactions include family discussions, encouragement,
assisting students in their homework, involve children in decision making, and limit
setting, daily routine, praise and intellectual stimulation. These studies have shown all
of these connections to produce an impact on academic achievement.
33
Children have an unbelievable thirst for knowledge. If parents do not tap into that
drive in early childhood, it could be lost before they even enter the school system.
The parents that do not foster learning are easily identified. It is truly amazing how
little children mention their parents. Parents' encouragement to achieve and interest in
school performance are significantly related to student motivation and achievement.
(Crozier, 2000)).He found that:
'' What might be called '' the curriculum the home'' predict academic learning
twice as well as the socioeconomic status of families. This curriculum includes
informed parent/child conversations about everyday events, encouragement and
discussion of schoolwork (homework), monitoring and joint analysis of
televiewing; deferral of immediate gratification is to accomplish long-term
goals, expressions of even occasional doses of caprice and serendipity. In 29
controlled studies conducted during the past decade, 91% of the comparisons
favoured children in programs designed to improve the learning environment of
the home over children not participating in such programs. Although the
average effect was twice that of socioeconomic status, some program had effect
ten times as large''.
Drake (2000) spoke about the importance of taking time for children, playing with
them, taking decision with them and assisting them in doing their homework. The
decision parents make to involve children in the family decision making, or allow the
child to be unsupervised will make a profound impact on their academic performance.
The most vulnerable and dangerous time for children is between 3:00PM and
8:00PM. They may not be perpetrators but they well could be the victims. Victims
outnumber perpetrators (Drake, 2000)
34
Stegelin (2002) declare the importance for parents to communicate positively, take
decision with their adolescents and assist them in learning at home. Reading materials
should be abundant and discussed on regular intervals. The study states that parental
involvement and parenting styles show a significant relationship to academic
achievement.
2.12. Empirical Evidence
A research demonstrating the effects of parenting styles is a study of nearly 11, 000 high
school students in California and Wisconsin by Laurence Steinberg and Dornbush and
their colleagues. Of this, 6,902 were followed over a two-year period, providing valuable
longitudinal information (Dornbusch et al, 1987, Glasgow et al, 1997; Lamborn et al,
1991; Steinberg et al, 1989).
The researchers measured parenting styles by asking the students themselves to respond
to questions about both parental acceptance responsiveness and parental control or
demand the dimensions define Maccoby and Martin (1983) category system. The
students were asked to indicate the extent to which each of the following statements was
true or not true:
 I can count on my parents to help me out if I have some kind of problem.
 When my parents want me to do something they explain why.
 My parents know exactly where I am most afternoons after school.
On the basis of students’ answers to such questions, Steinberg and Dornbusch were able
to classify most of the students’ families in the Maccoby/Martin category system and
35
could then look at the relationship between these parenting styles and a variety of
behaviours and the students’ performance in schools. They also found that:

Students from authoritative families showed a higher self-reliance, higher
social competence better grades, fewer indications of psychological distress,
and lower levels of schools misconduct, drug use, and delinquency.

Students from authoritarian families had the lowest scores on the several
measures of social competence and self reliance.

Teenagers from permissive families had the least optimal scores on measures
of problem behaviors and school achievement (Steinberg et al 1994).
In another longitudinal analysis of the data for the early, 7000 students for whom they
have two years information, these same researchers found that:

Students who described their parents as most authoritative at the beginning of the
study showed more improvement in academic competence and self-reliance and
smallest increases in psychological symptoms and delinquent behaviour over the
succeeding two years, suggesting that the family has a causal, continuing effect.

Authoritative parents not only create good family climate and thereby support and
motivate their child optimally; they also behave differently toward the child’s
school. They are much more likely to be involved with the school, attending
school functions or talking to teachers, as this involvement seems to play a crucial
role. When an otherwise authoritative parent is not involved with the school, the
outcomes for the students are not clearly positive.
36

A student whose parent is highly involved with the school but is not authoritative
shows less optimal outcomes. It is a combination of an authoritativeness and
school involvement that is associated with the best result.
Another research that demonstrated the parental pattern and academic achievement was
conducted by Dwairy et al (2006) in eight Arab societies based on the Baumrind (1966)
prototypical descriptions of the parenting styles (permissiveness, authoritarianism and
authoritativeness) and measured these parenting styles through interviews and
observations with 2, 893 adolescents and their parents. Their results suggested the
following:

Authoritarian and permissive parentings were associated with mental health
problems and had low academic performance whereas authoritative parenting
was associated with improved mental health and well-being.

They also associated authoritative parenting with non coercive and democratic
parenting which encourages the child to express individually with the family.
The adolescents from authoritative homes showed more improvement in
academic competence.

They found that authoritarian parenting was associated with harsh, restrictive
and psychological methods of control that do not foster psychological
autonomy.
They concluded that, there are a lot of factors that contributed to students' academic
achievement therefore deductions that can be drawn from parenting styles and academic
achievement should be approached with caution
37
2.13. Theoretical framework for the proposed study
The theoretical framework that underpins the proposed study is derived from family
motivation theories. In particular, the theoretical models shown as figure 2 and 3 dwells
upon the constructs proposed by Baumrind (1966, 1991) on parenting styles and the
Epstein (2001) typology of parental involvement .
Intelligent is not the only determinant of academic performance. High motivation and
encouragement in learning have consistently been linked to reduced dropout rates and
increased levels of students’ academic success (Kushman, Sieber & Harold, 2000).
Development of academic intrinsic motivation in students is an important goal for
educators because of its inherent importance for future motivation as well as students’
effective school functioning (Gottfriend, 1990). The family is the primary social system
for children. Philips (1998) found that high parental control, support, were associated
with high academic performance.
Academic performance is accomplished by actual execution of class work in school
setting. It is typically assessed by the use of teacher rating, and examinations. Research
shows that student’s perceptions of academic competency decline as they advance in
school (Eccles, Wigfield & Schiefele, 1998). Hammer (2003) attributed this decline to
various factors that included the lack of parents’ school involvement and inefficient
parenting practices. Academic performance gab is not only about what goes on once
students get into the classroom. It is also, about what happens to them before and after
school. Parents have a crucial role to play to make sure that every child becomes a high
38
achiever. Parents influence has been identified as an important factor affecting student
academic performance (Wang, Wildman, & Calhoun, 1996).
The model diagrammed in Figure 2.3, has three causal paths that feed into academic
performance variable:

The impact of the parenting style (main effect) on academic performance (Path 1)

The impact of the parental involvement (main effect) on academic
performance(Path 2)

The interaction or product of Path (1) and Path (2), that is Path (3) on the
academic performance- the moderator.
The moderator hypothesis is supported if the interaction (Path 3) is significant. There
may be significant main effects for the Path (1) and Path (2) respectively, but are not true
effect or relevant that can use to describe the relationships on the academic performance.
In statistics, moderation occurs when the relationship between two variables depends on
a third variable (Howell, 2002). The third variable is referred to as the moderator
variable or simply the moderator. The effect of a moderating variable is characterized
statistically as an interaction, which affects the direction and/or strength of the relation
between dependent and independent variables.
Specifically within a correlation analysis framework, a moderator is a third variable that
affects the zero-order correlation between two other variables. In analysis of variance
(ANOVA) terms, a basic moderator effect can be represented as an interaction between a
39
focal independent variable and a factor that specifies the appropriate conditions for its
operation (Baron and Kenny, 1986).
Parenting Styles
1. Authoritarian
2. Permissive
3. Authoritative
1
Moderator
(Interaction)
Parental Involvement
Academic
3
2
Decision-making
Communication
Learning at home
Figure 2.3 Theoretical Framework for the proposed study
40
Performance
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1. Introduction
This chapter deals with general research methodology and covers the following
subheadings.
 Research design
 Rationale for Adopting Quantitative Approach
 Population of the study
 Study area
 Instrumentations
 Pilot Study
 Validity of the Instruments
 Reliability of Instruments
 Data Collection Procedure
 Procedure for Data Analysis
 Data analysis
3.2. Research design
The study followed a cross-sectional design using the quantitative model. The crosssectional design is a type of design that will enable the researcher to collect data across a
wide range in a relatively short time and at a point in time. Unlike the longitudinal and
41
retrospective designs, the data collected from cross-sectional design are `snap-shot` of
respondents’ views at that moment of data collection.
The study also followed a quantitative research model using an exploration and
descriptive design. Quantitative research approach is a process in which numerical data is
used to obtain information and consist of descriptive, correlation, experimental, and
quasi-experimental research. Descriptive research is the exploration and description of
phenomena in real situations. It allows the researcher to generate new knowledge of the
subject by describing characteristics of persons, situations and the frequency with which
certain phenomena occur (Schunk, 1991). The exploratory research allows the use of
questionnaire to a large sample of the population and is therefore intent on finding facts
that relate to the field of study (Schiefele, 1991). The exploratory research probes more
by allowing for an in-depth exploration of dimensions of the phenomena, including
manifestation and related factors (Rubin, 2005).
A survey method of data collection through questionnaire was used. The survey is a nonexperimental, descriptive research method. There are two basic types of surveys: crosssectional surveys and longitudinal surveys (Rubin, 2005). The researcher employed the
cross-sectional survey in this study. Cross-sectional surveys are used to gather
information on a population at a single point in time.
According to Rubin (2005) the advantage of this method is that it is less expensive,
relatively easy to administer, efficient way of collecting information from a large number
of respondents, permits anonymity and may result in more honest responses.
42
3.3. Rationale for Adopting Quantitative Approach
The scientific method widely used in both the natural and social science is derived from a
system of philosophy known as positivism but the one that has been most influential in
this century is logical positivism (Bernard, 2000).
Positivism is a system of philosophy that excludes everything from its consideration
except natural phenomena and their interrelationships. According to Creswell (2002), one
of the major principles of logical positivism is the verifiability principle, which states that
something is meaningful unless they can be verified through direct observation of the
world. For example, if I make the knowledge claim that elementary school teachers ask
mostly factual questions, that claim is meaningful and valid (if I am a logical
positivist),only if I have direct observation of the teachers behaviours'. Again, I must
have defined the concept of “fact questions” in such a way that, I, or anyone else, can
identify instances of fact questions using only observable characteristics of teacher
behaviours.
Positivism, then places premium on observation of the world ‘’out there’’. The
researchers' values, interpretations, feelings, and musings have no place in the
positivism’s view of scientific inquiry. The quantitative researcher must be objective. In
short the quantitative research is noted on positivistic approach of scientific inquiry
(Bernard, 2000).
The researcher approached the study quantitatively because he is aiming to produce
numerical results of data that can in some way be quantified. The researcher tends to use
43
large sample of respondents to gather findings that can be extrapolated to tell us about a
population in general.
Another reason the researcher approached the study quantitatively was that the researcher
wished to keep himself from influencing the collecting of data. Statistical methods are
used to analyze the data and draw conclusions. In other words, the researcher wanted to
be objective, meaning, the researcher wished to develop an understanding of the world as
it is ‘’out there’’, independent of his personal biases, values and idiosyncratic notions.
Again, because of the nature of the investigation (i.e. looking for differences), the
quantitative approach is suitable.
3.4. Study Area
The study was conducted at Offinso, the headquarters of Offinso South Municipal
Assembly in Ashanti Region of Ghana. Offinso is a small town of nearly 6, 500 people.
The largest employees are teachers, hospital workers, police, and other civil servants etc.
Farming is also an important industry to this community. The community has limited
culture diversity.
Offinso South community has two senior high schools consisting students across the
entire regions of Ghana. The students were approximately between 15 and 18 years old.
Offinso is about twenty nine (29) kilometers from Kumasi and on Kumasi-Techiman,
road. Offinso is located on the bank of river Offin, hence the name Offinso.
44
3.5. Population of the Study
The target population for this study comprised all Senior High School three (3) students
in the study area. There are two Senior High Schools in the study area. These are;
Dwamena Akenten Senior High School (D.A.S.H.S=534 students), and Namong Senior
High School (N.A.S.H.S=279 students), with the total population of 813.
45
Table 3:1
The table below shows the distribution of the schools with their third year (S.H.S.3)
population
CLASS
D.A.S.H.S. N.A.S.H.S. No. of
Students
3A1
45
41
86
3A2
46
--
46
3A3
51
--
51
3B1
48
49
97
3B2
52
--
52
3H1
46
52
98
3H2
42
--
42
3S1
46
--
46
3S2
44
--
44
3AG
48
45
93
3TECHAP --
48
48
3TECHM
--
44
44
TOTAL
534
279
813
Source: Field Data (2011)
Note: 3A1 = This is third year Arts class that offers Elective Mathematics
Geography and Economics
3A2 = This is third year Arts class that offers Geography, Economics, Christian
Religious Studies,
46
3A3 = This is third year Arts class that offers Economics, English Literature, and
Akan
3A4 = Third year Arts class that offers Economics, English Literature and
Government
3B1 = Third year class that offer Accounting, Business Management, Elective
Mathematics
3B2 = Accounting, Business Management, Costing
3H1 = Third year class that offers Home Economics. Their subjects include; Food
and Nutrition, Management in Living, General Knowledge in Arts and
Biology
3H2 = Third year class that offers Home Economics. Their subjects include;
Clothing and Textiles, Management in Living, General Knowledge in Arts
and Biology.
3S1 & 3S2 = Third year class that offers Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Elective
Mathematics
3AG = Third year class that offers Agriculture Studies. Their subjects include;
General Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Chemistry and Elective Mathematics
3TECHAP = Third year technical class that offers Elective Mathematics, Elective
Physics, Technical Drawing and Applied Electricity.
3TECHM = Third year technical class that offers Elective Mathematics, Elective
Physics, Technical Drawing and Metals
47
3.6. Sample
This is a small proportion of the population randomly selected subsets of the whole,
which is being used to represent the population (Alhasssan, 2007). By observing the
character of the sample, inference can be made about the characteristics of the population
from which it has been drawn. The sample size comprised two hundred and eight (208) as
Table 3:2 shows, thirteen (13) students were randomly selected from each class from the
schools stated above.
Table 3:2
The table below illustrates the distribution of schools (S.H.S.3) and sample selected
Classes
D.A.S.H.S.
N.A.S.H.S.
No. of
Students
3A1
13
13
26
3A2
13
--
13
3A3
13
--
13
3B1
13
13
26
3B2
13
--
13
3H1
13
13
26
3H2
13
--
13
3S1
13
--
13
3S2
13
--
13
3AG
13
13
26
3TECHAP
--
13
13
3TECHM
--
13
13
Total
130
78
208
48
In choosing the sample size, simple random sampling procedure was used. Simple
random sampling is one of the most popular types of probability sampling. In this
technique, each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected as
subject. The entire process of sampling was done in a single step with each subject
selected independently of the other members of the population. There are many methods
to proceed with simple random sampling, but the lottery method was used in this study.
With the simple random sampling, ‘’YES’’ or ‘’NO’’ were written on pieces of paper and
was picked by the students. Those who picked ‘’YES'' were selected to represent the
sample size.
3.7. Variables of the Study
There are three main variables involved in this study, which are categorized as dependent
and independent variables. There is only one dependent variable and two independent
variables. Each of the independent variable has three levels. Table 3:3 presents all the
characteristics of these variables.
Table 3:3. Identification of the variables
Type of variable
Name of variable
Type of variable
Type of
scale
DV
Academic performance
Continuous
Interval
IV
Parenting Styles
Discrete
Nominal
IV
Parental Involvement
49
Discrete
Nominal
3.7.1. Dependent Variable
The dependent variable of the study is the students’ academic performance. The students
academic performance was assessed by using the Mathematics Achievement Test(MAT),
English Achievement Teat(EAT), and Science Achievement Test(SAT). This consisted
of 20 multiple choice of MAT, 20 of EAT, and 20 of SAT respectively. The average
score was taken to represent the students’ academic performances. It is continuous
variables and measured on interval scale.
3.7.2. Independent Variables
The independent variables included in the study are parenting styles and parental
involvement. As indicated on table 3:3, each of the independent variables had three
levels. Both the parenting styles and parental involvement are considered to be discrete
variables and measured on nominal scale. Authoritative parenting style was coded three
(3), two (2) for permissive, and one (1) for authoritarian. On the other hand, learning at
home was coded three (3), two (2) for communication, and one (1) for decision making.
3.8: Instrumentation
The instruments that were used for the study were Parental Authority Questionnaire
(PAQ) and Parental Involvement Questionnaire (PIQ). Data from these instruments
provided the basis for all subsequent analysis used to test the defined research
hypotheses.
3.8.1 Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ)
Buri (1991) developed a self-report measure asking students to respond to how their
parents act toward them. The Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) had co-efficient
alpha of 0.81. The PAQ (Appendix A) was used to assess the level of parenting style with
50
respect to Baumrind’s (1966) primary parenting style typologies’ authoritarian (high
control, low warm), authoritative (high control and high warm) and permissive (low
control, high warm). The measure consist of 30 items,10 for each of the different styles of
parenting in a 5- point likert format ranging from strongly disagree(1) to strongly
agree(5).
The Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) was designed as a measure of Baumrind
(1966) three parenting styles based on authority, disciplinary practices of warmth,
demands, expectations and control. The three parenting styles questions are embedded in
the questionnaire in a random order. Authoritative parents are flexible, use reason with
their children, are rational, maintain firm and clear boundaries, while being consistent in
the expectations of their children’s behaviour (items q4, q5, q8, q11, q15, q20, q22, q23,
q27, and q30). Authoritarian parents attempt to maintain unquestioning obedience from
their children and attempt to control their behaviour with punishment as a form of
discipline (items q2, q3, q7, q9, q12, q16, q18, q25, q26, and q29). Permissive parents
tend to be relatively warm as well as non-demanding and controlling of the child (items
q1, q6, q10, q13, q14, q17, q19, q21, q24, and q28). To score the PAQ, the individual
items for each parenting subtype were summed. The score on each subscale are from a
minimum of 10 to a maximum of 50.
3.8.2. Parental Involvement Questionnaire (PIQ)
The researcher constructed the Parental Involvement Questionnaire (PIQ) in 2010. It was
utilized to gather information regarding parents school involvement related to the study:
communication, learning at home and decision- making. It is a fithteen-item scale with
response anchor based on likert 5-point format. Some of the items of the scale read as
51
follows: (1) My parents discuss with me on what I learnt at school, (2) My parents listen
when I talk to them, etc
3.9. The pilot study
A pilot study was embarked on at Apam Senior High School in Central Region of Ghana
with 100 S.H.3 students. It was done to ascertain the factor structure, construct validity,
and reliability of the Parental Involvement Questionnaire (PIQ) questionnaire used in the
research.
Fifteen (15) item questionnaire developed by the researcher was used to tap three
construct namely; decision making, communication, and learning at home. These were
factor analyzed to ascertain its structure. The questionnaire used a 5-point likert scale
ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The direction of the score was
that, the higher your score, the higher the chance of experiencing that construct.
3.10. Validity of the Instrument
Validity refers to the degree of which an instrument measures what it is supposed to
measure. In other words (Garson, 2006) a valid instrument actually measures the concept
it is supposed to measure. In this study, content and construct validity were used to assess
the validity of the instrument by means of assessing the adequacy, appropriateness,
inclusiveness and relevancy of the questions to the subject under study.
3.10.1. Content Validity of the Instrument
Content validity of an instrument means validating the fact that an instrument designed
does represent the factors under study (Garson, 2006). In order to establish the content
validity of a measuring instrument, the researcher identified the overall content to be
represented. Items were randomly chosen from the content that accurately represented the
52
information in all areas. By using this method, the researcher obtained a group of items
that is representative of the content of the property to be measured. Again, those items
were constructed based on the Epstein’s (2001) typology of parental involvement the
researcher selected to investigate.
3.10.2. Construct validity of the Instrument
Construct validity approach concerns the degree to which the test measures the construct
it was designed to measure (Garson, 2006). The researcher assessed the construct validity
by using factor analysis, since it is a method of selecting only the indicators or items that
tap the concept the researcher is trying to measure.
3.11. Factor Analysis of Parental Authority Questionnaire
Factor analysis is a type of analytical statistical technique used to develop questionnaire
in order to make sure that instrument measure what it is supposed to measure.
After collecting the data from the respondents, it was fed into SPSS version 16. The data
was first screened to make sure that it was normally distributed, thus meeting one of the
assumption of parametric test. This was done using the skewness of the distribution on
each of the variables. Each distribution was judged using the z-statistic of -/+3.29.
According to Ofori and Dampson (in prep), distribution with the resulting z-statistic score
more than -/+3.29 after dividing its skewness value by its standard error (SE) of skewness
indicates that the distribution is abnormally skewed. Using this criterion of-/+3.29, it was
found that items 8, 10 and 15 were abnormally skewed. For example, item 8 had zstatistic of -4.75, item 10 had z-statistic of 21.8 and item 15 had the z-statistic of -4.01,
hence those items were excluded from further analysis.
53
The remaining 27 items were subjected to Principal Component (PC) with Oblinim
Rotation using SPSS version 16 to ascertain the appropriateness of the factors. Oblinim
rotation was used because the items are related. These factors were confirmed using
factor loadings based on the content of the items. Factor loading exceeding 0.3 was used
because the greater the loading, the higher the variable is efficient to measure what it is
suppose to measure and that a factor loading of 0.1 for instance is not strong enough to
ascertain the pureness of the measure of the factor( Howell,2002)
First, an abridged version of the Rotated Matrix(R-Matrix) was inspected with the top
half of the table contains the Pearson Correlation Coefficient between all pairs of the
questions whereas the bottom half contains the one-tailed significance of these
coefficients.
The researcher screened the significance values and looked for variables for which the
majority of values were greater than 0.05. In addition the researcher checked if there were
any correlation coefficients where the relationship exceeded 0.9 or -0.9. It was found that
items 2, 11 and 26 had their significance value greater than 0.05 and as a result made the
KMO statistic 0.449. Kaiser (1974) recommends accepting values greater than 0.5
(values below this should lead to collect more data). These items were eliminated and the
researcher re-run the analysis for the remaining 24 items.
After 21 iterations, rotation converged with the extraction of 3 factors with eigen values
above 1.0. The items 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, and 28 were found to be cross loaded meaning
that they were not meaningfully measuring a single construct and as a result eliminated
from further analyses. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.63,
54
above the recommended value of .50, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (i.e.
2 (78) = 143.471, p = .000). The diagonals of the anti-image correlation matrix were all
over .5, supporting the inclusion of each item in the factor analysis.
Finally, the
communalities were all above .3 (see Table 1), further confirming that each item shared
some common variance with other items.
According to the rotated component matrix presented above, all items except 27, 29, fit
into their component correctly. Although, item 27 was included in factor one which
tapped the construct of permissiveness, it belongs to authoritative. Item 29 was included
in three (authoritative), it belong to factor two (authoritarian). The researcher decided to
include it at where the rotation placed it at the present rotation, because it may be due to
cultural differences. Seven items (6, 1, 13, 14, 24, 19, and 27) showed their highest
loading on factor one. These tapped permissiveness construct that accounted for 18.2% of
the total variance in the data rotated. Items 9, 3, 12, 5, 7, and 4 showed the second highest
loading on factor two which tapped the construct of authoritarian. This factor accounted
for 12.3% of the total variance in the data rotated. Items 29, 22, 16, and 20 also loaded on
factor three accounting for 8.7% of the total variance in the data rotated. Item 30 did not
load above 0.3 on any factor. The final 17 items with their loading and communalities
values are presented in Table 3.4 below:
55
T able 3.4
Factor loadings and communalities based on a principle components analysis with oblimin rotation
for 17 items Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) (N = 50)
Factor loading
Communality
Factors
1
2
3
Factor 1 – Permissiveness (alpha =0.75)
q6
0.76
0.59
q1
0.71
0.48
q13
0.70
0.56
q14
0.68
0.50
q24
0.64
0.50
q19
0.56
0.47
q27
0.55
0.41
Factor 2 – Authoritarian (alpha =0.77)
q9
0.65
0.53
q3
0.58
0.58
q12
0.54
0.48
q5
0.50
0.47
q7
0.57
0.56
q4
0.48
0.49
Factor 3 – Authoritative (alpha = 0.78)
q29
0.76
0.43
q22
0.57
0.41
q16
0.49
0.49
q20
0.42
0.40
56
The internal consistency for each of the subscales was examined using Cronbach alpha.
The alpha value for items 6,1,13, 14, 24, 19, and 27 (permissiveness) had the alpha value
of 0.75. Items 9, 3, 12, 5, 7, and 4 (authoritarian) had the alpha value of 0.77. Items 29,
22, 16, and 20 (authoritative) had the alpha value of 0.78.
The skewness and kurtosis were well within a tolerable range for assuming a normal
distribution and examination of the histograms that the distributions looked
approximately normal. Thus the data were well suited for parametric statistical analyses.
Therefore, the three types of parenting styles were rooted in the questionnaire (Appendix
A). The permissiveness consists of the items 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 12 and 14. The authoritarian
also consists of the items 2, 5, 8, 13, 15, and 16. Lastly, authoritative consists the items of
4, 7, 10 and 17 respectively.
3.12. Factor Analysis on Parental Involvement Questionnaire (PIQ)
The 15 item questionnaire designed by the researcher was to tap the construct of decision
making, communication and learning at home. Responses were on a Likert – type scale,
ranging from 1 ‘’ Strongly Disagree’’, 2 = ‘’Disagree’’, 3 = ‘’ Neither’’, 4= ‘’Agree’’, 5
= ‘’Strongly Agree’’. After the administration of the instrument, they were factor
analyzed to ascertain its factor structure.
Prior to the analysis, the data were screened for univariate outliers, and two of the items
(13 and 15) were deleted for the fact that they failed to meet the assumption underlying
parametric test. That is such items had a z-statistic of 10.46 and 13.32 for skewness. This
57
was beyond the p = 0.001 criterion of +/- 3.29 indicating that it is abnormally positively
skewed. As a result, they were excluded from further analysis.
Initially, the factorability of the 13 items was examined. All of the 13 items were found
correlated at least 0.3 with at least one other item, suggesting reasonable factorability.
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .54, above the
recommended value of .50, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (2 (153) =
211.063, p < .001). The diagonals of the anti-image correlation matrix were all over .5,
supporting the inclusion of each item in the factor analysis. Finally, the communalities
were all above .3 (see Table 3.5), further confirming that each item shared some common
variance with other items. Given these overall indicators, factor analysis was conducted
with all 13 items.
Principle components analysis using oblimin was used because the items really relate and
also the primary purpose was to identify and compute composite parental involvement
scores for the factors underlying the PIQ. In other words, to ascertain the appropriateness
of the hypothesized three-factor model. The first three eigen values showed that the first
factor explained 20.9% of the variance, the second factor 15% of the variance, and a third
factor 11.6% of the variance. The three factor solution, which explained 46.5% of the
variance. This is when the rotation converged in this run after 9 iterations with the
extraction of four factors with the stated eigen values.
Three items were eliminated, because Item 11 was found cross-loaded meaning it did not
contribute to a simple factor structure and failed to meet measuring a particular construct.
58
Items 8 and 14 also did not load above 0.3 on any factor. The factor loading matrix for
this final solution using the oblimin technique is shown in the table 3.8 below.
Table 3.5
Factor loadings and communalities based on a principle components analysis with
oblimin rotation for 13 items Parental Involvement Questionnaire (PIQ) (N = 50)
Factor loading
Communality
Factors
1
2
3
Factor 1 – Decision Making (alpha =0.63)
Q12
.773
.64
Q7
.768
.55
Q9
.683
. 56
q10
.675
.46
Factor 2 – Communication (alpha =0.70)
Q5
-.763
.68
q3
.717
.59
q6
.709
.41
Factor 3 – Learning at Home (alpha = 0.60)
q2
.748
.40
q1
-.714
.44
q4
.538
.42
59
The internal consistency for each of the subscales was examined using Cronbach alpha.
The alpha value for items 12, 7, 9, and 10 (decision making) had the alpha value of 0.63.
Items 5, 3, and 6 (communication) had the alpha value of 0.70. Items 2, 1, and 4(learning
at home) had the alpha value of 0.60.
The skewness and kurtosis were well within a tolerable range for assuming a normal
distribution and examination of the histograms that the distributions looked
approximately normal. Thus the data were well suited for parametric statistical analyses.
Therefore, the three types of parents’ school involvement were rooted in the
questionnaire (Appendix B). The learning at home consists of the items 1, 2, and 3. The
communication also consists of the items 4, 5, and 6. Lastly, decision-making consists the
items 7, 8, 9, and 10 respectively.
3.13. Reliability of instruments
Reliability is important criteria for evaluating quantitative instrument. The reliability was
measured using the Cronbach’s Alpha. According to Howell (2002), reliability is the
consistency with which the instrument measures the target attribute. This means that
administering the same instrument by various researchers will provide the same results
under comparable conditions.
According to Garson (2006), reliability can be estimated in one of the following four
ways that is internal consistency, split-half reliability, test-retest reliability, and inter-rater
reliability. In this study, reliability of the instrument (PIQ) was tested by means of
Cronbach Alpha that is the most common means of testing internal consistency if the
60
items, using the SPSS package. Internal consistency reliability refers to the extent to
which all the subparts of the instruments will measure the identified attributes. According
to Garson (2006) reliability of 0.60 is common in exploratory research; the alpha should
be at least 0.70 or higher to retain an item in an adequate scale. Factor analysis was done
for the themes to identify the items that may not be consistent with the themes within
each category. The table below indicates the co-efficient alpha of the two instruments.
Table 3.6
Reliability Analysis for Students Responses
Subscale
Cronbach’ Alpha
Number of
Items
Authoritative
0.78
4
Authoritarian
0.77
6
Permissive
0.75
7
Learning at Home
0.60
3
Communication
0.70
3
Decision Making
0.63
4
The table above shows that reliability statistics of the various constructs of the
questionnaire. It shows the number of items and its cronbach alpha. The table shows that
61
the authoritative subscale has an alpha co-efficient of 0.78 on 4 items; authoritarian had
the alpha co-efficient of 0.77 on 6 items. Permissive also had alpha co-efficient of 0.75
with 7 items. On the other hand Learning at Home has an alpha co-efficient of 0.60 on 3
items; Communication has an alpha co-efficient of 0.70 on 3 items; Decision Making has
an alpha co-efficient of 0.63 on 4 items.
Table 3.7
Overall Reliability Analysis
Variables
Number of items
Cronbach Alpha
PAQ
17
0.78
PIQ
10
0.66
3.14. Students Academic Performance ---- MAT, SAT, and EAT
The students academic performance was assessed by using the Mathematics Achievement
Test(MAT), English Achievement Test (EAT), and Science Achievement Test(SAT).
These subjects are key and examinable subjects on the school curriculum and it is
believed that assessing the students’ academic performance in these disciplines will be
useful and appropriate for this research. The test was prepared by making use of the
questions taken from the WASSCE between the years of 2006 – 2010 and consisted of 20
multiple choice of MAT, 20 of EAT, and 20 of SAT respectively. Questions were
selected based on the syllabus that is the same in all schools due to the settings of
Ministry of Education Science and Sports. Average score of each student was taken to
62
represent the student academic performance. The following procedure was followed by
the researcher while developing the achievement tests:

The content of the syllabus up to third year first term was examined.

All related questions were collected and a multiple pool was formed.

The questions were given to three member panel on each subject area for
selection of test items

Items that had low corrected item – total correlations were deleted, distractors
evaluated were not considered since the test items were standardized test items.
3.14.1. Try – Out the Test Items – Item Analysis
The test items were tried – out to 50 students in the same school (Apam Senior High
School). The purpose of this (item analysis) was to identify any test items that are not
working well, too easy, too difficult, failing to show a difference between skilled and
unskilled examinees. According to Gronlund (1985), there are two main approaches to
item analysis; qualitative and quantitative analysis. The qualitative analysis includes the
consideration of content validity (content and form of items) as well as the evaluation of
items in terms of effective item-writing procedures. The quantitative item analysis on the
other hand includes principally the measurement of item difficulty and item
discrimination. Two most common quantitative item analysis reported in this study
were item difficulty, which is a measure of the proportion of examinees who responded
to an item correctly, and item discrimination, which is a measure of how well the item
discriminates between examinees who were knowledgeable in the content area and those
were are not.
63
3.14.2. Index of Difficulty
A good test is a test that contains items which are not too difficult and too easy. This is
the index of item difficulty. It is also referred to as p – value. Nunnaly (1964) states that
the index of difficulty of an item illustrates how easy or difficult certain item is
established in the test. Item difficulty is simply the percentage of students who answer the
item correctly. It ranges from 0.0 to 1.0; the higher the value, the easier the question. The
following formula was used to calculate the index of difficulty of an item.
P = Np/N, where Np = the number of correct answers, and N = the number of students
taking the test. In this try-out study, 27 out of 50 examinees answered the Mathematics
Achievement Test (MAT) test items correctly. Using the formula above, Item Difficulty
= 27/50, which is 0.54, which means that the test item was moderate. Regarding the
Science Achievement Test (SAT) test items, 24 out of the 50 test-takers answered them
correctly. Using the same formula, the item difficulty = 25/50 = 0.50, and 23 scored the
English Achievement Test (EAT) test correctly. Using the same formula, the item
difficulty for the English test was 0.46. Using the criteria of index of difficulty in table
3.6 below, the items of the three subjects were good.
64
Table 3.8
Criteria of Difficulty Index (P)
P=
Interpretation
0.00 – 0.30
Difficult Items
0.31 – 0.70
Moderate Items
0.71 – 1.00
Easy Items
Source: Nitko (1983)
3.14.3. Discrimination Index
According to Nunnaly (1964), discrimination index of an item indicates the extent to
which the item distinguishes between the testees separating the more able testees from
the less able. The index of discrimination (D) tells us whether students who do well on
the entire test tend to do well or badly on each item of the test.
In order to calculate the index discrimination, upper and lower groups were formed from
the top 14 and bottom 14 test takers in MAT, SAT, and EAT test on the total score. These
was done because Nitko(1983) proposed that upper and lower 27% with middle 46%
could lead to optimal point when the total test scores are normally distributed. It was
found that 13 of the test takers in the upper group and 7 in the lower group in MAT
passed the item. The index discrimination was therefore calculated by the formula: D =
Up – L p/U, where Up and Lp indicate the number of test takers in the upper and lower
groups who pass the item, and U is the total number of test-takers in the upper group.
Thus, D
= 13 – 7/ 14 = 0.43. With regard to the SAT, 11 of the test-takers in the upper
65
group and 4 in the lower group passed the items. Using the same formula, D = 0.50. With
EAT 10 in the upper group and 4 in the lower group passed the items, hence D = 0.43.
The higher the discrimination index, the better the item can determine the difference
between those with high test scores and those with low ones. As table 3.7 below
indicates, Discrimination indexes of 0.43 and 0.50 were excellent.
Table 3.9
Discrimination power of the answers according to their D value
D=
Quality
Recommendations
> 0.40
Excellent
Retain
0.30 – 0.39
Good
Possibilities for improvement
0.20 – 0.29
Mediocre
Need to check/review
0.00 – 0.19
Poor
Discard or review in depth
< -0.01
Worst
Definitely discard
Source: Nitko (1983)
3.14.4. Validity
Validity of a test determines whether or not the test is appropriate as the research
instrument. In other words, validity of a test is the extent to which a test measures what it
is supposed to measure. Since the tests were developed based on the course objectives, it
can be said that the test has content validity
66
3.14.5. Reliability.
This is the extent to which a test produces consistent result when administered under
similar conditions (Nunnaly, 1964). The reliability of the test items was calculated using
SPSS version 16.0, employing the cronbach alpha. The researcher inspected the corrected
item-total correlations and the alpha if deleted statistics and found that none of the items
when removed increases the overall alpha and so we have no cause for alarm regarding
omitting an item. The reliability of the MAT was 0.78, 0.81 for EAT, and 0.88 for SAT.
3.15. Data Collection Procedure
Students and the teacher assisting the researcher in the administration of the survey were
identified. The approval to conduct the survey was received from the school
administrators.
The students respondents were seated and well spaced out to ensure that they worked
independently. The researcher and his assistant briefed the students' respondents on how
to respond to the items. The respondents also had the opportunity to ask questions or call
the attention of the researcher to clarify difficulties they came across in the course of
responding to the items.
The researcher together with the assistant (teacher from the school) handed out the
research instrument to the students respondents to respond to the items on their
perceptions on interactions with their parents in the home environment from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The administration of the instrument was carried out
67
during the morning hours and lasted for fifty minutes (50) minutes. After completion, the
instrument were collected back and scored.
In regards to the student’s academic performance, average academic performance in
MAT, EAT and SAT scores were used. In order to achieve standardization of students’
academic performance across different classes and different schools, the researcher used
the standard score (Z-SCORES) rather than actual academic performance of students.
3.16: Scoring the instrument
The researcher used manual means to score the instrument. The total scores for each
respondent were found. The instrument was used to group the students’ respondents into
permissive, authoritarian and authoritative patterns of parenting and the type of their
parents' involvement.
3.17. Procedure for Data Analysis
Data analysis refers to the systematic organization and synthesis of research data, and the
testing of research hypotheses (Burns and Grove, 2003). Data analysis gave meaning to
the data collected during the research. The data generated was subjected to descriptive
and inferential statistics. The inferential statistics used included two-way ANOVA
analysis to test each of the stated hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. Post hoc
comparisons were conducted to investigate pair wise differences among parenting style
and parental involvement group means. Multiple regression was used to investigate the
contribution of parenting style and parental involvement on the student academic
performance. In addition, chi-square test of independence was used to determine the
68
differences in parenting styles and parental involvement on the stated parents’
educational level or background and lastly independent t-test was conducted on the
parents’ demographical variables of marital status and sex.
The SPSS computer
programme was used to analyze the responses gathered.
3.18. Ethical Considerations
Having discussed the methodological aspects of the research, the researcher contemplated
on ethical issues. This became evident since parenting styles and parental involvement
describe parents moral, cultural, and social behaviours (Baumrind, 1991). Asking
students to reveal their parents behaviours therefore raises important ethical
considerations. The ethical issues the researcher considered were: maintaining the
anonymity of respondents, protection from harm, data security, benefits to students,
confidentiality, and consent form.
3.18.1. Maintaining the Anonymity of Respondents
The first important ethical consideration the researcher considered was ‘’maintaining the
anonymity of respondents’’. Providing anonymity of information collected from research
participants means that either the project does not collect identifying information of
individual subjects (e.g., name, address, Email address, etc.), or the project cannot link
individual responses with participants’ identities.
In this study, the respondents were given the opportunity to enter identifying name or
code on all the test instruments or the research surveys, though they were requested not to
use their real names. The purpose of this was to allow the researcher to identify the
69
respondents’ responses across all the tests and surveys. This was done to protect the
identity of research respondents. Thus the data should be presented in such a way that
respondents should be able to recognize themselves, while the reader should not be able
to identify them.
Personal anonymity may be central to gaining reliable information and that the issue of
anonymity was dealt with when one respondent asked whether they had to give their
names on the questionnaire.
3.18.2. Protection from Harm
Ensuring the well-being of the respondents is of paramount importance in any study. In
this study, two aspects of protecting respondents from harm were dealt with. The first
was related to ensuring the information the respondents have entrusted to the researcher
was dealt with in a sensitive way. All research practices pose potential risk or harm to
participants. It is therefore rational that reasonable steps should be taken into account to
protect students at all times from risks that are reasonably foreseeable including physical,
psychological, emotional and other forms of harm. Accordingly, the researcher followed
the following indicators to avoid practices which impose an undue risk of harm or
unsafely.

The data collection process is clearly relevant to the research purpose.

Research will not cause undue stress, anxiety or raise any personal or upsetting
issues.
70

Research
does
not
involve
any
personal,
sensitive
or
incriminating
questions/topics which could place participants at risk.

Statements and questions are not racist, sexist and not discriminatory of religious
beliefs.
3.18.3. Data Security
The researcher used the mechanism of de – identifying the data sets. The researcher
allowed the respondents to use their own codes. Thus when responding, it may be
assumed by the respondents that: (1) the researcher does not know their identity; and (2)
that people other than the researcher would not be able to gain access to the information.
3.18.4. Confidentiality
Maintaining confidentiality of information collected from research participants means
that only the researcher can identify the responses of individual subjects; however, the
researchers must make every effort to prevent anyone outside from connecting individual
subjects with their responses. The use of study codes is an effective method for protecting
the confidentiality of research participants.
3.18.5. Benefits to Respondents
Given the personal investment by the respondents in the study, the researcher considered
it good ethical practice to provide feedback regarding the findings of the study. This will
enable the students to know the potentials of parenting styles and parental involvement
on their academic performance.
71
3.18.6. Informed Consent
Ethical research requires that research participants, to the degree that they are capable, be
given the opportunity to consent to participating in the study. This is the ‘’informed
consent’’. The students and their parents were informed about the research before
becoming research participants. The parents were informed because the students were
less than 18 years old. The informed consent process included the following two main
components:
3.18.6.1 Information
This included information about the research procedure, purpose, methods, demands,
risks, inconveniences, discomforts, possible outcomes of the research and statements
offering the respondents the opportunity to ask questions concerning the study. The
researcher made sure that the potential research participant has comprehended the
information before giving informed consent, has provided information in a way that
allows time for consideration or questioning, has been presented the information in the
preferred language, and made sure that it did not require high-level literacy skills.
3.18.6.2. Voluntary Consent
The consent to participate in the study was made voluntary, without coercion, undue
influence, or pressure. A consent letter was given to the students to be given to their
parents to allow them to participate in the study (See Appendix E).
72
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION OF DATA AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
4.1. Introduction
The purpose of this study was twofold. The main purpose was to investigate the effects of
parenting styles and parental involvement on the students’ academic performances. The
second was to investigate whether there are differences in parenting styles and parental
involvement vis – a - vis the demographic variables of the students’ parents’ educational
background, marital status, and sex.
The data was discussed in terms of the study’s hypotheses. It was predicted that:
i. There will be statistically significance difference in students’ academic
performance and variation of their parents’ parenting styles
ii. There will be statistically significance difference in students’ academic
performance and variation of their parents’ school involvement
iii. There will be a statistically significant interaction effect between parenting styles
and school involvement on academic performance.
iv. There will be a significant
contribution of parenting styles and parental
involvement on the students academic performance
v. There will be statistically significant differences in parenting styles and selected
parents demographic variables of educational background, marital status, and
sex
The results of these predictions are presented in this section. This chapter is in two
sections: A and B. Section A describes the demographic variables of the students’ parents
73
in terms of educational background, marital status, and sex. The results were presented in
bar graphs.
In section B, inferential statistics (i.e. two-way ANOVA, multiple regression, and ChiSquare test of independent were used to test the predictions stated above.
SECTION A
4.2. Demography of the students’ parents
This section describes the educational background, marital status, and the sex of the
students’ parents.
4.2.1. Educational Background
As can be seen in figure 4.1 below, 10.1 %( 21 parents had no high school education.
Fifty (50) parents representing 24% completed high school. Again, 54 parents
representing 26% had completed some college, with 83 parents representing 39% were
graduates. These findings indicated that the majority of the parents of the students’
respondents were found to have completed university.
74
Figure 4.1 Educational background distributions of the respondents’ parents
Note: EBG = Educational Background
4.2.2. Sex
The sex distribution of the students parents in the study area indicated that 109 parents
representing 52.4% were males, whiles 99 parents representing 47.6% were found to be
females the figure 4.2 below illustrate this relationship.
75
Figure 4.2. Sex distributions of the students’ parents
4.2.3. Marital Status
Figure 4.3 below indicates the various marital statuses of the parents. 61 parents
representing 29.3% were found to be single, whiles 147 parents representing 70.7% were
intact. It is therefore clear that the majority of the students’ respondents’ parents were
intact.
76
Figure 4.3. Marital status distributions of the students’ parents
Note: MST = Marital Status.
SECTION B—INFERENTIAL STATISTICS
4.3. Testing of the Study Hypotheses
In order for the researcher to be sure that the data meet the requirement for using the
inferential statistics (i.e. parametric test), the researcher therefore checked whether the
data collected was normally distributed. There are several ways in which you can use
SPSS to assess the normality of a distribution (e.g. Q.-Q plot, scatterplot, linearity,
komogorov-smirnov test, skewness and kurtosis etc). The researcher assessed the
normality of the data using the z-score for skewness. Howell (2002) emphasized that
if the study sample size is small (n < 100 in a correlational study or n < 50 in each group
if comparing means) then calculate z-scores for skewness and reject as non-normal those
variables with either z-score greater than an absolute value of -+1.96. If your sample is
77
of medium size (100 < n < 300 for correlational studies or 50 < n < 150 in each group if
comparing means) then calculate z-scores for skewness and reject as non-normal those
variables with either z-score greater than an absolute value of -+3.29. Thus, any variable
having z-score for skewness greater than - +3.29 are considered abnormal. However,
since the sample size for the study is 208, the z-score skewness of -+3.29 was used. The
table 4.5 below indicates the descriptive of the three variables of parenting styles,
parental involvement and academic performance.
Table 4:1
Table indicating skewness and kurtosis values
PS
N
Valid
Missing
PI
ACP
208
208
208
0
0
0
Mean
2.2692
1.8750
63.7356
Median
2.0000
2.0000
65.0000
Mode
3.00
1.00
70.00
Std. Deviation
0.77060
0.83623
11.50519
Skewness
-0.505
0.239
-0.164
Std Error of Skewness
0.169
0.169
0.169
Kurtosis
-1.148
-1.531
-0.539
Std. Error of Kurtosis
0.336
0.336
0.336
Note: PS = Parenting Style, PI = Parental Involvement, and ACP = Academic
Performance.
Getting z-scores for skewness(Zskew) is simply the skewness divided by standard error
skew.
78
Thus, Zskew
=
Skewness/Std.Error of Skewness
= -0.505/0.169
= -2.98. This is the z-score for skewness for the data parenting styles
Again, the skewness for the data parental involvement is:
Thus, z-score for skewness
= Skewness/Std.Error of Skewness
=0.239/0.169
=1.41
Finally, the z-score for skewness for the academic performance is:
Z skew = Skewness/Std.Error of Skewness
= -0.164/0.169
= -0.97
The z-score for skewness values above suggesting that the data meet the requirement of
the parametric test (i.e., normal distributed), therefore the study hypotheses could be
tested.
4.4. Statistical Analysis
A Two- Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of Academic Performance was conducted.
The table 4:4 below indicates the results of the full factorial analysis.
79
Table 4:2. Indicating the results of the full factorial analysis
Source
Corrected Model
SS
8581.189
df
MS
F
Sig.
8
1072.649
11.277
0.000
PS
3406.002
2
1703.001
17.903
0 .000
PI
3526.364
2
1763.182
18.536
0 .000
PS * PI
1169.748
4
292.437
3.074
O.017
Error
18929.191
199
95.122
Total
873473.000
208
Corrected Total
27510.380
207
a. R Squared = .312(Adjusted R Squared = .284)
Figure 4.4 graphically present the two-way ANOVA design between parenting styles and
parental involvement on academic performance.
Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance indicated that homogeneous populations for
parenting styles and parental involvement were assumed. The non-significant p-value is
indicative of the homogeneity variance assumption being met. The table below indicates
the Levene’s test of equality of error of variance.
Table 4:3. Indicating the Levene’s test of Equality of Error Variance in Academic
Performance
F
df1
df2
sig
1.590
8
199
0.279
80
From the table above, we can see that we have homogeneity of variance of the dependent
variable (academic performance) across groups. We know this as the significant value
greater than 0.05, which is the level we set for alpha.
The main result of the full factorial analysis gives us important information. First, the
table in this output (Table 4.2) gives us the values across the row headed Corrected
Model. The important columns across this row are ones labeled F. and Sig. So with F of
11.277 with its significant p- value of .000 against the row headed Corrected Model tells
us that, overall, there is a significant difference in the group mean academic performance.
4.4.1. Calculation of eta-squared from SPSS Output of two-way ANOVA
SPSS does not provide the recommended eta-squared (2) as a measure of effect size for
ANOVA effects (Howell, 2002). The eta-squared (2) can be calculated from the
ANOVA table. The Factorial ANOVA conducted has two IVs and one DV:
IV1 = Parenting Style (PS)
IV2 = Parental Involvement (PI)
DV = Academic Performance
2 = SSbetween / SStotal
SST = 3406.002 + 3526.364+ 1169.748 +18929.191
= 27,031.31
2 for parenting style
= 3406.002 /27.031.31 = 0.13
2 for parental involvement = 3526.364 / 27,031.31 = 0.13
81
2 for interaction
2 for error
= 1169.748 / 27,031.31 = 0.04
= 18929.191 /27031.31 =0.70
The sum of the 2 is 1.00. In this study, the IVs explain 26% of the variance in academic
performance. Therefore the strength of the relationship between parenting style and
students academic performance, as assessed by eta-squared, was not quite strong, with
parenting style accounting for 13% of the variance in student academic performance.
4.4.2. Hypothesis One
The first hypothesis for the study was that there will be statistically significance
differences in students’ academic performance and variation of their parents’
parenting styles
The row of information across the variable parenting styles (see table 4:2) tells us that
with an F of 17.903 with the probability value of 0.000 is highly significant. Thus, the
variable parenting style has significant effect F (2,208) = 17.903, p = 0.000). Therefore,
the prediction that there will be statistically significant difference in students’ academic
performance and variation of their parents’ parenting styles is supported. Table 4.4 below
illustrates the descriptive statistics of academic performance on parenting styles.
82
Table 4:4
Descriptive Statistics for Academic Performance (PS)
Parenting styles
Mean
Authoritarian
57.205
10.4
Permissive
63.207
10.1
Authoritative
Standard Deviation
68.249
10.0
Table 4.4 above shows significant differences in the means between the authoritarian
(M=57.205, SD=10.4), and permissive (M = 63.207, SD = 10.1) parenting styles,
authoritarian and authoritative (M = 68.249, SD=10.0) parenting styles, permissive and
authoritative in terms of students academic performance with the parenting styles.
Figure 4.4 below shows that when you ignore parental involvement the overall academic
performance due to the three parenting styles are not similar (the means of these groups
are not equal).This finding seems to indicate that students are likely to perform better
when they are from authoritative home.
83
Figure 4.4: Showing the main effect of parenting style.
Post hoc comparisons were conducted at the 0.05 alpha levels to investigate pair wise
difference among the parenting style group means. Post hoc comparisons were conducted
using the Tukey test, a test that
assumes equal variances among the three groups. The
result of the Post hoc analysis is presented in Table 4:5 below:
84
Table 4:5
Post Hoc Comparisons of Parenting Styles on Academic Performance
Group comparison Confidence lower - Different between
bound
mean
Confidence upperbound
1 -2
-11.15
-6.002*
-1.96
1–3
-15.85
- 11.044*
-7.14
2–3
-8.65
- 5.043*
-1.25
*indicates that the mean difference is significant at the 0.05 alpha level
Note 1=Authoritarian
2=Permissive
3= Authoritative
Figure 4:5 above graphically presents the academic performance means of the three
parenting styles. The result shows that students experiencing authoritative parenting had
the highest level of academic performance. In addition, students experiencing the
permissive type of parenting style showed the second highest means whiles students from
authoritarian homes had the lowest level of academic performance with the parenting
style relationship. These findings supported the prediction that parenting style related to
academic performance of the students.
85
4.4.3 Hypothesis Two
The second hypothesis for the study was that there will be statistically significant
differences in students’ academic performance in the variation of parents’ school
involvement
Similarly, the values across the parental involvement (see Table 4.2 ) also tells us that
parental involvement also had significant effect with an F of 18.536 with the probability
value of 0.000. This means that there is significant difference between at least two of the
parental involvement groups in terms of academic performance F (2,208) = 18.536; p =
0.000). Therefore, the prediction that there will be statistically significant differences in
students’ academic performance in the variation of parents’ school involvement was
supported.
Post hoc comparisons were conducted at the 0.05 alpha levels, to investigate pair wise
different as among the parental involvement group means. The strength of the
relationship between parenting style and academic performance, as assessed by eta
squared, was not strong, with parental involvement accounting for 13% of the variance in
academic performance. Table 4.6 below illustrates the descriptive statistics of parental
involvement on academic performance.
86
Table 4:6
Table indicating Descriptive Statistics for Academic Performance (PI)
Parental involvement
Mean
Decision making
59.411
10.15
Communication
59.640
10.20
Learning at home
69.609
11.03
Note
Standard Deviation
1= decision- making, 2 = communication, 3 = learning at home.
Table 4.6 above indicates that there are significant difference in the means between the
decision-making (M= 59.411, SD=10.15), and communication (M = 59.640, SD = 10.20)
parents school involvement, decision – making and learning at home (M =69.609,
SD=11.03) parental involvement, communication and learning at home is terms students
academic performance with the parent school involvement.
On the other hand figure 4.5 below shows that when you ignore parenting styles, the
overall academic performance is very similar for decision making and communication
(the means of these groups are approximately equal). The significant effect is shown
between learning at home and communication and between learning at home and decision
– making. This finding indicates that students are likely to perform better when their
parents encourage them to learn at home.
87
Figure 4.5: Showing the main effect of parental Involvement.
Post hoc comparison was conducted using the Tukey test, a test that assumes equal
variance among the three groups. The result of the post hoc analysis is presented in Table
4.7 below:
88
Table 4.7. Post Hoc Comparisons of Parental Involvement on Academic
Performance
Group comparison
Confident lower
Different between
Confident
upper
bound
mean
bound
1 -2
-4.54
0.23
3.32
1 -3
-13.87
-9.97*
-5.96
2–3
-13.59
-10.198*
-5.02
*indicates that the mean difference is significant at the 0.05 alpha level
Note
1= decision- making, 2 = communication, 3 = learning at home.
Figure 4:5 above graphically presents the academic performance means of the three
parental involvements. The result shows that students experiencing learning at home had
the highest level of academic performance followed by students experiencing
communication, whiles students whose parents use decision – making the way of
involving in their school had the lowest level of academic performance with the parental
involvement relationship. These findings supported the prediction that parental
involvement related to academic performance with the parental involvement relationship.
4.4.4 Hypothesis Three
The third hypothesis for the study is that there will be an interaction effect of
parenting styles and parental involvement on academic performance
The information across the row labeled PS * PI (parenting style by parental
involvement) also tells us that there is significant interaction (i.e. an effect that is
produced by a combination of two or more variables). In this case, it is the effect of the
interaction parenting style and parental involvement on academic performance (F= 3.074;
89
df = 206; p=0.017). This implies that the contribution of parenting styles to students’
academic performance depended on the levels of parents’ school involvement. Therefore,
the interaction tells us that the main effect of parenting style (i.e. authoritative) depended
on the type of parents’ school involvement. Figure 4.6 below clearly indicates the
interaction effect.
Figure 4:6 Showing the Main Effects and interaction Effects of Parenting Styles and
Parental Involvement on Academic Performance
Note: Academicperf = Academic Performance
The footnote under the table also informs us that the researcher’s model explained
0.312(31%). The Adjusted R Squared is 0.284 of the variance in the academic
performance. Figure 4.6 above graphically present the interaction effect of parenting
90
styles and parental involvement on academic performance. When the means are graphed,
the interaction is visible. According to Howell (2002), the interaction effect is recognized
when the lines cross or flare like a trumpet.
Figure 4.6 indicates that decision making and communication interact on parenting style
levels of authoritarian and permissiveness. As the point of the interaction indicates, the
characteristics of permissiveness dominate.
4.4.5. Hypothesis four
The fourth hypothesis for the study is that there will be a significant effect of
parenting styles and parental involvement on academic performance of students.
Regression analyses were performed to assess the effects of parenting styles and parental
involvement of academic performance of S.H.S students in the study area using SPSS
version 16.0. The results of the regression were represented in the Table 4:8 below:
Table 4:8
Forced entry regression of Academic Performance on Parenting Style and Parental
Involvement. (208)
Variable
b
Beta
R
R2
t
Sig(p)
Step 1
Constant
44.470
Parenting Style
5.045
Parental Involvement 4.341
17. 838
0.348
0.339
0.49
91
0.24
0.000
5. 696
0.000
5.815
0.000
Table 4.8 displays unstandardized (b) and standardized (beta) regression coefficients, the
multiple regression coefficients, adjusted R2, t and its associated p – value for each
variable that entered into the equation. As shown in Table 4.8 above, parenting styles and
parental involvement collectively explained 24 %( adjusted R2 = 0.24) of the variance in
academic performance. Based on the order of entry chosen for the present sample, it
indicates that parenting styles explained most of the variance in the academic
performance of the students (Beta=0.348, t=5.696, p<0.000) and portrayed as best
contributor of academic performance. Also as Table 4:8 indicates, the contribution of
parental involvement to the variance in academic performance was also significant
(Beta=0.339, t=5.815, p<0.000). It is also a good predictor but not as the parenting styles.
This interpretation is in order as there appeared to be a non-variation of the assumption of
multicolinearity (a term used when there is difficulty in explaining which construct is
actually making the impact) since we can differentiate the impact in the relationship
between parenting styles and parental involvement. In summary, it could be noted that
parenting styles emerged as the best contributor due to the extent it impacts students’
academic performance.
In general, the model predicts the students’ academic performance in the equation that
emerges from the model. The equation of a multiple regression is:
Y = a +b1X1 + b2X2, Where:
Y is the value of the dependent variable, what is being predicted or explained.
92
a is the constant, b1 is the slope(Beta coefficient) for X1, X1 is the first independent
variable. In this study, it is parenting styles explaining the variance in academic
performance. As shown in the Table 4:9, the B values have the regression constant of
44.47 which is `a` and our b1 and b2 were partial regression coefficient of parenting
styles (5.05), and parental involvement(4.34)b2 is the slope(Beta Coefficient) for
X2(parental involvement), X2 is the second independent variable that is explaining the
variance
in
Y(academic
performance).
From
these,
academic
performance=44.47+5.05X1+4.34X2. Therefore, a student who is experiencing
authoritative type (3), and communication (2) would expect to have academic
performance of: Academic performance=44.47+5.05(3) +4.34(2)
= 44.47+15.15+8.68
= 68.3
The outcome given indicates that our model is a good predictor of students’ academic
performance.
4.4.6 Hypothesis five
The fifth hypothesis for the study is that there will be statistically significant
differences in parenting styles and selected parents’ demographic variables of
educational background, marital status, and sex.
4.4.6.1. Hypothesis 5(a)—Differences in Parenting Styles by Marital Status.
Independent t - test was used to analyze the data with the parenting styles as one variable
(dependent variable) and the marital status as the second variable (independent variable).
The table below presents the results of the analysis.
93
Table 4:9
Independent sample t-test of Parenting Styles by Marital Status
Marital Status
M
SD
N
Single
1.98
0.79
61
Intact
2.73
0.74
147
t
-3.397
df
Sig.
206
0.001
As can be seen in the Table 4.9 above, the results of the analysis indicates that there was
statistically significant difference in the mean between the two groups (t = -3.397, df
=206, p = 0.001). Therefore, the study hypothesis that there will be statistically
significant differences in parenting styles and parents marital status was supported.
Closer examination of Table 4.110 below indicates that we tended to get larger number of
authoritative parents in intact family (78, 53.06%), followed by permissive (46, 31.29%),
and authoritarian (23, 15.64%). On the single home, permissive parenting style was the
highest (24, 39.34%), followed by authoritarian, (19, 31.15%), and the authoritative being
the last, (18, 29.51%).Thus, substantial differences is observed with regard to the
parenting styles. Thus, the percentage of parenting styles in intact families and single
homes tend to differ significantly.
94
Table 4.10
Showing Parenting Style Differences on Marital Status
Variables
Single
%
Intact
%
Total
%
Authoritative
18
29.51
78
53.06
96
46.15
Permissive
24
39.34
46
31.29
71
34.14
Authoritarian
19
31.15
23
15.64
41
19.71
Total
61
100
147
100
208
100.00
4.4.6.2. Hypothesis 5(b) -- Differences in Parenting Styles by Sex
The hypothesis 5(b) for the study was that, there will be a significant difference
between parenting styles and sex. Table 4.11 below presents the parenting styles
distribution on sex.
Table 4.11
Indicating Parenting Style Differences in Sex
Male
%
Female
%
Total
%
Authoritative
52
47.71
44
45.45
96
46.15
Permissive
39
35.78
31
31.31
71
34.14
Authoritarian
18
16.51
24
24.24
41
19.71
Total
109
100.00
99
100.00
208
100.00
The closer examination of Table 4.11 above reveals the percentage of authoritative in
males (52,47.71%), permissive(39,35.78%), and authoritarian(18,16.51%) is not
significantly
different
from
the
females,
permissive(31,30.31%), and authoritarian(24,24.24%).
95
authoritative
(44,45.45%),
Independence t –test was used to analyze the data with parenting styles as one
variable and sex as second variable. Table 4.12 below presents the results of the
analysis.
Table 4:12
Independent sample t-test of Parenting Styles by Sex
Sex
M
SD
N
t
df
Sig.
Male
2.21
0.74
109
1.023
206
0.154
Female
2.20
0.81
99
As can be seen from the Table 4.12 above, parenting styles employed in sex is
independent. This means that the proportion in both groups is close to the same size.
There was no significant effect (t = 1.023, df = 206, p=0.15), such that males and
females did not differ in their parenting styles.
4.4.6.3. Hypothesis 5(c) --
Differences in Parenting Styles by Educational
Background
The hypothesis of 5(c) is that, there will be a significant difference between parenting
styles and educational background. Table 4.13 below presents parenting style
distribution on educational background.
96
Table 4.13
Indicating Parenting Style Differences by Educational Background
No High
High School
School. % Completed
Authoritative 6
28.6
10
Permissive
19.0
24
Authoritarian 11 52.4
16
Total
50
4
21 100
% Some College % Graduate % Total %
20
27
48
50
53
63.9
96 46.15
21
38.9
21
25.3
71 34.14
32
6
11.1
9
10.8
41 19.71
100
54
100
83
100
208 100
A chi-square test of independent was used to analyze the data with parenting style as
one variable and educational background as the second variable. There was a
significant effect,X2 (6, N=208) =40.73, p=0.000.
Table 4.13 above presents that graduate parents employed in highest authoritative
type (53, 63.9%), followed by the parents who have completed some college (27,
50%), high school completed (10, 20%), and parents with no high school completed
being the last (6, 28.6%). The parents who have completed high school were highest
in employing permissive type (24, 48%), followed by some college and graduate (22,
40.7%) respectively, and the parents with no high school education (4, 19%) were the
least. With regard to the authoritarian type, parents with high school education were
the highest (16, 32%), followed by parents with no high school education (11,
52.4%), graduates parents (9, 10.8%), and parents who had completed some college
(6, 11.1%) were the least. The data are graphed in the figure 4.5 below:
97
Figure 4:7. Parenting Styles Differences on Respondents Parents Educational
Background
Chi-square post hoc test were conducted to determine which of the cell responsible for
the differences at alpha level of 0.05.The residual, or the differences between the
observed frequencies and the expected frequencies were found. These values were
converted to z-score and then compared to the critical value equivalent to the alpha for
the problem.
The SPSS output shows the standardized residuals (converted to a z-score) computed for
each cell. It does not produce the probability or significance. Since the hypothesis was a
two-tailed test, the significance level is 0.05, and the critical value for which the
standardized residual will be compared will be from -1.9 to +1.9(i.e., 1-.05 =
0.95/2=0.475). Checking 0.475 on the z-score gives the value 1.9 and it is found under
98
0.06 (see Appendix F). The researcher therefore added 0.06 and 1.9 to get 1.96(looking
for both left hand and a right hand tail = +1.96 to -1.96).
The results of the chi-square post hoc analysis are presented in the Table 4.14 below:
Table 4.14
Indicating Standardized Residuals of Parenting Style * Educational Background
Crosstabulation
Educational Background
Parenting Style
No High School High School
Some College
Completed
Completed
Graduate
Authoritative
-1.2
-2.7
0.4
2.4
Permissive
-1.2
1.7
0.7
-1.3
Authoritarian
3.3
1.9
-1.5
-1.9
Using the standardized residuals, we would find that cells highlighted were responsible
for the difference. Thus, authoritative style on high school completed (-2.7), authoritative
on graduate (2.4), authoritarian style on no high school (3.3), were responsible for the
difference. This is because these values are lower and higher than the critical z-value at
0.05 alpha level (-1.96 and +1.96).
Another characteristics of standardized residual was that the negative indicates that those
cells were under-represented in the actual sample (i.e., there were more subjects in this
category as expected), thus, authoritative on high school completed subjects were under99
represented. On the other hand, authoritative on graduate, authoritarian on no high school
completed and authoritarian on high school completed were over-represented in the
actual sample (i.e., there were few respondents in this category that the researcher
expected).
4.4.7 Hypothesis six.
The sixth hypothesis for the study is that there will be statistically significant
differences in parents’ school involvement and selected parents’ demographic
variables of educational background, marital status, and sex
4.4.7.1. Hypothesis 6(a)—Differences in Parental Involvement by Marital Status
To test this hypothesis, Independence t –test was used to analyze the data with parental
involvement (decision making, communication, and learning at home) as one variable
and marital status (intact, and single) as the second variable. Table 4.15 below presents
the results of the analysis.
Table 4.15
Independent sample t-test of Parental Involvement by Marital Status
Marital Status
M
SD
N
Single
1.77
0.87
147
Intact
1.96
0.78
t
1.700
df
Sig.
206
0.04
61
As can be seen in the Table 4.15 above, the results of the analysis indicates that there was
statistically significant difference in the mean between the two groups (t = -3.397, df
=206, p = 0.04). Therefore, the study hypothesis that there will be significant differences
in parenting styles and marital status was supported.
100
The result also indicates that intact homes tended to be high in employing all the levels of
parental involvement. A closer examination of the Table 4:16 below indicate the
percentage differences. It shows that on intact parents, decision making was the highest
(61, 41.50%), followed by learning at home (47, 31.97%), and lastly communication (39,
26.53%). With the single home, decision making also was the highest (26, 46.62%),
followed by communication (22, 30.07%), and lastly learning at home 13, 21.31%).
Table 4.16
Parental Involvement Differences by Marital Status
Single
%
Intact
Decision-Making
26
46.62
Communication
22
30.07
39
26.53
61
29.33
Learning at Home
13
21.31
47
31.97
60
29.33
Total
61
100.00
147
100.00
208
100.00
61
%
Total
%
41.50
87
41.34
4.4.7.2 Hypothesis 6(b)—Differences in Parental Involvement by Sex
To test this hypothesis, independence t-test was used to analyze the data with parental
involvement (decision making, communication, and learning at home) as one variable
and marital status (male and female) as the second variable. Table 4.17 below presents
the results of the analysis.
101
Table 4.17
Independent sample t-test of Parental Involvement by Sex
Sex
M
SD
N
Male
1.90
0.78
109
Female
1.79
0.85
99
t
-0.929
df
Sig.
206
0.354
As can be seen in the Table 4.17 above, the results of the analysis indicates that there was
no statistically significant difference in the mean between the two groups (t = -0.929, df
=206, p = 0.354). Therefore, the study hypothesis that there will be significant differences
between sex by parental involvement was not supported.
A closer examination of the Table 4:18 below indicate the percentage differences. It
shows that males and females on decision making had nearly the same parents, followed
by learning at home, the males were 39 representing 35.78%, whiles the females were 21
representing 21.21%. On communication, the females were second (i.e.34 representing
34.34%), whiles they were last on learning at home (21, 21.21%).
Table 4.18
Parental Involvement Differences on Sex
Male
%
Female
%
Total
%
Decision-Making
43
39.45
44
44.45
87
41.83
Communication
27
24.77
34
34.34
61
29.32
Learning at Home
39
35.78
21
21.21
60
28.85
Total
109
100
99
102
100
208
100
4.4.7.3 Hypothesis 6(c) --
Differences in Parental Involvement by Educational
Background
The hypothesis of 5(c) is that, there will be a significant difference between parental
involvements and the parents’ educational background. Table 4.19 below presents
parental involvement distribution on educational background.
Table 4.19
Parental Involvement Differences by Educational Background
No High
High School
School. % Completed
Decision making
Some
% College %
Graduate %
16
76.2
21
42
26
48.1
4
19.0
20
40
19
35.2
1
4.8
9
18
9
21
100
24
Total %
28.9
86
20.5
61
41.34
Communication
17
29.33
Learning at Home
16.7
42
83
100
50.6
61
29.33
Total
50
100
54
100
208 100
A chi-square test of independent was used to analyze the data with parental
involvement as one variable and the parents’ educational background as the second
variable. There was a significant effect,[X2 (6, N=208) =33.81, p=0.000].
Table 4.19 above presents that graduate parents employed highest in learning at home
only (42, 50.6%), whiles parents who have completed some college and high school
were the second (9, 16.7% and 9, 18%) respectively, and parents no high school
completed were the least (1, 4.8%). On
decision making, parents who have
completed some college were the highest (26, 48.1%), graduates parents were second
in decision making (24, 28.92%) and parents who have had high school education
103
reported third in decision making (21,42%). With regard to communication parents
who have had high school education were the highest (20, 40%), whiles parents who
have completed some college were the second (19, 35.2%), graduates parents were
the third (17, 20.5%). Parents who had no high school (4, 19%) were the last in all of
the levels of parental involvement. The data are graphed in the figure 4.6 below:
Figure 4:8: Parental Involvement Differences on Educational Background
Note: = PI = Parental Involvement
Chi-square post hoc test were conducted to determine which of the cells were responsible
for the differences at alpha level of 0.05. The residual or the differences between the
observed frequencies and the expected frequencies were found. These values were
converted to z-score and then compared to the critical value equivalent to the alpha for
the problem.
104
The SPSS output shows the standardized residuals (converted to a z-score) computed for
each cell. It does not produce the probability or significance. As stated earlier, the critical
value with the p-value of 0.05, and two=tailed hypothesis ranges from -1.96 to + 1.96.
The results of the chi-square post hoc analysis are presented in the Table 4.20 below:
Table 4.20
Indicating Standardized Residual of Parental Involvement * Educational
Background Crosstabulation
Educational Background
Parental Involvement
No High School
High School
Some College
Graduate
Completed
Completed
Decision Making
2.4
0.01
0.7
-1.8
Communication
-0.9
1.4
0.8
-1.3
Learning at Home
-2.1
-1.4
-1.7
3.5
Using the standardized residuals, we find that cells highlighted were responsible for the
difference. Thus, learning at home on no high school completed (-2.1) and on graduate
were responsible for the difference. This is because these values are lower and higher
than the critical z-value at 0.05 alpha level (i.e. -1.96 and +1.96).
Another characteristics of standardized residual was that the negative indicates that those
cells were under-represented in the actual sample (i.e., there were more subjects in this
105
category as expected), thus, learning at home on no high school completed subjects were
under- represented, whiles on learning at home on graduate was over-represented in the
actual sample (i.e., there were few respondents in this category that the researcher
expected).
106
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
5.1. Summary of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of parenting styles and parental
involvement on academic performance.
The study focused on cross-sectional design and descriptive survey using the quantitative
model. Two sets of instruments were used. The first was Parental Authority
Questionnaire (PAQ) developed by Buri (1991), which was to assess the various types of
the students’ parents parenting styles. The second instrument was the Parental
Involvement Questionnaire (PIQ) developed by the researcher to assess the parents’
school involvement, preferably, decision making, communication, and learning at home
and compared to average seven terms of the students’ academic performance.
Data were analyzed by the use of descriptive statistics, One – Way ANOVE, Two-Way
ANOVA, multiple regression, independent sample t-test and chi-square test of
independent. The alpha level was set at 0.05
The sample for the study was 208 from the third year class of the two main senior high
schools at the study area namely; Dwamena Akenten Senior High School and Namong
Senior High Technical School. Thirteen students were randomly selected from each third
year class of the mentioned schools.
107
The following section begins with a discussion of the findings, and continues with
theoretical, educational, and counselling implications. The chapter concludes with
recommendations and offer suggestions for future research.
5.2. Discussion of Findings
5.2.1. Hypothesis One – Parenting Styles and Academic Performance
A significant difference was found between the parenting style group means on the
dependent variable (academic performance), which supports the contention that parenting
style is related to students academic performance. The study revealed that students
experiencing the authoritative parenting style reported the highest levels of academic
performance, and students who had experienced permissive style of parenting reported
second highest level of academic performance. The study further indicated that students
who had experienced authoritarian style of parenting reported the lowest level of
academic performance.
These findings are interesting for two reasons. First, both the authoritative and permissive
parenting styles are high on the dimension of responsiveness (see page 6). According to
Baumrind (1991) responsiveness includes both cognitive and emotional components. The
cognitive component refers to encouraging the child to express his or her thoughts and
opinions, and frequently takes place in the context of rule making and enforcement of
discipline. The emotional component, affective warmth, does not imply only
unconditional acceptance, but is instead characterized by expressions of both warmth and
anger. Unconditional acceptance, `` noncontingent positive reinforcement``, and
108
``noncontingent rejection`` are all forms of responsiveness, but are not beneficial because
they lead the child to believe that his or her behavior has no effect on others. In other
words, if a child’s actions are continuously approved, or disapproved, he or she forms the
opinion that no matter what he or she does, the response from the parent will be the same.
The child then generalizes this supposition to the larger society. With a lack of
understanding of behavioral causality, Baumrind (1991) suggests that the child’s
motivation will be damaged and he or she will be unlikely to try harder when confronted
with a problem concerning achievement of a goal. Conditional acceptance, then allows
the child to learn coping skills. For example, when the child’s actions elicit disapproval
from the parent, the child then either learns ways to accept the disapproval without
suffering damage to his or her sense of self-worth (Baumrind, 1991).
Parents who exhibited responsiveness as behaviors were found by Romberg (1993) to be
desirable among students. To Romberg (1993) students described favored parent
behaviors such as being available, dependable, approachable, listening, and being
responsive. These behaviors are intuitively components of a propensity for warmth and
sensitivity and certainly indicate a willingness to participate in the parenting relationship.
Secondly, the sample size of 208 was used to examine the differences between the three
parenting styles. The data revealed that parenting styles accounted for over 45% of the
variation in the students’ academic performance with the parenting relationship.
Heinrich’s (1991) observed that students frequently find parenting relationship to be a
disappointment and attributed these disappointment to the parents behavior. Baumrind
(1991) emphasized that if parental involvement and commitment are manifested only by
109
demands (e.g. authoritarian parents) and attempts to shape the child’s behavior, the child
will seek to escape rather to engage the caretaker. Therefore, conditional acceptance
should be balanced by expressions of conditional affection. The findings in this study
support this even further, indicating that parenting styles of parent is an important
contributor to the students’ academic success or failures.
5.2.2. Hypothesis Two- Parental Involvement and Academic Performance
The hypothesis two states that there will be statistically significance difference in
students’ academic performance and variation of their parents’ school involvement. In
other words, there will be main effect - a difference in the group means for the constructs
of the parental involvement.
The analysis indicated that parental involvement had a statistically significant impact on
the students’ academic performance. Parents’ school involvement was measured using
three variables of decision making, communication, and learning at home, all are related
to academic performance.
The data revealed that students whose parents are involved in their learning at home
reported the highest level of academic performance. This support the previous research
that has examined parental involvement that youth who experienced learning at home had
the highest grades in schools (Epstein, 2001, Goldstein, 1984). Students of parents who
employ communication as a way of school involvement reported the second highest level
of academic performance, while the students who had experienced decision-making
reported the lowest level of academic performance. The group differences were evident,
110
however, when the mean of learning at home group was compared with the means of
communication and decision-making.
One needs to understand socioeconomic and educational factors of the students’ home in
order to understand parent-school relationships (Epstein, 2001). A situation when the
parents have the lowest home ownership rate, receive less preventive care, and have
higher rates of illness, those parents school involvement will be rare in all components. It
is within these situations that students are expected to learn and have high expectations.
In addition, it is within these contexts that parents are supposed to be involved their
children’s education.
In reality, poor socioeconomic conditions result in disorganized homes, erratic parental
supervision and limited involvement in schools. Just as homes with families who work
hard try to improve themselves and their children academic achievements. Although
material resources might be scarce and social conditioning might be poor, some parents
have strong value for education. Apart from the parent value for education, Georgiou
(1997) suggests that other behaviors that are not directly related to school should be
incorporated in the construct of parental involvement. Among them are; limit TV
watching time, following specific set rules to discipline the child, limiting the amount of
time for going out with friends and so on. Although not identical with parental
involvement, Steinberg et al (1992) associated more general parenting behaviors (i.e.
authoritative parenting) with highly involved parent.
There was no significant difference of the students’ respondents who had experienced
communication (i.e. 60 respondents) and students’ who also experienced learning at
111
home (i.e. 61), but the students who reported experiencing decision-making were 87.
Students whose parents’ school involvement is learning activities with the students at
home enable the students to tend to develop a sense of purpose and cooperativeness
(Muller, 1995). He further emphasized that such parents were more proactive, preventing
problems before they occur.
Additionally, while the researcher can conclude that students’ academic work improves
when they conduct interactive homework with parents or family members, he cannot
conclude that other constructs- communication and decision making have negative effects
since there are other factors such as family relations, personality, cultural and language
that influence academic behavior in the schools (Epstein, 1991)
5.2.3. Hypothesis Three- The Interaction Effect between Parenting Style and
Parental Involvement.
A two – way between- subject ANOVA was conducted with academic performance as
dependent variable and parenting styles (authoritative, permissive, and authoritative) and
parental involvement (decision making, communication, and learning at home) as
independent variables. The analyses revealed a significant interaction effect which
indicates that the mean of sample of parenting style depended on the parental
involvement. A statistically significant interaction implies that the main effects of
parenting style and parental involvement are not directly interpretable.
This finding supported the earlier research that for authoritative parents who are not
involved with the school, the outcomes for the students are not clearly positive. On the
112
other hand, students whose parents are highly involved with the school but not
authoritative show less optimal outcomes. It is the combination of an authoritativeness
and school involvement that is associated with the best academic performance (Steinberg
et al, 1994). Figure 4.6 explains the following:
Irrespective of parenting styles, learning at home has more influence on the students’
academic performance than communication and decision-making. In other words,
parenting styles do not have much influence on students’ academic performance with
regard to learning at home. As figure 4.6 shows, the academic performance of students
experiencing learning at home were quite stable across the three parenting styles (nearlyhorizontal line).
Under the authoritarian type of parenting, decision-making has more influence of
students’ academic performance than communication. The probable explanation might be
that when parents who are autocrats allowed negotiations with their children, take part in
school leadership (e.g. PTA chairperson). This may encourage the child to be conscious
of themselves to study hard. The low influence of communication on academic
performance did not come as surprise. This may be explained to be that, looking at the
nature of authoritarian parents (i.e., rigid, strict, dictatorial, totalitarian etc), and the
explanation of communication – home – to – school, and school – to – home on the child
progress did not auger well for the students studies.
Under the permissive parenting style, the decision-making and communication interacted
to influence students’ academic performance. Baumrind (1991) explained permissive
parents as lenient, liberal, lax and hands-off. With these qualities, it was not surprise that
113
communication and decision-making interacted to influence the students’ academic
performance as Baumrind (1991) referred permissive parents as non- directive parents.
However, under the authoritative parenting style, the result revealed that communication
influenced students’ academic performance than decision-making. This finding is
consistent with the study of Epstein (2001) that found that the authoritative parents
attitude of give – and – take with their children encourage the children to be high in self
awareness of social responsibility through open discussions which assist them in their
academic endeavour. In addition previous research supports this trend that authoritative
parenting due to its investment in parental monitoring while simultaneously engaging in
emotional support of the child has the most beneficial effect for youth (Baumrind,1991,
Epstein,2001, Steinberg et al, 1994).
In summary, the results of this study support the decision to adapt the parent- child
interaction model on the Baumrind (1966, 1991) patterns of the parent – student
relationship. From the results, it is evident that parenting style measured along the
dimensions of; authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive is a practical method of
evaluating the effectiveness of the parenting relationship on student academic
performance.
5.2.4. Hypothesis four—Effect of Parenting Style and Parental Involvement on
Academic Performance.
Hypothesis four states that there will be a significant effect of parenting style and parental
involvement on the academic performance of students. Multiple regression procedure
114
was performed with academic performance as the dependent variable with both parenting
style and parental involvement entered simultaneously as independent variables.
According to Howell (2002), a large value of the standardized Beta indicates that a unit
change in this predictor variable has a large effect on the criterion variable. The t and
significant value (p) give a rough indication of the impact of each predictor variable – a
big absolute t-value and small p-value suggest that a predictor variable is having a large
impact on the dependent variable. The result of the regression analysis examining the
effect of parenting styles and parental involvement on academic performance suggest that
parenting style contribute more (Beta= 0.348,t=5.70, p,0.001) – the direct effect of the
parenting style on academic performance removing the effect of parental involvement
than the parental involvement. On the other hand, the effect of parental involvement on
academic performance holding parenting styles constant was (i.e. Beta=0.339, t=5.815,
p=0<0.001).
The results of regression analysis examining the significant effect of parenting style and
parental involvement on the students academic performance was found that parental
involvement is a good mediator. This finding indicates that parenting style relate with
parental involvement to produce best academic performance. This relationship was in the
direction expected by the researcher and implicated by previous studies. This finding is
particularly important because combining both factors contributes higher academic
performance. This may imply that researchers will stand to greater ability to predict
students’ academic performance and perhaps better understand how to prevent poor
academic performance of students.
115
The results also revealed that parental involvement appear to mediate the association
between parenting style and academic performance of students. A logical explanation for
this finding is that if parents are utilizing their parenting style, they appear most likely
involving in their children schooling and these combination yielded better academic
performance of students. This research matches Lamborn et al (1991) that the
combination of parenting style and parental involvement offer a clear prediction of
academic performance of students.
As mentioned earlier, parenting style such as authoritative is high in responsiveness, and
make the children from that home are characterized by self-confident, ability to master
tasks, well developed emotion regulation, lively and happy disposition etc. Lamborn et al
(1991) emphasized that these behaviours are also characteristics of students whose
parents involved in their school.
5.2.5. Hypothesis five - Differences in Parenting Style by Students Parents
Demographic Variables (Marital Status, Sex, and Educational Background)
5.2.5.1 Hypothesis five (a)—Differences in Parenting Styles by Marital Status
In general, the present study revealed that the parenting style employed in a family is
dependent, at least in part, on whether the family is intact or not. More specifically, more
parents from intact homes than from single homes are authoritative. This result is in line
with general expectation. That is, all other things being equal, parents in intact families
tend to be more supportive, more loving, and more controlling and demanding than
parents in single homes. It is also consistent with results of other studies (e.g., Dornbusch
116
et.al. 1987). Particularly the result, which indicated that five times as many parents in
single homes as those in intact homes are authoritative, is of importance here. Actually,
this finding is consistent with findings from other studies (e.g., Dornbusch et.al, (1987).
Dornbusch and his associates (1987) noted, among others, that both step-parent and
single-parent families showed a higher level of permissive parenting than did two natural
parents. This reflected in the study that permissiveness was the highest among the single
parents.
One possible explanation for this finding may exist in the culture in the study area. For
instance, when a child loses his/her father or mother because of divorce or particularly
because of death, the remaining parent considers the child as lonely and helpless. Thus,
the parent believes that controlling the child and demanding from him/her, is tantamount
to further victimizing, the child hence, parents in such conditions are more likely to be
warm and accepting and less likely to be controlling and demanding. In other words,
more parents in single homes than those in intact homes tend to be permissive.
Overall, from the study, one can see that relatively more parents from intact homes than
those from single homes tend to be authoritative followed by permissive and authoritarian
being the least. Nevertheless, nearly equal number of parents from both intact and broken
homes is authoritarian. We can, therefore, observe the relative advantages of intact homes
over single homes.
5.2.5.2 Hypothesis five (b) - Differences in Parenting Style by Sex
There is continuous debate regarding the role sex play in relation to parenting. Results
from this study stood neutral and thus the issue of sex continuous to be of interest.
117
Findings of the study indicated that parenting styles did not differ as a function of the sex
of parents. The data revealed, for example, that 46.79% of the students have male
authoritative parents. In contrast, only 45.45% of the students also reported that their
parents were female authoritative. This simply means that more male parents are warm,
loving, controlling, and demanding toward their students.
On the other hand, the results indicated that females are more authoritarian as compared
to the males. This also means that female parents in the study area are less acceptant,
more demanding, and more hostile toward their children. This finding is consistent with
findings of other studies. Maccoby and Martin (l983), for example, indicated that male
parents are more accepting and nonpunutive, making few demands on their children than
females. In addition, Maccoby and Martin (1983) suggested that male parents are more
warm and concerned about their children well-being.
5.2.5.3. Hypothesis five(c) – Differences in Parenting Style by Educational
Backgrounds
One of the purposes of the study was to examine parenting styles differences among the
students parents educational background. The result indicated that each parenting style is
exercised in each of the parents’ educational background. These suggest that the
parenting style employed by a parent depended on the parent’s educational background.
This finding is consistent with the result of other studies of Reigness and Gander (1974).
Another point of importance in the study was related to identifying the predominant
parenting style practiced among the parents of the four educational backgrounds in
question. The study revealed that authoritative parenting is the most dominantly practiced
style among the parents who had completed some college, and those who were graduates.
118
One possible explanation for the predominance of the authoritative style of parenting
among the parents completed some college, and the graduates could be due the parental
education they had. Another possible and more appealing explanation could be the sociocultural change in their lives. The socio-cultural changes have strong impact on the
traditional model of child-rearing (Baumrind, 1971).
The increasing awareness of parents about the influence of child rearing methods on
children's all aspects of development could also be taken as an important explanation.
Here, the role of the mass media is paramount. The information regarding child rearing
methods and associated outcomes transmitted through mass media may have helped
parents question their ways of upbringing and may have assisted them understand the
negative consequences of traditional values, beliefs, and practices in child rearing on all
round development of children. This, in turn, may have provided a context in which
authoritative parenting become more prevalent.
5.2.6 Hypothesis six - Differences in Parental Involvement by Students Parents
Demographic Variables (Marital Status, Sex, and Educational Background)
5.2.6.1. Hypothesis six (a)—Differences in Parental Involvement by Marital Status
Marital status was measured using single and intact homes and all found related to the
type of parents school involvement. There was a significant difference in the marital
status groups. The group differences were evident when compared with the percentages
of the group. It was found that intact parents were involved in learning at home more than
those from single homes and students from these intact homes perform better as
compared to other types. Regardless, parents from intact homes, they were the highest in
119
all the three levels of the parental involvement when compared to that of the parents from
single homes.
These findings complement that of Christenson &Sheridan (2001) research. They
emphasized that families are essential, not just desirable to educational success of their
students. They further identified that intact families support their children to learn at
home strongly than the single homes because the former, focuses on relationship, creates
a vehicle to look at the bigger picture about student learning, share information and
resources, and establish meaningful roles for their children than single parents. As a
result, students from intact homes have beneficial effect than those from single homes in
terms of both academic performance and disciplinary incidents
This finding could be explained that culture and family characteristics influence the
degree of parental involvement, and adequately impact on students’ academic
performance. Lower income families and single homes are less supportive of their
children in their learning at home because of financial problems (Baumrind.1971). Finn
(1988) supported that parents’ involvement at home influences students’ academic
performance strongly. He identified three types of parents involvement at home that are
consistently related to students academic performance as; organizing and monitoring
children’s time especially relating to television viewing, helping with homework, and
discussing school-related issues with children.
120
5.2.6.2. Hypothesis six (b)—Differences in Parental Involvement by Sex.
In the area of sex, no significant difference was found. This could be observed when the
group percentages are compared. The finding shows that the type of parents school
involvement did not depend on sex. The finding supports that of Amato and Gilbreth
(1999) research that females and males employed parental involvement equally. This
could be explained that since education is the key to development, males and females are
more equally serious in their students schooling for better results.
Epstein (2001) redefined homework to mean not only work done, but also interactive
activities shared with children at home, linking schoolwork to real life. This, she
emphasized that females are consistent in training with their children. This situation of
helping children at home, mean listening,reacting,praising,guiding, monitoring, and
discussing—not ``teaching`` school subjects. She further stressed that, this style enable
the students to develop positive attitude toward schoolwork or learning, gain in skills,
abilities, and test scores linked to homework and class work, and finally complete
homework.
5.2.6.3 Hypothesis six (c)—Differences in Parental Involvement by Educational
Background.
Educational background of the students parents were measured on; no high school
completed, high school completed some college completed, and graduate and all were
found related to type of parental involvement the students are experiencing. There were
significant differences in the educational background groups. These differences were
121
evident when the percentages of the educational background group were compared.
These suggest that the parental involvement employed by a parent depended on the
parent’s educational background.
The findings seem to suggest that some parents are more proactive on their school
involvements and work to avoid a decrease in their students’ academic performance
scores. However, the differences in parental ability (e.g. parents’ education level) and
available resources, such as time (Muller, 1995) to help children, may temper with this
approach. This would account for the differences in the parental involvement among the
educational background group when the parents’ education is considered.
McNeal (1991) indicates that because school-home communication and levels of parents’
involvement vary on income and educational level, some group of parents may feel more
comfortable communicating or getting involved than others. Parents helping their
students with homework or checking homework all depend on the parents understanding
of education. Wang and Wildman (1994) emphasized that parents checking and helping
their children homework will yield negative results if the parents had no or little insight
in what they are helping the children with. All these might be the reasons for the
differences.
122
5.3. Summary of Findings
1. Students from authoritative home performed better than their counterparts from
other homes (i.e. permissive and authoritarian homes)
2. The students whose parents employ learning at home as a way of involving
themselves in the child schooling performed better than those parents who use
communication and decision making as the way of involving in the child
schooling.
3. Irrespective of parenting styles learning at home influence the students’ academic
performance.
4. Communication and decision making interacted to influence students’ academic
performance
5. Parenting styles was found to be a better predictor of students’ academic
performance than parental involvement. Moreover, children of parents who use
both parenting styles and parental involvement tend to perform better than those
parents who use either parenting styles or parental involvement.
6. It was found that parents of single home use more permissive style of parenting
while those from intact home use authoritative style of parenting.
7. There was no gender difference with regard to parenting styles and parental
involvement.
8. Graduate parents use more authoritative parenting than other parents of different
educational status.
123
9. Graduate parents encourage their children to learn at home while parents with no
high school education do not.
5.4. Conclusion
This study attempted to offer a model of parenting style and parental involvement that
will be useful for systematic evaluation of academic performance of students. A two-way
ANOVA analysis was used to test the conceptual model of parenting style and parental
involvement of the students’ academic performance in order to explain the academic
performance of the students. The results suggested that there was a significant difference
in the group mean of academic performance.
On examining the significant effects of parenting style and parental involvement on
academic performance, the results suggested that the model explained 24 % (R2= 0.24) of
the variance in academic performance. Therefore, the variables in combination explained
a larger effect on the students’ academic performance. In addition, marital status and
parents’ educational backgrounds were also important when examining the students’
academic performance
5.5. Implications and Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, the following implications and recommendations
could be made:
5.5.1. Theoretical Implications
The parenting style model presented in this study provides a basis for other researchers
interested in investigating the effectiveness of different parenting styles. This study
124
indicates that the authoritative parenting provides for the highest academic performance
of students. As Baumrind (1991) discussed in her parenting patterns, the authoritative
style of parenting promoted optimal development in adolescents.
Authoritative style is based on high demandingness and high responsiveness, and
according to Baumrind, demandingness is important to the development of competence.
Competence is developed in the adolescent, over time, internalizes such demands.
Though the use of monitoring and direct confrontation, are forms of demandingness, the
adolescent internalizes autonomy, self- reliance, and self- assertiveness.
Demandingness alone, however, is not enough to enable the adolescent to develop
competence. Responsiveness is also important in developing competence in adolescents.
Emotional responsiveness enables the adolescent to understand that his or her behaviors
have effects on others. As the adolescent internalizes this knowledge, he or she learns
coping skills which enhances his or her emotional maturity. Cognitive responsiveness
encourages the adolescent to express his or her views and ideas. Once this behavior is
internalized by the adolescent, he or she becomes self- confident and purposeful. In sum,
the adolescent reared under the authoritative parenting style typically develops selfconfidence, self- respect, psychological health, purposefulness, and self- reliance.
In this study, the students are found to respond similarly under the authoritative parenting
style. Cangemi (1984) found that the purpose of education was to help students become
fully- functioning independent, trusting self-confident, self respectful, and knowledgeable
in a particular academic discipline.
125
Although permissively advised students were satisfied, they were no better off in their
academic success than the students advised under authoritarian style. The reason for the
difference between these two styles and the authoritative style lies in the low
demandingness on the part of the permissive parents, and low responsiveness on the part
of authoritarian parents when students parents do not place high enough demands on their
students, as in the permissive style of parenting, the students are at greater risk of failing
to develop competence in their learning than students whose parents are more
demanding. Similarly, when students’ parents are not responsive to their students’ needs,
as in the authoritarian style of parenting, the students are also at risk of failing to develop
academic competence. In sum, demandingness or responsiveness alone is not sufficient
for the optimal development of students.
The development of academic competence is what will make the students complete their
academic programs successfully. When students are self- confident and self reliant, they
are more likely to be self-regulated learners. According to social learning theory, selfregulated learners monitor their own progress through three sub-processes: selfobservation, self-judgment, and self-reaction (Schunk, 2000). When students monitor
their own performance and evaluate that performance, it becomes evident that they are
becoming more competent and therefore closer to their goal. The internalization of the
psychological attributes that authoritative parenting enhances – self-confidence, selfrespect autonomy – set the stage for academic competence to be internalized and
therefore self-perpetuating, which leads to academic success.
126
5.5.2 Educational Implications
It is clear that parenting relationship is important to students, as well as important in
influencing their educational experience. During the administration of the instrument, a
student who was part of the sample described her father as very demanding, facilitates his
progress and makes him as marketable as possible.
Another student talked about his parenting relationship with less enthusiasm. He pointed
out that his father does not really provide him any guidance. He further emphasized that
when he goes to him for advice and help, the father mostly response that he is a big boy
to handle it, which to him was totally inappropriate.
These two students support the contention that parenting style is important to students.
From the study, it was clear that differing levels of parenting styles are related to the
students’ academic performance. This discovery can be important in other areas of
education as well, not just parent- student relationships. For example, the communication
style used by a teacher with his or her teaching in turn could be evaluated along the
dimensions of demandingness and responsiveness. Regardless of what type of parenting
and parents’ school involvement under investigation, the practice of the proper
combination of demandingness and responsiveness on the part of the parent would help
alleviate many of the problems students encounter in their schooling.
The students in this study performed academically better under authoritative parenting
style and the learning at home, which mixes high levels of responsiveness with low levels
of demandingness. High demandingness is an important aspect of parenting when
127
properly utilized by the parent. As one student comments, `` My father expects me to
work hard. His expectations are sometimes too high for me. However, he supports me
and wants me to succeed in my field``. However, high demandingness on the part of
parents can be harmful to the students and can cause excessive stress if the parent does
not participate in the decision-making of the student. Demandingness without proper
support on the parent’s part appears to be perceived by the student as either
insurmountable obstacle.
On the other hand, low demandingness (e.g. permissive parenting) can just as harmful to
students’ development. Progress toward completion of work, and the degree itself,
appears to be dependent in part on the parent’s ability to communicate his or her
expectation in such a way to motivate the student, rather than simply exert control over
the student’s decision. Again, high parent responsiveness (e.g. authoritative and
permissive parenting) is also important to students’ academic performance or experience.
Supportive such as being attentive and interested in the students progress appear to be
imperative. Without such responsiveness, students appear to feel overwhelmed by the
educational process. Again, students are evidently dependent on their parents for being
responsive to their needs in areas such as choosing their career, and also being available
to discuss personal concerns related to their academic success.
5.5.3 Counselling Implications
The findings of this study have far researching implication not just for parents but also
for counselors’. First, there is the need to forge home-school relationship for not only
enhancing the academic performance or well-being of the students but their overall well128
being as well. The responsibility of educating the child should not be left to the school
alone. According to Howell (2002), children spend 87% of their waking life with parents
and the remaining 13% in the school. This study has confirmed the strong impact the
parenting style and parents’ school involvement has on students’ academic performance.
There is therefore the need for counsellors to put in place appropriate programmes that
will facilitate the improvement of parents’ school involvement and their parenting skills
in the education of their children.
School plays a significant role in the lives of children therefore counsellors who work
with students’ populations has the opportunity to learn how the unique role of parents’
relationship with their children affects their children’s learning. More importantly, they
should inform the teachers about the students who fall victim on the lack of the studentparent relationship in order for the teachers to handle them accordingly. Counsellors are
therefore in a position to influence the school environment in which they work as well as
the environment created by children and their parental relations. For a child to be
academically effective, the need to foster the home-school relationship is indeed highly
encouraged. As parenting and parental involvement require training, school counselors
can organize seminars, educational forums and or workshops where parents are exposed
to parenting and parental involvement skills and practices.
5.6. Limitations of the Study
The present study has a number of limitations related to the methodology. First,
information regarding the type of parenting style and parental involvement was gathered
via self-report. In any self-report measure, the researcher runs the risk of receiving
129
inaccurate data due to a lack of honesty on the part of the respondents. This implies that
the type of information collected can lead to the problems that, the respondents may
report what they believe is the most desirable information.
Another limitation is that the study focused entirely on students perceptions on their
relationships with their parents. Although students’ perceptions are an important aspect of
parent relationships, they may not provide a completely accurate picture of the parenting
and the type of their parents’ school involvement the students are experiencing.
Finally, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution. Since the study is
correlational, it is not possible to postulate that students’ academic performance is caused
by a particular parenting style or parental involvement. It is equally possible that some
other variable such as students’ personality, elicits particular parenting style and parental
involvement from parents.
5.7. Suggestions for Future Research
The result of this study open up several future research opportunities. First, in this study,
only the perspectives of the students were considered. In order to provide a more
complete picture of the relationship between the two independent variables- parenting
styles and parental involvement and students academic performance, future research
should take into account the parents perspectives of their own parenting style and the type
of their school involvement- rather than relying solely on the impressions of their
children.
130
A second suggestion for future research centers on the consistency of the parenting style
a parent adopts. In future studies, it would be helpful to collect information from several
students who have the same parent to evaluate whether the parent is consistent in his or
her parenting style across students. This information could be useful in pointing out
possible intervening variables that may provide fuller explanation of parent behaviour.
A third suggestion for future research involves including the variable of student and
parent personality. It is possible that the interaction of the personality of the student and
that of the parent influences the parenting and the type of parent school involvement a
parent exhibits. Personality has been shown to be a factor in other relationships, such as
romantic, mentoring, and friendship relationships (Berry and Willingham, 1997). In these
varying other relationships, personality has been found to be an important factor in
quality of the relationship in the context of warmth and conflict. Levels of warmth and
conflict within the parent- child relationship may influence the amount of parenting style
and the type of parent school involvement a parent shows his or her child. For example, if
personality factors introduce high levels of conflict into the parent – child relationship,
what might have been otherwise high levels of support on the parent’s part may well
become a much lower level of support.
A final suggestion for the future research involves the variable sex. It would be helpful to
explore the effects of sex on the relationship in terms of whether same-sexed parents and
children operate within the parenting relationship differently from different sexed pairs.
131
REFERENCES
Alhassan, S. (2007) Modern Approaches to Research in Educational Administration for
Research students, Kumasi, Payless Publications.
Arendell, T. (1997) Contemporary parenting: Challenging and issues, California: Sage.
Baker, J. L., & Soden, L. M. (1998). The challenges of parent involvement research.
(Report No. EDO-UD-98-4). New York, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 419 030).
Balli, S.J., Demo, D.H., &Wedman, J.F. (1998). Family involvement with children's
homework:An intervention in the middle grades. Family Relations, 47(2), 149157 Barber, B. K. (1996) Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected
construct, Child Development, 67(6), 3296-3319.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A.(1986). The moderato-mediator variable distinction in
social Psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, NO.6
pp. 1173-1182.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parental style on adolescent competence
and
Substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11 (1), 56-95.
Baumrind, D. (1989) Rearing competent children, In W. Damon (Ed) Child
Development Today and Tomorrow (pp.349-378). San Francisco; Jossey-Bass.
Baumrind, D. (1978) Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children.
Youth and Society, 9, 238-276
Baumrind, D. (1971) Current pattern of parental authority. Development Psychology.
4 (1, pt. 2), 1-103
132
Baumrind, D. (1967) Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool
behaviour. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75 (1), 43-88.
Baumrind, D. (1966) Effects of authoritative parental control behaviour, Child
Development, 37 (4), 887-907.
Beck, L., &Mulphy, J. (1999).Parental involvement in site-based management:
lessons from one site. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 2(2),
81- 102
Bernard, H. R. (2002) Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approach,
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Berry, D.S., & Willingham, J.K. (1997). Affective traits responses to conflict and
satisfaction in romantic relationships. Journal of Research in Personality, 31,
564-576
Buri, J. (1991) Parental authority questionnaire: Journal of Personality Assessment, 57
(1), 110-119.
Cangemi, J.P. (1984). The real purpose of higher education: Developing self-actualizing
personalities. Education, 105(2), 151-154.
Clark, R.M. (1990). Why disadvantaged children succeed. Public Welfare (Spring): 1723.
Couchman, W& Dawson,J.(1995). Nursing and health care research: A practical guide
edition. London: Scutari Press.
133
Creswell, J. W. (2002) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
Qualitative and quantitative research, Columbus.OH: Merrill Patience-Hall
Creswell, J. W. (`1998) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (1994) Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches,
London: Sage Publications.
Crozier, G. (2000). Parents and schools: parents or protagonists? Sterling, VA:Trentham
D'Agostino, J., Hedges, L., & Borman, G. (2001). Title I parent-involvement programs:
Effects on parenting practices and student achievement. In G Borman, S.
Springfield, & R.Slavin (Eds.), Title I: Compensatory education at the
crossroads (pp. 117-136) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.
Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: Do
race and income matter? The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1),
11-30.
Drake, D.D. (2000). Parents and families as partners in the education progress:
Collaboration for the success for students in public schools, ERS Spectrum, 34- 35
Dwairy, M., Fayad, M., Khan, H.K., & Menshar, K.E. (2006) .Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology. Vol. 37. No.3, 1-11, Sage Publications.
134
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Robert, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J.
(1987).The relation of parenting styles to adolescent school performance. Child
Development, 58, 1244-1257
Drake,D.D.(2000). Parents and families as partners in the education process:
Collaborating for the success for students in public school schools. ERS
Spectrum, 34-35.
Eccles, J.S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U.(1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon
and Eisenberg (Eds.). Handbook of Child Psychology,3, 1017-1095.
Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of
educational practice. New York: Macmillan.
Epstein, J.L. (2001). School, family, and community partnership: Preparing educators
and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Epstein, J.L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the Children we
Share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701-712
Epstein, J.L (1984). Single parent and schools: the Effects of Marital Status, Parent and
Teacher. Phi Delta Kappan, 32(8) 401-435
Epstein.J. Sanders., M., Simon, B., Salinas, K., Jonsorn, N., & Van Voorhis, F.(2002).
School, family and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (2ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Crown Press.
Fan, X.T., & Chen, M., (2001). Parental involvement and students' academic
achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1-22
135
Fantuzzo, J.W., Davis, G.Y., & Ginsburg, M.D.(1995). Effects of parent involvement in
isolation or in combination with peer tutoring on student self-concept and
mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 272-281
Garson, D.(2006). Reliability analysis. http://www2.chass.nsc.edu/garson/PA765. reliab.
htm.
Georgiou, S.N.(1997). Parental Involvement: Definitions and Outcomes. Social
Psychology of Education, 1, 189-209
Glasgow, K. L., Dornbusch, S. M., Troyer, L., Steinberg, L., & Ritter, P. L. (1997)
Parenting Styles, adolescents' attributions, and educational outcomes in nine
heterogeneous high schools. Child Development, 68, 507-529
Goldtein, H.S. (1984). Parental Composition, Supervision, and Conduct problems in
youth 12 to 7 years old. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry,
23(6), p. 679-684
Gottfried, A.E.(1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school.
Journal of Education Psychology 82(3), 525-538
Grolnick, W.S & Slowiaczek, M.L (1987). Parents in children Schooling: A
multidimensional conceptualization and motivational mode. Child Development,
65, 1, 237-252.
Gronlund, N. E.(1985). Measurement and evaluation in teaching, New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co., fifth edition
Hammer, B. (2003) ETS identifies affecting student achievement. Washington update.
136
Heinrich, K.T. (1991). Loving partnership: Dealing with sexual attraction and power in
doctoral advisement relationships. Journal of Higher Education, 62, 514-538
Howell, D.C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th.ed). Pacific Grove
:Duxberry.
Hyman, I. A. (1988) Eliminating corporal punishment in schools: Moving from advocacy
research to policy implementation, Paper presented at the 96th Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, and G.A.
Jackson, C., Henriksen, L., & Foshee, V.A.(1998). The authoritative parenting index:
parenting health risk behaviors among children and adolescents. Health
Education & Behaviour.
Kaiser. H.F.(1974) ‘’An index of factorial simplicity’’, psychometrika, vol.39 pp 31 – 36
Keith, T.Z., Keith, P.B., Troutman, G.C., Bickley, P.G., Trivette, P.S., &Singh, K.
(1993). Does parental involvement affect eighth-grade student achievement?
Structural analysis of national data. School Psychology Review, 22(3), 474-496
Kozol, J. (1991) Savage inequalities. New York; Crown.
Kurdek,L,A,& Fine, M.A.(1994). Family control as predictors of adjustment in young
adolescents: Linear, curvilear, or interactive effects? Child Development,65,
1137- 1146.
Kushman, J.W., Sieber, C., & Harold, K. P.(2000). This isn’t the place for me: School
dropout. American Counselling Association (pp. 471-507)
Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991) Child
Development, 62, 1049-1065.
137
Leler, H. (1983) Parent education and Involvement in relation to the schools and to
Parents of School-aged Children’ in R. Haskins &D. Adams(Eds), Parent
education and public policy. Ablex. Norwood.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983) Socialization in the context of the family: Parentchild interaction. In P.H.Mussen (Ed), & E.M Hetherington (vol. Ed),
Handbook of Child psychology: vol 4. Socialization, personality, and
Development (4th ed., pp. 1-101), New York: Wiley.
.Mead, M. (1935) Sex and temperament in three primitive societies. New York:
Mentor.
McIntyre, T. (1992) A primer on cultural diversity for educators. Multicultural Forum,
1 (1), 6-7&12.
McNeal, R. B. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness
science achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78(1), 117-144.
Muller, C. (1995). Maternal employment, parent involvement, and mathematics
achievement among adolescents. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 57(1),
95-100.
Nitko, J.A.(1983). Educational test and measurement. An introduction. New York,
Harcourt Brace Jovanich inch.
Nunnaly, J.C. (1964). Educational measurement and evaluation. New York: MacGraw
Hill Book Company
Oyediran, A. I. (1981) Measurement and Evaluation in Education, Ibadan Sterling
Holden Publishers.
138
Paulson, S.E. (1994). Relations of parenting style and parental involvement with ninthgrade students’ achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 250.
Philips, M.(1998). Family background, parenting practices, and the black-white test
score gap. The black-white test score gap. Washington, D.C., Brooking
Institution Press.
Rich, D.; VanDien, J., & Mallox, B. (1979). Families as educators of their own children.
In R.Brandt (Ed.). Parents and schools. Alexandria V.A.: Association for
supervision and curriculum development.
Romberg,E.(1993). Mentoring the individual student: Qualities that distinguish between
effective and ineffective advisors. Journal of Dental Education, 57, 287-290
Rubin, A. (2005). Research method for social work. 5th Edition. California: Brooks/Cole
Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26,299323.
Schunck.D.H. (1991).Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational
Psychology,26,207-213
Simon, B.(2001). Family involvement in high school: Predictors and effects. NASSP
Bulletin, 85(627), 8-19.
Spinetta, J. J. & Rigler, D. (1972) The Child-Abusing Parent: A psychological
Review. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 296-304.
Stegelin,D. (2002).Early literacy education: First steps toward dropout prevention.
Effective strategies for school improvement and dropout prevention. ERIC
Document No. ED472188.
139
Steinberg, L. Darling, N., & Fletcher, A. C. (1995) Authoritative Parenting and
Adolescent Adjustment: An ecological journey. In P. Moen, G. H.Elder Jr, &
K, Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspective on the ecology of
human development (pp. 423-466), Washington D. C: American
Psychological Assn.
Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989) Authoritative parenting,
psychosocial maturity and academic success among adolescents. Child
Development, 60, 1244-1436
Sui-Chu, E. S., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade
Achievement. Sociology of Education, 69, 126-141.
Wang. Wildman. & Calhoun, G.,(1996). The relationship between parental influences
and student achievement in seventh grade mathematics, school science and
mathematics. Child Development 96(8), 395-400
Weiss, L. H., & Schwarz, J. C. (1996) The relationship between parenting types and
older adolescents' personality, academic achievement, adjustment, and
substance use. Child Development, 67(5), 2101-2114
140
APPENDIX A
141
APPINDIX B
UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, WINNEBA
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS
I am currently completing my MPHIL in GUIDANCE AND COUNSELLING at
University of Education, Winneba and am investigating the ``Effects of Parenting Styles
and Parental Involvement on Students Academic Performance in Senior High School
Students particularly the third years.
You have been randomly selected from your class. I am therefore asking you to help in
gathering the data concerning the above research topic. Along is two instruments –
Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ), and Parental Involvement Questionnaires (PIQ)
which you are kindly expected to respond accordingly. Your individual responses will be
kept confidential.
Thank you, in advance, for assistance
Mr. Addai Francis------ The researcher.
142
SECTION A
RESPONDENTS PARENTS BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Direction: Here are some items regarding your parents’ background information.
Kindly provide the information as requested by
1. Type of sex you stay with
5. Family type
1.Male 2. Female
1.Intact 2. Single
6. Educational background
1. No high school completed. 2. High school
completed 3. Some college completed.
4. Graduate
SECTION B
STUDENTS QUESTIONNAIRE - PAQ
Instructions. For each of the following statements, circle the number of the 4-point scale
(1= strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree) that best describes how that statement applies
to you and your father. Try to read and think about each statement as it applies to you and
your father of growing up at home. There are no right or wrong answers, so don’t spend a
lot of time on any one item. We are looking for your overall impression regarding each
statement. Be sure not to omit any items.
143
1. My parents have always felt that what children need is to be free to make up their
minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with what the parents
might want
1
2
3
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither
4
Agree
5
Strongly Agree
2. My parents have always felt that more force should be used by parents in order to get
their children to behave the way they are suppose to
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neither
4
Agree
5
Strongly Agree
3. While I was growing up, my parents felt that in a well-run home children should have
their way in the family as often as parents do
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
4
Neither
Agree
5
Strongly Agree
4. As I was growing up, I knew what my parents expected of me in the family and they
insisted that I conform to those expectations simply out of respect for their authority
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neither
144
4
Agree
5
Strongly Agree
5. Whenever my parents told me to do something as I was growing up, they expected me
to do it immediately without asking any question
1
Strongly Disagree
2
3
Disagree
Neither
4
5
Agree
Strongly Agree
6. As I was growing up my parents seldom gave me expectations guidance’s for my
behavior
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neither
4
Agree
5
Strongly Agree
7. My parents had clear standards of behavior for the children in our home as I was
growing up, but they were willing to adjust those standards to the needs of each of the in
child, in the family
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
4
Neither
Agree
5
Strongly Agree
8. My parents felt that wise parents should teach their children early just who is boss
in the family
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neither
145
4
Agree
5
Strongly Agree
9. Most of my time as I was growing up my parents did what the children in the family
wanted when making family decisions
1
2
Strongly Disagree
3
Disagree
4
Neither
5
Agree
Strongly Agree
10. As I was growing up, my parents would get very upset if I tried to disagree with them
1
2
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
3
4
Neither
Agree
5
Strongly Agree
11. As I was growing up my parents allowed me to form my own point of view on family
matters and they generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do
1
2
3
Strongly Disagree Disagree
4
Neither
5
Agree
Strongly Agree
12. As I was growing up, my parents allowed me to decide most things for myself
without a lot of direction from them
1
Strongly Disagree
2
3
4
Disagree Neither
Agree
146
5
Strongly Agree
13. My parents have always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I have felt that
my family rules and restrictions were unreasonable
1
2
Strongly Disagree
3
Disagree
4
Neither
5
Agree
Strongly Agree
14. As I was growing up, my parents gave me clear direction for my behaviors and
activities, but they also understood when I disgrace with them
1
2
Strongly Disagree
3
Disagree
4
Neither
5
Agree
Strongly Agree
15. As I was growing up, parents did not allow me to question any decision that they had
made
1
2
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
3
4
Neither
Agree
5
Strongly Agree
16. As I was growing up, once family policy had been established, my parents discussed
the reasoning behind the policy with the children in the family
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neither
147
4
Agree
5
Strongly Agree
17. As I was growing up, my parents took the children’s opinions into consideration
when making family decisions, but they would not decide for something simply because
the children wanted it
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
4
Neither
Agree
5
Strongly Agree
The items that were excluded from further Analysis(PAQ)
Permissive
10. As I was growing up my parents did not feel that I needed to obey rules and
regulations of behaviour simply because someone in authority and established them
21. My parents did not view themselves as responsible for directing and guiding my
behavior as I was growing up
28. As I was growing up, my parents did not direct the behaviors, activities, and desires
of children in the family.
Authoritarian
2. Even if children didn’t agree with the parents, they felt that it was for our own good if
we were forced to conform to what they through were sight
18. As I was growing up, my parents let me know what behaviors they expected of me,
and if I didn’t meet those expectations, they punished me
148
25. My parents have always felt that most problems in society would be solved if we
would get parents to strictly and forcibly deal with their children when they don’t do
what they are supposed to as they are growing up
26. As I was growing up, my parents often told me exactly what they wanted me to do
and how they expected me to do
Authoritative
8. As I was growing up, my parents directed activities and decisions of the children in the
family through reasoning and discipline
11. As I was growing up, I knew what my parents expected of me in my family, but I felt
free to discuss those expectations with my parents when I felt that they were
unreasonable
15. As the children in my family were growing up, my parents consistently gave us
direction and guidance in rational and objective ways
17. My parents feel that most problems would be solved if parents would not restrict their
children’s activities, decisions, and desires as they are growing up
23. My parents gave me direction for my behavior and activities as I was growing up and
they expected me to fellow their direction, but they were always willing to listen to my
concerns and to discuss that direction with me
30. As I was growing up, if my parents made a decision in the family that hurt me, they
were willing to discuss that decision with me and to admit it if they had made a mistake
149
APPENDIX C
PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (PIQ)
(Questionnaire after Factor Analysis)
Instructions: For each of the following statements, circle the number of the 4-point scale
(1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) that best describe your parents’ school
involvement. If you spend time in more than one home, answer the questions about the
parents (guardians) who have the most say over your schooling.
1. I talk to my parents about things I learnt at school.
1
2
Strongly Disagree
3
Disagree
4
Neither
5
Agree
Strongly Agree
2. My parents monitor my schoolwork when I come home from school.
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
4
5
Neither
Agree
Strongly Agree
3
4
5
Neither
Agree
Strongly Agree
3. My parents see that I have done my homework
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
150
4. My parents listen when I talk to them
1
2
Strongly Disagree
3
Disagree
4
Neither
5
Agree
Strongly Agree
5. School administration knows my parents postal address/telephone number.
1
2
Strongly Disagree
3
Disagree
4
Neither
5
Agree
Strongly Agree
6. I talk to my parents about problems I have at school.
1
2
Strongly Disagree
3
Disagree
4
Neither
5
Agree
Strongly Agree
7. My parents involve me in taking decision in the family.
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
4
Neither
Agree
5
Strongly Agree
8. My parents seek my concern when they want to buy any new item
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
4
Neither
151
Agree
5
Strongly Agree
9. My parents discuss with me on what I learnt at school
1
2
Strongly Disagree
3
Disagree
4
Neither
5
Agree
Strongly Agree
10. My parents involve me in taking decision in the family
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
4
Neither
Agree
The items that were excluded from further Analysis (PIQ)
1. My parents allow me to attend extra-classes when school vacate
2. When my parents want me to do something, they explain why
3. My parents attend any parents gathering or forum in the school
4. My parents have some of my teachers’ telephone numbers
5. My parents have a set time and place for me to do my home work
152
5
Strongly Agree
APPENDIX D
Z-SCORES
z
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
1.0
0.3413
0.3438
0.3461
0.3485
0.3508
0.3531
0.3554
0.3577
0.3599
1.1
0.3643
0.3665
0.3686
0.3708
0.3729
0.3749
0.3770
0.3790
0.3810
1.2
0.3849
0.3869
0.3888
0.3907
0.3925
0.3944
0.3962
0.3980
0.3997
1.3
0.4032
0.4049
0.4066
0.4082
0.4099
0.4115
0.4131
0.4147
0.4162
1.4
0.4192
0.4207
0.4222
0.4236
0.4251
0.4265
0.4279
0.4292
0.4306
1.5
0.4332
0.4345
0.4357
0.4370
0.4382
0.4394
0.4406
0.4418
0.4429
1.6
0.4452
0.4463
0.4474
0.4484
0.4495
0.4505
0.4515
0.4525
0.4535
1.7
0.4554
0.4564
0.4573
0.4582
0.4591
0.4599
0.4608
0.4616
0.4625
1.8
0.4641
0.4649
0.4656
0.4664
0.4671
0.4678
0.4686
0.4693
0.4699
1.9
0.4713
0.4719
0.4726
0.4732
0.4738
0.4744
0.4750
0.4756
0.4761
Source: Adapted Howell, (2002)
153
APPENDIX E
SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT TEST (SAT)
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
Each question is followed by four options lettered A to D. Find out the correct
option for each question. Give only one answer to each question. Remember to
write your code on your answer sheet.
1. The vision of a person suffering from night blindness can improve when fed
on
A. Carbohydrates
B. Protein
C. Vitamin A
D. Vitamin C
2. Which of the following metals is the best conductor of heat.
A. Aluminium
B. Copper
C. Iron
D. Zinc
3. The element required for the formation of strong and health teeth is
A. calcium
B. magnesium
C. phosphorus
D. sodium
4. Heat is generated in the human body during
A. defecation
B. expiration
C. shivering
D. sweating
5. Which of the following activities is an involuntary action
A. Breathing
B. Eating
C. Reading
D. Walking
6. The commonest method for propagating cocoa in Ghana is by
A. seeds
B. stem
C. root cuttings
D. budding
7. A suitable method of reducing erosion on hilly lands is by
A. applying organic manure
B. erecting barriers
C. creating wind breaks
D. terracing
8. Which of the following factors affects the loudness of sound
A. Amplitude
B. Frequency
C. Velocity
Wavelength
D.
9. Friction in car engines can be reduced through a
A. lubrication
B. over hauling
C. spraying
vulcanizing
D.
10. Which of the following diseases is associated with lives in humans
A. Appendicitis
B. Arteriosclerosis C. Bronchitis
D. Cirrhosis
154
11. The thickness of the lens of the human eye is controlled by
A. ciliovy muscle
B. conjunctiva
C. sclerotic wat
D.votereous humour
12. If 1 mole of oxygen reacts with 2 moles of calcium to form calcium hydroxide,
then the number of moles of calcium oxide formed is
A. 1 mole
B. 2 moles
C. 3 moles
D. 5 moles
13. A farming practice that encourages soil erosion is
A. bush burning
B. contour ploughing
C. strip cropping
D.
terracing
14. The nucleus of atom contains
A. electrons and protons
B. neutrons and protons
C. neutrons and electrons
D. protons, electrons and neutrons
15. The habit of smoking may result in
A. anaemia
B. arteriosclerosis
C. cirrhosis
16. The density of water is highest when its temperature is
A. 10C
B. 40C
C. 30C
D. meningitis
D. 1000C
17. One of the chemical used to test for the presence of protein is
A. Benedict’s solution
B. Fehling’s solution
C. Millon’s reagent
D. Anhydrous copper sulphate
18. Brightly coloured petals
A. accelerate ripening of fruits
B. aid pollination by animals
C. induce the production of large fruits
D. promote the development of the ovule
19. Soil may lose its fertility through
A. leaching
B. overcooling
ridging
C. shifting cultivation
D.
20. An atom of an element X has 21 protons and 23 neutrons. What is the
number of elements in it
A. 2
B. 21
C. 23
D. 44
155
APPENDIX F
MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT TEST (SAT)
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
Each question is followed by four options lettered A to D. Find out the correct
option for each question. Give only one answer to each question. Remember to
write your code on your answer sheet.
1. Evaluate (0.13)3 correct to three significant figures
A. 0.002
B. 0.003
C. 0.00219
D. 0.00220
2. A bag contains 12 blue and 8 red balls. If 2 balls are picked at random from
the bag, without replacement, what is the probability that they are both blue?
A. 9/25
B. 33/95
C. ½
D. 33/100
3. Evaluate (111two + 101two) (111two – 101two)
A. 10two
B. 1100 two
C. 1100 two
D. 11000 two
4. Simplify 2/3 + 2/5 – 7/15
A. 23/15
B. 11/15
D. 2/5
C. 3/5
5. Write 0.024561, correct to 3 significant figures
A. 0.03
B. 0.025
C. 0.0246
D. 0.0245
6. Solve the equation 3x/5 + 2 = x – 2
3
A. -40
B. -20
D. -5
C. -10
7. If t=p2 – 3q, calculate the value of t when p=4 and q=9
A. -11
B. -43
C. 11
D. 43
8. Arrange in ascending order of magnitude, 7/75, 2/5 and 1/3
A. 2/5, 1/3, 7/75
B. 1/3, 7/75, 2/5
C. 1/3, 2/5, 7/75,
D. 7/75, 1/3, 2/5,
9. The interior angle of a regular polygon is 108 0. How many sides has the
polygon?
A. 5
B. 6
C. 7
D. 8
10. Which base five numeral is equivalent to (4x53) + (0x52) + (2x51) + (2x50)
base ten?
A. 402five
B. 422 five
C. 4022 five
D. 4220 five
156
11. Find the range of values of x for which 5-x + 2 < x-2
3
2
A. ‫<א‬12/5
B. ‫<א‬9/2
C. ‫>א‬28/5
D. ‫<א‬8
12. Find the equation of the line whose gradient is -1/2 and which passes through
the point (7, -2)
A. y+2‫–א‬3 = 0
B. y+2‫א‬+3=0
C. 2y+‫א‬-3=0
D. 2y+‫א‬+3=0
13. Make c the subject of the relation ac + d = p
e
A. c = ep + d
B. c = d - ep
C. c = pp + d
a
a
a
D. c = ep – a
a
The table below shows the distribution of marks obtained by twenty pupils in a
test
Marks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
No. of students
1
3
5
6
2
1
2
Use the table to answer Question 14 to 16
14. What is the modal mark of the distribution
A. 2
B. 3
C. 4
D. 5
15. Find the median mark
A. 3
B. 4
C. 5
D. 6
16. Find the mean mark for the distribution
A. 2.7
B. 2.9
C. 3.8
D. 4.0
17. Solve the following simultaneous equations: x-4y = 1. 2x+3y = 15
A. (-3, -1)
B. (5, -1)
C. (1, -5)
D. (5, 1)
18. Find the image of the point p(-12, 4)
A. (-12, 4)
B. (-12, 2)
D. (-12, -10)
C. (-12, 10)
19. The point P (3, -1) is rotated about the origin through an angle of 2700 in a clockwise
direction. Find the image of P.
A. (3, 1)
B. (1, 3)
C. (-1, 3)
D. (-1, -3)
20. In an examination, Ama scored 80% in mathematics, 60% in science and ‫א‬% in
English. If her mean mark for the subjects was 65%, find ‫א‬
A. 55
B. 65
C. 70
D. 75
157
APPENDIX G
ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT TEST (SAT)
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
Each question is followed by four options lettered A to D. Find out the correct
option for each question. Give only one answer to each question. Remember to
write your code on your answer sheet.
SECTION A
From the list of words lettered A to D, choose the one that best completes each
of the following sentences
1. The ………..dispute between the two royal families has now been settled.
A. normal
B. continuous
C. protracted
D. modest
2. To ensure success in examinations students should ………..laziness and
complacency.
A. hate
B. eschew
C. relinquish
D. dislike
3. The …………returned to their own country after the civil war
A. mercenaries
B. vandals
C. thugs
D. rebels
4. No one should ………with the good work of the prefects
A. mingle
B. intercede
C. interfere
D. mediate
SECTION B
Choose from the alternatives lettered A to D the one which is nearest in
meaning to the underlined word or expression in each sentence.
5. Kwaw tackled the task with zeal
A. knowledge
B. intelligence
enthusiasm
C. sympathy
D.
6. The football fans marveled at the captain’s unique display of sportsmanship
A. Enviable
B. unequalled
C. wonderful
D. admirable
7. We admired her rigrous defence of women’s rights
A. eager
B. angry
C. spirited
158
D. lively
8. His scheme is meant to foster good neighbourliness
A. adopt
B. help
C. promote
D. support
SECTION C
From the words or groups of words littered from A to D, choose the one that
best completes each of the following sentences.
9. The new chief has no respect for ……who supported him.
A. we
B. use
C. ours
D. ourselves
10. The thieves ran into the house when the police closed ……on them.
A. at
B. in
C. up
D. around
11. No one except her friends ……….her.
A. likes
B. like
C. have liked
D. is liking
SECTION D
In the following passage, the numbered gaps indicate missing words. Against
each number in the list below the passage, four choices are offered in
columns lettered A to D for each numbered gap, choose from the options
provided for that number, the word that is most suitable to fill the gap.
Even after the operation, doctors say Kankam’s road to - 12 - is uncertain,
despite his ability to breathe – 13 - at the moment. All the same, as his - 14 has improved slightly, Kankam has begun to - 15 - to pain. In addition, his
body can now perform - 16 - functions, even though he is in - 17 - coma.
Since he suffered a – 18 – stroke last week, doctors can now san now say
Kankam is – 19 – danger, though a full assessment of brain – 20 – is yet to
be made.
A
12. health
B
improvement
C
recovery
D
restoration
13. alone
fast
unsupported
unaided
159
14. situation
condition
predicament
status
15. respond
answer
reply
revert
16. fundamental
minor
basic
easy
17. deliberate
induced
influence
involved
18. great
heavy
massive
serious
19. outside
away from
unaffected by
out of
20. injury
damage
deterioration
wreckage
160