University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students

(USC Thesis Other)

Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT AND STUDENT MOTIVATION:
A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENT GOAL
ORIENTATION AND STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT
AMONG 5
TH
GRADE STUDENTS

by

Christine Daryabigi Mendoza

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2012

Copyright 2012 Christine Daryabigi Mendoza

ii
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, David G. and Barbara Mendoza, for their
unconditional love, strength, and guidance. Also, to my husband, Edgar Daryabigi, who has been
my tower of strength through this entire process. To my Grandma Jenny Mendoza for instilling
determination and persistence in her children and grandchildren, and to my Auntie Monica
“Monique” Mendoza, for starting the Trojan tradition in the Mendoza family. Fight On!
Finally, to all of my students, especially Miriam Jarquin, because through them I have
found purpose, learned patience, and witnessed the true meaning of courage.

iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi, for her
professional guidance and continual support through the dissertation process. To the other
members of my committee, Dr. Helena Seli and Dr. Ruth Chung, I am grateful for their insight
and expertise. I thank Dr. Robert Keim for lending his knowledge and time to assist me through
data analysis and Kevin Collins for his skillfulness and patience in answering my endless list of
questions.
Thank you to superintendent Dr. Ellen Dougherty for supporting my research and
entrusting me with the fifth grade students in her district. To Dr. Elizabeth Hamilton, I am
infinitely grateful for her assistance in retaining participants for my study and for her unwavering
support through the data collection process. To Ms. Jennifer Harris and Dr. Maurita De La Torre,
the principals of the schools, I thank for taking the time to arrange for multiple days of data
collection. To the classroom teachers, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Schmitz, Ms. Ng, Ms. Kamunde, Ms.
Pacino, and Ms. Lizarzaburu, for their willingness to share their precious time and students.
I will be eternally grateful to my classmate, writing partner, and dear friend, Kelly
Johnson. I am so proud to have walked with her through the entirety of the Ed.D program, from
the orientation to defending our dissertations. I am excited for our future endeavors, but for now,
“The dishes are DONE, man!”
There are not enough words in the English language to describe the amount of gratitude I
feel for belonging to such a lovingly supportive family. By having an unwavering belief in me,
my father enabled me to be persistent in the face of adversity, to pursue my dreams, and to
accept nothing less than victory. My mother gifted me with her passion for helping others and
instilled in me the drive to put my heart into all that I do. I am also thankful to my brother and

iv
sister, David and Denise Mendoza, for their love, encouragement, and much needed comic relief.
Finally, to my husband, Edgar, whose love gives me strength and who saw me through every
triumph and obstacle I have encountered in the course of this journey. He has inspired me,
supported me, and celebrated with me every step of the way, and I will be eternally grateful. In
short, I am grounded, centered, and rejuvenated by my family, and none of this would be
possible without them.

“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go with family.”
– African proverb

v
Table of Contents

Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of Tables viii

Abstract ix

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 5
Purpose of the Study 5
Research Questions 6
Significance of the Study 6
Methodology 7
Assumptions 8
Definition of Terms 8
Organization of the Study 10

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 11
Goal Orientation 11
Goal Orientation and Student Motivation 12
Mastery Goal Orientation 12
Performance Goal Orientation 14
Performance-Approach Goal Orientation 16
Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation 18
Childhood Development and Goal Orientation 19
Gender and Goal Orientation 21
Parental Involvement and Student Motivation 22
Parental Involvement 22
Student Perceptions of Parental Involvement 27
Student Perceptions of Parental Involvement and Student
Motivation 30
Conclusion 33

Chapter 3: Research Methodology 35
Research Questions 35
Research Design 36
Population and Sample 36
Population 36
Participants 37
Instrumentation 37
Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales 38
Parenting Style and Parental Involvement 40

vi
Consent Forms 42
Parents 42
Students 42
Data Collection 43
Data Analysis 46

Chapter 4: Results 49
Descriptive Statistics 49
Intercorrelations 50
Research Question One 51
Research Question Two 54
Research Question Three 57
Summary 59

Chapter 5: Discussion 60
General Findings 61
Mastery Goal Orientation 61
Mastery Goal Orientation and Student Perceptions of
Parental Involvement 61
Mastery Goal Orientation and Student Perceptions of
Parental Achievement Value 62
Performance-Approach Goal Orientation 63
Performance-Approach Goal Orientation and Student
Perceptions of Parental Involvement 64
Performance-Approach Goal Orientation and Student
Perceptions of Parental Achievement Value 65
Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation 65
Gender 66
Implications for Researchers and Practitioners 66
Recommendations for Future Research 66
Developmental Differences 67
Diverse Populations 67
Multiple Goals 67
Scales 68
Recommendations for Practitioners 68
Parents 68
Teachers 69
Administrators 69
Limitations and Delimitations 70
Conclusion 71

References 73

Appendices
Appendix A: Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales 83
Appendix B: Parenting Style and Parental Involvement 90

vii
Appendix C: Student Survey 91
Appendix D: Demographic Questions 94
Appendix E: Parental Consent Form 95
Appendix F: Child Assent Form 99
Appendix G: Briefing/Debriefing Script 101
Appendix H: Student Survey Key for Teachers and Research Assistants 103
Appendix I: Data Collection Agenda 109

viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic Information for Participants

38

Table 2: Descriptive information of Student Responses for the Adult who
Helped the Most with School

41

Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations for Mastery, Approach, Avoid Goal
Orientations; Student Perceptions of Parental Involvement;
Student Perceptions of Achievement Value, Involvement in
School Functions, and Interest in Schoolwork

50

Table 4: Spearman Rank-Order Correlations, Means, and Standard
Deviations for Scales

51

Table 5: Simple Linear Regression Analysis Summary for Parental
Involvement Predicting Mastery Goal Orientation

52

Table 6: Simple Linear Regression Analysis Summary for Parental
Involvement Predicting Approach Goal Orientation

53

Table 7: Simple Linear Regression Analysis Summary for Parental
Involvement Predicting Avoid Goal Orientation

53

Table 8: Simple Linear Regression Analysis Summary for Student
Perceptions of Parental Value Predicting Mastery Goal
Orientation

55

Table 9: Simple Linear Regression Analysis Summary for Student
Perceptions of Parental Value Predicting Approach Goal
Orientation

56

Table 10: Simple Linear Regression Analysis Summary for Student
Perceptions of Parental Value Predicting Avoid Goal Orientation

56

Table 11: Means and Standard Deviations for Mastery and Approach as a
Function of Parental Involvement and Gender

58

Table 12: Univariate Effects of Parental Involvement and Gender on
Mastery and Approach Goal Orientations

59

ix
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine a possible relationship between student
perceptions of parental involvement and student goal orientation for an ethnically diverse fifth
grade elementary population from high-poverty schools. This study was quantitative in nature
and employed the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS) to assess the goal orientations of
participants, and the Parenting Style Parental Involvement (PSPI) scale to measure student
perceptions of parental involvement. PALS quantified mastery, performance-approach, and
performance-avoid goal orientations, while the PSPI calculated student perceptions of parental
achievement value, interest in schoolwork, and involvement in school functions. One hundred
two fifth grade students answered Likert-type surveys regarding their goal orientation, perceived
parental involvement, as well as four demographic questions. All data was collected using
Qualtrics Survey Software (Qualtrics Labs, Inc., 2012) and was analyzed using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences.
Simple linear regressions revealed that student perceptions of parental involvement
significantly predicted both mastery and performance-approach goal orientations, but found no
relation to performance-avoid goal orientation. Student perceptions of parental achievement
value also predicted performance-approach goal orientation, but was unrelated to both mastery
and performance-avoid goal orientations.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by a post hoc Tukey test found a
significant difference between the low and high parental involvement groups in mastery goal
orientation, with a large effect size and a Kruskal-Wallis test followed by a pos hoc Mann-
Whitney showed a significant difference between the high and low, and high and medium,
parental involvement groups with a medium and small effect size, respectively.

x
A two-way MANOVA was run to determine if there were interaction effects between
gender and high, medium, and low student perceptions of parental involvement groups that
resulted in a difference in mastery or approach goal orientations, respectively. Results showed a
lack of interaction effects as well as a lack of main effects for gender on mastery and approach
goal orientations.
The measurement of parental involvement via student perceptions and the assessment of
a diverse elementary school population were unique to the current study. Findings indicated that
when parents are highly involved in their child’s education, their child will orient themselves
toward achievement either through a mastery or performance-approach goal orientation. This
adds to the research literature that suggests parental involvement is an essential factor
influencing student motivation. Further research is needed to assess the relationship between
student perceptions of parental involvement and student goal orientation for diverse populations
in race, ethnicity, age, and socioeconomic status, and to determine the facilitative nature of
performance-approach goal orientation at different developmental levels. It is projected that the
findings from this study will assist practitioners in educating teachers and parents as to the
importance of student goal orientation and how it is influenced by student perceptions of parental
involvement.

1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Minority children living in poverty in the United States are underperforming when
compared to their middle-socioeconomic-status, White peers (Santrock, 2009). In 2009, White
students in the 4
th
grade, on average, scored 26 and 25 points higher on the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading in comparison to their Black and Hispanic peers
respectively (Aud, Hussar, Kena, Bianco, Frohlich, Kemp, & Tahan, 2011); this inequality is
known as the achievement gap. The incongruence in fourth grade reading scores was even
greater when students attending low-poverty schools, where 25% of students qualified for Free
or Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL), were compared to students attending high-poverty schools,
where 75% of students qualify for FRPL; a 35-point gap was observed (Aud et al., 2011;
Hempphill & Vanneman, 2011). African American and Hispanic elementary school students are
overrepresented in the latter population. In 2009, 45% of Hispanic and 44% of African American
were enrolled in high-poverty schools in comparison to only 6% of their White peers.
Student motivation is a prominent factor when trying to influence academic achievement.
Through a cognitive lens focused on a student’s thoughts, beliefs, and emotions, Schunk,
Pintrich, and Meece (2008) defined motivation as the process in which goal-directed activities
are initiated and upheld. Furthermore, students who are motivated to learn, are more likely to
undertake strategies they believe will assist them in learning, such as attending to instruction or
using higher level learning strategies (Schunk et al., 2008). Although many definitions of
motivation exist, cognitive theorists are unified in stressing the importance of goals on
motivation, because goals serve as a force behind the actions of individuals whom are either
trying to achieve or evade something (Schunk et al., 2008).
In order to shed light on how goals influence student learning and performance on

2
academic tasks, goal orientation theory was developed (Ames, & Archer, 1987; Dweck, 1986;
Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Pintrich (2003) stated that a student’s goal orientation is the intent or
objective for why a student engages in an achievement behavior as well as how the student goes
about approaching the task. According to goal orientation theory, there are three different
orientations students can have: mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoid (Eccles
& Wigfield, 2002; Elliot, 1999). Mastery-oriented students are motivated to learn for the sake of
learning, aim for self-improvement, and measure their success against an internal set of standards
(Ames & Archer, 1988; Hoang, 2007; Schunk et al., 2008). Students with performance-approach
or performance-avoid goal orientations compare their academic performance to that of their
peers, but students with an approach orientation attempt to outperform their peers, while students
with an avoid orientation strive to avoid failure or looking incompetent (Elliot, 1999; Hoang,
2007).
Background of the Problem
From 1989 to 2009, the population of Hispanic students rose from 4.8 million to 11.4
million, and the population of African American students rose from 7.1 million to 7.8 million
(Aud et al., 2011). Both of these minority populations are overrepresented among students
attending high-poverty schools. African Americans make up 14% and Hispanics make up 21% of
all public school students, but 34% and 45% of students attending high-poverty schools are
African American and Hispanic, respectively (Schunk et al., 2008). It has been suggested that
students from a lower socioeconomic level may not be prepared for a public school system with
a middle-class orientation, and this can result in motivation and achievement issues (Aud et al.,
2011).

3
In the movement to improve the achievement of minority students living in poverty,
student motivation must be considered. Students who are motivated to learn are more apt to
initiate activities that support their learning (Schunk et al.,2008). Moreover, cognitive theorists
agree that motivation is a goal-directed process and that goals are an essential factor in student
motivation. Goal orientation theory was developed to explore the academic behavior of students
in the classroom setting, and attributes this behavior to three goal orientations: mastery,
performance-approach, and performance-avoid.
Researchers have discovered that students with a mastery goal orientation have higher
motivation to learn (Ames & Archer, 1988; Butler, 1987). Students with a mastery goal
orientation are more likely to attribute their success to their effort (Ames & Archer, 1988) and
are more likely to make attempts to learn from their errors (Friedel, Cortina, Turner, & Midgley,
2006). Mastery-oriented students are motivated to learn for the sake of learning, and thus have a
more positive attitude toward learning as well as a preference for more challenging tasks (Ames
& Archer, 1988).
Past studies have examined how the goal orientation of the classroom or teacher has
affected student goal orientation (Ryan & Grolnick, 1986) with the discovery that the
experiences of students outside of the classroom, such as their experiences at home, may cause
them to interpret the same classroom in different ways (Ryan & Grolnick, 1986). In a later
study, Grolnick, Ryan, and Deci (1991) suggested the influence that life experiences have on
children is often mediated by their perceptions of these events. Different students in the same
classroom may interpret the same classroom community or environment in different ways based
on their life experiences and how these experiences assist them in interpreting the world.
Furthermore, Friedel and colleagues (2006) found that the link between the goal orientation of

4
students had a stronger relation to their perceptions of their parent’s goal orientation than to their
perceptions of their teacher’s goal orientation. As a child’s main social agent, the impact and
influence a parent may have on a child’s goal orientation may far outweigh that of any other
influences, although research on parental influence on student goal orientation has been largely
neglected (Regner, Loose, & Dumas, 2009).
Some studies have examined parental involvement behaviors such as helping the child
complete homework assignments or attending parent-teacher conferences. In the K-12 public
school system, researchers have studied the effects of parental involvement from early
elementary (Grolnick, et al., 1991) through seniors in high school (Barwegen, Falciani, Putnam,
Reamer, & Stair, 2004). Stevenson and Baker (1987) found parental involvement in school
activities to have a positive correlation with children’s performance in school. Some researchers
have examined concrete variables, such as the amount of time and attention committed by
parents to their child’s school and homework (Grolnick et al., 1991), while others have inquired
about broader constructs, such as parental belief systems, parenting styles, or parental
expectations (Grolnick & Ryan 1989; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987).
Researchers have also examined the relationship between the aforementioned parental
involvement behaviors and student motivation (Wentzel, 1998; Marchant, Paulson, &
Rothlisberg, 2001; Gonzalez, 2002). Yet Grolnick and Slowiaczek (1994) suggested that if
parental involvement activities are to have an influence at all on student learning and academic
behavior, then children must perceive and experience this involvement. Some researchers have
examined how perceptions of parental involvement have affected student success, but many have
assessed parent or teacher perceptions of parental involvement (Grolnick et al., 1991) as opposed
to the perceptions of students themselves. Researchers who have assessed student perceptions of

5
parental involvement have largely focused on high school-aged students (Gonzalez, 2002;
Gonzalez-Pienda, Nunez, Gonzalez-Pumariega, Alvarez, Roces, & Garcia, 2002). Many
researchers have acknowledged the importance of student perceptions of parental involvement
but very few have examined its relation to goal orientation; even fewer have looked at the
influence of perceptions of parental involvement of elementary students on student goal
orientation.
Statement of the Problem
Research in the area of student goal orientation is lacking. More specifically, there is a
gap in the research exploring support for a predictive relationship between student perceptions of
parental involvement and achievement goal orientation. Evidence of this relationship has been
shown in several studies with more homogenous populations in secondary school settings
(Gonzalez, 2002; Gonzalez-Pienda et al., 2002). To date, no study has examined the relationship
between student perceptions of parental involvement and student goal orientation for fifth grade
elementary students with a diverse ethnic background from high-poverty schools; the current
study aims to explore this gap. Goal orientation theory will serve as the theoretical framework
for the current study as it was explicitly developed to examine the academic behavior of students
in a school setting (Schunk et al., 2008).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to explore the relationship between student perceptions of
parental involvement and achievement goal orientation for an ethnically diverse fifth grade
population with a low socioeconomic status. The study aimed to determine if student
perceptions of parental involvement as measured by parental achievement value, parental interest
in schoolwork, and parental involvement in school functions had a predictive relationship with

6
mastery, performance-approach, and performance goal orientations. A predictive relationship
between the three parental involvement subscales, in isolation, and achievement goal orientation
was also investigated. Lastly, the study examined whether or not differences arose in student
goal orientation when gender and student perceptions of parental involvement groups were taken
into account.
Research Questions
This study will be guided by the following research questions:
1. Do student perceptions of parental involvement predict mastery, approach, or avoid
goal orientation?
2. Which of these student perceptions of parental involvement subscales (achievement
value, involvement in school functions, or interest in schoolwork) predict mastery,
approach, and avoid goal orientations?
3. Are there differences in students’ goal orientation based on their gender or parental
involvement level?
Significance of the Study
This study is set to further examine the relationship between parental involvement and
student motivation. Student perceptions of parental involvement will be measured in order to
better understand how the perceptions of elementary school students affect the way they interpret
the involvement of their parents in their academic lives. Student perceptions of parental
achievement value, parental interest in schoolwork, and parental involvement in school functions
will be examined. These perceptions will be linked with student goal orientation to examine if
there is a correlation that exists. By examining fifth grade students in a diversely populated,
Title 1 school district, this study sets to contribute unique findings to the existing data.

7
Parental involvement in education is an important element in a child’s academic career.
Researchers have been studying the influence of parental involvement on student goal
orientation. By gathering data to further contribute to these findings, the researcher hopes to
benefit school communities that serve a more diverse, low socioeconomic population. The
findings can be used to inform school districts, schools, and teachers alike so they may be able to
educate and guide parents in creating an optimal home environment for their child’s educational
career. Parent communities or organizations that serve parent communities may also use the data
in order to support and encourage parents to remain involved in their child’s education, as well
as to advise parents of the most effective ways to bolster their child’s motivation. Lastly, the
findings from this study would greatly benefit the growing minority population in California;
Hispanic students made up 51% of fourth graders who took the NAEP reading assessment in
2009. It is the hope of the researcher that the findings from this study have a positive impact on
the awareness of the school communities, including district policy makers, administrators,
teachers, and parents, to better understand the importance of student goal orientation for minority
students and how it can be positively influenced by parental involvement.
Methodology
A quantitative approach will be used to measure student perceptions of parental
involvement and student goal orientation. Two 5-point Likert-type surveys were utilized to
assess the variables, and statistical tests, such as a simple linear regression for Research Question
1, were run to determine whether or not a correlation between the independent and dependent
variables existed. The current research study was a correlational study, because the researcher
assessed the variables to discover if the independent variables (parental involvement, parental

8
achievement value, parental interest in schoolwork, and parental involvement in school
functions) predicted the dependent variable (student goal orientation).
Assumptions
It was assumed that all students who completed the survey did so truthfully, thoughtfully,
and with consistent effort. It was also assumed that students understood the survey questions or
asked for clarification when needed.
Definition of Terms
Goal Orientation Theory
Goal orientation theory was developed by motivation researchers who were interested in
examining how students’ academic goals related to their achievement behavior (Ames, &
Archer, 87; Dweck, 1986; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Currently, goal orientation theory dictates
three distinct goal orientations: mastery orientation, performance-approach orientation, and
performance-avoid orientation (Elliot, 1999; Hoang, 2007).
Mastery orientation. Students with a mastery goal orientation are concerned with
completing a task competently or understanding a concept in depth. These students strive to
achieve to the best of their abilities without comparing their performance to the performance of
others (Ames, 1984; Ames & Archer, 1987; Dweck, 1986; Elliot, 1999).
Performance-approach Orientation. Students with a performance-approach orientation
are concerned with out-performing their peers. Their motivation to achieve or become
competent in learning is driven by their comparison of their performance to that of others (Elliot,
1999; Hoang, 2007).
Performance-avoid Orientation. Students with a performance-avoid orientation are
more concerned with avoiding looking incompetent than learning. These students tend to do just

9
enough to avoid failure or are not concerned with mastering tasks or concepts (Elliot, 1999;
Hoang, 2007).
Parental Involvement
In this study, parental involvement will be defined as any behavior or practice executed
by a parent in order to participate in and benefit their child’s academic lives (Fan & Williams,
2010; Fishel & Ramirez, 2005). The current study will measure parental involvement using
three subscales: parental achievement value, parental interest in schoolwork, and parental
involvement in school functions.
Parental Achievement Value. In this investigation, parental achievement value is
defined as a behavior or practice executed by a parent to demonstrate or convey their value of
achievement to their child. For example, a parent may encourage their child to do her best on her
assignments conveying a high level of value for achievement.
Parental Interest in School Work. In the current study, parental interest in school work
will be defined as any behavior or practice executed by a parent in order to show interest in their
child’s schoolwork. For example, a parent may check a child’s homework to ensure in has been
completed.
Parental Involvement in School Functions. In this study, parental involvement in
school functions is defined as any behavior or practice executed by a parent in order to be
involved in functions sponsored by their child’s school. For example, a parent may attend their
child’s parent-teacher conference as an active participant or the school talent show as a passive
participant (audience member).

10
Organization of the Study
Chapter one of the study introduces the need for research to better understand how
students perceive parental involvement and how these perceptions affect student goal orientation.
A brief description of the methodology, assumptions, limitations, and delimitations was also
discussed. Lastly, the key terms used in the study were defined.
Chapter two is a review of the literature relevant to the current study. It addresses the
following main topics: 1. goal orientation and student motivation, 2. parental involvement and
student motivation, and 3. student perceptions of parental involvement and student motivation.
Relevant literature of past researchers, as well as more recent literature, is reviewed and
synthesized. Chapter two concludes with an argument as to why the current study is needed to
fill gaps in the existing literature.
Chapter three presents the methodology used in the current study. It includes a
description of the instruments utilized, as well as examples of items. The research design,
population, sampling procedure, and data collection procedure are also outlined in chapter three.
Finally, the statistical tests used to analyze the data are discussed.
Chapter four unveils the results of the data analysis. Chapter five analyzes and discusses
the main findings, implications for practice, and recommendations for future research.

11
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature with
regard to the importance of student perceptions of parental involvement and its influence student
adoption of achievement goals. Goal orientation theory dictates that students may have mastery
goals, performance approach goals, or performance avoidance goals (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002;
Hoang, 2007). Mastery goals have been linked to persistence during difficult tasks, task
engagement, choosing challenging tasks, and greater intrinsic motivation (Ames & Archer, 1988;
Butler, 1987). Parental involvement has been linked to mastery goals, but research in the area of
student perception of parental involvement is lacking. Current research will be reviewed in the
following areas: 1) Goal orientation and student motivation; 2) Parental involvement and student
motivation; and 3) Student perception of parental involvement and student motivation. Finally,
this review will conclude with a recommendation to further examine student perceptions of
parental involvement and its relationship with student goal orientation.
Goal Orientation
A student’s motivation to learn is affected by their goal orientation. Goal orientation may
be viewed through three types of goals: mastery goals, performance-approach goals, and
performance-avoid goals (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Elliot, 1999). The motivation to achieve a
goal can be understood as affective, cognitive, and behavioral progress toward competence
(Elliot, 1999). Motivation is a multi-layered phenomenon that encompasses how a student’s
beliefs, feelings, and behavior affect their movement toward achievement. Current researchers
focus on students’ beliefs, values, and goals with regard to achievement motivation (Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002). Students have beliefs about how well they think they can complete a task,
(Bandura, 1997), beliefs about their ability, beliefs about what caused their success or lack

12
thereof, and feelings about their worth after a task is attempted (Elliot, 1999). Whether a student
has a mastery or performance orientation affects these beliefs and feelings.
When the achievement approach to goal orientation was first developing, there was a
clear divide between two types of goals (Ames, 1984; Nicholls, 1984). Nicholls (1984) saw goals
as being either ego-involved or task-involved. Students with ego-involved goals were concerned
with how their achievement compared to others, and students with task-involved goals were
more focused on the successful completion of the task at hand. Dweck (1986) made a distinction
between performance goals and learning goals. Students with an orientation toward performance
compared their performance of the task to others, and students with an orientation toward
learning were focused on learning for the sake of learning. Lastly, Ames and Archer (1987)
distinguished mastery goals from performance goals. Due to the conceptual parallels between
mastery, task-involved, and learning goals, as well as performance and ego-involved goals,
respectively, the concepts were amalgamated into mastery and performance goals (Ames &
Archer, 1987).
Goal Orientation and Student Motivation
Mastery goal orientation. One of the fundamental assumptions regarding mastery goals
is that students attribute their achievement or attainment of the goal to their effort (Ames, 1992).
Students with mastery goals are focused on developing new learning or skills for increasing their
competence with regards to the task (Ames & Archer, 1988). Mastery goal orientation has a
positive relationship with student’s motivation. According to Ames and Archer (1988), students
with a mastery goal orientation are more likely to attribute their success to the effort they
expend. This belief has long-term effects on motivation because it is believed to affect student’s
thinking in a way that supports their involvement in learning (Ames & Archer, 1988). Friedel

13
and colleagues (2006) discovered that children’s mastery goal orientations better predicted self-
efficacy beliefs. It was also found that mastery-oriented students preferred more challenging
tasks than students with a performance goal orientation, and overall, these students have a more
positive attitude toward learning (Ames & Archer, 1988). Butler (1987) discovered that mastery
goal orientation has a positive effect on students’ intrinsic motivation. Students with intrinsic
motivation are more likely to be driven to learn by their own internal values or beliefs about
learning as opposed to external rewards or reinforcement. Mastery-oriented children more often
attempted to learn from errors, as well as held a positive perspective about outcomes on future
tasks (Friedel et al., 2006).
Students with a mastery goal orientation also tend to spend more time on a task (Butler,
1987). This finding may be related to the discovery that students attribute success to effort
(Ames & Archer, 1988); these students are less likely to give up easily, spending more time to
achieve their goal of task completion. It was also found students with a mastery goal orientation
persist when confronted with difficult tasks (Elliot & Dweck, 1988). If a student is putting in
greater effort because they link their effort with success, they may observe themselves
incrementally improving with their efforts and this may reinforce their commitment to persist
when tasks are challenging. Students with a mastery orientation were less prone to attributing
their failures in math to outside sources, such as a teacher (Friedel et al., 2006).
An environment oriented to mastery goals also positively influences student motivation.
Ames and Archer (1988) found that students with a classroom oriented toward self-improvement
and classroom participation concentrate more on exerting effort and using task strategies.
Although, Ryan and Grolnick (1986) discovered that individual differences in students’

14
experiences, such as home influences (Ames & Archer, 1987), may cause students to interpret
the same classroom in different ways.
Ames and Archer (1988) studied 176 middle school and high school academically
advanced students. These students were selected at random from classrooms with different
domains to see if there are specific motivational processes that can be linked to the leading goal
orientations in their classroom settings. Students described using more strategies when they
perceived their classroom as having a mastery goal-orientation. It was also found that not only
did students have a more positive attitude toward their particular class, but they also favored
more demanding tasks as well. Students who perceived a classroom that emphasized a mastery
goal orientation were also more likely to link effort with success, associate their teacher with
their successes, while not placing blame on the instructor for their failures.
Friedel and colleagues (2006) surveyed middle school children regarding their
perceptions of the goal orientations for both their parents and teachers. They found that students’
mastery goal orientations were linked to their parents and teachers, and thus, both the home and
school environment contribute to a child’s orientation toward learning mastery. Although the
students were influenced by both their perceptions of their parents’ and teachers’ goal
orientation, the link between a student’s actual goal orientation had a stronger relation to their
perception of their parents’ goal orientation than to their perception of their teacher’s goal
orientation (Friedel et al., 2006). Students who perceived their parents as being mastery oriented
had higher self-efficacy and utilized more positive coping strategies.
Performance goal orientation. With regard to performance goals, one of the
fundamental assumptions is that students evaluate their ability to execute a task by comparing
their performance to others (Ames, 1984; Ames, 1992). Students with a performance goal

15
orientation see their learning as a means to an end, as opposed to being the goal itself (Ames,
1992). Also, there is a focus on ability with students who have a performance goal orientation; a
student’s ability or lack of ability to outperform others will conclude with the student making
judgments about their own ability, and ultimately, their self-worth (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002;
Hoang, 2007).
Early research on performance goal orientation found it may have a negative influence on
a student’s motivation. Students with a performance goal orientation tend to avoid challenging
tasks (Dweck, 1986), as well as have a negative affect following task failure (Ames & Archer,
1988). These students are also less inclined to use positive coping strategies while being more
likely to use maladaptive coping strategies (Ames & Archer, 1988). Friedel and colleagues
(2006) found that performance-oriented students had a greater propensity toward negative self-
appraisals or had more fear that others would. These students were also more apt to deny a
negative experience with a task, had a greater tendency to cast blame for their struggles on their
teacher, and tended to view themselves as less competent (Ames & Archer, 1988; Friedel et al.,
2006). An environment oriented toward performance goals tends to have a negative effect on
student motivation. Ames and Archer (1988) found when students perceived a classroom with a
performance goal orientation, they tended to blame their failures on a lack of ability or a belief
that the work was too complex. When students perceived their parents as having a performance
goal orientation they were more inclined to have a performance goal orientation and to perceive
their teachers as having a performance goal orientation (Friedel et al., 2006). Although more
research is necessary to determine why this is so, it is possibly due to the more long-standing
influence parents have on their children (Friedel et al., 2006).

16
Performance-approach goal orientation. More recently, researchers have divided
performance goal orientation as performance-approach goals and performance-avoid goals
(Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). This partially resulted due to inconsistent findings when
performance-approach and performance-avoid goals were lumped together as one variable
(Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Elliot, 1999). Students with performance-approach goals move
toward competence with relation to the group, while students with performance-avoid goals try
to avoid being seen as incompetent as defined by the group (Elliot, 1999).
Researchers are in disagreement as to the whether or not a performance-approach goal
orientation leads to adaptive learning strategies (Elliot, 1997; Elliot, 1999; Midgley, Kaplan, &
Middleton, 2001; Pajares & Cheong, 2003). Elliot (1999) suggested that both performance-
approach and mastery goals are approach orientations, because students with both orientations
are putting forth effort to attain a positive goal although the goals themselves are not congruent.
Pajares, Britner, and Valiante (2000) found that both mastery and performance goals were
related in the writing domain for middle school girls, suggesting that both types of goals are
based in self-regulatory practices which lead to positive achievement outcomes. It was further
suggested that since performance-approach goals are grounded in self-regulatory behavior
leading to positive outcomes, they should have a positive influence on student motivation (Elliot,
1999; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). In another study, Elliot, McGregor, and Gable (1999)
suggested that although performance-approach goals aim toward a positive outcome, it is an
extrinsic achievement outcome. Midgley, Kaplan, and Middleton (2001) argued that
performance-approach goals only result in adaptive learning strategies when a learner is high in
both performance-approach and mastery goal orientation, and therefore performance-approach

17
goals are not facilitative of adaptive learning strategies. Elliot and Church (1997) also found that
performance-approach goals were correlated with the fear of failure.
When performance goal orientation was initially split into performance-approach and
performance-avoid goal orientations, Elliot and Harackiewicz (1996) reported that that
performance-approach goals cultivated intrinsic motivation. In the writing domain, performance-
approach goal orientation was positively related to self-efficacy and self-concept (Pajares et al.,
2000). In contrast, Middleton and Midgley (1997) found performance-approach goals lacked a
facilitative influence on sixth graders’ motivation. Performance-approach goal orientation was
related to the high-competence expectancies, achievement motivation, graded performance, and
fear of failure of college students but was unrelated to intrinsic motivation (Elliot & Church,
1997). In a study on achievement goal orientation and writing, performance-approach goals were
moderately linked to writing self-efficacy, writing self-concept, self-efficacy for self-regulated
learning, and value of writing for middle and high school students, but was also positively linked
to writing apprehension for the latter mentioned students, as well as those in elementary school.
Though many studies have suggested that a performance-approach goal orientation
facilitates a positive outcome, Santrock (2009) stated that numerous students are able to
successfully complete school tasks and achieve good grades but neglect to broaden their minds
and tend to lack critical thinking skills. Moreover, Harackiewicz, Barron, and Elliot (1998) found
that performance goals were unrelated to deep processing strategies while several studies have
shown a positive, predictive relationship between mastery goal orientation and deep processing
strategies, such as elaboration and organization (Anderman, Griesinger, & Westerfield, 1998;
Anderman & Young, 1994; Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Tauer, & Elliot, 1999; Pintrich &
Garcia, 1991; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993). Although, at the middle school and

18
high school levels, Pajares and Cheong (2003) found that mastery and performance-approach
goals were related. Unfortunately, this study also found performance-approach and performance-
avoid goals to be related at all three levels: elementary, middle, and high school.
Performance-avoid goal orientation. Performance-avoid goals aim to avoid a negative
consequence, and thus are maladaptive in school, as they tend to have a negative influence on
student motivation (Elliot, 1999; Pajares & Cheong, 2003). In relation to both mastery and
performance-approach goal orientations, performance-avoid goals undermine intrinsic
motivation (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). Elliot and Church (1997) found that performance-
avoid goals were detrimental to grade performance and associated with low-competence
expectancies and fear of failure. In writing, performance-avoid goals were negatively related to
self-efficacy and self-concept at the elementary, middle, and high school levels, as well as self-
regulation and writing aptitude at the elementary level (Pajares & Cheong, 2003). Additionally,
performance-avoid goal orientation was positively related to writing apprehension (Pajares &
Cheong, 2003), but was also found to be the least preferred goal orientation by elementary,
middle, and high school students (Pajares et al., 2000)
In summary, student motivation is influenced by their goal orientation; mastery goal
orientation has a positive influence on student motivation, while performance goal orientation
has been found to be more maladaptive, although researchers are in disagreement in regards to
the adaptive nature of performance-approach goal orientation. Students with a mastery
orientation are focused on increasing their learning with regards to the task at hand and are more
inclined to attribute their academic success to the effort they put forth. They tend to use more
strategies and prefer more challenging tasks. Students with a performance goal orientation tend
to evaluate their own performance in comparison to the performance of others and they will

19
judge their ability based on this comparison. Avoidance-oriented students view themselves as
being less competent and are apt to blame others, such as their instructor, for their academic
struggles. These students are also more inclined to avoid challenging tasks and are less inclined
to use positive coping strategies. Performance-approach oriented students may display adaptive
behaviors such as self-regulation, self-efficacy, or aiming for academic success but may still be
inclined to have maladaptive behaviors such as a fear of failure.
Childhood Development and Goal Orientation
Fifth grade elementary school students are in the late childhood stage of development
(Santrock, 2009). Piaget argued that children from the approximate age of seven to eleven are
capable of reasoning logically as long as reasoning is applied to tangible objects or tasks;
abstract thoughts are not characteristic of students in late childhood. Students at this age are,
however, capable of attending to more task-related stimuli rather than what is more conspicuous
(Santrock, 2009). Pajares and Cheong (2003) suggested that younger students may not
understand task and performance or effort and ability the way adolescent students do; students in
elementary school may not conceptualize their intellectual ability as having a capacity. In
another study, it was found that prior to adolescence, students are more inclined to view
intelligence as incremental or modifiable (Leondari & Gialamas, 2002). It has been further
suggested that these developmental differences may influence the goal orientation of elementary
school children (Pajares & Cheong, 2003). Students in late childhood also start to use social
comparison to better understand themselves and will incorporate information they receive about
others when evaluating their own behavior (Harter, 2006; Santrock, 2009). Fifth grade
elementary school students are also at an age where they are likely coregulated by parents
(Santrock, 2009). Children in late childhood may be gradually given some control over their

20
behavior by their parents, but are not yet ready to make the significant push for autonomy that
usually does not occur until at least age 12. Also, as students in late childhood navigate through
coregulation, it is pertinent for them to learn how to relate to adults outside of their family, such
as teachers (Santrock, 2009).
Some studies have found differences in student motivation with regards to different
developmental levels. When the goal orientations of 9 to 17 year old students were examined in
the writing domain, the researchers (Pajares & Cheong, 2003) found a significant relationship
between mastery and performance-approach goals for middle and high school students, but not
for elementary school students. However, performance-approach and performance-avoid goals
had a strong positive correlation at the elementary level, as well as the middle and high school
levels. Further, Pajares and colleagues (2000) suggested that whether or not performance-
approach goals facilitate student motivation may be a function of where the student is
developmentally, and thus, performance-approach goal orientation may correlate with student
motivation differently depending on the age of the student.
In summary, students in the fifth grade are in the late childhood stage of development.
There are unique ways students at this stage conceptualize task and performance, understand
themselves in comparison to their peers, relate to adults, and regulate their behavior. These
components of late childhood may influence the goal orientations of students at this stage. The
relationship between student perceptions of parental involvement and student goal orientation for
fifth grade elementary school students was examined in this study to further shed light on student
motivation of children at this stage of development.

21
Gender and Goal Orientation
Gender differences have been found in relation to goal orientation (Elliot & Church,
1997; Midgley & Urdan, 1995, Pajares & Cheong, 2003; Pajares & Valiante, 2001). Many
studies have shown that girls tend to be more inclined toward mastery goal orientation,
especially in language arts domains such as writing (Elliot & Church, 1997; Pajares & Valiante,
2001; Pajares & Cheong, 2003), while boys tend to be more performance oriented (Elliot &
Church, 1997; Pajares & Cheong, 2003; Pajares & Cheong, 2003). Pajares and Cheong (2003)
found gender differences indicated that girls were more likely than boys to have a mastery goal
orientation in writing at the elementary, middle, and high school level, while boys were more
inclined than girls to have either a performance-approach or performance-avoid goal orientation.
It was also discovered that mastery and performance goals were related for middle school girls
(Pajares et al., 2000). In a study on gender orientation, Pajares and Valiante (2001) looked
beyond the gender of the middle school participants and instead at their stereotypical gender
beliefs. They discovered a significant interaction between masculinity and performance-approach
goal orientation for boys. Meaning, boys with a greater preference for masculinity were much
more inclined to have performance-approach goals in writing. On the contrary, masculinity and
performance-approach goal orientation were unrelated for girls. Some studies have found
associations between gender and student goal orientation, but unique to this study was the
examination of interaction effects of gender and student perceptions of parental involvement on
student goal orientation. To the researchers knowledge, this type of analysis has not been
conducted.

22
Parental Involvement and Student Motivation
Parental Involvement
Parents communicate the importance of education through their involvement in their
child’s schooling (Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems, & Doan Holbein, 2005). After reviewing 66
studies regarding parental involvement, Henderson and Berla (1994) concluded that overall
children do better in school when their parents are more involved with their education at home.
More specifically, there was a greater positive influence on student achievement when parents
had regular discussions, gave assistance, and gave advice than when they were involved in
school-based activities (Henderson & Berla, 1994). Pulkkinen (1982) found high levels of
parental involvement to be associated with competence and achievement motivation.
Greenwood and Hickman (1991) found parental involvement in the elementary school years to
have a positive relationship with student academic achievement, sense of well-being, attitude,
homework readiness, grades, and educational aspirations. On the contrary, low levels of parental
involvement are associated with aggression and disobedience in the school setting (Hatfield,
Ferguson, & Alpert, 1967)
Researchers have come to different conclusions regarding parental involvement largely
because different definitions of parental involvement have been used (Barwegen et al., 2004).
Griffith (1996) examined how parental involvement and parent empowerment related to student
achievement. Parental involvement was defined as parents volunteering at their child’s school,
attending back to school night, as well as parent-teacher conferences. Mau (1997) studied four
categories: helping, controlling, supporting, and participating. While Epstein (1988; 1995)
divided parental involvement into six categories: basic obligations, general parent/school

23
communication, parent/school communication about homework, participation in school activities
by the parent, parent involvement regarding school decisions, and community collaboration.
Grolnick and Slowiaczek (1994) hypothesized a multidimensional definition of parental
involvement in order to examine its relationship to student’s school performance. Parental
involvement was broken into behavioral involvement, personal involvement, and cognitive or
intellectual involvement. Behavioral involvement was comprised of activities such as regularly
attending school functions. Personal involvement consisted of the positive feelings a child
experiences when his parent is engaged and participating in his education. Lastly, engaging
students in brainteasers, stimulating books, or discussions about current events are ways in which
parents were viewed as being cognitively involved with their child. Grolnick and Slowiaczek
(1994) examined over 300 middle-class middle school students and found support for their
multidimensional model of parental involvement, although the three factors were only
moderately correlated. This suggests that parents can not only display their involvement in
several ways, but also that students feel supported by their parents beyond their behavioral
contributions to their child’s education.
There have been several studies that link parental involvement with student motivation.
Gonzalez-DeHass and colleagues (2005) reviewed studies on parental involvement to examine
its influence on student motivation; studies involving students in the United States K-12 public
school system were reviewed. The researchers concluded there was a positive relationship
between parental involvement and several motivational constructs: school engagement,
intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, perceived competence, perceived control, self-regulation, mastery
goal orientation, and motivation to read.

24
A study examined fifth-grade students’ motivational orientation in relation to their
parents’ monitoring of their homework and reaction to their grades (Ginsberg & Bronstein,
1993). The researchers defined parental surveillance of homework as being over-controlling and
found that the more parents were involved, enforced, or helped with homework, the more likely
their child was to have an extrinsic motivational orientation as well as being dependent on
outside sources for guidance and evaluation when completing academic work. An extrinsic
motivational orientation was also found in students whose parents gave them extrinsic rewards
for their grades. On the contrary, praise and encouragement for grades were associated with an
intrinsic motivational orientation.
Similarly, Marchant and colleagues (2001) studied the effects of parental involvement,
parenting style, and school contexts on student motivation. Two hundred thirty fifth and sixth
graders answered questionnaires about parenting style and parental involvement. Parental
involvement consisted of two dimensions: parental values and parental involvement in school
functions. With regards to parental values, the level of importance placed on effort and
academic success was assessed. The motivation scale entailed five items that addressed
students’ perceptions of importance of ability, effort, and grades. The researchers found that
student perceptions of their parents’ values about academic achievement had the strongest
correlation with both motivation and competence. Students perceived themselves as being more
competent with regard to academics as well as prioritizing their effort and grades when their
parents valued academic achievement and effort.
After examining over 150 middle school students in the sixth grade, Wentzel (1998)
found perceived parental support was the only type of support that predicted students’ academic
goal orientation. Although she also examined peer and teacher support, these two variables were

25
not linked with student academic goal orientation. However, peer support was associated with
prosocial goal pursuit and teacher support was associated with interest in class and goals to
adhere to classroom norms.
Gonzalez-Pienda and colleagues (2002) studied twelve to eighteen year olds and found
parental involvement to have a positive correlation with students’ academic self-concept. They
also discovered a positive relationship between parental involvement and students’ acceptance of
responsibility for the results of their academic behavior. A negative correlation was found
between parental involvement and external attributions as well.
In 2002, Gonzalez investigated whether or not students’ perceptions of parental
involvement are predictive of a mastery orientation to learning. Almost two hundred students
were surveyed from two Florida high schools. The questionnaires assessed help with homework,
attendance of school programs, help choosing academic courses, and keeping up-to-date on their
student’s progress in school. The results from this study suggest that parental involvement was
positively related to mastery orientation. Gonzalez (2002) found that when parents displayed an
interest, and thus an active role, in their student’s education, students were more likely to seek
challenging tasks, persist through academics obstacles, and gain a sense of satisfaction in their
schoolwork.
Gonzalez, Doan Holbein, and Quilter (2002) studied the relationships among three
variables: student perceptions of parenting styles, student perceptions of parental involvement,
and mastery and performance goal orientation of high school students. A goal inventory and
authority questionnaires, as well as a background information sheet, were used to collect data
from 196 high school students from two Florida high schools. The results found support for their
hypothesis that an authoritative parenting style related to a student’s mastery orientation while

26
both the authoritarian and permissive parenting styles have a relationship with a student’s
performance orientation.
It was further discovered that maternal authoritarianism had a positive relationship to
students’ performance goal orientation which suggests a parental focus on obedience, strict
conformity, and punishment is related to students being more concerned with proving their
ability in comparison to others than learning for the sake of learning (Gonzalez et al., 2002).
Gonzalez and colleagues (2002) suggested that these findings might have revealed that a more
controlling and punitive parental style causes student dependence on an authority figure’s
approval and guidance. It was also noted that students in an authoritarian environment are not
encouraged to be autonomous which is needed in order to support a mastery goal orientation.
Hoang (2007) examined the associations of parenting style and involvement with goal
orientation and autonomy in a specific domain: Algebra I. After studying 140 public high school
students in Northern California, Hoang (2007) found several correlations. One common finding
was that students whose parents were personally involved with them or had either an
authoritative or authoritarian parenting style reported a more intrinsic basis for completing
mathematics assignments. Those students whose parents were more permissive did not report
intrinsic reasons for completing mathematics assignments. In contradiction to findings about
personal involvement, Hoang (2007) found that when parents were more behaviorally involved
with their adolescent students, it was predictive of students having a performance orientation, or
students who were more concerned with their performance in comparison to others. In general,
students who conveyed their parents as being more warm and democratic tended to be engaged
in their schoolwork for the purpose of mastery as opposed to trying to outperform others.
Overall, Hoang (2007) found that an authoritative parenting style was positively related to

27
students being oriented toward mastery, and an authoritarian or permissive parenting style was
positively correlated with a performance approach student goal orientation.
In summary, there has been ample research to show a strong connection between parental
involvement and student motivation. Parental involvement has been and continues to be
measured and defined in different ways. Some researchers measure it via concrete behaviors
such as hours helping with homework, while others are more interested in parents’ values and
beliefs. Still other researchers break parental involvement into different categories and assess
multiple aspects of how a parent can support their child’s education. Even with all of these
measures, there is growing evidence that parental involvement has a positive impact on a child’s
intrinsic motivation, effort in school, search for challenging tasks, mastery orientation, and
academic self-concept, and thus, more research is needed to determine the influence of parental
involvement on the motivation of diverse populations who have been shown to have lower
academic achievement.
Student Perceptions of Parental Involvement
Research is needed to explore a relationship between student perceptions of parental
involvement and student goal orientation. Grolnick et al., (1991) suggested that the influence
events have on children is often mediated by their perceptions of these events. If parental
involvement activities are to have any influence on student learning and behavior, then children
must perceive and experience this involvement (Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994). Many
researchers have acknowledged the importance of student perceptions of parental involvement,
but very few have examined its relation to goal orientation.
Colangelo, Assouline, Chen, Tsai (1999) examined academically talented third through
sixth graders’ perceptions of their parents’ involvement in their education. The researchers also

28
felt that students’ perception of parental involvement was an important focus of their study.
They deduced that a student’s satisfaction or lack of satisfaction with their parent’s involvement
would be affected by the student’s perceptions. Thus, Colangelo and colleagues (1999)
questioned both the parents and the students regarding parental involvement.
The sample consisted of 3,187 matched parent and student questionnaires of families who
resided in Iowa (77%), Illinois (15%), Missouri (3%), or Florida (3%). The majority (85%) of
students resided with both parents, yet 88% of the parents who returned the surveys were
mothers (Colangelo et al., 1999). The researchers found that 40.2% of boys and 45.7% of girls
perceived the parental involvement of their mothers and fathers to be equal. This was true of
almost areas assessed with the exception of which parent knew their friends best; students felt
mothers knew their friends better than fathers. It was found that more boys (34%) than girls
(15%) perceived their fathers to be more involved with their recreational hobbies. Overall,
students believed the amount of their parents’ involvement in their academic and social lives was
appropriate with neither parent being seen as over involved. Although, when a parent was
perceived as not being involved enough, it was the father.
Trusty and Lampe (1997) used data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of
1988 to assess 10,311 high school seniors who were surveyed every two years starting when they
were in the 8
th
grade. This data was used to assess student perceptions of parental involvement
and whether they were associated with an internal or external locus of control. The student
survey assessed demographics, student attitudes, student perceptions, and student behavior
regarding school, recreational activities, peer relations, and family using a 4-point Likert scale.
The 8 items that assessed student perceptions of parental involvement focused on students’
educational, career, and personal development. An authoritative parenting style was supported

29
by the finding that parental demandingness of maturity and willingness to enforce rules merged
with parental involvement, support, and responsiveness led to psychological benefits such as
more adaptive identity development and empowerment for the adolescents (Trusty & Lampe,
1997).
Barge and Loges (2003) conducted focus groups with not only students, but also parents
and teachers to assess parental involvement. They felt this to be necessary in order to highlight
the differences between what each stakeholder group perceives as helpful as well as what is
occurring. During the seven student focus groups that included 128 sixth, seventh, and eighth
graders, Barge and Loges (2003) focused on two questions: what do parents do that students find
the most helpful and least helpful?
Students described three themes regarding helpful parental involvement: help with
homework, encouragement, and interacting with schools. Help with homework was brought up
by students in almost every focus group. Students expressed their appreciation for parents who
monitored their homework completion, assisted with the completion of homework, or even
simply asking students if their homework was done on a daily basis. Students in the focus group
recognized that when parents completed assignments for them, it prevented them from learning.
Parental assistance with homework also fostered conversations that provided
encouragement for the students. Students expressed their appreciation of their parents’
encouragement and perceived being encouraged when there were limitations on activities until
homework assignments were completed or when they received rewards or special educational
resources. Students also articulated an understanding that boundaries around TV, telephone, and
curfew privileges showed their parents’ concern for their well-being.

30
Barge and Loges (2003) also discovered that students find it helpful when parents interact
with the school with some conditions. Students recognized parental visits to the school as
evidence of involvement, such as a parent trying to arrange for tutoring for their child, but also
requested that they not be embarrassed by their parents. For example, one student said that
parents who bring snacks for their children are appreciated, but parents should wait for their
child in the office as opposed to visiting their classroom. Students also expressed that their
definition of effective parental involvement includes parent participation in school activities, and
they also stated that students notice when their parents are absent for parent teacher conferences,
meetings, or school activities.
Students found it least helpful when their interactions with their parents were negative,
defensive, or demeaning. Students stated that even when parents are involved in their education,
it will have a negative effect if the parents express contempt for their teachers or school. Barge
and Loges (2003) also observed that students felt a lack of boundaries set by parents was among
things that were least helpful. In fact, one of differences in perceptions of parental involvement
by parents and students surrounded parental discipline. Parents neglected to mention discipline
as an important factor to their involvement in their child’s education, but students felt the
parental control of rewards and punishments signified love and support from their parents.
Student Perceptions of Parental Involvement and Student Motivation
Urdan, Solek, and Schoenfelder (2007) examined the relationship of generational status,
gender, and achievement levels on perceptions of familial involvement. They discovered four
patterns in their data: family pleasing pattern, family obligation pattern, family support pattern,
and aversive influence. Students whose parents immigrated from another country tended to have
a strong desire to make their families proud by succeeding academically; this pattern reoccurred

31
and was labeled as family pleasing. Students in this pattern perceived their parents as being
supportive with a lack of overt pressure.
Other students in this study felt indebted to their parents because they were aware of the
sacrifices their parents had made in order to provide educational opportunities for the students.
This pattern was labeled family obligation pattern by Urdan et al. (2007) and was marked by
more than just wanting to please their parents; students felt they owed their parents for the
sacrifices made and at times felt pressured to succeed academically. The researchers observed
this pressure often described in a negative tone.
In the pattern labeled family support, students described their parents as having an
authoritative style; students’ perceived high expectations and nurturing support from their
parents. Students articulated their parents’ belief in their academic ability and their own desire to
achieve in school for themselves and not their parents. This pattern tended to be described by
students who were second or third generation in the US. The researchers attributed this
association due to the tendency for authoritative parents fostering independence and self-
sufficiency in adolescence.
Urdan and colleagues (2007) also observed an aversive influence pattern when students
illustrated negative family role models or low expectations for the student by the family.
Students expressed a desire to complete their education as to avoid being unsuccessful as some
of their family members had been. There was also an urge to disprove family members who had
low expectations for the students.
Of the students interviewed by the researchers (Urdan et al., 2007), cultural lines seemed
to dictate the difference between those who achieved at a high (A- or higher), medium (B- to a
B+), or low (C+ or below) performance level in their English course. Asian, first, and second

32
generation students tended to achieve at a high or medium level. The low achievers tended to be
Latino or third generation students.
Regner et al. (2009) investigated whether parental involvement was a factor in the student
adoption of achievement goals. More specifically, parental academic support and parental
academic monitoring was examined. The researchers stated students’ perceptions of how their
parents’ involvement in their education is particularly powerful and felt that as a child’s primary
socialization agent, parents’ influence on children’s academic success has been largely
neglected. Regner and colleagues (2009) used 2 questionnaires, given 3 months apart, to assess
503 French middle school students from 26 classes in three different public schools. The 5-point
Likert-type scale (Gonzalez-Dehass et al., 2005) measured student perceptions of parental and
teacher academic involvement and consisted of 8 items. The second scale (Elliot & McGregor,
2001) measured achievement goals and consisted of 12 items.
The researchers (Regner et al., 2009) found that student perceptions of parental academic
support positively predicted mastery goals, but did not have a significant relationship with
performance goals. The results of the study (Regner et al., 2009) also suggested that student
perceptions of parental academic monitoring positively predicted both mastery goals and
performance-approach goals, but failed to have a significant relationship with performance-avoid
goals. The research conducted by Regner and colleagues (2009) contributed to the evidence that
when students perceive parental academic support, they are more likely to adopt mastery goals.
In summary, student perceptions of parental involvement are an important aspect of
research in education. Although this has been stated in research, there is a lack of empirical
evidence that links student perceptions of parental involvement with student adoption of mastery
goals. This is important because mastery goals have been linked with higher academic

33
performance, task engagement, and greater intrinsic motivation (Grolnick et al., 1991; Grolnick
& Slowiaczek, 1994).
Conclusion
In conclusion, this literature review examined the relationships goal orientation, parental
involvement, and student perceptions of parental involvement have with student motivation.
Researchers have uncovered evidence that suggests students with a mastery goal orientation are
more motivated to achieve academically. This research has helped to conclude that
environments that are geared toward mastery goal orientation may help students achieve at a
higher level. Researchers have traditionally examined the classroom, but much attention has also
been turned to the home environment. Researchers (Friedel et al., 2006; Ginsberg & Bronstein,
1993; Gonzalez, 2002; Gonzalez-DeHass et al., 2005; Hoang, 2007; Wentzel, 1998) are
questioning how parental involvement behaviors relate to student goal orientation. Findings
have suggested that parents who are more encouraging and supportive of their child’s academic
pursuits tend to foster motivation in their child. To uncover most of these findings, researchers
questioned both parents and teachers about parental involvement behaviors, yet Grolnick and
colleagues (1991) suggested that the influence of an event or a parental involvement behavior on
a student is often mediated by the child’s perception of the occurrence. Furthermore, if parental
involvement behavior is to have any effect on student learning, it is imperative that children
perceive and experience the involvement (Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994).
Student perceptions of parental involvement must be both considered and further studied.
Many researchers have recognized the importance of student perceptions of parental
involvement, but very few have examined its relation to goal orientation; even fewer have
sampled elementary populations. Unique to this study, is the exploration of the relationship

34
between student perceptions of parental involvement and goal orientation for ethnically diverse
fifth grade elementary school students from high-poverty schools. Regner et al. (2009) affirmed
students’ perceptions of how their parents are involved in their education as being particularly
powerful and advised that as a child’s primary socialization agent, parents’ influence on
children’s academic success has been largely neglected. Consequently, it is the aim of the
current study to examine how the motivation of fifth grade elementary students is influenced by
their perceptions of parental involvement. For the reason that mastery goal orientation can
predict positive academic behaviors, such as students having a higher self-efficacy for tasks,
attributing their successes to their effort, and using more learning strategies, goal orientation will
be used to determine which parental involvement behaviors are most effective in creating high
student motivation.

35
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
The purpose of this study is to increase the understanding of how student perceptions of
parental involvement affect student goal orientation. Additionally, it was the goal of the
researcher to use each subscale of parental involvement (achievement value, interest in
schoolwork, or involvement in school functions) to determine if, when isolated, a significant
correlation to student goal orientation exists. This study also sought to examine the role that
gender plays in student goal orientation. It is the hope of the researcher that results from the
current study will assist in guiding practitioners and the community in helping students to adopt
a more adaptive goal orientation.
This chapter includes the three research questions that guided the investigation. A
detailed account of the methodologies used is also outlined in this chapter, as well as a
description of the research design, reliability measures, general demographics of the participants,
sampling procedures, the instrumentation, and the procedures for both data collection and data
analysis are discussed.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. Do student perceptions of parental involvement predict mastery, approach, or avoid
goal orientation?
2. Which of these student perceptions of parental involvement subscales (achievement
value, involvement in school functions, or interest in schoolwork) predict mastery,
approach, and avoid goal orientations?
3. Are there differences in students’ goal orientation based on their gender or parental
involvement level?

36
Research Design
The purpose of this investigation was to understand how parental involvement perceived
by fifth grade elementary students is related to student goal orientation. The study also
attempted to unveil which of the three parental involvement constructs, achievement value,
interest in schoolwork, or involvement with school functions, predicted student goal orientation.
Since this investigation aimed to assess whether a relationship exists between student perceived
parental involvement and goal orientation, quantitative research methods were utilized. Surveys
that included self-report Likert scales assessed the degree to which the independent variables
predicted the dependent variables in this non-experimental correlational study. Data collection
took place over a one-month period of time with approximately 10 visits to the district office, the
schools’ offices, or the self-contained classrooms. Due to the high number of participants needed
in order to adequately answer the research questions in combination with the difficulty in having
children return parent permission slips, all students who returned a signed parental permission
form and signed the child assent form participated in the study.
Population and Sample
Population. Individual fifth grade students from two elementary schools in a city within
Los Angeles County, California were the unit of analysis in this study. Los Angeles School
District (LASD) is comprised of approximately 6,000 students who attend seven K-5 elementary
and two 6-8 middle schools, respectively. Demographic information for the district as a whole
was not available, but the California Department of Education reports that 74% of second
through eighth graders who attend LASD and took the Standardized Testing and Reporting
(STAR) test during the spring of 2010 were Latino; 10% were African American, 6% were

37
Asian, 5% were White, 2% were Filipino, 1% were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 1%
were two or more races.
Fifth grade students were selected for this study since they are in the middle childhood
stage of development but are still developmentally ready to reliably answer questionnaires
(Connell, 1985; Harter, 1982). This population is a valuable addition to the research literature,
because in a large number of studies parental involvement is reported by teachers or parents. In
the studies where students actually reported their perceptions of parental involvement, most of
these students were secondary.
Participants. All participants were from six different fifth grade classrooms at two high-
poverty, Title 1 elementary schools; sixty-nine students were from School A and thirty-three
were from School B. Sixty-three percent of School A’s and forty-seven percent of School B’s
students were English language learners (ELL); most of these students spoke Spanish, but less
than 5% of the ELL students spoke Tongan, Tagalog, Arabic, Vietnamese, or French. Over 80%
of students at both schools qualified for free or reduced lunch; this is a common measure used to
identify students who come from impoverished families. The participants were predominantly
Hispanic or Latino (72.5%) and were mostly female (61.8%); their mean age was 10.51 years
(SD = .625). An overview of the demographics of all 102 participants in this study is presented in
Table 1.
Instrumentation
In order to assess the relationship between student perceptions of parental involvement
and student goal orientation, the current study included two instruments along with demographic
questions. The student portion of Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS) was used to
assess student goal orientation, and the parental involvement portion of the Parenting Styles and

38
Table 1
Demographic Information for Participants (N = 102)

Demographics Frequency Percentage
Gender
Male
Female

39
63

38.2%
61.8%
Grade
Fifth Grade

102

100%
Age (in years)
*
9
10
11
12

0
57
38
7

0%
55.9%
37.3%
6.9%
Racial/Ethnic Background
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian
African American or Black
White
Hispanic or Latino
Multi-ethnic/racial
Biracial

1
9
6
3
74
7
2

1%
8.8%
5.9%
2.9%
72.5%
6.9%
2%
*
Mean age = 10.51 years

Parental Involvement scale was utilized to measure student perceptions of parental involvement.
In addition to these two instruments, the students will be asked four demographic questions (see
Appendix D) regarding their age, gender, race/ethnicity, and grade.
Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales. Three of the student scales from the Patterns of
Adaptive Learning Scales (see Appendix A) (Midgley, Maehr, Hruda, E. Anderman, L.
Anderman, Freeman, Gheen, Kaplan, Kumar, Middleton, Nelson, Roeser, & Urdan, 2000) were
employed to assess the dependent variable, student goal orientation. The Patterns of Adaptive
Learning Scales (PALS) used in the current study measured mastery, performance-approach, and
performance-avoid goal orientations, with a total of 14 items. The Likert-type scales were
anchored by three choices: 1 = “Not at all true,” 3 = “Somewhat true,” and 5 = “Very true.”

39
Students also had the option of choosing numbers 2 or 4, but there was no description for these
choices.
The mastery goal orientation scale measured the extent to which a student was focused on
task mastery (Midgely et al., 2000). This scale contained 5 items; sample items include, “It’s
important to me that I learn a lot of new concepts this year,” and “One of my goals in class is to
learn as much as I can.” The performance-approach orientation scale assessed whether students
were driven to demonstrate their competence and whether they were attending to themselves as
opposed to the task at hand (Midgley et al., 2000). There were a total of 5 items for this scale as
well. Sample items are, “It’s important to me that other students in my class think I am good at
my class work,” and, “One of my goals is to show others that I’m good at my class work.” The
final scale measured performance-avoid goal orientation and had a total of 4 items. Students
with this type of goal orientation are motivated to avoid appearing incompetent, and thus, are
also focused on themselves as opposed to the task (Midgley et al., 2000). Sample items are, “It’s
important to me that I don’t look stupid in class,” and, “One of my goals is to keep others from
thinking I’m not smart in class.”
The PALS was originally developed to assess goal orientation in high school students,
but has also been used to assess goal orientation for students in third through ninth grade
(Midgley et al., 2000); the authors do not recommend using PALS on students in third grade or
below. The original scale (Midgely, Kaplan, Middleton, Maehr, Urdan, E. Anderson, & Roeser,
1998) consisted of 17 items; three items were removed because they either assessed intrinsic
value or their reference to behavior was too particular (Midgley et al., 2000). The revised scales
had goodness of fit scores (GFI = .097, AFGI = .095) that indicated the model is well suited for
the data (Midgley et al., 2000). The Cronbach’s alpha for the revised subscales are .85 (original

40
= .86) for mastery orientation, .89 (original = .86) for performance-approach orientation, and .74
(original = .75) for performance-avoid orientation.
Parenting Style and Parental Involvement. The parental involvement portion from the
Parenting Style and Parental Involvement (see Appendix B) scale (Paulson, 1994; Paulson, 1996)
was utilized to measure student perceptions of parental involvement. The three parental
involvement subscales (parental achievement values, parental interest in schoolwork, and
parental involvement in school functions) were used as well, for a total of 22 Likert-type items.
There was also a Parenting Style portion of the PSPI, which was not used in the current study, as
the participants were of a young age and the researcher did not want to jeopardize the data by
creating a situation where students could have become over-fatigued or disinterested in the
survey. Parental involvement was being focused on as opposed to parenting style due to its
implications in how students perceive their parents direct involvement in their school life in the
three areas mentioned previously.
The original three subscales, parental achievement value, parental interest in schoolwork,
and parental involvement in school functions, assessed student perceptions of their mother’s
parental involvement by use of the words, “my mother,” in all of the items. These items were
anchored by five selections: 1 = very unlike, 2 = more unlike than like, 3 = neither like nor
unlike, 4 = more like than unlike, and 5 = very like.
The current study employed a modified version of the PSPI (see Appendix C) in order to
allow students to answer the questions about the parental figure who helped them the most with
their schoolwork and to ensure clarity of the anchored choices. Before answering the PSPI
survey questions, students were instructed to think about the adult in their home who helped
them with school the most. Students were then able to select this adult; the options included:

41
mother, stepmother, father, stepfather, grandparent, aunt/uncle, or other. Students were only able
to select one choice and were instructed that if they selected “other,” this person needed to be an
adult. Table 2 has an overview of the choices made by the participants.
The following are a list of modifications used in the current study for the PSPI:
1. The words, “my mother,” were replaced with, “my parent.”
2. The five anchors were changed to: 1 = “Not at all true”, 2 = “Not usually true,” 3 =
“Sometimes true,” 4 = “Usually true,” and 5 = “Always true.”
3. The word “adolescence” was changed to “childhood” on item 14.
The PSPI was originally developed to assess parental involvement and parenting styles of high
school students but has been used on students in the 5
th
and 6
th
grades (Paulson, 1994; Paulson,
1996; Paulson, Marchant, & Rothlisberg, 1998; Marchant et al., 2001). The Cronbach’s alpha
of parental involvement as measured on the PSPI ranged from .71 to .79 when maternal
involvement was assessed alone but increased to a range of .74 to .83 when both maternal and
paternal involvement were assessed (Paulson, 1996; Paulson et al., 1998; Marchant et al., 2001).
All parenting scales of the PSPI were validated by two independent samples in the original study
(Paulson, 1996) and were found to have good construct validity (Paulson et al., 1998).
Table 2
Descriptive Information of Student Responses for the Adult who Helped
the Most with School (n = 102).

Choice of Adult Frequency Percentage
Mother
Stepmother
Father
Stepfather
Grandparent
Aunt/Uncle
Other
55
2
20
1
3
2
19

53.9%
2%
19.6%
1%
2.9%
2%
18.6%

42
The achievement value subscale had 8 items and measured student perceptions of
parental achievement value such as parents having high aspirations for their child or
parents who encourage their child to exert effort when completing work. Sample items were,
“My parent tries to get me to do my best on everything I do,” and, “My parent thinks that
education is a very important part of childhood.” The interest in schoolwork subscale had 9
items and quantified student perceptions of parental interest in schoolwork such as homework or
work brought home that was completed at school. Sample items include, “My mother seldom
looks at my tests and papers from school (reverse coded),” and, “My mother thinks homework is
a very important part of school.” The final subscale had 5 items and assessed student perceptions
of parental involvement in school functions, such as school plays or awards ceremonies. Sample
items are, “My mother usually does not go to school functions (reverse coded),” and, “My
mother usually goes to activities in which I am involved in school.”
Consent Forms
Parents. Parental consent for all child participants was obtained prior to administration
of the questionnaires. Due to a high number of families who have immigrated to the LASD area,
predominantly from Latino countries, the parental consent form (see Appendix E) was also
translated into Spanish. LASD administrators discouraged the translation of consent forms into
languages besides English and Spanish, as the parents of ELLs with a native language other than
Spanish had an adult in the home literate in English.
Students. Participants were made aware that they did not have to participate in the study
even if their parents signed the parental consent form. Students were first briefed as to the
purpose of the study and were then given a description of what would take place if they chose to
participate. Lastly, students were given the option to sign the child assent (see Appendix F) form

43
or to opt out of the study, but were also reassured that they could opt out at any point during data
collection. All forms were retained by the researcher.
Data Collection
Prior to data collection, the researcher obtained permission from the Institutional Review
Board (IRB) to conduct research involving minor participants. The IRB approved a parental opt-
out process in which parents would only have to return the parental consent form if they did not
want their child to participate. However, after the superintendent of LASD conferred with the
district lawyers, it was determined that per district policy, no child would be permitted to
participate in the current study unless a signed parental consent form was returned to the school
site. Therefore, a signature line was added to the parental consent form (see Appendix E), as well
as a line stating that all students who returned the form would receive an incentive, a pencil, if
they returned the form signed by their parent. This incentive was given to the child regardless of
participation in the study.
Parental consent forms were delivered to the school sites and sent to the homes of 175
fifth grade students. The forms were placed in manila envelopes with the class roster on the
outside; each teacher was given an envelope for her class. The teacher was instructed to check
off the names of the students who returned the forms and to place the returned form inside of the
envelope. The forms were sent home with the students on a Monday, which corresponded to the
day of the week in which parents are advised to look for notifications and announcements from
the schools. The principals also assisted in notifying parents about the study by using the
district’s mass-messaging service in which they were able to record a message in English and
Spanish and send it out to all fifth grade parents, at their respective school sites, in minutes.

44
At School A, one class had only 3 out of 31 students return the form signed. So less than
two weeks later, the researcher sent another set of parental consent forms home with the
students. The researcher returned on a separate date to collect the forms from this class and
conduct the study.
One hundred twenty-six of the two hundred ten slips handed out were returned with a
parent signature indicating these parents received and read the permission form. Only 105 of
these signatures granted permission for the students to participate. Two of the 105 students were
unable to complete the survey, and one student opted not to sign the child assent form; this
resulted in 102 completed surveys.
The researcher returned to the school sites on four separate dates to collect data; all data
was collected within two weeks of dropping off the forms. On the morning of data collection, the
researcher arrived early to collect the envelopes in order to determine the number of students in
each class who would participate in the study and to ensure all materials were prepared
accordingly. The researcher was given access to the computer labs at both schools in order to
conduct the student surveys using Qualtrics (Qualtrics Labs, Inc., 2012), an online survey
software, which was set up well in advance. The survey was created with the participants’ age
group in mind and included large print, shading of every other question, prompts to move on to
the next page, and a thank you message to signal the end of the survey. A generic password (i.e.
the name of the school) was also created to gain access to the survey. This ensured that a
nonparticipant would be unable to gain access to the survey, and that all participants would be
able to gain access to the survey without being identified. After data collection was completed
for the day, the survey was locked and remained inaccessible to anyone but the researcher until
the next data collection date.

45
Classrooms entered the computer lab in 30-minute blocks (see Appendix I) with 10
minutes of transition time in between. The researcher prepared and used a Briefing and
Debriefing Script (see Appendix G) that was also distributed to the classroom teacher, principal,
and research assistant, Kelly Johnson. Students were briefed as to the purpose of the study, read
the child assent form and given the opportunity to ask any questions about the study or
procedures. Participants were also reassured that the survey was not a test or going to be graded
in any way (Midgley et al., 2000) and that their answers would remain completely confidential.
The students were encouraged to answer the survey items thoughtfully and honestly. After all
questions were answered, the students were given the option to sign the child assent form
indicating their willingness to participate in the study. The forms were collected by the
researcher and the students were again reassured that they could opt out of the study at any time.
Only students who had both a signed parental consent form and a signed child assent form were
permitted to take the survey; access to a computer was denied to all other students, who were
given a quiet activity to complete while they waited.
Participants were given the Qualtrics (Qualtrics Labs, Inc., 2012) password and instructed
to sign in to the survey. After all students had access to the survey, they were instructed to point
to the directions at the top of the screen to ensure everyone was paying attention as the
researcher read the directions allowed. The researcher assisted the whole group with the first five
questions by reading all parts allowed and explaining meanings of difficult words (i.e. Hispanic,
native, gender). The first four questions were the demographic questions. Both the teacher and
researcher walked around to assist students with these questions. Students were instructed not to
move to the next page until they had been instructed to do so. The fifth question was a sample
question at the beginning of the PALS and aided the students in understanding the anchors.

46
Students were again reassured that they could ask for help at any point during the study and after
all participants had completed the sample question, students were instructed to complete the rest
of the survey independently. The researcher, her colleague, and the classroom teacher all had a
copy of anticipated questions or misunderstandings the students might have had (see Appendix
H), such as a list of synonyms for difficult words or phrases (i.e. the word ‘hopes’ for
‘aspirations’ or ‘high expectations’ for ‘high standards’). A quiet activity was available to the
participants after completion.
At the end of the data collection session for each class, participants were debriefed as a
whole group and given another opportunity to ask questions. Students were thanked for their
participation and all students who returned a signed parent consent form were given a pencil.
Furthermore, after all data was collected from both school sites, thank you cards and a small treat
were given to the participating teachers, as well as the principals of both schools.
Data Analysis
All data from Qualtrics (Qualtrics Labs, Inc., 2012) were imported to and analyzed by the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Before any inferential statistics were run the
researcher coded all data, checked that all dates and times of completed surveys matched data
collection dates and times, ensured the number of completed surveys corresponded to the number
of parental consent and child assent forms, and eliminated all data for unnecessary questions (i.e.
the sample question) and the two incomplete surveys. Descriptive statistics for all scales,
including means and standard deviations, were run as well.
In order to check the reliability of the scales, Cronbach’s alpha was computed for all
scales used in the study. The Cronbach’s alphas for the dependent variables are .723 for mastery
orientation, .858 for performance-approach orientation, and .655 for performance-avoid

47
orientation. Although the Cronbach’s alpha for the latter scale was below the desired .7, the
researcher included the scale in the inferential statistics. As for the dependent variables, the
Cronbach’s alpha of student perceptions of parental involvement as measured by combining all
three subscales (parental achievement value, interest in schoolwork, and involvement in school
functions) was .694 after one item from the involvement in school functions subscale and one
reverse-coded item from the interest in schoolwork subscale were deleted. The Cronbach’s alpha
for the parental achievement value subscale was .696 after the only reverse-coded item was
deleted. Unfortunately, the reliability for the final two subscales, interest in schoolwork (∝ =
.420) and involvement in school functions (∝ = .424), were too low to include when computing
the inferential statistics for the study. The researcher attempted to raise the Cronbach’s alpha of
the interest in schoolwork subscale by dropping one of the reverse-coded items, but this only
increased the alpha to .559. A Cronbach’s alpha of the involvement in school functions subscale
only had 5 items, making it difficult to justify dropping an item to raise the Cronbach’s alpha,
but the researcher attempted to do so and found that the alpha was only raised to .562. Again,
this alpha was still too unreliable to include in the inferential statistics.
The goal of the study was to examine predictive relationships between student
perceptions of parental involvement, including all three subscales in isolation, and the three
student goal orientations respectively, mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoid.
Regrettably, the low reliability of the interest in schoolwork and involvement in school functions
subscales prevented the researcher from exploring a predictive relationship between these two
subscales and student goal orientation. The current study also aimed to investigate if differences
occurred in student goal orientation when different gender and student perceptions of parental
involvement groups interacted.

48
In order to answer these questions, inferential statistics were run using SPSS. Three
simple linear regressions were run to answer research question one and determine if a predictive
relationship existed between student perceptions of parental involvement and mastery,
performance-approach, and performance-avoid goal orientations. Due to the negative skewness
of the mastery goal orientation scale, an ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis test were also run.
Research question two was partially answered by three simple linear regressions, which explored
a predictive relationship between student perceptions of parental achievement value and mastery,
performance-approach, and performance-avoid goal orientations. The previously planned
multiple regression could not be run due to the poor reliability of the interest in schoolwork and
involvement in school functions subscales. Lastly, a MANOVA was run to examine if a
difference existed in mastery and performance-approach goal orientations when gender and
student perceptions of parental involvement interacted. A p-value of .05 was used to measure
whether a statistical significance resulted from the inferential statistics performed. The results of
the current study are reported in Chapter 4. A thorough discussion and analysis of the results,
future implications for research and practice, as well as conclusions and recommendations are
presented in Chapter 5.

49
Chapter 4: Results
The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between student perceptions
of parental involvement and student goal orientation among fifth grade elementary school
students. The demographic variable, gender, was also used to determine if a difference exists
between students who perceive their parents involvement in their education at different levels.
This chapter presents the statistical outcomes for the previously presented research questions:
1. Do student perceptions of parental involvement predict mastery, approach, or avoid
goal orientation?
2. Which of these student perceptions of parental involvement subscales (achievement
value, involvement in school functions, or interest in schoolwork) predict mastery,
approach, and avoid goal orientations?
3. Are there differences in students’ goal orientation based on their gender or parental
involvement level?
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics were computed for all participants. Table 3 is comprised of the N,
mean, and standard deviation for mastery goal orientation, approach goal orientation, avoid goal
orientation, parental involvement, student perceptions of parental achievement value, student
perceptions of parental interest in schoolwork, and student perceptions of parental involvement
in school functions for all participants. As mentioned in Chapter 3, all variables were measured
using 5-point Likert scales with 5 being the highest level of mastery, approach, or avoid goal
orientation, respectively, as measured by the PALS. A 5-point Likert scale was also used for the
PSPI in which a 5 is representative of high student perceptions of parental involvement and
student perceptions of parental value with the exception of 5 reverse coded items which were

50
Table 3

Means and Standard Deviations for Mastery, Approach, and Avoid Goal Orientations; Student
Perceptions of Parental Involvement; Students Perceptions of Parental Achievement Value,
Involvement in School Functions, and Interest in Schoolwork

Mean Std. Deviation
Mastery Goal Orientation 4.58 .56
Approach Goal Orientation 3.08 1.11
Avoid Goal Orientation 3.36 1.09
Student Perceptions of Parental
Involvement
4.13 .38
Student Perceptions of Parental
Achievement Value
4.46 .47
Student Perceptions of Parental
Involvement in School Functions
3.09 .67
Student Perceptions of Parental
Interest in Schoolwork
4.09 .46
(N = 102)

transformed prior to the completion of data analysis.
Intercorrelations
In order to determine whether the variables measured had a statistically significant
association, correlations were calculated. Spearman rank-order statistics were run due to the
negatively skewed mastery goal orientation scale (skewness = -2.034), which markedly violated
the assumptions of normality. Student perceptions of parental interest in school functions (∝ =
.424) and student perceptions of parental involvement in school work (∝ = .420) were not
calculated in light of their extremely low reliability. Table 4 indicates mastery goal orientation
had a statistically significant correlation with student perceptions of parental involvement, r
s

(100) = .37, p = .000, accounting for 14% of the variance. Mastery goal orientation was also
weakly correlated with student perceptions of parental value, r
s
(100) = .23, p = .02, accounting
for 5% of the variance. Approach goal orientation was found to be significantly related to both

51
Table 4
Spearman Rank-Order Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Scales (N = 102)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 M SD
1. Gender ---- .19 -.03 -.11 .05 -.01 1.62 .49
2. Mastery ---- .29
**
.12 .37
**
.23
*
4.58 .56
3. Approach

---- .60
**
.30
**
.28
**
3.08 1.11
4. Avoid

---- .11 .13 3.36 1.09
5. Parental Involvement

---- .71
**
4.13 .38
6. Value ---- 4.46 .47
Note. All scores are scaled scores. 1: Gender (1 = Male, 2 = Female); 2. Mastery (Mastery
Goal Orientation); 3. Approach (Approach Goal Orientation); 4. Avoid (Avoid Goal
Orientation); 5. Parental Involvement (Student Perceptions of Parental Involvement); 6.
Value (Student Perceptions of Parental Involvement in School Functions).
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01

student perceptions of parental involvement, r
s
(100) = .30, p = .002, and student perceptions of
parental value, r
s
(100) = .28, p = .005, accounting for 9% and 8% of the variance, respectively.
The dichotomous variable, gender, as well as avoid goal orientation, were not significantly
correlated with any other variable.
Research Question One: Do student perceptions of parental involvement predict mastery,
approach, or avoid goal orientation?
Three simple linear regressions were calculated to assess whether student perceptions of
parental involvement had a predictive relationship with mastery, approach, or avoid goal
orientation. Because the original research question was associational and sought to determine a
predictive relationship, regressions were run for all dependent variables although mastery had a
non-normal distribution. According to Leech, Barrett, and Morgan (2011), an analysis of
variance (ANOVA) is robust enough to stand up to a scale that does not have a symmetrical
curve as long as no other assumptions of normality are violated. Thus, a one-way ANOVA was
also run to determine if there was a difference between high, medium, and low parental

52
involvement groups for mastery goal orientation. Traditionally, a nonparametric test is utilized
when a scale violates the assumptions of parametric tests (i.e. simple linear regression), therefore
a Kruskal-Wallis was also run.
A simple linear regression was computed to investigate whether student perceptions of
parental involvement predicted mastery goal orientation. Student perceptions of parental
involvement (M = 4.13, SD = .38) significantly predicted mastery goal orientation (M = 4.58, SD
= .56), F(1, 100) = 8.45, p = .004. This finding signifies that students who perceive their parents
as having high parental involvement are more likely to have mastery goal orientation. The
adjusted R
2
value was .07. This suggests that 7% of the variance in mastery goal orientation was
explained by student perceptions of parental involvement. Table 5 represents the unstandardized
regression coefficient (B) and the standardized regression coefficient (𝛽).

Table 5

Simple Linear Regression Analysis Summary for Parental Involvement Predicting
Mastery Goal Orientation (N = 102)

Variable
Parental Involvement
Constant
B
.41
2.88
SEB
.14
.59
𝛽
.28
**

Note. R
2
= .08; F(1, 100) = 8.45, p < .01.
**
p < .01.
A simple linear regression was calculated to determine whether student perceptions of
parental involvement was a predictor of approach goal orientation. Student perceptions of
parental involvement (M = 4.13, SD = .38) significantly predicted approach goal orientation (M =
3.08, SD = 1.11), F(1, 100) = 9.131, p = .003. In other words, students who perceived their
parents as having high parental involvement were more likely to have an approach goal
orientation. The adjusted R
2
value was .08. This implies that 8% of the variance in approach goal

53
orientation was explained by student perceptions of parental involvement. Table 6 represents the
unstandardized regression coefficient (B), the standard error of coefficient (SEB), and the
standardized regression coefficient (𝛽).

Table 6

Simple Linear Regression Analysis Summary for Parental Involvement Predicting
Approach Goal Orientation (N = 102)

Variable
Parental Involvement
Constant
B
.83
-.36
SEB
.28
.1.14
𝛽
.29
**

Note. R
2
= .08; F(1, 100) = 9.13, p < .01.
**
p < .01.
A simple linear regression did not find a predictive relationship between student
perceptions of parental involvement (M = 4.13, SD = .38) and performance-avoid goal
orientation (M = 3.36, SD = 1.09). Table 7 displays the unstandardized regression
coefficient (B), the standard error of coefficient (SEB), and the standardized regression
coefficient (𝛽).

Table 7

Simple Linear Regression Analysis Summary for Parental Involvement Predicting Avoid
Goal Orientation (N = 102)

Variable
Parental Involvement
Constant
B
.25
2.31
SEB
.28
1.17
𝛽
.09

As a result of the asymmetrical distribution of the mastery goal orientation scale, a one-
way ANOVA was run and found a statistically significant difference among high, medium, and
low parental involvement groups for mastery goal orientation, F(2, 99) = 3.60, p = .031.
Levene’s test was not significant (p = .093) and thus homogeneity of variance was not violated.

54
The three group sizes were also similar (high = 34, medium = 35, low = 33), so a post hoc Tukey
HSD test was run and indicated that the low parental involvement group (M = 4.43, SD = .44)
and high parental involvement group (M = 4.78, SD = .43) differed significantly in mastery goal
orientation with a large effect size, (p = .031, d = .80). Meaning, students who perceived a high
level of parental involvement were much more prone to have a mastery goal orientation than
students who perceived a low level of parental involvement.
The Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test was also executed to investigate a difference
among high, medium, and low parental involvement groups for mastery goal orientation. Results
indicated a strong significant difference among the three parental involvement groups for
mastery goal orientation, 𝜒
2
(2, N = 102) = 14.77, p = .001. To determine where the difference
existed among the three parental involvement groups, a post hoc Mann-Whitney test was run.
The mean rank for mastery goal orientation of the medium parental involvement group (30.43, n
= 35) was significantly lower than that of the high parental involvement group, (39.71, n = 34), z
= -2.09, p = .036, r = .19, a small effect size. In addition, the mean rank for mastery goal
orientation of the high parental involvement group (42.51, n = 34) was significantly higher than
that of the low parental involvement group, (25.23, n = 33), z = -3.799, p = .000, r = .38, a
medium effect size. There was no significant difference for mastery goal orientation between the
mean ranks of low and medium parental involvement groups, z = -1.917, p = .055.
Research Question Two: Which of these student perceptions of parental involvement
subscales (achievement value, involvement in school functions, or interest in schoolwork)
predict mastery, approach, and avoid goal orientations?
As a result of the low reliability of two of the independent variables, student perceptions
of parental involvement in school functions (∝ = .424) and student perceptions of parental

55
interest in schoolwork (∝ = .420), three simple linear regressions were only run to investigate a
predictive relationship between student perceptions of parental value and the three dependent
variables, mastery, approach, avoid goal orientations. Again, a one-way ANOVA and Kruskal-
Wallis tests were conducted due to the asymmetrical distribution of the mastery goal orientation
scale.
To determine whether student perceptions of parental value predicted mastery goal
orientation a simple linear regression was computed. Student perceptions of parental value (M =
4.46, SD = .47) did not significantly predict mastery goal orientation (M = 4.58, SD = .56), F(1,
100) = 3.55, p = .063. Table 8 represents the unstandardized regression coefficient (B), the
standard error of coefficient (SEB), and the standardized regression coefficient (𝛽).

Table 8

Simple Linear Regression Analysis Summary for Student Perceptions of Parental Value
Predicting Mastery Goal Orientation (N = 102)

Variable
Value
Constant
B
.22
3.59
SEB
.12
.52
𝛽
.19

Note. R
2
= .03; F(1, 100) = 3.55.

A simple linear regression was calculated to determine whether student perceptions of
parental achievement value was a predictor of approach goal orientation. Student perceptions of
parental value (M = 4.46, SD = .47) significantly predicted approach goal orientation (M = 3.08,
SD = 1.11), F(1, 100) = 8.174, p = .005. In other words, students who perceive high parental
achievement value are more likely to have an approach goal orientation. The adjusted R
2
value
was .07, a small effect size. This indicates that 7% of the variance in approach goal orientation

56
was explained by student perceptions of parental achievement value. Table 9 represents the
unstandardized regression coefficient (B), the standard error of coefficient (SEB), and the
standardized regression coefficient (𝛽).

Table 9

Simple Linear Regression Analysis Summary for Student Perceptions of Parental Value
Predicting Approach Goal Orientation (N = 102)

Variable
Value
Constant
B
.64
.22
SEB
.23
1.01
𝛽
.28
**

Note. R
2
= .08; F(1, 100) = 8.17, p < .01.
**
p < .01.
A predictive relationship between student perceptions of parental value (M = 4.13, SD = .38) and
avoid goal orientation (M = 3.36, SD = 1.09) did not exist. Table 10 displays the unstandardized
regression coefficient (B), the standard error of coefficient (SEB), and the standardized
regression coefficient (𝛽).

Table 10

Simple Linear Regression Analysis Summary for Student Perceptions of Parental Value
Predicting Avoid Goal Orientation (N = 102)

Variable
Value
Constant
B
.32
1.93
SEB
.23
1.02
𝛽
.14

Note. R
2
= .02; F(1, 100) = 1.98.

In addition to the simple linear regression, a one-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests
were also figured to determine a difference in parental involvement groups for mastery goal
orientation. In line with the results of the regression, the one-way ANOVA did not find a

57
significant difference among high, medium, or low parental value groups for mastery goal
orientation F(2, 99) = 1.621, p = .203. This was not unexpected by the researcher, because
although a regression measures associational relationships and an ANOVA measures differences
between groups, mathematically they are very similar.
Finally, the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test indicated a lack of significant difference
among the high, medium, and low student perceptions of parental achievement value groups for
mastery goal orientation, 𝜒
2
(2, N = 102) = 5.449, p = .066.
Research Question Three: Do students who differ in gender and parental involvement
differ in mastery, approach, and avoid goal orientation?
A two-way multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to measure whether male and
female students with high, medium, and low perceptions of parental involvement differ when
mastery and approach goal orientations are linearly combined and whether there was an
interaction between gender and student perceptions of parental involvement. Avoid goal
orientation was removed to reduce the risk of multicollinearity due to the strong correlation (r =
.61, p < .001) it had with approach goal orientation. Although the assumptions of homogeneity of
variance for mastery and the homogeneity of covariance were violated this should not have
strongly affected the results of the MANOVA, because the groups are of approximately equal
size (see Table 11). The interaction between gender and student perceptions of parental
involvement was not statistically significant, Wilks’ Λ = .967, F (6, 188) = .53, p = .785,
multivariate 𝜂
2
= .017. The main effects for gender also lacked statistical significance, Wilks’ Λ
= .947, F (2, 95) = 1.618, p = .204, multivariate 𝜂
2
= .033. On the contrary, the main effect for
student perceptions of parental involvement was statistically significant, Wilks’ Λ = .889, F (4,
190) = 2.875, p = .024, multivariate 𝜂
2
= .057. Further investigation of the coefficients for the

58
linear combinations distinguishing student perceptions of parental involvement groups indicated
that both mastery and approach goal orientations contributed to distinguishing the groups. More
specifically, mastery goal orientation, 𝛽 = -.349, p = .041, multivariate 𝜂
2
= .043, and approach
goal orientation, 𝛽 = -.782, p = .022, multivariate 𝜂
2
= .053, contributed statistically significantly
toward discriminating the

Table 11

Means and Standard Deviations for Mastery and Approach as a
Function of Parental Involvement and Gender

Mastery Approach
Group n M SD M SD
Low Parental Involvement
Males
Females
Medium Parental Involvement
Males
Females
High Parental Involvement
Males
Females

13
20

14
21

12
22

4.38
4.46

4.29
4.68

4.72
4.81

.32
.50

.98
.44

.40
.46

2.80
2.60

3.07
3.19

3.48
3.38

.79
.95

.83
1.35

1.19
1.16

low student perceptions of parental involvement group from the medium and high groups,
respectively. Meaning, students who perceived low levels of parental involvement were less
likely to have a mastery and (or???) approach goal orientation than students who perceived a
medium or high level of parental involvement. The medium student perceptions of parental
involvement group was not statically significantly different from the other two groups.
Follow-up univariate ANOVAs, presented in Table 12, indicated that both mastery goal
orientation, F (2, 96) = 3.50, p = .034, and approach goal orientation, F (2, 96) = 3.58, p = .032,
when examined in isolation, differed significantly for students who had low, medium, or high

59
Table 12

Univariate Effects of Parental Involvement and Gender on Mastery and Approach Goal
Orientations

Source Dependent Variable df F p 𝜂
Parental Involvement

Gender

Parental Involvement
x

Gender

Error
Mastery
Approach
Mastery
Approach
Mastery
Approach
Mastery
Approach
2
2
1
1
2
2
96
96
3.50
3.58
2.80
.08
.87
.18

.03
.03
.10
.79
.42
.83

.26
.26
.17
.03
.13
.06

perceptions of parental involvement.
Summary
This study sought to answer three research questions regarding student perceptions of
parental involvement, student goal orientation, and gender. There were significant findings in the
predictive relationships student perceptions of parental involvement had with mastery and
approach goal orientations, respectively. Student perceptions of parental value also had a
predictive relationship with approach goal orientation. Contrary to expectations, mastery goal
orientation was not predicted by student perceptions of parental value. Finally, there were no
interaction effects of gender and student perceptions of parental involvement on a linear
combination of mastery and approach goal orientations, but there were significant main effects
differing student perceptions of parental involvement groups when mastery and approach goal
orientations were looked at in a univariate analysis of variance.

60
Chapter 5: Discussion

This chapter provides a discussion of the main findings for the current study as well as
recommendations for researchers and practitioners. Lastly, limitations for future research and
conclusions are discussed. A gap in the literature exists for the link between student perceptions
of parental involvement and goal orientation. Research regarding student goal orientation has
been predominantly focused on the classroom setting and the environment the classroom teacher
creates for her students. More recently, the home environment and the link between parental
involvement and student goal orientation has taken center stage (Friedel et al., 2006, Gonzalez et
al., 2002, Hoang, 2007). However, parental involvement research has largely revolved around
the perceptions of parents and teachers. Interestingly, Grolnick and Slowiaczek (1994) argued
that for parental involvement to be influential, it needs to be perceived by the student, and thus,
in order to understand how parental involvement impacts student learning, an investigation of
how students perceive their parents’ involvement is warranted.
Researchers (Friedel et al., 2006; Ginsberg & Bronstein, 1993; Gonzalez, 2002;
Gonzalez-DeHass et al., 2005; Hoang, 2007; Wentzel, 1998) have conducted studies in regards
to student perceptions of parental involvement, and are questioning how it is related to student
goal orientation. Middle school and high school students are usually the focus of these studies.
As far as the current researcher is aware, there has not been a study linking student perceptions
of parental involvement and goal orientation for a diverse fifth grade population with a high Title
1 and English language learner population.
The goal of this study was to determine if student perceptions of parental involvement
predicted mastery, approach, or avoid goal orientations in an elementary school population. The
current study also looked at three types of parental involvement: achievement value, involvement

61
in school functions, and interest in schoolwork, and whether they individually have a predictive
relationship with mastery, approach, or avoid goal orientation. Lastly, interaction effects between
gender and student perceptions of parental involvement were examined to find if a difference in
student goal orientation arose.
General Findings
Mastery Goal Orientation
Students with a mastery goal orientation work to achieve personal goals that are set by
standards from within as opposed to being standards set in relation to the performance of others
(Hoang, 2007). These task-oriented students strive to learn for the sake of learning and attribute
their academic successes to effort rather than ability (Ames, 1992). Research has also found that
students with a mastery goal orientation display more adaptive learning behaviors such as greater
persistence during challenging tasks and a greater sense of academic self-efficacy (Ames, 1992;
Friedel et al., 2006; Urdan, 1997).
Mastery Goal Orientation and Student Perceptions of Parental Involvement. In the
current study, it was discovered that a significant predictive relationship exists between student
perceptions of parental involvement and mastery goal orientation. The scale measured three
types of parental involvement: parental achievement value, parental interest in schoolwork, and
parental involvement in school functions. Therefore, those who perceived that their parents
express involvement in ways such as trying to get the student to do his or her best, checking to
make sure homework is done, or going to parent-teacher conferences, are more likely to set goals
such as mastering a lot of new skills or learning as much as possible. This would suggest that
fifth graders who perceive an overall level of parental involvement, as measured by parental
achievement value, parental interest in school work, and parental involvement in school

62
functions, are more apt to having adaptive learning patterns such as seeking challenging tasks,
persisting through academic obstacles, having greater intrinsic motivation, and achieving at a
higher academic performance level (Elliot & Dweck, 1988; Gonzalez, 2002; Grolnick et al.,
1991; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994). These results were not surprising, because even though
most studies have taken place at the secondary level, a relationship between student perceptions
of parental involvement and mastery goal orientation has been shown (Gonzalez, 2002; Hoang,
2007; Regner et al., 2009). In this study, it means that high levels of parental involvement were
an important factor in influencing the mastery goal orientation of the diverse fifth grade students.
Due to the negative skewness of the mastery scale, students were broken up into high and
low student perceptions of parental involvement groups and the results of an ANOVA test
showed a significant difference in mastery goal orientation with a large effect size. A non-
parametric Kruskal-Wallis test showed a that students who perceived high parental involvement
differed in mastery goal orientation from both students who perceived low and medium parental
involvement with medium and small effect sizes, respectively. This again suggests that when
diverse fifth graders in a predominantly Title I school perceive high parental achievement value,
parental interest in schoolwork, and parental involvement in school functions combined, there is
a benefit in terms of the students having higher mastery goal orientation.
Mastery Goal Orientation and Student Perceptions of Parental Achievement Value.
A significant predictive relationship between student perceptions of parental achievement value
and mastery goal orientation was expected by the researcher, but was not found. In addition,
there were no differences between high, medium, or low student perceptions of parental
achievement value groups in mastery goal orientation. Therefore, when the fifth grade
elementary students in the present study perceived their parents had a high parental value for

63
achievement by doing things such as setting high standards, thinking they should attend college,
or encouraging them to try harder, it did not predict a mastery goal orientation for the students.
Perhaps a high parental value for achievement is not enough for elementary students to value
learning for the sake of learning, and thus, more concrete behavioral involvement in school
functions or school work must be perceived in conjunction with parental achievement value in
order for fifth graders to adopt a mastery goal orientation. This contradicts findings (Hoang,
2007) at the high school level that dictate students who perceived their parents to be more
behaviorally involved did not adopt a mastery goal orientation. This could be due in part to the
different developmental needs and autonomy levels of elementary and high school students
(Pajares & Cheong, 2003, Santrock, 2009) or possibly the differences in goal orientations of
elementary and secondary institutions. This leads the researcher to wonder if elementary school
students need to also perceive behavioral involvement, such as interest in schoolwork or
involvement in school functions, in order to have a mastery goal orientation. Typically, in middle
to late childhood, or during the concrete operational stage, students have more concrete than
abstract thoughts, and thus, , students may not perceive or understand nontangible ideas such as
aspirations or future careers the way adolescents do. In addition, students at this developmental
stage may not be ready to seek or demand the autonomy needed from adolescent students,
because even though children in middle to late childhood are more coregulated than younger
children, the major leap to autonomy usually does not take place until approximately age 12 or
thereafter (Santrock, 2009).
Performance-Approach Goal Orientation
Students with an approach goal orientation compare their academic performance to others
in order to evaluate their ability (Ames, 1984; Ames, 1992). Furthermore, the focus for these

64
students is on their ability as opposed to the level of effort they exert (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002;
Hoang, 2007). More recently, it has been debated whether or not an approach goal orientation
leads to adaptive learning. Elliot (1999) argued that since students with an approach goal
orientation exert effort to attain a positive outcome, this orientation, along with mastery goal
orientation, should have positive effects on student motivation. In contrast, Midgley and
colleagues (2001) maintain that performance approach goals are only correlated with adaptive
learning strategies when a student is high in both approach and mastery goal orientation.
Performance-Approach Goal Orientation and Student Perceptions of Parental
Involvement. In this study, student perceptions of parental involvement significantly predicted
approach goal orientation. Again, all three types of involvement, parental values, parental
interest in schoolwork, and parental participation in school functions, were measured, and a
predictive relationship with performance-approach goal orientation was found. Hence, students
who perceived high levels of parental involvement were more likely to aim for goals such as
looking smart in comparison to others in the classroom or showing others that class work is easy,
as opposed to focusing on task mastery. This suggests that for the elementary students in the
current study, perceiving high parental involvement predicted the use of more normative
academic standards. Regner (2009) found that student perceptions of parental academic
monitoring positively predicted approach goal orientation, but did not find a link between student
perceptions of parental academic support and approach goal orientation. Again, most studies
involving student perceptions of parental involvement have taken place at the secondary level
and there is evidence that younger students do not understand task and performance or ability
and effort the way older students do because of their developmental level (Pajares & Cheong,
2003). Hoang (2007) also found that when high school students perceived a high level of

65
behavioral involvement it was often viewed as invasive and was predictive of a performance goal
orientation. Perhaps elementary students, who do not pursue the autonomy that adolescents do,
either need or do not resist high levels of behavioral involvement even when it is intrusive.
These findings would suggest that students at the elementary level who perceive high parental
involvement orient themselves toward achievement but may measure their achievement in
comparison to others.
Performance-Approach Goal Orientation and Student Perceptions of Parental
Achievement Value. Student perceptions of parental achievement value significantly predicted
approach goal orientation with a small effect size. For the fifth grade students in the current
study, the perception of a high level of parental achievement value was predictive of students
being concerned about their performance in comparison to others (Hoang, 2007). This suggests
that if students perceive a high level of parental achievement value in combination with a lack of
behavioral involvement, students may adopt more normative standards to evaluate their
academic abilities. Additionally, this finding may imply that without the perception of concrete
behavioral involvement, students can gain structure through comparison to others, or through the
use of the school’s expectations (i.e. grades) to guide them.
Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation
Students with an avoid goal orientation try to circumvent being judged as incompetent in
comparison to the group. Unlike students with mastery and approach goal orientations, students
with an avoid goal orientation exhibit avoidance behaviors which denotes the attempt at evading
negative consequences such as failure (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Elliot, 1999; Hoang, 2007).
This, along with the focus on lack of ability by these students, results in negative effects on
student motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Elliot, 1999; Hoang, 2007).

66
In the current study, no significant relationship was found between student perceptions of
parental involvement or student perceptions of parental achievement value and avoid goal
orientation. These findings were not unexpected due to inconsistent evidence that correlated
student perceptions of parental involvement and avoid goal orientation in past research
(Gonzalez & Wolters, 2006; Hoang, 2007). While in more recent studies, avoid goal orientation
was positively linked to student perceptions of behavioral involvement by parents (Gonzalez &
Wolters, 2006; Hoang, 2007), past studies that did not separate performance-avoid from
performance-approach goal orientation found no significant link to any type of parental
involvement (Gonzalez et al., 2001; 2001).
Gender
A multivariate analysis showed neither mastery nor approach goal orientations were
significantly affected by the interaction of gender and student perceptions of parental
involvement. A lack of main effects for gender were present as well. Although earlier research
found that boys tend to be more performance oriented and girls tend to be more mastery oriented
(Elliot & Church 1997) especially in domain specific studies (Pajares & Valiante, 2001), the
current study found no significant difference in gender with regards to goal orientation, with and
without the interaction of student perceptions of parental involvement.
Implications for Researchers and Practitioners
Recommendations for Future Research
The current study has implications for future research on student perceptions of parental
involvement and student goal orientation. Several past research studies have shown that students
whose parents are highly supportive and involved in their education tend to adopt a mastery goal
orientation (Gonzalez, 2002; Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991; Hoang, 2007; Regner et al., 2009),

67
yet in this study, high levels of parental involvement were linked not only to mastery but also to
approach goal orientation. This suggests that students who perceive their parents to be highly
involved in their education will orient themselves toward academic achievement but may differ
in how they measure achievement with either a task or ego orientation.
Developmental Differences. There are developmental differences in the way
elementary-aged children interpret task and performance goals or even their understanding of
ability and effort (Pajares & Cheong, 2003). Further study of these developmental differences
and how they influence student goal orientation are warranted. A longitudinal study that follows
students from childhood through adolescence would assist researchers in understanding how the
interpretations students have of their parents’ involvement and their resulting goal orientation
evolves through their development.
Diverse populations. The findings of the current study could also be a function of the
diverse minority population or lower socioeconomic status of the participants. Future research
into the impact of student perceptions of parental involvement on student goal orientation is
necessary with diverse populations from different racial and ethnic backgrounds, SES levels, or
even the generational status of the students (i.e. students who are the first generation from their
family in the United States). With the latter in mind, research into how the goal orientations of
students, with a native language other than English, are affected by different levels of parental
involvement is also justified especially in states such as California where minority populations
are growing rapidly.
Multiple Goals. It is recommended to further examine if performance-approach goal
orientation is facilitative of adaptive learning strategies or is only adaptive when coupled with
mastery goal orientation (Midgley et al., 2001). This is still a controversial subject in the current

68
literature and more data will help shed light on the subject as well as help determine how
practitioners can better interpret findings in order to create effective research-based strategies.
Scales. In order to continue research with younger populations, more reliable student
perceptions of parental involvement scales need to be developed. Specifically, an examination of
the level of vocabulary used and a look into using reverse-coded items with elementary students,
who may or may not have a native language other than English, are essential. While the current
researcher was able to find significant results using the student perceptions of parental
involvement and student perceptions of parental achievement value scales, these scales were
originally written for secondary students. With the development of more reliable scales for
younger students, future research can be conducted to investigate the effects of student
perceptions of parental cognitive, emotional, and behavioral involvement on student goal
orientation.
Recommendations for Practitioners
Parents. Parents should reinforce mastery goals by celebrating and rewarding their
child’s academic effort and progress. What parents say and do will influence what students say
and do. By having parents highlight and praise the effort and improvement children show in their
pursuit of academic success, parents will emphasize the importance of mastery goals. Praising
effort with affirmations such as, “I’m proud of the effort you showed while working on your
multiplication today,” or “You worked very hard on your spelling words and improved by 2
points this week!” are age appropriate for fifth grade students. It is important for students to see
the connection between their effort and the accomplishment of their goals; parents have a strong
influence on their children understanding this relationship. It is also highly recommended for
parents to get involved and stay involved in the education of their children. Taking advantage of

69
opportunities to become more familiar with their child’s teacher, classmates, school, and school
community would be an effective strategy. Parents need to show interest in what their child is
learning in school and seek out ways to connect this to the home environment and family
activities.
Teachers. Teachers can educate parents regarding academic goal orientations and how
they can better support their children developing an orientation that leads to more adaptive
learning strategies. It would benefit parents to learn how the measure of success can be reframed
to focus on progress and effort as opposed to ability. In addition, an emphasis on the importance
of parental involvement and the different ways parents can participate in their child’s education
is key. It would be helpful for parents to understand how the needs of their child change through
different grade levels and for teachers who have expertise at different developmental stages to
give parents suggestions on how to participate effectively in their child’s education. The current
researcher believes this to be especially true with the populations like that of this study due to the
obstacles they face in academic achievement. A show of appreciation for all types of parental
involvement by the teacher, as well as the school as a whole, would also be a great strategy to
reinforce parental involvement.
Administrators. When administrators are developing district-wide or school site
practices, the needs of their specific population should be taken into account. Given that the
population in the current study was younger developmentally, more diverse in racial and ethnic
groups, and had a high number of students who have a native language other than English, the
link between high levels of parental involvement and approach goal orientation may imply that
findings from past research conducted on more mainstream populations may not apply to more
diverse populations. With this in mind, administrators need to carefully scrutinize research in

70
which results are based on participants that do not reflect their target population. Administrators
in education should develop researched-based practices specifically for the students they are
servicing; basing methods on inappropriate research could likely result in highly ineffective
strategies.
When considering school site professional development (PD), it is recommended that
administrators not only tailor their PD to the demographics of the school but to purposefully
integrate trainings that educate teachers in how to better involve parents in their child’s
education. It is imperative for teachers to be informed about the importance of parental
involvement along with the different types of involvement that exist and how they may have
different influences on the academic goals students set. Administrators should both inform and
elicit a plethora of strategies that teachers could use to involve parents. A parental outreach
committee could also be added to the adjunct duties of a few teachers at each school site. This
committee could lead the faculty in more effectively and efficiently involving parents.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study resulted in findings that add to the current literature on student perceptions of
parental involvement and achievement goal orientation. Nevertheless, there are several
limitations and delimitations. Some of the limitations are present because of the nature of the
methodology being used. Correlational studies are limited because a causal relationship between
the variables cannot be measured. Quantitative surveys are also a limitation of the study,
because they did not allow the students to report about their parents’ involvement in their own
words. On the contrary, the self-report, Likert-type surveys, are limited because of potential bias
or possible lack of honesty on the participants’ part. The Parenting Style and Parental
Involvement scale is a limitation, because it was originally designed for a high school

71
population. As a result, some questions contained vocabulary that confused a few of the
participants. In addition, the combination of two of the answer choices in the PSPI (not usually
true and not at all true) and the reverse coded items resulted in multiple negations that confused
several of the students. Finally, due to the age of the participants, the parental interest in
schoolwork and parental involvement in school functions scales had lower than desired
Cronbach’s alphas, which affected the reliability of the scales. This prevented the researcher
from investigating predictive relationships with these behavioral involvement scales and student
goal orientation.
The researcher limited the current study in several ways as well. The sample was limited
to fifth grade students who not only signed the student assent form but also returned their parent
consent form signed; this limited the number of participants. The researcher also kept a limit on
the number of questions the participants were asked due to the developmental needs of students
in elementary school. Lastly, the students were asked to think about only one parent when
answering the survey, and this parent was limited to the one who is most involved in the
student’s schoolwork.
Conclusion
This study sought to determine the relationship student perceptions of parental
involvement has with student goal orientation. In order to add to the current literature, the
researcher focused on fifth grade elementary students with a more diverse racial and ethnic
background and found predictive relationships between student perceptions of parental
involvement and both mastery and performance-approach goal orientations. Additionally,
performance-approach goal orientation was also predicted by student perceptions of parental
achievement value. However, parental achievement value did not predict mastery goal

72
orientation in the current study. Neither performance-avoid goal orientation nor gender was
related to student perceptions of parental involvement.
The results of the current study suggest that elementary students who perceive high levels
of parental involvement ultimately aim to achieve. The difference lies in whether these students
evaluate their achievement via intrapersonal standards or more normative expectations. Findings
also imply that students in middle to late childhood may need structure and more concrete forms
of parental involvement over autonomy. Furthermore, without the perception of behavioral
involvement, students will still aim to achieve but may seek their own structure by judging their
academic success in comparison to others. .
For students who are living at a lower socio-economical status, do not reflect the
mainstream culture, or are learning core content in a language they have not acquired, having a
mastery goal orientation which leads to persistence through difficult tasks, a sense of enjoyment
through learning, and attributions of academic success to effort rather than ability, would be
invaluable. As most minority populations are faced with overcoming numerous academic and
life obstacles, such as acquiring the dominant language and living below the poverty line, an
achievement goal orientation that leads to more adaptive learning strategies can assist in helping
these students overcome the challenges they will encounter while completing their education. It
is the hope of the researcher that through this study, researchers and practitioners will be better
informed regarding the important relationship between student perceptions of parental
involvement and student goal orientation and will use this information to further advocate for
underrepresented children in their pursuit of academic success.

73
References
American Psychological Association (APA). (2010). Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association (6
th
ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Ames, C. (1984). Achievement attributions and self-instructions under competitive and
individual goal structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 478-487.
Ames, C. (1992). Classroom: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84(3), 261-271.
Ames, C, & Archer, J. (1987). Mothers' belief about the role of ability and effort in school
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18, 409-414.
Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies
and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260-267.
Anderman, E. M., Griesinger, T., & Westerfield, G. (1998). Motivation and cheating during
early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 84-93.
Anderman, E. M., & Young, A. J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual
differences and classroom effect. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 811-831.
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., Tahan, K. (2011). The
Condition of education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Barge, J., & Loges, W. (2003). Parent, student, and teacher perceptions of parental involvement.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31(2), 140-163.

74
Barwegen, L. M., Falciani, N. K., Putnam, S. J., Reamer, M. B., & Stair, E. E. (2004). Academic
achievement of homeschool and public school students and student perception of parent
involvement. The School Community Journal, 14(1), 38-58.
Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different
feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 79, 474-482.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., Chen, I. & Tsai, T. (1999). Parental involvement in the academic
and social lives of academically talented elementary school students. Talent
Development: Proceedings from the 1995 H. B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research
Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 307-311). Great Potential Press, Inc.
Connell, J. P. (1985). A new multidimensional measure of children’s perceptions of control.
Child Development, 56, 1018-1041.
Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., & Weiss, H. B. (2006). Family involvement in school and
low-income children’s literacy: Longitudinal associations between and within families.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 653-664.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The
relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58,
1244-1257.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,
1040-1048.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review
Psychology,53, 109-132.
Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the “classic” and the “contemporary” approaches to achievement

75
motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In
M. L. Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, 10, 143-
179.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational
Psychologist, 34(3), 169-189.
Elliot, A. J. & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.
Elliot, A. J. & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance goals and intrinsic
motivation: A meditational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
461-475.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2x2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519.
Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and
exam performance: A meditational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549-
563.
Elliot, E., & Dweck, C. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.
Epstein, J. L. (1988). How do we improve programs of parent involvement? Educational
Horizons, 66, 58-59.
Epstein, J. L. (1995) School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share.
Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701-712.
Fan, W., & Williams, C. (2010). The effects of parental involvement on students’ academic self-
efficacy, engagement and intrinsic motivation. Educational Psychology, 30(1), 53-74.

76
Fishel, M., & Ramirez, L. (2005). Evidence-based parent involvement interventions with school-
aged children. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 371-402.
Friedel, J. M., Cortina, K. S., Turner, J. C., & Midgley, C. (2006). Acheivement goals, efficacy
beliefs and coping strategies in mathematics: The roles of perceived parent and teacher
goal emphases. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 434-458.
Ginsberg, G. S., & Bronstein, P. (1993). Family factors related to children’s intrinsic/extrinsic
motivational orientation and academic performance. Child Development, 64, 1461-1474.
Gonzalez, A. R. (2002). Parental involvement: Its contribution to high school students’
motivation. The Clearing House, 75(3), 132-134.
Gonzalez, A. R., Doan Holbein, M. F., & Quilter, S. (2002). High school students’ goal
orientations and their relationship to perceived parenting styles. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 27, 450-470.
Gonzales, A., & Wolters, C. (2006). The relation between perceived parenting practices and
achievement motivation in mathematics. Journal of Research in Childhood Education,
21(3), 203-217.
Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., Willems, P. P., & Doan Holbein, M. F. (2005). Examining the
relationship between parental involvement and student motivation. Educational
Psychology Review, 17(2), 99-123.
Gonzalez-Pienda, J. A., Nunez, J. C., Gonzalez-Pumariega, S., Alvarez, L., Roces, C., & Garcia,
M. (2002). A structural equation model of parental involvement, motivational and
aptitudinal characteristics, and academic achievement. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 70(3), 257-287.

77
Greenwood, G. E., & Hickman, C. W. (1991). Research and practice in parent involvement:
Implications for teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 279-288.
Griffith, J. (1996). Relation of parent involvement, empowerment, and school traits to student
academic performance. Journal of Educational Research, 90(1), 33-41.
Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: The self-
determination theory perspective. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and
children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 135-161).
New York: Wiley.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation
and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143-154.
Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (1991). Inner resources for school achievement:
Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83(4), 508-517.
Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: A
multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65,
237-252.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When
are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist, 33, 1-21.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term
and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance
over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316-330.
Harter, S. (2006). The self. In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (6
th

ed.). New York: Wiley.

78
Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Child Development, 53, 87-
97.
Hatfield, J. S., Ferguson, L. R., & Alpert, R. (1967). Mother-child interaction and the
socialization process. Child Development, 38, 365-414.
Hemphil, F. C., & Vanneman, A. (2011). Achievement gaps: How Hispanic and White students
in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NCES 2011-459). National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Henderson, A. T., & Berla, N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to
student achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens in Education.
Hoang, T. (2007). The relations between parenting and adolescent motivation. International
Journal of Whole Schooling, 3(2), 1-21.
Johnston, R. C., & Viadero, D. (2000). Unmet promise: Raising minority achievement. The
achievement gap. Education Week, 19(27), 1-24.
Lee, J.-S., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap
among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 193-
218.
Leech, N., Barrett, K., & Morgan, G. (2011). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and
interpretation, (4
th
ed.). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Leondari, A., & Gialamas, V. (2002). Implicit theories, goal orientations, and perceived
competence: Impact on students’ achievement behavior. Psychology in the School, 39(3),
279-291.

79
Marchant, G. J., Paulson, S. E., & Rothlisberg, B. A., (2001). Relations of middle school
students’ perceptions of family and school contexts with academic achievement.
Psychology in the Schools, 38(6), 505-519.
Mau, W. (1997). Parental influences on the high school students’ academic achievement: A
comparison of Asian immigrants, Asian Americans, and White Americans. Psychology in
the Schools, 34, 267-277.
Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An
unexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710-718.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what,
for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(1), 77-86.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr M., Urdan, T., Anderson, E., & Roeser, R.
(1998). The development and validation of scales assessing students’ achievement goal
orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 113-131.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., Gheen,
M., Kaplan, A., Kumar, R., Middleton, M. J., Nelson, J., Roeser, R., Urdan, T. (2000).
The manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales (PALS). Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students’ use of self-handicapping
strategies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15(4), 389-411.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience,
task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.
Pajares, F., & Cheong, Y. F. (2003). Achievement goal orientations in writing: A developmental

80
perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 437-455.
Pajares, F., Britner, S., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and self-
beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 406-422.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2001). Gender differences in writing motivation and achievement of
middle school students: a function of gender orientation. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 26, 366-381.
Paulson, S. E. (1994). Relations of parenting styles and parental involvement with ninth-grade
students’ achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14(2), 250-267.
Paulson, S. E. (1996). Maternal employment and adolescent achievement revisited: An
ecological perspective. Family Relations, 45, 201-208.
Paulson, S. E., Marchant, G. J., & Rothlisberg, B. A. (1998). Early adolescents’ perceptions of
patterns of parenting, teaching, and school atmosphere: Implications for achievement.
Journal of Adolescence, 18, 5-26.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of students motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667-686.
Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientations and self-regulation in the college
classroom. In M. L. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and
achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes, 7, 371-402.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive
validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.
Pulkkinen, L. (1982). Self-control and continuity from childhood to adolescence. In P.B. Baltes,

81
& O.G. Brim (Eds.), Life span development and behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 63-105). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Qualtrics Labs, Inc. (2012). Qualtrics Survey Software. (Version 12,018). Available from
Qualtrics website: http://www.qualtrics.com/academic-solutions/usc-rossier-school-of-
education.
Regner, I., Loose, F., & Dumas, F. (2009). Students’ perceptions of parental and teacher
academic involvement: Consequences on achievement goals. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 24(2), 263-277.
Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and
projective assessments of individual differences in children’s perceptions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 550-558.
Santrock, J.W. (2009). Life-span development (12
th
ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher
Education.
Schunk, D., Pintrich, P., & Meece, J. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
application (3
rd
ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1987). The family-school relation and the child’s school
performance. Child Development, 58, 1348-1357.
Trusty, J., & Lampe, R. (1997). Relationship of high-school seniors’ perceptions of parental
involvement and control to seniors’ locus of control. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 75, 375-383.
Urdan, T. (1997). Achievement goals and the orientation of friends toward school in early
adolescence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 165-191.
Urdan, T., Solek, M., Schoenfelder, E. (2007). Students’ perceptions of family influences on

82
their academic motivation: A qualitative analysis. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 22(1), 7-21.
Wentzel, K. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents,
teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202-209.

83
Appendix A: Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales
Suggestions for survey administration

The different PALS scales can be used together or individually. In constructing a
survey, we mix items from various scales under the same general introduction, whenever
possible (see the sample surveys, p. 39). For some of the scales, however, the
introductory comments require that they be placed into different sections of the survey.
We also include a cover sheet on which we gather demographic data.
The student surveys are administered by trained research assistants in students'
regular classrooms, whenever possible. Students are told that the survey is not a test
and that there are no right or wrong answers. They are also told that the information in
the survey is confidential and that no one at home or at school will ever see their
responses. In addition, before beginning the survey, an explanation of why we ask
similar sounding questions is provided to students (i.e., that in order to measure a
construct accurately we ask about the same thing in several different ways to make sure
that we really understand what the students are telling us).
A sample question is included at the beginning of the survey to introduce the use
of the Likert scale. Typically, the survey administrator reads all the instructions and each
item aloud to students. We avoid administration sessions of more than 40 minutes in
length and have administered the survey over two days, when longer versions were used.
Teacher surveys are generally distributed to teachers to complete on their own
while the class is completing the student survey. Depending on our reasons for surveying
teachers, we have distributed teacher surveys to only those teaching a specific grade,
only those teaching a specific subject, or to all teachers in a school. When we wish to
survey all teachers in a school, we typically leave a copy of the survey in their school
mailboxes with a cover letter, which describes our project and the reason for the teacher
survey, as well as a self-addressed stamped envelope for them to use to return the survey
to us.

84
Personal Achievement Goal Orientations
This refers to students’ reasons or purposes for engaging in academic behavior. Different
goals foster different response patterns. These patterns include cognitive, affective, and
behavioral components, which have been characterized as more or less adaptive.

Mastery Goal Orientation (Original)
2

When oriented to mastery goals, students’ purpose or goal in an achievement setting is
to develop their competence. They seek to extend their mastery and understanding.
Learning is perceived as inherently interesting, an end in itself. Attention is focused on
the task. A mastery goal orientation has been associated with adaptive patterns of
learning.

1. I like class work that I'll learn from even if I make a lot of mistakes.
2. An important reason why I do my class work is because I like to learn new
things.
3. I like class work best when it really makes me think.
4. An important reason why I do my work in class is because I want to get
better at it.
5. An important reason I do my class work is because I enjoy it.
6. I do my class work because I’m interested in it.

Alpha: .86

Descriptive Statistics

2
The validity of the original scales is documented in Midgley, Kaplan, Middleton, Urdan, Maehr, Hicks,
Anderman, & Roes er (1998).

Items
1

Mean
3.73

Standard Deviation
1.27
2 3.47 1.34
3 3.01 1.38
4 3.97 1.19
5 2.90 1.37
6 3.05 1.38
Scale

Mean
3.35

Standard Deviation
1.02

Skewness
-0.25

85
Personal Achievement Goal Orientations

Performance-Approach Goal Orientation (Original)
2

When oriented to performance-approach goals, students’ purpose or goal in an
achievement setting is to demonstrate their competence. Attention is focused on the self.
A performance-approach orientation has been associated with both adaptive and
maladaptive patterns of learning.

1. I would feel really good if I were the only one who could answer the
teacher’s questions in class.
2. I want to do better than other students in my class.
3. I would feel successful in class if I did better than most of the other
students.
4. I’d like to show my teacher that I’m smarter than the other students in
my class.
5. Doing better than other students in class is important to me.

Alpha: .86

Descriptive Statistics

Items
1

Mean
2.73

Standard Deviation
1.52
2 3.00 1.44
3 2.88 1.40
4 2.67 1.43
5 2.52 1.41
Scale

Mean
2.76

Standard Deviation
1.15

Skewness
0.20

86
Personal Achievement Goal Orientations

Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation (Original)
2

When oriented to performance-avoid goals, students’ purpose or goal in an achievement
setting is to avoid the demonstration of incompetence. Attention is focused on the self. A
performance-avoid goal orientation has been associated with maladaptive patterns of
learning.

1. It's very important to me that I don't look stupid in my class.
2. An important reason I do my class work is so that I don’t embarrass
myself.
3. The reason I do my class work is so my teacher doesn't think I know
less than others.
4. The reason I do my work is so others won't think I'm dumb.
5. One of my main goals is to avoid looking like I can't do my work.
6. One reason I would not participate in class is to avoid looking stupid.

Alpha: .75

Descriptive Statistics

Items
1

Mean
3.40

Standard Deviation
1.41
2 2.34 1.41
3 2.26 1.40
4 2.14 1.37
5 1.88 1.21
6 2.46 1.40
Scale

Mean
2.41

Standard Deviation
0.91

Skewness
0.41

87
Personal Achievement Goal Orientations

Mastery Goal Orientation (Revised)
3

When oriented to mastery goals, students’ purpose or goal in an achievement setting
is to develop their competence. They seek to extend their mastery and
understanding. Attention is focused on the task. A mastery goal orientation has been
associated with adaptive patterns of learning.

9. It’s important to me that I learn a lot of new concepts this year.
25. One of my goals in class is to learn as much as I can.
29. One of my goals is to master a lot of new skills this year.
38. It’s important to me that I thoroughly understand my class work.
49. It’s important to me that I improve my skills this year.

Alpha: .85

Descriptive Statistics

3
These goal orientation scales were revised to eliminate items that assess intrinsic value and to eliminate
references to behaviors.
Items
9

Mean
3.99

Standard Deviation
1.17
25 4.28 1.05
29 4.09 1.16
38 4.07 1.09
49 4.34 1.02
Scale

Mean
4.15

Standard Deviation
0.88

Skewness
-1.13

88
Personal Achievement Goal Orientations

Performance-Approach Goal Orientation (Revised)
3

When oriented to performance-approach goals, students’ purpose or goal in an
achievement setting is to demonstrate their competence. Attention is focused on the
self. A performance-approach orientation has been associated with both adaptive and
maladaptive patterns of learning.
8. It’s important to me that other students in my class think I am good at my
class work.
26. One of my goals is to show others that I’m good at my class work.
41. One of my goals is to show others that class work is easy for me.
45. One of my goals is to look smart in comparison to the other students in my
class.
48. It’s important to me that I look smart compared to others in my class.

Alpha: .89

Descriptive Statistics

Items
8

Mean
2.61

Standard Deviation
1.45
26 2.69 1.43
41 2.38 1.35
45 2.36 1.33
48 2.28 1.33
Scale

Mean
2.46

Standard Deviation
1.15

Skewness
0.53

89
Personal Achievement Goal Orientations

Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation (Revised)
3

When oriented to performance-avoid goals, students’ purpose or goal in an
achievement setting is to avoid the demonstration of incompetence. Attention is
focused on the self. A performance-avoid orientation has been associated with
maladaptive patterns of learning.
3. It’s important to me that I don’t look stupid in class.
33. One of my goals is to keep others from thinking I’m not smart in class.
51. It’s important to me that my teacher doesn’t think that I know less than
others in class.
55. One of my goals in class is to avoid looking like I have trouble doing the
work.

Alpha: .74

Descriptive Statistics

Items
3

Mean
2.41

Standard Deviation
1.40
33 2.03 1.33
51 2.63 1.47
55 2.52 1.38
Scale

Mean
2.40

Standard Deviation
1.04

Skewness
0.54

90
Appendix B: Parenting Styles and Parental Involvement (PSPI)

Parental Involvement Measure (Original)

Using the scale below, indicate the number which best describes your MOTHER
from 1 Very Unlike to 5 Very Like for each item.

Very More Unlike Neither Like More Like Very
UnLike than Like nor Unlike than Unlike Like
_____________________________________________________________________________
1 2 3 4 5

_____ 1. My mother tries to get me to do my best on everything I do.
_____ 2. My mother thinks that education is a very important part of adolescence.
_____ 3. My mother usually goes to parent-teacher conferences.
_____ 4. My mother usually sets high standards for me to meet.
_____ 5. My mother seldom looks at my tests and papers from school.
_____ 6. It does not really matter to my mother what grades I get.
_____ 7. My mother is not involved in school programs for parents.
_____ 8. My mother sometimes does volunteer work at my school.
_____ 9. My mother thinks homework is a very important part of school.
_____10 When I get poor grades, my mother encourages me to try harder.
_____11. My mother usually does not go to school functions.
_____12. My mother makes sure that I have done my homework.
_____13. My mother usually knows the grades I get.
_____14. My mother thinks I should go to college.
_____15. Hard work is very important to my mother.
_____16. My mother does not think that she should help me with my homework.
_____17. My mother has high aspirations for my future.
_____18. When I get poor grades, my mother offers help.
_____19. When I ask for help with homework, my mother usually gives it to me.
_____20. My mother thinks that getting ahead in life is very important.
_____21. My mother does not think I should be concerned about what kind of
career I may have.
_____22. My mother usually goes to activities in which I am involved at school.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Scoring Instructions:

For a total score on achievement values, items 1, 2, 4, 14, 15, 17, and 20 are added to the
recoded (i.e. 1=5, 2=4, etc.) item 21. For a total score on interest in schoolwork, items 9, 10, 12,
13, 18, and 19 are added to the recoded items 5, 6, and 16. For a total score on involvement in
school function, items 3, 8, and 22 are added to the recoded items 7 and 11. High scores
indicate high levels of parental involvement on each scale. Means scores are obtained for each
scale by dividing by the number of items completed.

91
Appendix C: Student Survey

Read the following questions carefully. Click on the choice that describes
your answer the best.

Not at all true

Somewhat true

Very true
Sample Question:
I like strawberry ice cream.
1 2 3 4 5
1. It’s important to me that I learn a lot of new concepts this
year.
1 2 3 4 5
2. It’s important to me that other students in my class think I
am good at my class work.
1 2 3 4 5
3. It’s important to me that I don’t look stupid in class.
1 2 3 4 5
4. One of my goals in class is to learn as much as I can.
1 2 3 4 5
5. One of my goals is to show others that I’m good at my
class work.
1 2 3 4 5
6. One of my goals is to keep others from thinking I’m not
smart in class.
1 2 3 4 5
7. One of my goals is to master a lot of new skills this year.
1 2 3 4 5
8. It’s important to me that I improve my skills this year.
1 2 3 4 5
9. One of my goals is to look smart in comparison to the other
students in my class.
1 2 3 4 5
10. It’s important to me that my teacher doesn’t think that I
know less than others in my class.
1 2 3 4 5
11. It’s important to me that I thoroughly understand my class
work.
1 2 3 4 5
12. It’s important to me that I look smart compared to others
in my class.
1 2 3 4 5
13. One of my goals in class is to avoid looking like I have
trouble doing the work.
1 2 3 4 5
14. One of my goals is to show others that class work is easy
for me.
1 2 3 4 5

92
Think about the adult who LIVES WITH YOU IN YOUR HOME and helps you the most
with school. Who is this adult?
a. Mother e. Grandparent
b. Stepmother f. Aunt/Uncle
c. Father g. Other
d. Stepfather

Read the following questions carefully. Answer the questions about the ADULT YOU
IDENTIFIED ABOVE. Click on the choice that describes your answer the best.

Not At All True
Not Usually True
Sometimes True
Usually True
Always True
1. My parent tries to get me to do my best on everything I
do.
1 2 3 4 5
2. My parent thinks that education is a very important
part of childhood.
1 2 3 4 5
3. My parent usually goes to parent-teacher conferences. 1 2 3 4 5
4. My parent usually sets high standards for me to meet. 1 2 3 4 5
5. My parent seldom looks at my tests and papers from
school.
1 2 3 4 5
6. It does not really matter to my parent what grades I get. 1 2 3 4 5
7. My parent is involved in school programs for parents. 1 2 3 4 5
8. My parent sometimes does volunteer work at my
school.
1 2 3 4 5
9. My parent things homework is a very important part of
school.
1 2 3 4 5
10. When I get poor grades, my parent encourages me to
try harder.
1 2 3 4 5
11. My parent usually does not go to school functions. 1 2 3 4 5
12. My parent makes sure that I have done my
homework.
1 2 3 4 5

93

Not At All True
Not Usually True
Sometimes True
Usually True
Always True
13. My parent usually knows the grades I get. 1 2 3 4 5
14. My parent thinks I should go to college. 1 2 3 4 5
15. Hard work is very important to my parent. 1 2 3 4 5
16. My parent does not think he/she should help me with
my homework.
1 2 3 4 5
17. My parent has high aspirations for my future. 1 2 3 4 5
18. When I get poor grades, my parent offers help. 1 2 3 4 5
19. When I ask for help with my homework, my parent
usually gives it to me.
1 2 3 4 5
20. My parent things that getting ahead is very important. 1 2 3 4 5
21. My parent does not think I should be concerned about
what kind of career I may have.
1 2 3 4 5
22. My parent usually goes to activities in which I am
involved in school.
1 2 3 4 5

94
Appendix D: Demographic Questions

Read the following questions carefully. Click on the answer that best describes you.

1. What is your gender?
a. Male (boy)
b. Female (girl)

2. How old are you TODAY?
a. 9
b. 10
c. 11
d. 12
e. 13

3. What is your race/ethnicity?
a. American Indian or Alaska Native
b. Asian
c. Black or African American
d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
e. White
f. Hispanic or Latino
g. Multi-ethnic/race
h. Biracial

4. What grade are you in?
a. 4
th

b. 5
th

c. 6
th

d. 7th

95
Appendix E: Parental Consent Form

96

97

98

99
Appendix F: Child Assent Form

100

101
Appendix G: Briefing and Debriefing Scripts

Briefing
Script:

Good
morning,
my
name
is
__________________________________.

I
am
a
student
at
USC
and
I
am
going
to
be
collecting
some
information
about
how

you
think
your
parents
help
you
in
your
school
life.
I
am
looking
to
see
if
this
is

related
to
how
you
set
goals
for
yourself
in
school.

You
brought
home
a
parent
permission
form
and
if
your
parents
signed
it,
they
are

giving
you
permission
to
take
the
survey.
If
you
would
like
to
participate
in
the

survey,
you
will
also
need
to
sign
a
form.
Let’s
read
the
form
together.

[Read
the
entire
form,
stopping
to
answer
any
questions.
Reiterate
that
this
is
NOT
a
test;
it

will
NOT
be
graded;
parents
and
teachers
are
not
going
to
see
anyone’s
answers.
Point
out

that
when
they
are
completing
the
survey,
they
are
not
typing
their
name,
so
no
one
will

even
know
which
answers
are
theirs.]

Are
there
any
questions
about
the
form
or
the
survey?

[Walk
the
students
through
signing
the
form].
Print
your
name
where
it
says
“Name
of

Child.”
Print
today’s
date:
______________.
Last,
sign
your
name
(write
your
name
in

cursive)
where
it
says
“Child’s
Signature.”
If
you
do
not
know
how
to
write
your
name

in
cursive,
you
can
just
print
your
name
again.
[Collect
all
forms.]

After
you
are
done
with
the
survey,
you
may
work
on
the
word
search
or
any
other

assignment
your
teacher
wishes
you
to
work
on.

Remember,
this
is
not
a
test
so
you
can
ask
any
questions
you
may
have.
Please
raise

your
hand
and
you
will
receive
help.
Let’s
read
the
directions
together.
[Read
the

directions
together.
Answer
ALL
demographic
questions
together.
Do
not
allow
students
to

go
on
until
an
adult
has
checked
the
answers
on
these
questions.
Answer
the
SAMPLE

QUESTION
together.
Explain
the
Likert
scale/anchors.
Walk
around
and
make
sure

everyone
has
an
answer/understands
what
to
do.]

Are
there
any
questions?
You
may
complete
the
rest
of
the
survey.
Please
raise
your

hand
if
you
have
any
questions
so
I
can
help
you.
You
may
begin.
[Circulate
around
the

room,
answering
student
questions.
Refer
to
the
Student
Survey
Key
for
anticipated

misconceptions.
Maintain
a
quiet
atmosphere
until
all
participants
have
completed
the

survey.]

102
Debriefing
Script

Thank
you
for
taking
part
in
the
survey.
I
will
be
looking
at
the
data
over
the
next
few

months.
I
will
be
looking
to
see
what
5
th

graders
think
about
how
their
parents
help

them
with
school.
I
will
be
searching
to
find
out
if
these
thoughts
are
related
to
how

5
th

graders
set
goals
for
themselves
in
school.

We
are
hoping
to
share
what
we
find
with
your
parents
and
teachers
in
June
or

September.
You
will
also
be
welcome
to
come
and
hear
the
results.

Are
there
any
questions?
Thank
you
again
for
participating
in
the
study!

103
Appendix H: Student Survey Key for Researchers and Teachers

Parent Involvement and Student Motivation

Read the following questions carefully. Click on the answer
that best describes you.

What is your gender? The students might focus on this word, but just explain we’re asking if they are a
boy or a girl.
• Male (boy)
• Female (girl)
How old are you TODAY? The students might ask, “What if I’m almost ____?” Emphasize TODAY!!!
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
What is your race/ethnicity? Most of the students are Hispanic/Latino. Please rely on their teacher to
help them determine their race/ethnicity. We’ll also try to have this determined beforehand.

• American Indian or Alaska Native
• Asian
• Black or African American
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
• White
• Hispanic or Latino
• Multi-ethnic/race
• Biracial

What grade are you in? All students should be in the 5
th
grade.
• 4th
• 5th
• 6th
• 7th

104
Read the following questions carefully. Click the choice that
describes your answer the best.

SAMPLE QUESTION:

Not at all true

Somewhat true Very true
1 2 3 4 5
I like strawberry ice
cream.

I never like
strawberry ice
cream.

I don’t
usually like
strawberry ice
cream
I sometimes
like strawberry
ice cream.
I usually
like strawberry
ice cream.
I always or
almost always
like strawberry
ice cream.

Read the following questions carefully. Click the choice that
describes your answer the best.

See above for à à à
Not at all true
1
2
Somewhat true
3
4
Very true
5

1. It's important to me that
I learn a lot of new
concepts this year.

Concepts:
ideas

2. It's important to me that
other students in my class
think I am good at my
classwork.

3. It's important to me that
I don't look stupid in class.

Some of the
students may be
offended by this
word. Just an
FYI.

4. One of my goals in class
is to learn as much as I
can.

5. One of my goals is to
show others that I'm good
at my classwork.

6. One of my goals is to
keep others from thinking
I'm not smart in class.

7. One of my goals is to
master a lot of new skills
this year.

105
Read the following questions carefully. Click the choice that
describes your answer the best.

Not at all true Somewhat true Very true

8. It's important to me that
I improve my skills this
year.

9. One of my goals is to
look smart in comparison
to the other students in my
class.

10. It's important to me
that my teacher doesn't
think that I know less than
others in my class.

11. It's important to me
that I thoroughly
understand my classwork.

12. It's important to me
that I look smart
compared to others in my
class.

13. One of my goals in
class is to avoid looking
like I have trouble doing
the work.

14. One of my goals is to
show others that classwork
is easy for me.

Think about the adult who LIVES WITH YOU IN YOUR HOME and helps
you the most with school. Who is this adult?

• Mother
• Stepmother
• Father
• Stepfather
• Grandparent
• Aunt/Uncle
• other MUST be an ADULT!

106
Read the following questions carefully. Answer the questions
about the ADULT YOU IDENTIFIED ABOVE. Click on the
choice that describes your answer the best.

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree

1. My parent tries to get
me to do my best on
everything I do.

2. My parent thinks that
education is a very
important part of
childhood.

3. My parent usually goes
to parent-teacher
conferences.

4. My parent usually sets
high standards for me to
meet.

High
Standards: high
expectations

5. My parent seldom looks
at my tests and papers
from school.

Seldom:
Rarely, not
usually

6. It does not really matter
to my parent what grades
I get.

7. My parent is involved in
school programs for
parents.

8. My parent sometimes
does volunteer work at my
school.

Volunteer
work: Comes to
school to help in
the classrooms
or the office

107
Read the following questions carefully. Answer the questions
about the ADULT YOU IDENTIFIED ABOVE. Click on the
choice that describes your answer the best.

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly Agree

9. My parent thinks
homework is a very
important part of school.

10. When I get poor
grades, my parent
encourages me to try
harder.

11. My parent usually does
not go to school functions.

12. My parent makes sure
that I have done my
homework.

13. My parent usually
knows the grades I get.

14. My parent thinks I
should go to college.

15. Hard work is very
important to my parent.

16. My parent does not
think he/she should help
me with my homework.

108
Read the following questions carefully. Answer the questions
about the ADULT YOU IDENTIFIED ABOVE. Click on the
choice that describes your answer the best.

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly Agree

17. My parent has high
aspirations for my future.

Aspirations:
hopes

18. When I get poor
grades, my parent offers
help.

19. When I ask for help
with my homework, my
parent usually gives it to
me.

20. My parent thinks that
getting ahead is very
important.

Getting
head: being
successful

21. My parent does not
think I should be
concerned about what
kind of career I may have.

22. My parent usually goes
to activities in which I am
involved in school.

Activities:
performances,
plays, awards
ceremonies,
science fair, etc.

109
Appendix I: Data Collection Agenda

AGENDA
Parent Participation and Student Motivation Study

1. Introduction/Briefing (See attached script.) 3 min.
Brief students on the study.

2. Child Assent Forms (See attached script.) 3 min.
Read over with students and have them sign. Allow time to answer any
questions the students may have.
a. Any student who declines to participate can do the alternative activity.

b. All students’ who agree to participate will proceed with survey.

3. Online Survey 3 min.
a. Read the directions and answer the SAMPLE QUESTION altogether.
b. Remind them to read the directions and questions carefully.
c. If at anytime they have any questions about the survey or what a word
means to raise their hand so that we can come assist. (See attached “Key”)

4. Complete survey. 17 min.

5. Debriefing 3 min.
Debrief the class upon completion of the survey, reminding them that all
responses are anonymous, their teacher, parents, friends, and we as the
researchers will never know how each individual answered each question.

6. Thank the students 1 min.
Thank the students for their time and help with our homework assignment.

7. Pass out pencils.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine a possible relationship between student perceptions of parental involvement and student goal orientation for an ethnically diverse fifth grade elementary population from high-poverty schools. This study was quantitative in nature and employed the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS) to assess the goal orientations of participants, and the Parenting Style Parental Involvement (PSPI) scale to measure student perceptions of parental involvement. PALS quantified mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoid goal orientations, while the PSPI calculated student perceptions of parental achievement value, interest in schoolwork, and involvement in school functions. One hundred two fifth grade students answered Likert-type surveys regarding their goal orientation, perceived parental involvement, as well as four demographic questions. All data was collected using Qualtrics Survey Software (Qualtrics Labs, Inc., 2012) and was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. ❧ Simple linear regressions revealed that student perceptions of parental involvement significantly predicted both mastery and performance-approach goal orientations, but found no relation to performance-avoid goal orientation. Student perceptions of parental achievement value also predicted performance-approach goal orientation, but was unrelated to both mastery and performance-avoid goal orientations. ❧ A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by a post hoc Tukey test found a significant difference between the low and high parental involvement groups in mastery goal orientation, with a large effect size and a Kruskal-Wallis test followed by a pos hoc Mann-Whitney showed a significant difference between the high and low, and high and medium, parental involvement groups with a medium and small effect size, respectively. ❧ A two-way MANOVA was run to determine if there were interaction effects between gender and high, medium, and low student perceptions of parental involvement groups that resulted in a difference in mastery or approach goal orientations, respectively. Results showed a lack of interaction effects as well as a lack of main effects for gender on mastery and approach goal orientations. ❧ The measurement of parental involvement via student perceptions and the assessment of a diverse elementary school population were unique to the current study. Findings indicated that when parents are highly involved in their child’s education, their child will orient themselves toward achievement either through a mastery or performance-approach goal orientation. This adds to the research literature that suggests parental involvement is an essential factor influencing student motivation. Further research is needed to assess the relationship between student perceptions of parental involvement and student goal orientation for diverse populations in race, ethnicity, age, and socioeconomic status, and to determine the facilitative nature of performance-approach goal orientation at different developmental levels. It is projected that the findings from this study will assist practitioners in educating teachers and parents as to the importance of student goal orientation and how it is influenced by student perceptions of parental involvement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A quantitative analysis on student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 6th grade middle school students

PDF

Home and school factors and their influence on students' academic goal orientation and motivation

PDF

The relationship between teacher assessment practices, student goal orientation, and student engagement in elementary mathematics

PDF

Expectancy value theory and African American student motivation

PDF

The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students

PDF

The impact of parental involvement on student achievement

PDF

Motives and methods: motivation, learning approaches, and academic achievement of students during first year transition to medical school

PDF

Examining parent involvement activities in two mmigrant-impacted schools: a comparative case study

PDF

Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses

PDF

A comparative study of motivational predictors and differences of student satisfaction between online learning and on-campus courses

PDF

The relationship of teachers' parenting styles and Asian American students' reading motivation

PDF

The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students

PDF

The relationship between student perceptions of parental expectations, utility value, aptitude and English achievement among Asian American high school students

PDF

Motivational and academic outcomes in retained middle school students

PDF

A qualitative analysis on Latino parents' beliefs regarding their middle school child's motivation

PDF

The relationship of values and parenting styles on academic achievement and occupational choice among Jewish-Americans and Jewish-Iranian Americans

PDF

Are acculturation and parenting styles related to academic achievement among Latino students?

PDF

The effects of a series of after school family writing workshops on students' writing achievement and attitudes

PDF

Motivational, parental, and cultural influences on achievement and persistence in basic skills mathematics at the community college

PDF

Parent compacts in urban charter schools: an exploration of contents and processes

Asset Metadata

Creator Mendoza, Christine Daryabigi (author)

Core Title Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/08/2012

Defense Date 08/23/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag elementary,fifth grade,goal orientation,OAI-PMH Harvest,parental involvement,student motivation,student perceptions of parental involvement

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Chung, Ruth (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email cmmendoz@usc.edu,cmmendoza24@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-101550

Unique identifier UC11289071

Identifier usctheses-c3-101550 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MendozaChr-1231.pdf

Dmrecord 101550

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mendoza, Christine Daryabigi

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA