Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Relationship of teacher's parenting style to instructional strategies and student achievement
(USC Thesis Other)
Relationship of teacher's parenting style to instructional strategies and student achievement
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
RELATIONSHIP OF TEACHER’S PARENTING STYLE TO INSTRUCTIONAL
STRATEGIES AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
by
Sarah Jean Babiarz
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2009
Copyright 2009 Sarah Jean Babiarz
ii
Dedication
Dad… Mom… Thank you.
I wouldn’t be where I am today without your love and support. You tirelessly listen
and give advice. Your encouragement and vote of confidence has propelled me
further in life than I ever imagined. Your wisdom calmed and focused me. I pray I
can pass along all the blessings you’ve shared with me.
iii
Acknowledgements
Thanks first to God, my Father in heaven. You have blessed me abundantly
and everything is possible with You.
I have also had the time and support of so many.
My personal support system is made up of so many loved ones - my parents
and siblings (Andrew, Jocelyn, Deborah, Casey, and Rebekah), Larry Jr., Mandy,
Kristie, Caroline, Ryann, Sarah, my girl’s night girls, my co-workers, colleagues,
and classmates. Thank you.
To my dissertation chair, committee members, and professors who gave me
guidance and knowledge. To Dr. Mary McCullough who planted the seed which led
me to this program. To all the Superintendents who gave me permission to collect
data in your district. To all the Principals who wrote permission letters and gave me
permission to survey your teachers. To all the district data analysts who collected
student data for me. To all the teachers who took my online survey. To all those who
knew someone I could contact for potential participation in my study. Thank you.
iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
Abstract vii
Chapter 1 1
Introduction 1
Diversity Within America’s Schools 4
Teachers 7
Parents 8
Background of the Problem 10
Theoretical Framework 13
Teaching 13
Parenting 14
Importance of the Study 15
Outline 17
Chapter 2 19
Literature Review 19
Parenting Styles 21
Definitions 21
Parenting Styles of African Americans 28
Parenting Styles of Latinos 31
Teaching Strategies 34
Identifying Similarities and Differences 35
Summarizing and Note Taking 35
Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition 36
Homework and Practice 37
Representing Knowledge 37
Learning Groups 38
Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback 38
Generating and Testing Hypotheses 39
Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers 40
Summary 42
Purpose 45
v
Chapter 3 47
Methodology 47
Participants 47
Teachers 48
Students 51
Districts 52
Instruments 53
Demographic Background 53
Parenting Style 54
Teaching Strategies 56
California Standards Test 58
Procedure 60
Data Analyses 63
Chapter 4 65
Results 65
Preliminary Analyses 65
Correlations 66
Research Question 1 – Parenting Style of the Teacher and
Language Arts Scores 70
Research Question 2 – Parenting Style of the Teacher and
Math Scores 71
Research Question 3 – Parenting Style of the Teacher and
Teaching Strategies 72
Chapter 5 75
Discussion 75
Discussion of Findings 75
Limitations 82
Future Research 84
Conclusion 86
References 88
Appendix 97
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Percentage of Students At or Above Proficiency on California
Standards Tests 12
Table 2: Teacher Demographic Data 50
Table 3: Current Grade Level Taught 51
Table 4: Student Demographic Data 52
Table 5: District and Charter School Demographic Data 53
Table 6: Cronbach’s Alpha for Teaching Strategies 58
Table 7: Range, Mean, and Standard Deviation for
Major Variables 66
Table 8: Correlation among Parenting Styles, Teaching Strategies,
and Student Achievement Measures 68
Table 9: Summary of Regression Analyses for Constants Predicting
Language Arts CST Scores 70
Table 10: Summary of Regression Analysis for Constants Predicting
Math CST Scores 71
Table 11: Summary of Regression Analysis for Parenting Styles
Predicting Teaching Strategies 72
vii
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the parenting style of a
teacher predicts the use of teaching strategies and academic achievement of their
African American and Latino students as evidenced by California Standards Test
scores (CST). This study utilized Baumrind’s (1971) three parenting prototypes:
Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive. It also made use of Marzano,
Pickering, and Pollock’s (2001) nine research-based teaching strategies. The study
was quantitative and surveyed teachers of second through eighth grade who were
also parents. Eighty-four teachers from twenty-five schools in nine districts and three
charter schools participated in this study. Results reveal that the teachers’
Authoritarian parenting style was positively related to gains in student CST Math
scores. Males were negatively related to CST Language Arts scores. English
Learners and students who qualified for free/reduced lunch were negatively related
to both Language Arts and Math CST scores. Authoritative and Authoritarian
parenting style of the teacher both positively predicted two teaching strategies:
Similarities and Differences; and Homework and Practice. Authoritative parenting
was also positively related to two other teaching strategies: Representing
Knowledge; and Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback.
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
The success of any society is dependent upon the education of each
generation; therefore, education is the responsibility of the society. There are two
purposes of education: moral and public. Goodlad and McMannon (1997) see the
moral purpose as “preparing individuals to take an active place in the specific society
in which he or she lives” (p. 5). Furthermore, this active place in society ensures the
quality of life and future of society and creates an enlightened and empowered
citizenry to protect democracy. Traditionally, the parents are considered the primary
educators. Historically, education takes place at the school site. The ideal is that
students leave school with the skills and knowledge they need to be active,
productive citizens.
The public purpose of education has changed over time. In the nineteenth
century, when Horace Mann could be found wandering the countryside,
documenting and evaluating schools, the public purpose of education was very
connected to the moral purpose. Students went to school to learn to read and write
and study philosophy (Goodlad & McMannon, 1997). Education was an opportunity
to change the predestined cycle that a person’s family determined his or her future.
As education and time moved on, so did theories and methods of education. By the
time John Dewey was on the scene, the public purpose of education in the 1920’s
was to go to school to get a job. The pendulum has swung back and forth between
these ideals many times, yet two significant goals have remained constant. One
2
significant goal of education is to develop students who are self-regulating and
autonomous in their learning and behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Thomas, 1980).
Another is competence (White, 1963). Over time, the federal government has
instituted laws to ensure the education of society. One such recent law is the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
The goal of the No Child Left Behind Act (U.S. Department of Education,
n.d.) is to promote children’s academic achievement. This law was established in
2001 by President George W. Bush, and requires that school districts in all states be
held accountable for student success. “By setting standards, measuring progress, and
holding states accountable for their students’ achievement, states can ensure that no
child lacks the basic skills needed to succeed in our increasingly competitive, global
economy” (U.S. Department of Education, 2009, ¶ 1).
Accountability through testing is the cornerstone of No Child Left Behind
(Stecher, Hamilton, & Gonzalez, 2003). A major tenet of this law is that by 2014 “all
groups of students reach proficiency” (Executive Summary, 2004, ¶ 3). The
proficiency of students is measured by knowledge of the Content Standards
(California Department of Education, 2006), which are a set of standards that
describe what students should know and be able to do each school year in each
subject area. Students in grades two through eight are required by No Child Left
Behind to take standardized tests in English Language Arts and Math each year.
Currently, thirty-nine states have implemented high-quality standards and assessment
systems.
3
Each state must publicly report the documentation of test results and show
whether they have met both state and federal goals. Districts demonstrate their state
accountability requirements through the reporting of an Academic Progress Index
(API) score. The API reports how schools performed each year on standardized tests
and how much growth was made from the previous year. Additionally, districts
demonstrate their federal accountability requirements through the reporting of an
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) score. The Adequate Yearly Progress includes four
parts: (a) student participation, (b) percent of students scoring at the proficient level
for English Language Arts and Mathematics, (c) API growth, and (d) graduation
rates – if the district has high school students enrolled. These state and federal goals
change year to year, based on calculations from the most recent performance of the
district. When districts do not meet the goal requirements set out by the No Child
Left Behind Act, they are classified as a Program Improvement school and face
confounding consequences each year they fail to meet their goals.
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) is the means through which
California measures the progress of districts in meeting the requirements of No Child
Left Behind. California Standards Tests (California Department of Education, 2005)
are the specific tests taken by students in California. In California, where roughly
15% of schools are Program Improvement, 48.4% of students scored at or above
proficiency in Language Arts and 51.2% of students scored proficient or above in
Math on the California Standards Test (California Department of Education, 2009b).
4
When these proficiency levels are disaggregated among ethnicities, White students
perform 26 to 32 percent higher than African American and Latino students
(California Department of Education, 2009a).
Diversity within America’s Schools
Through the reporting of the progress towards these goals, gaps in
achievement have been realized and recognized. Nationally, about two thirds of
states have less than 9% of schools classified as Program Improvement. The
remaining third contain Program Improvement status for 10-30+% of schools.
Pennsylvania, a state with approximately one fourth of its schools in Program
Improvement also reports 78% of student proficient in Language Arts and 73%
proficient in Math (State Report Card, 2008). Maryland contains more than 30% of
its schools classified as Program Improvement. However, the proficiency of students
in Language Arts and Math is 82.3% and 77.4%, respectively (Maryland Report
Card, 2008).
When considering the reporting of all students in different states, it is
important to take into consideration the range of the people. The total population in
the United States has grown roughly 6% in the last 16 years. Disaggregated among
ethnicities, the distribution of growth is very different. The European American
population growth has been 10%. The African American population growth has been
over twice that amount - 23.5%. While these figures may appear to be large
increases, they pale in comparison to the Latino population growth of 98%. (U.S.
Census Bureau, n.d.). Currently, the European American population in the nation is
5
30.3%, African Americans represent 7.8%, and the Latino population makes up
47.6% of the total population (Education Data Partnership, 2007). In the Los Angeles
County, the European American, African American, and Latino population
percentages are 25.7%, 17.3%, and 27.2% respectively (Education Data Partnership).
Minorities are approximately one-third of the population. They are expected to
become the majority by 2042 (Bernstein & Edwards, 2008).
Projections report that the African American population will increase nearly
25 million people by 2050 (Bernstien & Edwards, 2008). Latinos are one of the
fastest growing minority groups (Campbell, 1996). Their population is expected to
triple in the next 40 years; this is an estimated 86 million people (Bernstein &
Edwards). California is expected to be the number one fastest growing state adding
18 million residents by 2025 (Campbell). The state of California currently has the
highest population of Latinos and the third highest population of African Americans
throughout the country. Over the next 40 years, California will continue house the
largest Latino and fourth largest African American population in the nation. These
ratios have great implications for the education system. With the increasing
population and diversity the expected student population in 2050 will be 62%
minority (Bernstein & Edwards).
The growth and projected growth of our population has intensified the
urgency and need to close the achievement gap in order to meet the needs of all
students. One manifestation of this urgency, as noted above, has been federal
6
legislation, which has led to public reporting of school growth. These specific
accounts of school progress have greatly increased the public attention, and
therefore, pressure on education.
With the growing pressure of accountability for student proficiency on
standardized tests, teachers and administrators are looking for ways in which they
can increase student achievement. Educators are looking for the aspects of education
that specifically contribute to student academic achievement. Researchers have put
an emphasis on identifying these variables in order to contribute to the foundation of
knowledge of what factors play a part in the successful growth of student
achievement.
To ascertain these factors, studies have been conducted on many facets of
education. Several of these include the brain and how it works (Immordino-Yang,
2008), student variables (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Thomas, 1980; White, 1963), teaching
styles (CORD, 2005; Grasha, 1996; Zhang, 2004), classroom environment (Brock,
Nishida, Chiong, Grimm, & Rimm-Kaufman, 2008), teaching strategies (Marzano,
Pickering, & Pollock, 2001), and home influences (Pomerantz, Moorman, &
Litwack, 2007). Through these studies, numerous elements have been revealed as
having great consequences on student achievement. Likewise, numerous programs
and methods developed from these revealed elements have been implemented in
schools nationwide. Response to Intervention (RTI), for example, is one
implementation of school reform developed from examining factors that affect
7
student achievement. RTI has three main components, one of which is “a
commitment to use the best findings from our current and emerging knowledge base
(scientific research) as we go about our instruction” (Tilly, 2006, p. 1).
Teachers. Teachers are one focus of improving the achievement gap. In this
way, teachers are directly affected by the pressure of accountability in education.
Therefore, it is important to understand the ways in which teachers have been shown
to affect student achievement. “Teaching has been defined as the creation of learning
environments in which students maximize the possibility of executing the cognitive
activities necessary for building knowledge and reasoning capacity” (Seidel &
Shavelson, 2007, p. 458). Student engagement and learning are affected by the
specific psychological and behavioral structures formed by teachers in the classroom
(Walker, 2008).
Teachers have the responsibility to impart knowledge children need to be
successful citizens in society. Many studies have shown the wide variety of ways
teachers influence student outcomes. Teachers expectations (Lane, Givner, &
Pierson, 2004), content knowledge (Boe, Shin, & Cook, 2007), classroom structure
(Brock et al., 2008), teaching style (CORD, 2005; Grasha, 1996; Zhang, 2004), and
strategies (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001) work together to either promote or
inhibit learning for students. Research reveals that students taught by ‘weak’ teachers
accumulate negative academic achievement results. For example, Wright, Horn, and
Sanders (1997) found that students with an ineffective teacher for one year will not
be able to close the gap of gains lost in the next year, even with a highly effective
8
teacher. Marzano et al. provides a synthesis on a multitude of research regarding the
best findings of effective teaching strategies. He outlines nine classroom strategies
that have been shown to increase student achievement.
In summary, teacher factors have been shown through research to have a
great impact on student achievement. Due to the achievement gap realized through
accountability reporting required by No Child Left Behind (U.S. Department of
Education, n.d.), pressure exists on the educational system to find effective methods
and effective teachers. The relationships between teaching practice, room
environment, and teacher characteristics to academic achievement have been studied.
However, the body of research does not exhaust all factors included in those areas.
Furthermore, effective methods and effective teachers are not the only determining
factors in resolving education improvement and closing the achievement gap.
Despite growing pressure on teachers and the realization of lasting consequences of
the quality of teacher on student achievement, parents have been shown to have a
great impact on children’s school success, or lack thereof.
Parents. Parents are the true teachers of children. Researchers, such as
Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, and Dornbusch (1991) and Steinberg, Lamborn,
Dornbusch, and Darling (1992) have conducted studies to explore this notion. They
found that parents who exert control, yet are caring with their children, have children
who are well-adjusted psychosocially as well as behaviorally. Conversely, parents
who exert control without caring, or who do not exert control, have children who
display dysfunctional behaviors. This echoes the findings of Baumrind (1967) who
9
led an extensive body of research regarding the relationship of parenting styles to
academic achievement. Baumrind defines the parents who display control and caring
as Authoritative while the parents who exert control without caring are defined as
Authoritarian. Permissive parents are those who do not apply control or put forth
caring.
Many aspects of being a parent have been shown to influence student
achievement. Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, and Fraleigh (1987) conducted
research on family structure and parent education. Garcia-Coll (1990) looked at the
role ethnicity plays in the relationships of parenting to a child’s academic
achievement. Jeynes (2005) and Pomerantz et al., (2007) examined the consequences
of the level of parental involvement. Cain (2007) evaluated the role religion plays.
Grolnick and Ryan (1989) studied how socioeconomic status related to educational
achievement. Hart and Risley (2003) showed that the early years of a child’s life has
long-term outcomes. Parents influence their children as teachers and models and,
therefore, similar beliefs are expected between parent and child.
However, despite this body of research these factors can still be studied in
different combinations and contexts. Additionally, research needs to continue to
address how currently studied factors might manifest differently in different ethnic
groups. This study will examine one such unknown factor – the relationship between
the parenting style of a teacher to the teaching strategies used in the classroom.
In summary, education of all students is important to the progress and success
of society. No Child Left Behind (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.) was designed
10
to ensure that all students received an education that ensured their academic
achievement. The problem is that through the reporting of standardized tests by each
state as required by No Child Left Behind, gaps in achievement continue to be
realized. The solution to this problem lies in uncovering the factors which contribute
to this achievement gap in order to modify the educational system so that it
accurately meets the needs of all students.
Background of the Problem
In order to clarify the ethnic groups that will be discussed through the course
of this study, it is important to point out the vocabulary used to describe a group of
people. Research studies have used the terms ‘Hispanic’ and ‘Latino’ to describe one
population of people from many countries – Spain, Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico,
Argentina, etc. -- the current study will use only one term for the definition of this
population: Latino. Therefore, throughout this study and in other cited studies, the
term Latino will represent the population referred to as Hispanic as well.
The goal of No Child Left Behind is that all students reach proficiency by
2014. As seen in Table 1, the percentage of proficiency of California students in
Language Arts for all students in 2nd, 4th, and 8th grade is 48, 55, and 45,
respectively (California Department of Education, 2009a). Math proficiency for all
California students is 59% in 2nd grade, 61% in 4th grade, and 31% in 8th grade
(California Department of Education). When disaggregated among ethnicities, the
percent of students proficient in Language Arts in 2nd, 4th, and 8th grade is: African
American – 38, 43, and 32; Latino – 35, 41, and 31; White – 64, 74, and 63. Math
11
proficiency reports similar results in the same grade levels: African American – 44,
46, and 20; Latino – 49, 52, and 23; White – 74, 74, and 45 (California Department
of Education). The level of proficiency is nearly double for White students when
compared to African American and Latino students.
This pattern is repeated when the proficiency of students in the Los Angeles
County is examined (see Table 1). All students in grades 2, 4, and 8 scored at 47%,
51%, and 40% proficiency in Language Arts and 58%, 61%, and 27% proficient in
Math (California Department of Education, 2009a). Disaggregated among
ethnicities, a similar pattern which was seen in California as a whole is repeated.
African American students in 2nd, 4th, and 8th grade scored 40%, 42%, and 30%
proficient in Language Arts and 45%, 46%, and 18% proficient in Math (California
Department of Education). Latino students in grades 2, 4, and 8 scored 39%, 43%,
and 30% proficient in Language Arts and 52%, 54%, and 21% proficient in Math
(California Department of Education). White students in 2nd, 4th, and 8th grade
scored at 69%, 77%, and 66% proficiency in Language Arts and at 78%, 78%, and
51% proficiency in Math (California Department of Education). White students
consistently out perform the African American and Latino students. In summary, a
recurring pattern reveals the low number of proficient African American and Latino
students when compared to the White students. This remained true even as data was
evaluated from the state to local level.
12
Table 1: Percentage of Students At or Above Proficiency on California Standards
Tests
2
nd
4
th
8
th
2
nd
4
th
8
th
Language Arts Math
California
All Students 48 55 45 59 61 31
African American Students 38 43 32 44 46 20
Latino Students 35 41 31 49 52 23
White Students 64 74 63 74 74 45
Los Angeles
All Students 47 51 40 58 61 27
African American Students 40 42 30 45 46 18
Latino Students 39 43 30 52 54 21
White Students 69 77 66 78 78 51
(California Department of Education, 2009a)
This study intends to discover if the home parenting style of the teacher
predicts the use of these strategies in the classroom. One researcher has connected
these two variables: teacher practice and parenting style. Walker (2008) conducted a
study in which she applied the parenting style definitions to teacher practices in an
attempt to explain influence on student achievement. The author used “authoritative”
and “nonauthoritative” labels to describe teacher practices in the classroom. The
results yielded similar associations between authoritative teaching and parenting
style on student achievement. While Walker applied the parenting style framework
as descriptors of observed teaching practices, the current study is different in that it
examines the question of whether certain home parenting styles of the teacher predict
teaching strategies used.
13
Theoretical Framework
There are two theoretical frameworks from which this study evolves:
Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock’s (2001) nine research-based teaching strategies;
and Baumrind’s (1971) three parenting prototypes.
Teaching. Increased accountability in education has brought research on
effective teaching strategies to the forefront of educators’ attention. Marzano,
Norford, Paynter, Pickering, and Gaddy (2001) noted that educational reform is in a
unique position in that there is now thirty years of research reporting on effective
teaching strategies. These authors reflect on that body of research and identify nine
strategies that they have determined to be most effective in classroom instruction.
They are: (a) Identifying Similarities and Differences, (b) Summarizing and Note
Taking, (c) Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition, (d) Homework and
Practice, (e) Representing Knowledge, (f) Learning Groups, (g) Setting Objectives
and Providing Feedback, (h) Generating and Testing Hypotheses, and (i) Cues,
Questions, and Advance Organizers. These strategies have been confirmed by many
other researchers to increase student achievement (Chang, Sung, & Chen, 2002;
Graesser & Olde, 2003; Greene & Azevedo, 2007; Izsak, 2005; Kobayashi, 2006;
Piolat, Olive, & Kellogg, 2005; Ruban & Reis, 2006; Seidel & Shavelson, 2007).
However, research does not reveal why teachers choose to use these strategies.
In summary, there has been a growing body of research regarding the
effectiveness of certain teaching strategies utilized in the classroom. The limitation
emerges in the lack of research conducted to illustrate why teachers choose to use
14
such strategies. One factor that might affect the choices a teacher makes is their
experience with children outside the classroom. Teachers who are parents may make
decisions based on their experience as parents. The next section outlines the second
theoretical framework regarding the relationship parenting has to academic
achievement.
Parenting. Many factors of families have been linked to student achievement
in schools. Parenting, in particular, has been shown to be a large influence on student
academic success (Dornbusch et al., 1987). Other factors such as parental
involvement (Jeynes, 2005; Pomerantz et al., 2007), encouragement to succeed
(Steinberg et al., 1992), family structure (Dornbusch et al.), ethnicity (Garcia-Coll,
1990), and parent education (Dornbusch et al.) have also been studied as important
influences. There is not yet a full body of research to describe variance in factors
such as ethnicity and its relationship to child development and achievement through
parenting style. This study uses Baumrind’s (1967) well established research on the
definitions and relationships of parenting style as the foundation of parenting
influence to further the body of research on educational achievement and ethnicity.
Baumrind (1967) developed three parenting prototypes. Authoritative
parenting consists of high control and high warmth. Authoritarian parents also exert
high control, yet have low warmth. Permissive parents demonstrate low levels of
both control and warmth. Baumrind went on to explore the connections that the three
parenting styles had with discipline strategies (1966; 1996), gender differences
(1971), and student achievement (1989). Her research uncovered other variables
15
which influenced these outcomes along with the parenting styles. These include
ethnicity, age, gender, and family structure (Baumrind, 1967).
Research more current than Baumrind’s (1967) work has further defined
these three parenting style prototypes into four categories, including authoritarian
and authoritative but separating permissive into two categories: indulgent and
neglecting (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). However, Lamborn et al. (1991) explain that
studies have shown children who categorize their parents as indulgent versus
neglecting show differences in some variables and not others. The authors concluded
that studies looking at a child’s self-esteem or self-efficacy should differentiate
between the high and low responsiveness of the parents. Conversely, studies looking
at problem behavior and/or school performance resulted in no difference between the
distinctions of indulgent or neglectful responsiveness and may justify looking at
responsiveness as one group. Therefore, because the dependent variable is related to
school performance, the current study chose to explore only Baumrind’s three
categories through the use of the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ).
Importance of the Study
The aim of the current study is to increase knowledge on factors that
influence student achievement in hopes of contributing to the narrowing of the
achievement gap. This study looks specifically at influences from home factors of
teachers, namely, parenting style. It uses the established body of parenting style
research to provide insight into the approach a teacher uses in addressing students. It
attempts to identify any patterns that exist between the parenting style of a teacher at
16
home and the teaching strategies used at school, paying particular attention to
whether those factors predict the academic achievement of two minority groups:
African American and Latino students. This study is important in its contribution to
the body of research dedicated to closing the achievement gap. The results from this
study offer educators another factor to consider in the success, or lack thereof, of
student learning and achievement: teacher’s parenting style. Additionally, this study
sets the stage for future research into identifying specific educational strategies
predicted by parenting styles that will positively affect student achievement.
Despite separate studies that look at aspects of parenting styles, teaching
strategies, and academic achievement, there has been no study conducted on the
specific relationship between these three variables as outlined in this study. A
comprehensive body of research exists on the relationship between parenting and
student achievement. “During the past 25 years, research based on Baumrind’s
conceptualization of parenting style has produced a remarkably consistent picture of
the type of parenting conducive to the successful socialization of children into the
dominant culture of the United States” (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). However, there
is a limited body of research on the relationship between aspects of teaching and
student achievement. Study topics are inconsistent, reporting on teaching styles and
strategies and methods.
Several factors strengthen the effectiveness of the current study. First, a full
body of research exists on the topic of parenting styles as they relate to students’
educational outcomes. This provides a comprehensive background from which the
17
independent variable is based. Second, Baumrind (1967) conducted studies with
observational methods and in small predominantly middle class European American
families (Lamborn et al., 1991). This study attempts to further the research on the
relationship between parenting styles of teachers to African American and Latino
student outcomes using quantitative methods.
The current study aims to examine whether a teacher’s parenting style at
home predicts the use of certain teaching strategies in the classroom and the
relationship those factors have with student achievement of African American and
Latino students in particular. A secondary goal of the study is to identify the
predominant parenting style of teachers and how they predict teaching strategies.
Outline
The subsequent chapters are organized to report the approach used in
conducting this study. Chapter two describes the foundation and existing body of
research that describes the problem which serves as the purpose of this study. It then
explains the theoretical framework used as a basis for the study. Current and past
research is presented and synthesized for each independent and dependent variable.
Various teaching strategies are reviewed in terms of what research reports as
effective in improving student achievement. Parenting style is defined and explained
through the perspective of different ethnic backgrounds, including European
American, African American, and Latino.
Chapter three explains the design of the study. It describes the participants of
the study and how they were selected. It reveals the three instruments used in the
18
study, describing each while defending their validity and reliability. It outlines the
procedures and timeline followed in the study. Finally, it tells what analysis was used
to synthesize the data accumulated from the study.
Chapter four reports the collected statistical results. An in-depth description
of the data is given. This data is disaggregated by ethnicity of the students for both
the teachers’ self-reported parenting and teaching strategies. These results are
synthesized and analyzed in terms of the proposed research questions. Finally,
chapter five gives an overview of the study, speculates on practical implications of
the conclusions drawn from the data, reviews limitations present in the study, and
considers the direction of future research needed.
19
Chapter 2
Literature Review
The purpose of this chapter is to (a) review relevant literature on parenting
styles, particularly those of African American and Latino families, (b) provide a
comprehensive overview of the literature on effective teaching strategies, (c) discuss
the influence of both parenting styles and teaching strategies on academic
achievement, and (d) propose specific research questions. This review focuses on the
relationships between teachers’ classroom strategies and parenting style, and the
educational outcome of two ethnicities in the United States: African American, and
Latino. These ethnicities are also compared to European Americans where
appropriate.
Research has attributed several variables to the achievement gap between
European American students, African American students, and Latino students.
Poverty affects about 20% of all American children (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997).
Results of this poverty include physical as well as mental health. The result is a lack
of school achievement, which often leads to lower test scores (Kowaleski-Jones,
Dunifon, & Ream, 2006). Studies have shown this connection between low
socioeconomic status and low achievement in academic subject areas across age and
ethnicity (Hughes, 2003; Johnson, 2002). Since over 20% of African American and
Latinos are living below the poverty level (Proctor & Dalaker, 2002), they are more
susceptible to barriers to school success.
20
Social factors, defined by Ogbu (2003) as the educational system and
community influences, have also been connected through studies to the achievement
gap. Inequalities are manifest in the educational system in part through the
overrepresentation of minority students in special education (Harry & Klinger,
2006). These authors identified family involvement with school personnel, student
interaction with school personnel, teacher expectations, and school climate as cause
for this movement.
Social capital is another factor attributed to the achievement gap. This
concept of social capital is defined in the notion that the community as a whole has
great influence over student achievement. Stanton-Salazar (1997) emphasized the
importance of social capital and institutional support on student success; the problem
is in attaining it. Studies have shown Latinos learn less when they have less social
capital (Ream, 2005). Less social capital can be caused by mobility of students due
to family work factors. Ream (2003) showed the relationship of high mobility with
low development of social networks through both quantitative and qualitative studies
in Latino students. He also uncovered the occurrence of counterfeit social capital
affecting some minority students. This occurred when teachers tried to maintain
harmony in classrooms of migrant students, but did not put effort towards helping all
students achieve.
Research reports on poverty and social factors, such as the educational
system and social capital, as playing a part in the existing achievement gap between
students of ethnic minorities and European American students. Research also reports
21
that teacher quality affects student achievement (Johnson, 2002). This study
examines the research on an aspect of the teacher – parenting style – and how it
predicts two outcomes: student achievement and teaching strategies in the classroom.
Parenting Styles
Definitions. Parents influence their children in a variety of ways (Maccoby &
Martin, 1983) through habitual patterns of interaction and recurrent interaction.
Holden and Miller (1999) posit that these interactions are similar across time,
children, and situations. The authors conclude that these exchanges are concurrently
similar and different. Research has attempted to define and characterize these
parental interactions. Delineations have been made between parenting style and
parenting practice. Darling and Steinberg (1993) posit that “parenting style is best
conceptualized as a context that moderates the influence of specific parenting
practices” (p. 487). For the purpose of the current study, parenting style will be the
focus. The framework for this review comes from Baumrind’s (1967) work on
parenting styles.
Baumrind began her work on defining parenting styles in 1959. Eight years
later, she exposed three prototypic patterns of parental authority (Baumrind, 1967).
These are authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive. Baumrind (1989) defines these
three parenting style types through two functions: parental demandingness and
parental responsiveness. Demandingness consists of a parent who asserts “direct
confrontation, monitoring, intrusive-directiveness, and a pattern of firm, consistent
discipline with high maturity demands” (Baumrind, 1989, p. 361). Responsiveness
22
encompasses “affective warmth, cognitive responsiveness, attachment and bonding,
unconditional acceptance or noncontingent positive reinforcement, sensitive
attunement, involvement, and reciprocity” (Baumrind, 1989, p. 365). These functions
are measured in terms of high and low. The combination of high demand and high
response is labeled as authoritative parenting. Additionally, high demand and low
response is labeled as authoritarian parenting. Conversely, low demand combined
with high or low response is labeled as permissive parenting. These parenting styles
have consequences for the social and cognitive development of children through two
means: different expectations of their children and different ways they express their
values, behaviors, and standards to their children (Baumrind, 1971).
The authoritative parenting style is described as exhibiting the following
characteristics: control, demandingness, warmth, rational, and receptiveness. These
parents have children who are content, explorative, self-controlled, and self–reliant
(Baumrind, 1967). Authoritative parents attempt to guide their children’s actions and
behavior through mutual verbal communication. “Authoritative parents take a
functional-rational approach to discipline, in which their exercise of control is
grounded in intimate knowledge of their child and his or her circumstances rather
than in arbitrary rules” (Baumrind, 1989, p. 371). They expect their children to
conform to family functions, such as household tasks. On the other hand, they value
fortitude. Authoritative parents are consistent and set clear expectations. They affirm
23
their children’s characteristics and are loving and supportive (Baumrind, 1971).
Independence and friendly, cooperative behavior is associated with authoritative
parenting.
Similarly, the authoritarian parent shows evidence of demandingness and
control over his or her child (Baumrind, 1971). However, these parents lack the
warmth seen in the authoritative style. Authoritarian parents expect obedience from
their children without explanation. They are highly directive and put importance on
unquestioning obedience. They value respect for authority and have standards for
expected behavior. Authoritarian parents are likely to use punitive measures in
discipline of their children.
On the contrary, the permissive parenting style shows less control and less
warmth than authoritative and authoritarian parenting. They have few demands of
their children’s behavior and accept impulsive actions. Permissive parents do not act
as if they view themselves as responsible for shaping their children’s behavior.
Rather, they avoid the use of control to accomplish objective and do not enforce
obedience to behavioral standards. Permissive parenting inhibits achievement
oriented behavior. Additionally, children of permissive parents have been found to
be less achievement oriented (Baumrind, 1989) than children of other parenting
styles.
These foundational definitions of parenting styles are used to explain other
factors such as discipline strategies used (Baumrind, 1966; 1996) and gender
differences (Baumrind, 1971). Authoritative parenting uses control in discipline that
24
leads to children conforming to group standards without losing his or her
independence or assertiveness (Baumrind, 1966). Discipline by the use of
punishment in a responsive environment is necessary for childrearing (Baumrind,
1996). Its short-term outcome is control of the child’s behavior with no long-term
harm. Baumrind (1971) found that girls and boys displayed different outcomes in
different parenting styles. Two of the major findings are: authoritative parenting is
associated with independence in girls and not in boys; and permissive parenting
inhibited achievement for boys but not for girls.
Baumrind (1967) found that parents who differ in parenting styles also differ
among other dimensions. In studies evaluating the relationship of parenting style to
student achievement, there is a variety of other variables tested along with parenting
style as potential factors affecting student outcomes. These include parent education,
ethnicity (to be discussed further), age, gender, and family structure. Parent
education is associated with lower authoritarian and permissive parenting, but higher
in authoritative (Dornbusch et al., 1987). Assorted family structures resulted in
diverse outcomes. Dornbusch et al. found that single mothers demonstrated higher
permissive parenting and step-families showed more authoritarian parenting.
Differences that arise in parenting styles are influenced by socioeconomic
status and psychological characteristics (Bluestone & Tamis-LeMonda, 1999).
Parental involvement is associated with socioeconomic status (Grolnick & Ryan,
1989). Socioeconomic status is broadly accepted as a positive influence on parental
involvement (Fan & Chen, 2001). If this is the case, then the relationship between
25
parental involvement and academic achievement can be expanded to the influence of
socioeconomic status and student achievement (Fan & Chen). Socioeconomic status
may be a factor related to stress, which affects psychological functioning, and
therefore, parenting practices (Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Wu, 1991). Fan and
Chen analyzed quantitative research on parental involvement and revealed that
parental expectation has a stronger impact on student achievement than parental
home supervision.
Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, and Dornbusch (1994) tested the
observed differences among children of different parenting styles over time. The
authors found that the development and adjustment of the participants was either
maintained or increased. This conclusion applied to both positive and negative
results related to authoritative and permissive parenting, respectively. However,
Dornbusch et al. (1987) found that families of different ethnic backgrounds report
dissimilar use of the parenting styles. For this reason, researchers emphasize the
importance of understanding parenting style in ethnic and cultural contexts (Garcia-
Coll, 1990).
Authoritative parenting leads to school success (Steinberg et al., 1992).
However, the strength of the relationship between parenting style and academic
grades is strongest in authoritarian parenting (Dornbusch et al., 1987). Authoritarian
and permissive parenting styles have been found to have negative associations with
children’s academic grades (Dornbusch et al.). Across ethnic groups, authoritarian
and permissive parenting styles contribute to lower academic grades than
26
authoritative (Dornbusch et al.). Inconsistent parenting is associated with the lowest
academic achievement (Dornbusch et al.). Perhaps this is because inconsistent
parenting causes an environment of anxiety and uncertainty. This would negatively
affect the child’s school effort. Dornbusch et al. also revealed that using the three
types of parenting to predict academic grades is most applicable for European
American students.
Authoritative parenting is associated with other behaviors related to academic
success, not just successful grades (Lamborn et al., 1991). Lamborn et al. found
similar, predictable results between parenting style and adolescents’ social and
behavioral adjustment and functioning. Parenting style influences student
achievement. Grolnick and Ryan (1989) evaluated the influence of three aspects of
parenting style on academic achievement: autonomy support, involvement, and
provision of structure. These authors found that autonomy support, found in the
authoritative parenting style, was related to self-regulation and competence. They
also found that parents who are more involved and structured (authoritative and
authoritarian) had children who were more aware of their self-regulation and
competence. Many studies have been conducted that seek to analyze or synthesize
the relationship of parenting style to other variables, such as child competence, child
adjustment, child academic achievement, or parental involvement (Lamborn et al.;
Steinberg et al., 1992). Parental involvement positively affects student achievement
(Jeynes, 2005). This conclusion holds across ethnicities.
27
Parenting styles influence setting goals, school involvement, and study
strategies. Chan and Chan (2007) linked parenting styles to two types of goal setting:
learning and performance. The authors found that authoritative parenting style is
associated with learning goals, while authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles
are associated with performance goals. These two types of goals, learning and
performance, affect learning strategies of the student and teaching strategies of the
teacher. In terms of school involvement, Hong and Ho (2005) found that African
American parents are more likely to visit classrooms while Latino parental
communication regarding aspirations related to high responsiveness (authoritative)
and affected student achievement. These results have longitudinal consequences
(Hong & Ho). Aunola, Stattin, and Nurmi (2000), examined specific study strategies,
which, influenced by parenting styles, then influenced academic achievement. The
processes include: anticipating failure or success, orientating toward a task by
planning and exerting effort or avoidance, and evaluating achievement based on
attributions. They found children from authoritative parents used task-oriented
strategies, while children from authoritarian and permissive parents used task-
avoidant strategies.
In summary, parenting styles are defined by the amount of control and
warmth of the parent towards the child. High control and high warmth is defined as
authoritative parenting. High control and low warmth is defined as authoritarian
parenting. And low control with high or low warmth is defined as permissive
parenting. Studies consistently show patterns in the relationship between parenting
28
styles and educational outcomes; more specifically, that parenting practice predicts
achievement (Eamon, 2005). They affect boys and girls differently. Results from
parenting styles remain over time. Several factors have been identified as having an
influence on the implementation of parenting styles. These include, parent education,
age, ethnicity, parental involvement and socioeconomic status. Parenting styles also
influence the academic behavior of the child: academic grades, self-regulation,
competence, task orientation, and goal setting. These factors are also affected by
other parenting elements such as parental involvement and autonomy support. These
influences are important to understand so that connections can be realized between
the interactions of aspects of parenting and academic achievement.
The majority of studies on aspects of parenting styles have been conducted
with small samples of predominantly middle-class, European American families
(Lamborn et al., 1991). However, as recent studies include other ethnic backgrounds,
new patterns emerge. Previous results are shown to be inconsistent across culture,
ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (Spera, 2005). Due to the academic achievement
gap in minorities, parenting styles will be examined for African American and Latino
families. The next section will report differences in the use and results of parenting
styles found in the African American and Latino populations.
Parenting styles of African Americans. Research shows that the parenting
styles of African American families have different outcomes than that of European
American families (Dornbusch et al., 1987; Steinberg et al., 1992); mainly that
parenting style has less of an influence on academic achievement. Moreover,
29
Steinberg et al. found that “parenting style was unrelated to academic competence
among African American youth” (p. 764). These differences could be due to
differences in family dynamics. Willis (1992) reports that African American families
put a high value on respecting, obeying, and learning from elders. This is more
reminiscent of authoritarian versus authoritative parenting.
Darling (1999) reports that, while authoritative parenting influences positive
psychosocial outcomes, it does not predict academic achievement in African
American families. According to (Dornbusch et al., 1987) authoritative parenting is
the least effective for African American children. Additionally, female African
American families score lower than European American families on the authoritative
and permissive indexes (Dornbusch et al.). Surprisingly, authoritative parenting
styles were reported more often than authoritarian and permissive parenting styles
among working- and middle-class African American mothers (Bluestone & Tamis-
LeMonda, 1999). These parents are more likely than European American parents to
use physical punishment (Baumrind, 1996) associated with authoritarian parenting.
African American families score higher than European American families on
the authoritarian parenting index (Dornbusch et al., 1987). Baumrind (1972)
discusses the perception that African American parenting practices are authoritarian
by European American standards. However, the influence on children ends in
different results. African American girls of authoritarian parenting styles are
independent, socially mature, and exhibit adaptive behaviors. Dixon, Graber, and
Brooks-Gunn (2008) report that African American girls show more respect for
30
parental authority than European American girls. This could explain why
authoritarian parenting style, which is high control and low warmth, is more
effective in African American families; children do not need the warmth, because
they respect the control aspect. Additionally, Baumrind (1972) found that
authoritarian parenting is connected with assertiveness for African American girls
versus timid behavior for European American children. The differences seen in these
results could be due to the nature of comparing one ethnic group to another, which
fails to differentiate between ethnicity and socioeconomic status (Garcia-Coll, 1990).
Several factors have been attributed to the difference in result of parenting in
African American families versus European American families. Some speculate that
African American parenting styles have less of an impact because African American
students are more influenced by their peers when it comes to school performance
(Steinberg et al., 1992). Cain (2007) reports on the positive influence intrinsic
religiousness has on parenting style for African American parents. Entwisle and
Alexander (1990) found several family type explanations. These authors report that
African American children are influenced by parent expectations and parent
psychological support. Furthermore, family type explains lower achievement in
African American. Single African American moms had lower expectations than
other African American mom. But surprisingly, a young African American boy’s
success in math is not contingent on his father being present (Entwisle & Alexander).
Battle (2002) reports that socioeconomic status has a great relationship to academic
achievement than these factors, including family configuration.
31
In summary, parenting styles have different outcomes in African American
families. Authoritarian parenting is reported more often by African Americans more
than authoritative or permissive. In fact, authoritative parenting has been shown to
have negative affects on academic achievement of African American students.
Reasons for this difference have been attributed to a higher level of respect for
parental control, more influence from peers, religiousness, parental expectations, and
family type. The next section describes the differences in outcomes of parenting
styles as they relate to Latino families.
Parenting styles of Latinos. Research shows that the parenting styles of
Latino families have different outcomes than that of European American families.
Latino families score higher than European American families on the authoritarian
and permissive parenting indexes (Dornbusch et al., 1987). Families of female
Latinos scored lower than European American families (Dornbusch et al.). Results
from Dornbusch et al.’s study revealed that Latino males had no connection between
authoritarian parenting and academic grades. Furthermore, these differences extend
across gender. The authoritarian parenting style has been found to have the strongest
correlation with grades, except among the Latino male subgroup (Dornbusch et al.).
Dixon et al. (2008) report that Latino girls show more respect for parental authority
than European American girls. However, Dornbusch et al. found that the connection
of Latino girls and authoritarian parenting resulted in lower academic grades.
Authoritarian parenting style is high control and low warmth, which might suggest
32
that even though Latino girls culturally respect the control, they are also more
positively affected by the warmth aspect.
Another important factor in the Latino culture related to parenting style is
perceived parent behavior and self esteem (Plunkett, Williams, Schock, & Sands,
2007). Authoritative characteristics contribute to higher self esteem. Latino parents
(mothers) value close relationships with children. Traditional Latino parent-child
interactions are based on respect, obedience (authoritarian). When a high use of
psychological control was present, children felt less valued. Low warmth in the
withdraw love cause Latino children to feel that the relationship with their parent
was threatened. But when the parent child relationship was warm and affirming, the
children felt high self esteem.
Buriel (1993) made the point that many cultural factors also affect
childrearing practices. The author found intergenerational differences. Many Latino
families in California are new generations. Buriel argues that these immigrants are
independent, responsible, and persistent because they have come from the motivation
of leaving their home country in search of something better. These characteristics
have been connected to academic achievement, but many Latino youth have higher
rates of delinquency than other ethnicities. Buriel found that in the Latino culture,
parents of first and second generation children reported a responsibility-oriented
parenting style, which is similar to authoritative parenting, while parents of third
generation were concern-oriented, reminiscent of the authoritarian parenting style.
This switch to authoritarian parenting may attribute to the noted delinquency. The
33
success of first and second generation children may be caused by the development of
strong family interdependence because of the extended family connections they left
in their home country (Buriel).
Latinos encounter many variables which serve as obstacles to attain academic
achievement. Eamon (2005) identified several as living in poverty, being born to a
teenager mother, having parents who have limited English skills, having a single
mother, living in a large, extended household, and having access to only low quality
segregated schools. Interaction in the home is vital to Latino success because of the
importance placed on family, cooperation and positive interactions (Eamon). Latino
family values include loyalty, support networks within extended family members,
relationships, and mutual respect (Garcia-Coll, Meyer, & Brillon, 1995; Vega, 1981).
In summary, gender differences are significant among the Latino culture.
Authoritarian parenting appears to affect academic achievement in girls and not
boys. Authoritarian parenting contributed to lower academic grades for girls, who
tend to have higher respect for parental authority. The results were perhaps due to
lack of parental warmth attributed to authoritarian parenting. Self esteem has been
linked to parenting styles among Latino families. Additionally, many
intergenerational differences attribute to dissimilarities in academic achievement of
Latino students. Dynamics of the family are reported as barriers to academic success
of Latino students.
The research on the factors that affect academic achievement of children
from the home is well developed. Researchers have investigated the influence of
34
parenting style, parent education, age, ethnicity, parental involvement, and
socioeconomic status. However, this list of aspects impacting academic achievement
of children is not exhaustive. The following section summarizes the growing body of
research regarding effective teaching strategies in the classroom.
Teaching Strategies
An increasingly full body of research exists on factors of the school that
contribute to academic achievement. Marzano (2003) contradicts past findings that
schools only contribute to about ten percent of academic achievement (Coleman et
al., 1966). He points out that when you interpret the findings as percentile gain,
schools are found to be a significant influence on student achievement. Marzano
identifies three categories of factors that research shows “to be highly effective in
enhancing student achievement” (p. 11): school, teacher, and student. He argues that
schools who implement effective strategies as defined by the research on these three
levels will increase the effectiveness of schools. The increased effectiveness of
schools will transfer into increased student achievement. Wright et al. (1997) assert
that teacher effectiveness had more impact on student achievement than other school
and classroom factors. Therefore, this study will focus on the teacher level. Marzano
identifies three teacher level factors: instructional strategies, classroom management,
and classroom curriculum design. This study utilizes instructional strategies.
Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) synthesize the research on nine
effective teaching strategies: (a) Identifying similarities and differences, (b)
summarizing and note taking, (c) reinforcing effort and providing recognition, (d)
35
homework and practice, (e) representing knowledge, (f) learning groups, (g) setting
objectives and providing feedback, (h) generating and testing hypotheses, and (i)
cues, questions, and advance organizers. The results of that synthesis combined with
further research reports are summarized below.
Identifying similarities and differences. Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock
(2001) report on generalizations they have found for each of the nine strategies. They
begin with identifying similarities and differences. For this strategy to be effective,
four things must be in place. First, identifying similarities and differences must be
presented by the teacher with explicit guidance. Students must be shown what to do
in a direct manner. Second, students must have an opportunity to work independently
and practice identifying similarities and differences. Third, students’ use of graphic
organizers in arranging similarities and differences of information has been found to
be effective in promoting students’ conceptual understanding. And finally, several
different methods can be used in identifying similarities and differences: comparing,
classifying, creating metaphors, creating analogies. When these four actions take
place in a classroom, students’ percentile gain ranges from 31 to 46 points.
Summarizing and note taking. The second research based strategy is
summarizing and note taking. Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) discussed
three generalizations formed from their study. First students must delete, substitute,
and keep some information when summarizing. Second, students must analyze the
information they have to determine what information to delete, substitute, or keep.
And third, students need to be made aware of the explicit structure of the information
36
they are summarizing and taking notes on. Chang et al. (2002) looked at the use of
graphic organizers on comprehension and summarization. They found concept
mapping in which students decided which information to keep and which to correct
had the most impact on comprehension. Kobayashi (2006) validated that note taking
had greater benefit to learning than no note taking. The author also confirmed that
providing support in the note taking process enhanced student understanding. Piolat
et al. (2005) posit that note taking puts great demands on the working memory. Note
takers are concurrently utilizing the processes of comprehension, selection, and
production. These findings reinforce the prevalence of the multi tasking required by
note taking. Students are analyzing information and deciding what to delete,
substitute, or keep, all while writing the notes. This confirms the importance of the
need of explicit instruction of the structure of information from the teacher.
Reinforcing effort and providing recognition. Reinforcing effort and
providing recognition is the third strategy (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001).
Reinforcing effort had two generalizations. The authors first established the
importance of putting forth effort on academic achievement, and then revealed that
not all students believe this. Second, teachers can instruct students to change what
they believe about effort. Teachers can inform students about the importance of
effort and how it really does have an affect on their academic outcomes. Providing
recognition is the second half of this strategy and has three generalizations. First,
some believe that rewarding students will take away from their intrinsic motivation,
this is not true. Second, if the reward is directly related to a performance goal,
37
intrinsic motivation is not decreased. Third, symbolic rewards versus tangible
rewards are more influential in their affect on student performance. Therefore, it is
important for teachers to encourage students to put forth effort and recognize the
student when the effort has helped them reach a goal.
Homework and practice. The fourth strategy has two parts: homework and
practice. Cooper (1989) found that homework is not likely to predict student
achievement of students in grades four through six. As a result, the amount of
homework given should change elementary to middle to high school (Marzano,
Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). Additionally, parents should not help all the time. The
purpose of homework should be communicated to students. Students should be
informed of whether their homework is it to practice what they learned or to
prepare/elaborate on new information. Finally, the homework that is assigned should
be commented on with varying approaches whether it is specific comments or
holding in a portfolio to review with teacher. The practice of skills should be focused
so that mastery is attainable. Students should have the opportunity and time in their
practice to ensure their conceptual understanding by elaborating on a few examples
what they have learned. Homework and practice can be meaningful when the
structure follows what research reveals to be effective.
Representing knowledge. Nonlinguistic representation is the fifth research
based strategy reported (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). The first finding is
that there are numerous activities available to accomplish making nonlinguistic
representations: creating graphic representations, making physical models,
38
generating mental pictures, drawing pictures and pictographs, and engaging in
kinesthetic activity. The second finding is that the representations should elaborate
on knowledge which allows them to have greater understanding and faster recall of
the information. Izsak (2005) confirms the success in using representations to solve
problems in his study of mathematics problem solving. As with the other strategies,
use of the nonlinguistic representation activities should be taught explicitly and
students should be provided with feedback on their progress of applying the
activities.
Learning groups. The sixth effective strategy is cooperative learning.
Cooperative learning can have negative learning results if it is used incorrectly.
Research outlines several guidelines in using cooperative groups for learning
(Marzano, Pickering & Pollock, 2001). First, ability level (homogeneous) grouping
should not be used often. Second, cooperative groups should be kept to a small size -
groups three to four. Third, cooperative groups should be used consistently (about
once a week) and systematically so students have the opportunity to practice and
process the skills they have learned. This practice also reinforces learning as
evidenced in strategy four – homework and practice. Langer (2000) supports these
findings by reporting that primary instructional strategies are direct instruction and
flexible grouping, including cooperative learning. These research based strategies
have been shown to be effective in improving student achievement.
Setting objectives and providing feedback. Setting objectives and providing
feedback are the strategies that make up the seventh reporting by Marzano,
39
Pickering, and Pollock (2001). Setting objectives refers to student goals. Educators
should be aware that specific goals narrow the focus of what students pay attention
to and as a result, students might not pick up on information given that does not
relate to the goal. This does not mean goals should not be given. Greene and
Azevedo (2007) reviewed monitoring progress and goal setting. They emphasize the
importance of goal setting in self-regulated learning. Ruban and Reis (2006) reported
on the considerable use of self-regulation among high achieving students. When
teachers set goals, they should not be too specific, and students should personalize
his or her goals (Marzano, Pickering & Pollock). Cotton (1989) found that
“expectations, as communicated school wide and in classrooms, can and do affect
student achievement and attitudes” (p. 10-11). Once objectives are met, deeper
understanding should be sought after (Langer, 2000). With regards to providing
feedback, teachers should provide corrective, timely, and specific feedback.
Additionally, students can effectively provide their own feedback. Setting goals and
providing feedback involves a time commitment by the teacher, but research shows
the benefit to student learning.
Generating and testing hypotheses. Generating and testing hypotheses is the
eighth strategy. Generating hypotheses can be done with inductive reasoning -- make
a new conclusion on information we know -- or with deductive reasoning -- use what
we know to predict what will happen. Once a hypothesis is generated, students
should be required by the teacher to clearly explain his or her hypotheses and
conclusions. The most beneficial way to do this is in writing because it deepens the
40
students understanding when they must explain their thoughts (Marzano, Pickering,
& Pollock, 2001).
Cues, questions, and advance organizers. Finally, cues, questions, and
advance organizers have been revealed in research as effective strategies to
positively influence student achievement. Cues and questions should be focused on
what is important in a lesson. They should require students to answer higher level
questions in order to deepen understanding. Graesser and Olde (2003) assessed the
quality of questions asked and found higher level questions related to meaningful
understanding. When questioning, wait time should be given for students to process
the information (Immordino-Yang, 2008). Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001)
also found that questions are effective before and after the learning experience takes
place. Advance organizers had similar generalizations in the research. They should
focus on important information and higher level thinking. Advance organizers are
useful with information that is unorganized and different organizers produce
different results.
While the strategies outlined above are thorough, there are other researchers
who have found effective strategies. First, Payne (2008) identifies nine strategies to
improve achievement of students living in poverty: build a respectful relationship,
introduce new learning in cooperative groups, teach students to speak in formal
register, assess the student’s resources, teach the hidden rules, monitor progress and
plan intervention, teach concrete to abstract, teach how to ask questions, and build
relationships with parents. Second, reinforcement, acceleration, reading training,
41
cues and feedback, science mastery, cooperative learning, differentiation, adaptive
strategies, and time on task have all been shown to be highly effective teaching
strategies by Seidel and Shavelson (2007). And finally, Crawford (2001) reviews
five contextual teaching strategies observed repeatedly by teachers who positively
affect student achievement. These include: relating, experiencing, applying,
cooperating, and transferring. While these are perhaps described differently,
correlations to Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock’s (2001) strategies are evident.
In summary, many strategies have proven effective through research. Nine
strategies used in this study are: (a) identifying similarities and differences, (b)
summarizing and note taking, (c) reinforcing effort and providing recognition, (d)
homework and practice, (e) representing knowledge, (f) learning groups, (g) setting
objectives and providing feedback, (h) generating and testing hypotheses, and (i)
cues, questions, and advance organizers. To be effective, research based strategies
must be taught explicitly, students must have an opportunity to independently
practice using the strategies, students must have adequate processing time in the
form of “wait time” to think as well as focused practice, and students must receive
feedback on their progress through each strategy.
To determine why teachers choose to use certain strategies in more depth and
more often than others, researchers have looked at styles of teaching. However, the
research describing teaching styles has proven inconsistent. There are many models
of teaching styles and none are well established in the literature. Therefore, this study
goes on to examine parenting styles as a framework to explain actions of the teacher.
42
Parenting styles are well defined and documented. The following section describes
the background on parenting styles, explaining each style and affects these have on
student achievement of African American and Latino students.
Summary
Parenting style started with Baumrind’s work in 1959. She identified three
types. These parenting styles are defined by the amount of control and warmth of
the parent towards the child. High control and high warmth is defined as
authoritative parenting. High control and low warmth is defined as authoritarian
parenting. And low control with high or low warmth is defined as permissive
parenting.
Parenting styles affect academic achievement. These results from parenting
styles persist over time. Several factors have been identified as having an influence
on the implementation of parenting styles. These include, parent education, age,
ethnicity, parental involvement and socioeconomic status. Researchers have
discovered that the relationship of parenting style to a variable is changed depending
on the surrounding cultural context (Steinberg et al., 1994). In other words, the
parenting style in a European American family will have different results for the
children than in an African American or Latino family due to different family
dynamics. Results of studies illustrating these differences address outcomes of
parenting styles as well as other home factors.
“African American and Latino families encourage family interdependence
and emphasize obedience and respect toward elders and parental authority” (Dixon et
43
al., 2008). This may explain why the authoritarian parenting style which has shown
negative child outcomes among European American families (Garcia-Coll et al.,
1995; Jambunathan, 2000) has been revealed to be more prevalent among ethnic
minority families where the negative child outcomes are not present. Authoritarian
parenting, which is high on control and low on warmth, is more effective for African
Americans and Latinos; perhaps the children do not need the warmth since the
respect of obedience is present and understood of the family dynamics and
expectations. Authoritative parenting is widely accepted as having positive influence
on European American children’s academic achievement. However, the home
dynamics are different among ethnicities, which change these results.
In addition to parenting style, researchers have identified other influencing
factors that differ between European American and minority families. Researchers
have identified differences in and out of the home that affect student achievement.
Level of parent education, parent involvement, and neighborhood, are three areas
Farkas (2003) identifies. The author reports that these differences manifest
themselves in the African American and Latino students who arrive in kindergarten
with lower levels of oral language, prereading, and premathematics skills, as well as
behavior less suited to success in the school learning environment, than their
European American counterparts. Over time, these gaps increase as the students’
skills and behavior amalgamate with teacher actions and home factors, such as
having parents with low levels of education. Interestingly, despite the geographic
segregation of housing, Farkas showed that if social class background is controlled,
44
significant gaps between ethnicities in terms of school readiness disappear. Likewise,
Eamon’s (2005) study revealed that social demographics, such as poverty, are related
to reading achievement. A higher income neighborhood is linked to higher
attendance and higher reading achievement. Finally, Dixon et al. (2008) report that
respect for parental authority differs across culture and ethnic background. They
further state that this respect is affected by variables such as the parent-child
relationship.
Another major influence on children and academic achievement is teachers.
Strategies used in the classroom contribute to this influence. Nine research based
strategies are reported for their success in improving academic achievement.
(Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001): (a) Identifying Similarities and Differences,
(b) Summarizing and Note Taking, (c) Reinforcing Effort and Providing
Recognition, (d) Homework and Practice, (e) Representing Knowledge, (f) Learning
Groups, (g) Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback, (h) Generating and Testing
Hypotheses, and (i) Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers. The results of that
synthesis combined with further research reports were stated.
This study will use these two theoretical frameworks as a foundation of
knowledge to connect parenting style of the teacher at home to teaching strategies
used and determine any connection to academic achievement of African American
and Latino students. However, since a full body of research does not yet exist to
explain use of these strategies, parenting style of teacher is explored as a means to
enlighten the use of strategies.
45
Purpose
Despite conclusions made through research on the relationship between
teaching strategies to a child’s academic achievement, and on the relationship
between parenting style to a child’s academic achievement, there has been no inquiry
on whether there is a relationship between the parenting style of a teacher to teaching
strategies used and outcomes of educational success, particularly for African
American and Latino students. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the
interrelationships among the home parenting style of teachers, the teaching strategies
used, and the academic achievement of their African American and Latino students.
The following are the specific research questions addressed in this study to
examine the interrelationships between these key variables.
Research Question 1: Does parenting style of the teacher predict Language Arts
academic achievement in African American and Latino second through eighth grade
students?
Research Question 2: Does parenting style of the teacher predict Math academic
achievement in African American and Latino second through eighth grade students?
Research Question 3: Does parenting style predict teaching strategies used?
The current study is a correlational research design aimed at contributing new
knowledge about factors that affect the achievement of ethnic minorities. This study
employed quantitative methods. Data on teachers’ demographic backgrounds,
parenting styles, and teaching strategies, was collected through an online survey.
This survey made use of general demographic survey items, Dr. Buri’s (1991)
46
Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ), and a teaching strategies survey adapted
from nine effective teaching strategies outlined by Marzano, Norford, et al. (2001) in
A Handbook for Classroom Instruction that Works. Many studies make use of
qualitative methods such as interviews, open-ended survey questions, and
observations. However, since the purpose of this study is to uncover relationships
between the proposed variables, a correlational study was sufficient.
Regression models were used to examine the association between the
measures and uncover any patterns or relationships. Participants were chosen to
participate based on several criteria. Participants had to be a parent and teach in
grade levels two through eight. Additionally, participants were chosen from schools
with a population of African American and Latino students.
47
Chapter 3
Methodology
This chapter will review the methods utilized in conducting this study. First,
a description of the participants in the study is discussed. Second, the instruments
used to collect data are described. Finally, the procedures of the study are outlined.
The current study is a correlational research design aimed at contributing to
generalizable new knowledge. In particular, it attempted to uncover the influence of
a teacher’s parenting style on teaching strategies and academic achievement of
African American and Latino students.
Participants
The teacher participants of the current study were selected from nine school
districts and three charter schools around the Los Angeles County. The districts and
schools were selected on the basis of the ethnicity, English Learner and
socioeconomic status of their student population. Districts and schools had to have
African American and Latino students, as well as populations of English Learner
identified students and low socioeconomic students. Socioeconomic status was
defined in the study by the students’ qualification for free/reduced lunch. All schools
were selected to yield a sample of teachers from similar family backgrounds
(married or divorced, with children) and different teaching backgrounds (years
experience, subjects taught, grade level, number of students per class). All teachers
who are also parents of grades two through eight were surveyed in this study. This
range of grades was chosen for two reasons. First, No Child Left Behind (U.S.
48
Department of Education, n.d.) requires students of grades two through eight to
participate in standardized testing each year; therefore, the corresponding student
data is available for the participating sample of teachers. And second, while
Baumrind (1967), and many who have done studies based on her work, focus on
preschool and elementary age school children, others have begun to focus on
adolescent, middle and high school age children. Therefore, elementary to middle
school grade teachers were chosen in order to encompass a wider student range.
Once data were collected, descriptive analyses were run for each
demographic question participants responded to in the survey. The same method was
utilized to summarize the student data collected from districts. The results are
presented in the following sections.
Teachers. One hundred twenty-seven participants (teachers) took the survey.
Thirty-eight participant surveys were deleted due to no corresponding student data.
There were several reasons for this: eight were teachers of Kindergarten or 1st grade
where students do not take the California Standards Tests; fourteen were not
teaching in the district last year; two were not classroom teachers; and fourteen did
not have any student data returned to the investigator from the district. An additional
three surveys were deleted due to incomplete survey responses. Finally, two more
were deleted due to the participants not meeting the criteria of having children of
their own. As a result, eighty-four survey responses met the criteria and were utilized
in the analysis of this study. The participating eighty-four teachers indicated coming
49
from twenty-five schools in nine districts and three charter schools. Corresponding
student data were collected for 235 African American students and 1,362 Latino
students, for a total of 1,597 students.
Table 2 describes the participants in this study. Participants ranged from 27 to
63 years of age (M = 44.80; SD = 8.92). As shown in Table 2, 12 males and 71
females participated in the survey. Sixty-five participants reported their ethnicity as
White. Other ethnicities reported were Latino, Asian, and mixed. While
16.7% (n = 14) of participants reported having earned a Bachelor’s Degree, the
majority of participants (79.8%; n = 67) reported having earned a Professional
Degree or higher. The self-reported level of income ranged from $50,000 to over
$200,000. In terms of family structure, 77.2% (n = 98) of participants reported being
married. Of the remaining participants, 1.6% (n = 2) were widowed, 12.6% (n = 16)
were divorced or separated, and 4.7% (n = 6) were never married. Participants had
from one to five children. Participants’ children’s ages ranged from four months to
thirty-nine years old (M = 17.96; SD = 8.03).
Participants were asked to report on their teaching experience. Total years
teaching experience ranged from one to thirty-seven years (M = 15.05; SD = 8.08).
Participants report teaching experience from elementary school to adult education.
Teachers of elementary school reported teaching all subjects (Math, Reading,
Writing, Science, Social Studies, Music, Art, PE, and Health). Teachers of middle
school reported single subjects. The majority of participants (55.5%; n = 55)
currently teach elementary school. As seen in Table 3, 17.9% (n = 15) of participants
50
currently teach second grade, 19% (n = 16) teach third grade, 19% (n = 16) teach
fourth grade, 9.5% (n = 8) teach fifth grade, 3.6% (n = 3) teach sixth grade, 1.2% (n
= 1) teach seventh grade, 6.0 (n = 5) teach eighth grade, and 21.4% (n = 18) teach a
combination of grades two through eight.
Table 2: Teacher Demographic Data
Variables N Percentageª
Gender
Male 12 14.3
Female 71 84.5
Ethnicity
White 65 77.4
Latino 8 9.5
Asian 4 4.8
Mix 5 6.0
Level of Education
Bachelor’s Degree 14 16.7
Graduate or
Professional Degree
67 79.8
Household Income
$50,000 to $74,999 21 25.0
$75,000 to $99,999 18 21.4
$100,000 to
$149,999
19 22.6
$150,000 to
$199,999
16 19.0
$200,000 or more 5 6.0
Family Structure
Married 69 82.1
Divorced/Separated 11 13.1
Never Married 1 1.2
Number of Children
1 21 25.0
2 42 50.0
3 15 17.9
4 4 4.8
5 2 2.4
Note: Numbers of missing cases for gender = 1, ethnicity = 2, education level = 3,
income = 5, and family structure = 3.
ªPercentage does not add up to 100 due to missing data.
51
Table 3: Current Grade Level Taught
Current Grade Level N Percentageª
2 15 17.9
3 16 19.0
4 16 19.0
5 8 9.5
6 3 3.6
7 1 1.2
8 5 6.0
Multiple 18 21.4
Note: Numbers of missing cases for current grade level = 2.
ªPercentage does not add up to 100 due to missing data.
Students. Data were collected for a total of 1,587 students. As seen in Table
4, 783 students were male while 804 students were female. The majority of students
(85.8%; n = 1,362) were Latino. The remaining students (n = 225) were African
American. Data were not received for 59 students as to whether they were classified
English Learner. Of the students whose data were received, 47.8% (n = 758) were
reported as classified English Learner. To measure socioeconomic status, data were
collected on students’ free/reduced lunch designation. Thirty-one point three percent
(n = 497) of students were designated as free/reduced lunch whereas 47.4% (n = 752)
of students were not designated as free/reduced lunch. Data were not received for
338 students.
52
Table 4: Student Demographic Data
Variables N Percentageª
Gender
Male 783 49.3
Female 804 50.7
Ethnicity
African American 225 14.2
Latino 1,362 85.8
English Learner
Yes 758 47.8
No 770 48.5
Free/Reduced Lunch
Yes 497 31.3
No 752 47.4
Note: Numbers of missing cases for English Learner = 59, and Low Socioeconomic
Status = 338.
ªPercentage does not add up to 100 due to missing data.
Districts. Participants in the current study came from 25 schools in nine
districts and three charter schools. Table 5 summarizes the demographic data of
students in each of the districts and charter schools. Each participating district and
charter school was solicited because of its population in each of the following
categories: ethnicity, English Learner, and Free/Reduced lunch. Aveson Charter
School had the largest African American population (30.5%). New Academy Charter
School had the largest Latino population (93.8%) and Free/Reduced Lunch
population (100%). Lennox School District had the largest English Learner
population (62.4%).
53
Table 5: District and Charter School Demographic Data
District/School
African
American
Population
Latino
Population
English
Learner
Population
Free/Reduced
Lunch
Population
Burbank USD 2.6% 35.5% 12.1% 30.3%
Fruitvale SD 3.4% 27.9% 4.2% 31.5%
Hermosa Beach
City SD
0.8% 5.1% 0.6% 2.1%
Lawndale SD 12.4% 72.0% 44.8% 79.7%
Lennox SD 6.6% 92.1% 62.4% 85.0%
Little Lake City
SD
2.6% 85.4% 20.2% 64.5%
Mountain View
SD
0.2% 91.4% 54.4% 91.6%
Torrance USD 3.5% 18.2% 14.5% 17.5%
Wiseburn SD 14.0% 53.0% 11.1% 39.5%
Aveson 30.5% 11.9% 0.8% 16.3%
New Academy 1.8% 93.8% 59.8% 100.0%
Our Community 10.4% 42.7% 9.4% 30.7%
(California Department of Education, 2008d)
Instruments
Two pieces of data were collected. First, participants (teachers) completed an
online survey consisting of three parts – demographic background, parenting style,
and teaching strategies (see Appendix). Second, corresponding student data for each
participant were gathered.
Demographic background. The first section of the survey contained general
demographic items. It was a self-report survey filled out by teachers of grades two
through eight. The survey asked participants to report his/her age, gender, ethnicity,
education level, numbers of years teaching experience, school where currently
employed, grade level taught, subjects taught, family structure, number of children,
54
and ages of children. Some sample items include: “How many children do you
have?: 1, 2, 3, 4, Other;” “What grade do you currently teach? Check all that apply:
2
nd
, 3
rd
, 4
th
, 5
th
, 6
th
, 7
th
, 8
th
, Other (please specify).”
Parenting style. The Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) (Buri, 1991)
was used to measure parenting style. This instrument was designed to measure
Baumrind’s (1971) authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parental authority
prototypes. These categories serve as the three levels of this study’s independent
variable: parenting style.
Many studies have been conducted that seek to analyze or synthesize the
relationship of parenting style to other variables, such as child competence, child
adjustment, child academic achievement, or parental involvement (Lamborn et al.,
1991; Steinberg et al., 1992). These studies have used questionnaires consisting of
items adapted from several different existing measures, and added to these modified
measures by developing questionnaire items pertinent to the individual study. This
current study chose to use only Buri’s (1991) Parental Authority Questionnaire with
its original items to measure and categorize parenting styles because modifications to
the questionnaire items were not relevant or necessary.
The PAQ was developed to report scores on the parental authority type for
both mother and father. Since the purpose of this study is to examine the relationship
of a teacher’s own parenting style to the teaching strategies used and academic
achievement of his/her students, participants were instructed to self-report on
parenting style of their own children. The questionnaire consists of 30 items
55
disaggregated into 10 questions per parenting prototype (see Appendix). Some
sample items include: “Whenever I told my children to do something as they were
growing up, I expected them to do it immediately without asking any questions;” “I
have always felt that what children need is to be free to make up their own minds and
to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with what their parents might
want;” and “As my children were growing up, they knew what I expected of them in
the family but they also felt free to discuss those expectations with me when they felt
that they were unreasonable.” Each item on the PAQ is scored by the participant on a
five-point Likert scale. This scale relates the strength of application of the statement
to the participant, from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (undecided), 4 (agree),
to 5 (strongly agree). Participants receive three scores, one for each parenting
prototype, ranging from 10 to 50.
Each subject’s parenting style was determined by the highest of the three
subscale scores received, which had to be above the subscale mid-point (30).
Participants considered authoritative parents were those whose authoritative
parenting subscale score was high while both the authoritarian parenting and
permissive parenting subscale scores were low. Similarly, authoritarian parents were
participants whose authoritarian parenting subscale score was high while both the
authoritative parenting and permissive parenting subscale scores were low. In the
same way, participants who were permissive parents had a high permissive parenting
subscale score while both the authoritative parenting and authoritarian parenting
subscale scores were low. In contrast, those considered inconsistent parents were
56
those whose subscale scores were high in two of the three parenting prototypes. This
means that some participants employ more than one parenting style. In research,
inconsistent parents are defined as a score that is in the top one-third of more than
one parenting style index (Dornbusch et al., 1987).
Buri (1991) conducted five studies to test the reliability and validity of the
Parental Authority Questionnaire. These studies resulted in test-retest and internal
consistency reliability, discriminant and criterion related validity, and correlation
with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. All results “demonstrate
respectable measures of reliability and validity” (Buri, p. 117). Upon collection of all
data for the current study, SPSS was used to compute Cronbach’s Alpha for each of
the three parenting styles: authoritative (.71), authoritarian (.79), and permissive
(.63). Even though the permissive parenting style reports low reliability, it was left in
the analysis for this study because of its importance to the theory. The investigator of
this study received permission from Dr. Buri to use the PAQ.
Teaching strategies. The third section of the survey was adopted from
Marzano’s work on classroom instruction (Marzano, Norford, et al., 2001). Many
authors have conducted studies to reveal teaching strategies that lead to improved
student achievement (Marzano, 2003; Seidel & Shavelson, 2007); however, no
measurement currently exists. Therefore, the self-reflection activities on each of the
nine research based strategies outlined by Marzano, Norford, et al. were adapted into
a survey so that data could be collected on strategies teachers use in the classroom.
This instrument was designed to measure nine researched based strategies shown to
57
improve student achievement: (a) Identifying Similarities and Differences, (b)
Summarizing and Note Taking, (c) Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition,
(d) Homework and Practice, (e) Representing Knowledge, (f) Learning Groups, (g)
Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback, (h) Generating and Testing Hypotheses,
and (i) Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock,
2001). These nine levels of teaching strategies serve as a dependent variable when
compared to the three levels of parenting style, and an independent variable when
compared to African American and Latino student achievement as evidenced by
standardized test scores.
The teaching strategy questionnaire was administered to gather scores on the
type and magnitude of each strategy used by the participating teachers. The
questionnaire consists of 30 items disaggregated into 9 categories per teaching
strategy (see Appendix). Some sample items include: “I clearly communicate the
knowledge students will use for identifying similarities and differences activities;”
“My students are aware of the purpose for the homework assignment;” and “My
feedback to students is specific and explains what they are doing correctly and
incorrectly.” Each item on the teaching strategy questionnaire is scored by the
participant on a five-point Likert scale. This scale records the extent to which the
teacher uses each strategy, from 1 (Not at all), 2 (To a small extent), 3 (To an
adequate extent), 4 (To a significant extent), to 5 (To a great extent). Participants
58
receive nine scores, one for each teaching strategy, ranging from five to twenty. The
strength of each strategy was compared to each of the three levels of parenting style
as well as the students’ standardized test scores for language arts and math.
The reliability of this instrument was tested upon collection of participating
teachers’ responses. SPSS was used to compute Cronbach’s Alpha for each of the
nine teaching strategies (see Table 6). Two teaching strategies – Reinforcing Effort
and Providing Recognition and Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers – were
removed from the analysis of this study due to low reliability levels. The instrument
appears to have face validity. For example, item four from the Teaching Strategies
Questionnaire: “I clearly communicate the information students will summarize
and/or knowledge about which students will take notes” – plainly relates to teaching
strategies used in the classroom. The investigator of this study received permission
from Dr. Marzano to use this questionnaire.
Table 6: Cronbach’s Alpha for Teaching Strategies
Teaching Strategy N
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Similarities and Differences 3 .77
Summarizing and Note Taking 3 .76
Reinforcing Effort and Providing
Recognition
4 .68
Homework and Practice 4 .70
Representing Knowledge 3 .73
Learning Groups 3 .71
Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback 4 .77
Generating and Testing Hypothesis 3 .95
Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers 3 .53
59
California standards test. For each participating teacher, California Standards
Tests (CSTs), which are designed to “measure progress toward California's state-
adopted academic content standards” (STAR, 2006, ¶ 1) were gathered for the
African American and Latino students. Student scores were collected for the
Language Arts CST and the Math CST. As stated on EdSource (2006), the California
Standards Tests are multiple-choice. They are criterion-referenced tests that report
students’ scores in five categories: Far Below Basic, Below Basic, Basic, Proficient,
and Advanced. The data from the California Standards Tests are disaggregated into
subgroups of students as indicated by the California Department of Education
(2005). Several of these subgroups include grade span, students with disabilities, and
English Learners. The current study disaggregated test scores by specific test,
gender, ethnicity, English Language status, and free/reduced lunch status. The
content on the CSTs comes from the California Content Standards (California
Department of Education, 2006). Language Arts standards include: word analysis,
fluency, and systematic vocabulary development; reading comprehension; literary
response and analysis; writing strategies; writing applications; written and oral
English language conventions; listening and speaking strategies; and speaking
applications. Math standards include: number sense; algebra and functions;
measurement and geometry; statistics, data analysis, and probability; and
mathematical reasoning.
Student scores for the California Standards Test for Language Arts and Math
were collected in the nine school districts and three charter schools through online
60
databases such as DataWise: an online database that houses multiple measures
“including high-stakes assessments, district benchmarks, standards-based report
cards, NCLB compliance calculators, perception surveys, and online professional
development” (DataWise Inc., 2006, ¶ 2), and School City: “a global education
software solution company providing innovative data analysis and reporting
solutions to K-12 school districts” (School City Inc., 2007, ¶ 1). These databases
were used to disaggregate student scores into groups by grade level, ethnicity,
English Language status, free/reduced lunch and scale scores for each California
Standards Test, which serve as this study’s dependent variable.
Content experts in each subject area worked on CST items to ensure each
were in agreement with the grounds for establishing sound content validity as
defined in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. The final CSTs
met professionally accepted criteria for content validity. Reliability was tested in two
ways: (1) Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20), an index of internal consistency,
was calculated for each test and (2) asymptotic conditional standard errors of
measurement (CSEM) were calculated via item response theory to supplement the
KR-20 reliabilities. In conclusion, California Standards Tests meet the intended
statistical specifications (California Department of Education, 2003).
Procedure
Once the investigator received Internal Review Board (IRB) approval, the
data for this study were collected from the spring and summer of the 2007-2008
academic school year, through the fall of the 2008-2009 academic school year.
61
Thirty-one schools from nine school districts as well as three charter schools agreed
to participate in the study. The districts and schools were chosen to participate in the
study because of their African American and Latino student populations. All teachers
of grades two through eight who are also parents were selected to participate in the
current study because demographic and academic achievement data could be
collected for the respective teachers’ students through online databases such as
DataWise and School City.
The investigator first contacted district level administrators – Superintendents
of school districts and Principals of charter schools. Through phone, email,
appointments, or a combination of these, the investigator sought to accomplish two
things. First, permission was requested to conduct this study in each district/school.
Second, a district data analyst was requested and scheduled to collect student test
scores and demographic information through the available online database.
After district level permission was granted, the investigator then contacted
site level administrators. This was done in several ways based on the district level
administrator’s preference. Several superintendents invited the investigator to make a
presentation at a district administrative meeting in order to contact all school site
principals for a particular district at once. Other superintendents left contact of
principals up to the investigator. In these cases, both phone and email were utilized
to schedule individual appointments with site principals. During these meetings,
both, district administrative and individual, the investigator explained purpose and
62
procedure of the study, and then requested permission to conduct this study at their
respective school sites.
When permission was granted, the investigator first requested a written site
permission letter from each school site administrator, which was submitted as an
amendment to IRB. Second, the investigator planned and scheduled how to request
teachers’ participation. In order to best meet the needs of each school site, principals
were given four options. Option one was to schedule a presentation time at the
school site’s upcoming staff meeting. At this presentation, the investigator reviewed
the purpose, directions for participation, and informed consent for the study. Those
teachers who agreed to participate were instructed to follow the directions for
participation. On their own time, teachers would access the website, click on the
Survey Monkey link and take the survey. In this way, all participants were voluntary.
Option two was for the investigator to send the content of the staff presentation in the
form of an email to the principal, who would then forward it to their teachers. This
option was for principals whose staff meeting time was not available. The third
option was to schedule a computer lab time for teachers who volunteered to take the
survey to come in and take it at a set time. This option gave a more concrete timeline
for teachers to complete the survey. The fourth option was to employ a combination
of the previously mentioned options.
At the same time, the demographic data, PAQ, and teaching strategy
instruments were combined into one survey and entered into SurveyMonkey.com, a
website used to create online surveys. This combined questionnaire was then posted
63
on a secondary website, created by the investigator, for the purposes of providing
participants a simpler way to access the Survey Monkey website. This secondary
website was available to be accessed by all participating teachers of grades two
through eight in the nine selected school districts and three charter schools. The
estimated time to complete the combined survey was fifteen minutes. The survey did
ask for the teacher’s name, which served two purposes. First, it allowed the teacher
data to be connected to the appropriate set of student of data. Second, it allowed the
investigator to send a thank you to the participants. Participants were reassured and
reminded that their names were kept confidential at all times.
There was no set survey time window. The website remained active until a
minimum of 100 teachers had completed the survey. Once this goal was met, the
investigator sent teacher names out to the scheduled district level data analysts to
pull together the student data that corresponded to each participant teacher. Once this
data were sent back to the investigator, it was gathered and compiled into an excel
spreadsheet. The Survey Monkey data were also downloaded into and excel
spreadsheet. These two databases were converted to an SPSS format, where all
analyses were conducted.
Data Analyses
A variety of analyses were performed on the collected data. First, descriptive
analyses were run for each demographic question participants responded to in the
survey. The same method was utilized to summarize the student data collected from
districts. Next, teacher responses were analyzed according to three parenting style
64
prototypes based on the PAQ scores. These classifications were determined by the
scoring instructions provided by the author of the PAQ instrument. The minimum
and maximum scores, as well as the mean and standard deviation, were calculated.
Similarly, the minimum and maximum scores, as well as the means and standard
deviations of the nine teaching strategies were calculated. Finally, the correlations
between parenting styles, teaching strategies, and student achievement as measured
by the California Standards Test in Language Arts and Math were calculated.
SPSS was then utilized to run the following analyses. First, to answer the
question regarding the relationship between parenting styles, as measured by the
PAQ, and CST scores of ethnic minorities (African American and Latino) multiple
regression models with the three parenting styles utilized as simultaneous predictors
of the Language Arts and Math test scores were run. The two regression models
included interactions between the three parenting styles and ethnicity (i.e.,
permissive x ethnic group). These interactions tested whether the associations
between the parenting styles and the CST scores differed across ethnic groups.
Lastly, multiple regression models were utilized to answer the question of whether
parenting styles predict the use of teaching strategies. A separate regression model
was conducted for each of the seven teaching strategies. The results of the data
analysis are presented in the next chapter.
65
Chapter 4
Results
This chapter will summarize the results of the data analyses utilized in this
study. First, preliminary analyses on each major variable are reviewed. Second, the
correlations between all variables are described. Finally, the results of each of the
three research questions are discussed.
Preliminary Analyses
Participants self-reported his/her parenting style on the PAQ. Teacher
responses were analyzed according to the three parenting style prototypes. These
classifications were determined by the scoring instructions provided by the author of
the PAQ instrument. The minimum and maximum scores, as well as the mean and
standard deviation, were calculated. The authoritative subscale received the highest
ratings; while the permissive subscale received the lowest ratings (see Table 7). The
mean of total scores for each of the three subscales indicate the degree to which
participants agreed with the items that described each of the parenting styles. On
average, participants agreed (i.e., between 4 [agree] and 5 [strongly agree]) with the
items describing authoritative parenting. Participants moderately disagreed (i.e.,
between 2 [disagree] and 3 [undecided]) with the items describing authoritarian
parenting. Participants disagreed (i.e., between 1 [strongly disagree] and 2
[disagree]) with the items describing permissive parenting.
Participants also self-reported his/her teaching strategies used on the
Teaching Strategies Questionnaire (based on Marzano’s A Handbook for Classroom
66
Instruction that Works). The ranges, means, and standard deviations for each of the
nine teaching strategies are summarized in Table 4. The mean scores for all teaching
strategies, except Generating and Testing Hypotheses, indicate that participants used
the strategy frequently in their classroom (i.e., between 4 [to a significant extent] and
5 [to a great extent]). The mean score for Generating and Testing Hypothesis
suggests that participants used that strategy somewhat in the classroom (i.e., between
3 [to an adequate extent] and 4 [to a significant extent]).
Table 7: Range, Mean, and Standard Deviation for Major Variables
Subcategories n Minimum Maximum M SD
Parenting Style
Authoritative
84
2.90 5.00 41.7 3.6
Authoritarian
84
1.40 4.20 29.1 5.8
Permissive
84
1.10 3.30 19.8 4.0
Teaching Strategy
Similarities and
Differences
84 1.67 5.00 40.6 7.1
Summarizing and
Note Taking
84 2.00 5.00 40.6 6.8
Reinforcing Effort
and Providing
Recognition
84 1.75 5.00 40.6 6.7
Homework and
Practice
83 2.50 5.00 42.8 6.1
Representing
Knowledge
80 2.67 5.00 41.5 5.6
Learning Groups 83 2.00 5.00 41.5 6.7
Setting Objectives
and Providing
Feedback
83 2.75 5.00 43.6 5.6
Generating and
Testing Hypotheses
83 1.00 5.00 35.3 9.2
Cues, Questions, and
Advance Organizers
83 3.33 5.00 43.7 5.4
Correlations. The correlation matrix (see Table 8) provides an overview of
the interrelationships among the major variables in the study. As would be expected,
67
Authoritarian and Permissive parenting styles were inversely correlated (r = -.22, p <
.05). The relationship between Similarities and Differences and Authoritarian
parenting was significant (r = .29, p < .05), indicating that the use of Similarities and
Differences was positively related to an authoritarian parenting style. Homework and
Practice had positive significant relationships with Authoritative (r = .28, p = < .05)
and Authoritarian parenting styles (r = .39, p < .001). A positive significant
relationship was found between Representing Knowledge and Authoritative
parenting (r = .37, p < .001). Learning Groups and Setting Objectives and Providing
Feedback both had positive significant relationships to Authoritative parenting (r =
.26, p < .05; r = .33, both p < .01).
All of the 21 correlations among the seven teaching strategies with the
exception of two correlations had positive, significant relationships. All nineteen
significant relationships indicate that the more one teaching strategy is used, the
more likely another will be utilized as well.
Next, to answer the research questions, SPSS was utilized to run two multiple
regression models with parenting styles predicting Language Arts and Math CST
scores including the interactions between parenting styles and ethnicity (i.e.,
permissive x ethnic group). These interactions tested whether the associations
differed across ethnic groups. The nonsignificant interaction terms indicated that
association did not differ significantly between the Latino and African American
students. Therefore, for analysis purposes and to keep the power of the analysis as
high as possible, African American and Latino students were analyzed together.
68
Table 8: Correlation among Parenting Styles, Teaching Strategies, and Student Achievement Measures
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Parenting Style
1 Authoritative -
2 Authoritarian .04 -
3 Permissive -.19 -.22* -
Teaching Strategy
4 Similarities and
Differences
.24* .29** -.15 -
5 Summarizing and
Note Taking
.26* .02 .08 .39*** -
6 Homework and
Practice
.28* .39*** -.07 .37** .08 -
7 Representing
Knowledge
.37*** .17 -.02 .49*** .28* .52*** -
8 Learning Groups .26* .13 -.02 .41*** .28* .34** .47*** -
9 Setting Objectives
and Providing
Feedback
.33** .17 .01 .24* .14 .46*** .44*** .48*** -
10 Generating and
Testing
Hypotheses
.14 .16 -.04 .28* .27* .28* .49*** .42*** .27* -
Student Achievement
11 Language Arts
CST
.04 .01 -.02 .01 -.02 -.05 .08** -.06* -.04 -.01
-
12 Math CST -.03 .04 -.02 .01 .03 .01 .07* .03 .01 .03 .69*** -
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
69
Research Question 1 –Parenting Style of the Teacher and Language Arts Scores
The data were analyzed to answer the question of whether there is a
relationship between parenting styles of a teacher and CST scores. The three
parenting styles of teachers, which were continuous variables, along with several
student variables – ethnicity, gender, English Learner, and free/reduced lunch – were
used in a multiple regression model with Language Arts CST scores as the outcome
measure. The categorical variables were dummy coded. The overall model was
significant [F(10, 1,136) = 9.10, p > .001] along with three of the student
characteristic predictors: gender (p < .001), English learner (p < .001), and
free/reduced lunch (p < .05).
As seen in Table 9, males did almost 13 scale points worse on the Language
Arts CST than females when all other variables were taken into account. In the same
way, after all other variables were taken into account, English learners performed
over 21 scale points worse than English only students. Finally, those students who
qualified for free/reduced lunch achieved nearly nine scale points less on the
Language Arts CST than those who did not qualify for free/reduced lunch. However,
the parenting styles of teachers were not significantly related to the Language Arts
CSTs for the sample as a whole.
70
Table 9: Summary of Regression Analysis for Constants Predicting Language Arts
CST Scores
Constants B SE β
Ethnicity -65.06 60.58 -.43
Gender -12.92 2.88 -.13***
English Learner -21.83 3.08 -.22***
Free/Reduced Lunch -8.94 3.02 -.09**
Authoritative 2.35 3.90 .02
Authoritative x Ethnicity 16.03 12.36 .45
Authoritarian 1.14 2.59 .01
Authoritarian x Ethnicity 2.17 7.72 .04
Permissive -.79 4.29 -.01
Permissive x Ethnicity -6.43 12.65 -.09
Note. Ethnicity dummy coded Latino = 0; African American = 1; Gender dummy
coded Female = 0; Male = 1; English Learner, Free/Reduced Lunch No = 0; Yes = 1.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Research Question 2 –Parenting Style of the Teacher and Math Scores
A second multiple regression was run to test how the three parenting styles of
teachers along with several student variables – ethnicity, gender, English Learner,
and free/reduced lunch – predicted Math CST scores. The full model was significant
[F(10, 1,147) = 5.27, p < .001]. The subsequent regression analysis (see Table 10)
revealed three significant relationships: English learner (p < .001), free/reduced
lunch (p < .001), and authoritarian parenting (p < .05). After accounting for the
relationships of the other variables, English learners and those students who qualified
for free/reduced lunch both scored over nineteen scale points lower on the CST math
than English only students and those who did not qualify for free/reduced lunch.
When the relationship of all other parenting styles of teachers and student variables
were taken into consideration, an increase of one unit on the authoritarian scale (i.e.,
71
a 3 [undecided] to a 4 [agree]) was associated with an increase of 8.5 scale score
points on the math CST. The relationship of authoritative and permissive parenting
to math CST scores was not significant.
Table 10: Summary of Regression Analysis for Constants Predicting Math CST
Scores
Constants B SE β
Ethnicity -85.08 84.12 -.42
Gender -1.78 3.96 -.01
English Learner -19.38 4.22 -.14***
Free/Reduced Lunch -19.76 4.14 -.14***
Authoritative -10.51 5.36 -.06
Authoritative x Ethnicity 15.42 17.25 .32
Authoritarian 8.59 3.56 .08*
Authoritarian x Ethnicity -1.89 10.69 -.03
Permissive -5.79 5.90 -.03
Permissive x Ethnicity 4.45 17.46 .04
Note. Ethnicity dummy coded Latino = 0; African American = 1; Gender dummy
coded Female = 0; Male = 1; English Learner and Free/Reduced Lunch dummy
coded No = 0; Yes = 1.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Research Question 3 – Parenting Style of the Teacher and Teaching Strategies
To answer the question of whether parenting styles predict the use of specific
teaching strategies, seven multiple regression models were run with three parenting
styles as predictors for each teaching strategy dimension (see Table 11). The full
models for four of the seven teaching strategies were significant: Similarities and
Differences F(3, 80) = 4.16, p < .01; Homework and Practice F(3, 79) = 7.87, p <
.001; Representing Knowledge F(3, 76) = 5.34, p < .01; Setting Objectives and
Providing Feedback F(3, 79) = 4.46, p < .01.
72
Table 11: Summary of Regression Analysis for Parenting Styles Predicting Teaching
Strategies
B SE β
Similarities and
Differences
Authoritative .42 .21 .22*
Authoritarian .33 .13 .27*
Permissive -.09 .20 -.05
Summarizing and Note
Taking
Authoritative .53 .20 .28*
Authoritarian .05 .13 .04
Permissive .24 .19 .14
Homework and Practice
Authoritative .56 .19 .31**
Authoritarian .31 .12 .27***
Permissive .33 .18 .20
Representing Knowledge
Authoritative .59 .16 .38**
Authoritarian .18 .11 .18
Permissive .13 .16 .09
Learning Groups
Authoritative .49 .20 .26*
Authoritarian .16 .13 .14
Permissive .11 .19 .06
Setting Objectives and
Providing Feedback
Authoritative .53 .16 .34**
Authoritarian .18 .10 .19
Permissive .16 .15 .11
Generating and Testing
Hypotheses
Authoritative .35 .28 .14
Authoritarian .25 .18 .16
Permissive .06 .26 .02
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
For Similarities and Differences, Authoritative (p < .05) and Authoritarian (p
< .05) parenting were significant with teachers reporting these two parenting styles
indicating that they used this strategy more. Authoritative (p < .01) and Authoritarian
73
(p < .001) parenting styles were also significant predictors of Homework and
Practice. Teachers reporting these two parenting styles indicated they used
Homework and Practice more often in the classroom. The associations between
Authoritative parenting (both p < .05) to Representing Knowledge and Setting
Objectives and Providing Feedback were significant. Teachers reporting an
Authoritative parenting style indicated more use of these strategies.
74
Chapter 5
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether parenting styles of a
teacher are related to the academic achievement of African American and Latino
students in grades two through eight, as well as related to the teaching strategies used
in the classroom. The key theory woven throughout this study was Baumrind’s
(1971) three parenting styles. This study concentrated on the relationship of these
parenting styles to the academic achievement of African American and Latino
students as reported on the California Standards Test for Language Arts and Math.
The secondary theory this study was based on was Marzano, Pickering and Pollock’s
(2001) nine teaching strategies. This study examined whether Baumrind’s parenting
styles predicted the use of each of the nine research-based teaching strategies. This
chapter includes the discussion of findings, limitations of the study, and future
research implications.
Discussion of Findings
The first and second questions asked whether or not there was a relationship
between the parenting style of a teacher and the academic achievement of African
American and Latino students in Language Arts and Math. A positive significant
relationship between Authoritarian parenting style and math scores was found. This
means that African American and Latino students of teachers who reported an
Authoritarian parenting style scored higher on the Math CST than students of
teachers who reported Authoritative or Permissive parenting styles. Specifically,
75
results reveal that these students in classrooms of a teacher with an Authoritarian
parenting style scored over eight and a half points more than students in a classroom
of a teacher with an Authoritative or Permissive parenting style.
Authoritarian parenting, which is characterized by demandingness and
control (Baumrind, 1971) is highly directive and expects unquestioning obedience.
Similar to the directiveness found in Authoritarian parenting, direct instruction is
utilized when teaching math concepts. The parallel between the directiveness in math
instruction and the directive nature of Authoritarian parenting confirms the findings
in this study. To further support these results, previous studies state that the strength
of the relationship between parenting style and academic grades is strongest in
authoritarian parenting (Dornbusch et al., 1987).
The students in the current study were either African American or Latino.
Dornbusch et al. (1987) report that African American and Latino families score
higher than European American families on the authoritarian parenting index. As a
result, the students in the current study seem to respond better to a teacher of the
Authoritarian prototype in terms of their math achievement. Willis (1992) reports
that African American families put a high value on respecting, obeying, and learning
from elders. Dixon et al. (2008) echo the same findings and report that African
American and Latino girls show more respect for parental authority than European
American girls. Furthermore, the Authoritarian parenting style has been found to
have the strongest correlation with grades (Dornbusch et al.). This could explain why
results from this study echo these themes. African American and Latino students,
76
who respect authority, respond to teachers of an Authoritarian parenting style, which
is highly directive, and that translates into high math scores, where math is directly
taught.
It is important to note that the link investigated between the parenting style of
a teacher and its relationship to student achievement is a weak one. There is a stretch
in the connection between parenting style of a teacher and student achievement due
to the multitude of other factors influencing student achievement. The lack of any
significant relationship between parenting style and Language Arts CST scores may
be due to several factors. One reason may be that the sample size was too small to
have enough power in the analysis to identify other significant relationships.
Another reason may be there are stronger outside influences other than a
teacher’s parenting style that influence African American and Latino student
achievement, such as students being an English language learner or coming from a
low socioeconomic background. Nearly half of the students on whom data was
collected were designated as English Learners. Krashen (1981) claims that students
are more successful in second language acquisition when they are motivated,
confident, and have low anxiety. When a student has low motivation, low self-
confidence, and high anxiety, their affective filter is raised and prevents them from
comprehending new learning, particularly language acquisition. If the English
Learner students in this study were in a classroom with a teacher who reported an
Authoritative parenting style and the students were not comfortable with this style,
their affective filter may have been raised, preventing language learning. Similarly, if
77
English Learner students in this study were in a classroom with a teacher who
reported an Authoritarian parenting style and the lack of warmth characterized by
that parenting prototype caused anxiety, thus raising the affective filter, this too may
have influenced the students language achievement, preventing a relationship
between the parenting style of the teacher and academic success in Language Arts.
Socioeconomic status is another outside influence that may have prevented a
relationship between a teacher’s parenting style and the academic achievement of
African American and Latino students. Fan and Chen (2001) report that
socioeconomic status influences parental involvement, which is linked to student
achievement. Since at least 31.1% of students (338 missing data) in this study were
classified as coming from low socioeconomic status backgrounds, perhaps that
undermined the influence these students’ teachers’ parenting style had on them. An
additional influence might be students’ relationships with their peers. Some
researchers speculate that African American parenting styles have less of an impact
because African American students are more influenced by their peers when it comes
to school performance (Steinberg et al., 1992). If this is true of the students in this
study, it would explain why the majority of results were not significant.
A final reason for the limited significant relationships may be that students
are not matched to the parenting style that would be most effective for them. Many
researchers have identified that the influence of parenting style on academic
achievement is much less in ethnic minority families (Dornbusch et al., 1987;
Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1992). Furthermore, Dornbusch et al. revealed
78
that using the three types of parenting to predict academic grades is most applicable
for European American students and Authoritative parenting, in particular, is the
least effective for African American children. This reduced influence for
Authoritative parenting may have caused the lack of significant findings when
coupled with the small sample size.
One factor contributing to the significant findings revealed in this study is
that the multiple regression analyses conducted in this study included the student
variables: ethnicity, gender, English Learner, and free/reduced lunch status. The
inclusion of these factors strengthened the analysis and contributed to the full model
significance found in the results of research questions one and two. Results revealed
that gender had a significant relationship to Language Arts CST scores, while
English Learner and free/reduced lunch status had significant relationships to
Language Arts and Math CST scores. Without the inclusion of these student
variables in the analysis, the full models would not have been significant, thus
preventing the finding of the relationship between Authoritarian parenting and Math
CST scores.
Researchers report that girls show more respect for authority (Dixon et al.,
2008). This notion supports the findings in this study that boys performed nearly 13
points worse than girls on the Language Arts CST. The higher respect girls
demonstrate toward authority (teachers) may translate into higher test scores.
Furthermore, students who were classified as English Learners and/or who qualified
for free/reduced lunch performed over 21 and eight points, respectively, lower on the
79
Language Arts CST and over 19 points lower on the Math CST than students who
were not designated as English Learners and/or qualified for free/reduced lunch.
Previous research echoes these findings. As previously discussed, Krashen (1981)
identifies barriers to second language acquisition. A student’s affective filter, for
example, must be low for students to feel safe, confident, and capable of learning. If
a second language learner’s affective filter is raised, learning is prevented, thus
resulting in lower tests scores as seen in this study. Hughes (2003) and Johnson
(2002) report on the connection between low socioeconomic status and low student
achievement. Since over one fifth of the African American and Latino population are
living in poverty (Proctor & Dalaker, 2002) it is not surprising that the analyses from
this study reveal a connection between students who qualify for free/reduced lunch
and lower achievement on the California Standards Tests.
The final question asks if the parenting style of a teacher predicts the use of
certain teaching strategies in the classroom. Authoritative parenting, which is
characterized by control and warmth, was found to predict higher uses of Similarities
and Differences, Representing Knowledge, Homework and Practice, and Setting
Objectives and Providing Feedback. Authoritarian parenting, characterized by
control and expectations, had significant results in predicting Similarities and
Differences, and Reinforcing Effort and Providing Feedback.
Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) report Similarities and Differences
must be presented by the teacher with explicit guidance. This is reflective of the high
control aspect of both Authoritative and Authoritarian parenting (Baumrind, 1971).
80
Therefore, teachers who report an Authoritative or Authoritarian parenting style also
report a high use of similarities and differences in their classroom. With regard to
Homework and Practice, prior research states that students should be informed of the
objective of their homework and it should be commented on with varying
approaches whether it is specific comments or holding in a portfolio to review with
teacher (Marzano, Norford, et al., 2001). The results of the current study connect this
strategy to teachers who report either Authoritative or Authoritarian parenting styles,
which is a logical connection. According to Baumrind, Authoritative and
Authoritarian prototypes exhibit control and demandingness, yet provide feedback.
These characteristics appear to be reflective of what the prior research states is
necessary for this teaching strategy to be effective.
Authoritative parenting was also related to Representing Knowledge and
Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback. This parenting style is characterized by
consistent and clear expectations as well as love and support (Baumrind, 1971).
Representing Knowledge, which should be taught explicitly and students should be
provided with feedback on their progress of applying the activities (Izsak, 2005) is
indicative of the control and warmth found in Authoritative parenting. The two
categories of the Authoritative parenting prototype also transfer into Setting
Objectives (clear expectations) and Providing Feedback (support). Greene and
Azevedo (2007) report on the importance of goal setting in self-regulated learning.
This self-regulation is seen among high achieving students (Ruban & Reis, 2006).
81
Permissive parenting, characterized by lack of control and warmth, did not
predict any of the nine teaching strategies. Reinforcing effort and providing
recognition and cues, questions, and advance organizers all had low reliability
according to Cronbach’s Alpha. Their correlation to the parenting styles was: effort
and homework significant to authoritative and authoritarian, learning groups and
cues, questions significant to authoritative only. Their correlation to the Latino CST
scores was: effort not significant, homework, learning groups, and cues, questions
significant in language arts. Their correlation to the African American CST scores
was: no significance. One reason to explain the lack of significance could be due to
the low reliability of the subscale, which suggests a lack of coherence of the items.
There are several implications from these findings. This information could be
used as guidance for teacher induction programs and school administrators. Teacher
induction programs already require reflection on teaching practices as evidence of
implementing teaching standards to clear a preliminary teaching credential.
However, if a connection is made between parenting style and student achievement,
parenting style could become a new area for required reflection. Similarly,
administrators can use the information as a supplemental guide when planning
professional development to understand where the teacher is coming from and what
is already having an influence on his or her beliefs. This information can then be
used to help that teacher improve his/her practice. Administrators may also use the
results from this study as a guide to understanding influences on teachers when
evaluating teacher success. Parenting style could point to reasons for success or lack
82
of success on the part of a teacher in affecting student learning and achievement and
direct further action to continue or promote student achievement.
In summary, while permissive parenting is not related to use of teaching
strategies in the classroom, authoritative and authoritarian parenting are related.
Authoritative parenting of a teacher predicts higher use of six of the nine research-
based strategies shown to increase student achievement. Authoritarian parenting was
also shown to be positively related to two of the nine research based teaching
strategies.
Limitations
The first limitation present in the current study may be due to sampling bias
of the participants who took part in the data collection. For example, the study was
limited to participants whose administration at the school and district level allowed
permission. Participants were recruited through email and on site visits by the
primary investigator. By certain administrators refusing participation, there are
potential participants who were not afforded the opportunity to participate. These
potential participants could have increased the sample size and therefore the power
of the analysis. Additionally, the sample may be limited by the nature of those who
volunteered to participate in the study. Teachers were given the option to participate.
Those who chose to participate may have different parenting styles than those who
did not. There were no significant results for permissive parents. Perhaps participants
who chose not to participate were the teachers who have a permissive parenting
style. Finally, the number of participants surveyed may contribute to the sampling
83
bias. The large number of participants who were not eligible decreased the power
size of the analysis. Despite one hundred, twenty-seven surveys collected, only
eight-four qualified to be included in the study.
The second limitation present in this study is reflected in the design. First,
self reporting has been identified as a limitation due to participants willingness to be
straight forward, candid and accurately reflective (Luna-Arocas & Camps, 2008;
Price & Hanson, 2007). Someone reporting on themselves might over or under score
what behavior actually occurs. This may change the outcome of the analysis. Second,
a well-established instrument is not established for examining and defining the
effective strategies teachers use. Many articles have been published that outline
strategies a district can use to evaluate teachers’ effectiveness (Hamre, LoCasale-
Crouch, & Pianta, 2008; Ross, Singer-Dudek, & Greer, 2005) or evaluate teacher
style (CORD, 2005; Grasha, 1996; Zhang, 2004). However, the research is lacking of
a succinct survey that measures and synthesizes proven effective strategies that a
teacher uses. The development of the Teaching Strategies Questionnaire for the
purposes of this study provided a means to measure teaching strategies, but did not
exhibit complete reliability upon analysis of collected data. Because of this, two
teaching strategies were removed in the analysis, thus limiting the results reported.
Third, studies have been conducted to examine the relationship parental
involvement has to academic achievement. One study shows that children, who
already have positive competence experiences from home, as described by
Pomerantz et al. (2007), also already have resources needed for the development of
84
skills and motivation needed for academic success. Therefore, a limitation of this
study is that for the data of those students who have these positive competence
experiences, it will be unclear whether their academic success has already been
affected by the parental involvement, or was affected by the teacher’s parenting
style. In summary, limitations were present in the current study due to the nature of
the participants and the chosen methodology.
Future Research
The current study provided insight into the relationship between parenting
styles and both CST scores as well as teaching strategies used in the classroom.
However, this study revealed only one significant finding with regards to parenting
style predicting academic achievement. Additionally, the sample size was quite
small. Given these two factors, a recommendation would be to repeat a study with
the current variables under a much larger participant scale. Future research utilizing
the same teaching strategies questionnaire with a larger study sample would increase
knowledge on testing the measure of use of teaching strategies. While this study
investigated the relationship between the parenting style of teachers to instructional
strategies and student achievement, teachers may also be influenced by the way they
were parented. A future study could survey teachers to determine any relationships
between how a teacher was parented to instructional strategies and student
achievement.
With regards to methodology, a longitudinal study is recommended to follow
the students and track the type of parenting style each teacher has and what
85
relationship that has on his/her academic achievement. A mixed-methods approach
in which observational data of the teacher in the classroom utilizing teaching
strategies might provide further insight into understanding how and why teachers
choose certain strategies. This might explain the relationship of other variables, such
as parenting style, to use of teaching strategies. Furthermore, utilizing different
methods of analyses is recommended. One option would be multi-level modeling
analysis to account for nesting of students in same classroom. Mediation is another
option. This would provide the opportunity to compare all three variables included in
this study. With a larger sample, a correlation might be found between all variables.
In this case, teaching strategies could be used as a mediator to predict student
achievement from parenting styles.
There is evidence that the outcomes of parenting styles differ across ethnic
minorities (Spera, 2005). Thus, a further study is recommended to expand the current
study to include a self-report on parenting styles from the parents of the students
whose data were collected for each teacher. This may yield further insight into the
relationship the parenting style of the teacher has on the student. In addition, Buriel
(1993) found intergenerational differences between ethnicities. Therefore, further
research studies are recommended to include an additional variable of acculturation.
Finally, it is important to note that parenting style is not the sole influence for a
teacher’s choice of use of strategy. For this reason, it is recommended that further
research include other variables such as teaching style.
86
Conclusion
Prior research conducted between parents and children revealed a strong
connection between parenting and academic success of children (Dornbusch et al.,
1987). Similarly, nine strategies have been shown through research to increase
student achievement (Chang et al., 2002; Graesser & Olde, 2003; Izsak, 2005;
Langer, 2000; Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001; Ruban & Reis, 2006).
However, no research prior to this study has been conducted on the relationship
between the parenting style of a teacher with his/her own children and the academic
success of the students in his/her classroom as well as the strategies used in the
classroom. The findings in this study show that parenting style does predict academic
achievement and use of teaching strategies.
The current study explored the relationship between the parenting style of a
teacher and the academic achievement of ethnic minority students (African
American and Latino) as evidenced by CST scores in Language Arts and Math. It
also looked into the relationship between the parenting style of a teacher and the
teaching strategies used in the classroom. The first and second research questions
asked whether there was a relationship between parenting styles and academic
achievement of African American and Latino students in Language Arts and Math.
For this sample, there did not appear to be a relationship between parenting style and
Language Arts CST scores. There was, however, a significant relationship between
Authoritarian parenting and student outcomes on the Math CST. Students with a
teacher who indicated an Authoritarian parenting style scored over eight and half
87
scale points higher than students with a teacher who indicated an Authoritative or
Permissive parenting style.
The third question asked whether there was a relationship between parenting
styles and teaching strategies used. Teachers who reported and Authoritative
parenting style were more likely to use four teaching strategies: Similarities and
Differences; Homework and Practice; Representing Knowledge; and Setting
Objectives and Providing Feedback. Additionally, teachers who reported an
Authoritarian parenting style were more likely to use Similarities and Differences;
and Homework and Practice.
88
References
Aunola, K., Stattin, H., & Nurmi, J. E. (2000). Parenting styles and adolescents’
achievement strategies. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 205-222.
Battle, J. (2002). Longitudinal analysis of academic achievement among nationwide
sample of Hispanic students in one- versus dual-parent households. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24, 430-447.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior.
Child Development, 37(4), 887-907.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool
behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75(1), 43-88.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental
Psychology Monograph, 4(1), 1-103.
Baumrind, D. (1972). An exploratory study of socialization effects on black children:
Some black-white comparisons. Child Development, 43(1), 261-267.
Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child
development today and tomorrow (pp. 349-378). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass Inc.
Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45(4),
405-414.
Bernstein, R., & Edwards, T. (2008). An older and more diverse nation by mid-
century. U.S. Census Bureau: Newsroom (CB08-123).
Bluestone, C., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (1999). Correlates of parenting styles in
predominantly working- and middle-class African American mothers.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(4), 881-893.
Boe, E. E., Shin, S., & Cook, L. H. (2007). Does teacher preparation matter for
beginning teachers in either special or general education? The Journal of
Special Education, 41(3), 158-170.
Brock, L. L., Nishida, T. K., Chiong, C., Grimm, K. J., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E.
(2008). Children’s perceptions of the classroom environment and social and
academic performance: A longitudinal analysis of the contribution of the
responsive classroom approach. Journal of School Psychology, 46(2), 129-
149.
89
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The
Future of Children, 7, 55-71.
Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 57(1), 110-119.
Buriel, R. (1993). Childrearing orientations in Mexican American families: The
influence of generation and sociocultural factors. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 55(4), 987-1000.
Cain, D. S. (2007). The effects of religiousness on parenting stress and practices in
the African American family. Families in Society: The Journal of
Contemporary Social Services, 88(2), 263-272.
California Department of Education (2003). Consolidated state application
accountability workbook. Retrieved April 16, 2008, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/sa/documents/yr03wb0131atts.pdf
California Department of Education (2005). 2005 Academic performance index
base: Six new variables for similar school ranks: Summary. Retrieved
November 19, 2006, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/infoaabpeddec05item01a.doc
California Department of Education (2006). California State Board of Education:
Content Standards. Retrieved November 1, 2006, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/
California Department of Education (2008). DataQuest. Retrieved December 30,
2008, from http://dq.cde.gov/dataquest/
California Department of Education (2009a). California standardized testing and
reporting (STAR). Retrieved January 30, 2009, from
http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2008/Viewreport.asp
California Department of Education (2009b). Ed-Data. Retrieved January 29, 2009,
from http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile%2Easp%3Fl
evel%3D04%26reportNumber%3D16
Campbell, P. R. (1996). Population projections for states by age, sex, race, and
Hispanic origin: 1995 to 2025. U.S. Bureau of the Census: Population
Division (PPL-47).
90
Chan, K. W., & Chan, S. M. (2007). Hong Kong teacher education students’ goal
orientations and their relationship to perceived parenting styles. Educational
Psychology, 27(2), 157-172.
Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, I. D. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to
enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 71(1), 5-23.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., et
al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Cooper, H. (1989). Homework: Research on teaching monograph series. New York,
NY, US: Longman.
CORD (2005) Teaching style inventory. Retrieved April 6, 2008, from
http://www.cord.org/page.cfm/228/
Cotton, K. (1989). Expectations and student outcomes. NW Archives: School
Improvement Research Series (SIRS). Retrieved October 8, 2007, from
http://www.nwrel.org/sepd/sirs/4/cu7.html
Crawford, M. L. (2001). Teaching contextually: Research, rationale, and techniques
for improving student motivation and achievement in mathematics and
science. Waco, TX: CCI Publishing, Inc.
Darling, N. (1999). Parenting style and its correlates. Champaign, IL: Clearinghouse
on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Digest EDO-PS-99-3)
Darling, N., & Steinberg L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin 113(3), 487-496.
DataWise Inc. (2006). Retrieved November 19, 2006, from http://www.datawise-
ed.com/DatawiseWebsite/Home/tabid/52/Default.aspx
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-
determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109-
134.
Dixon, S. V., Graber, J. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). The roles of respect for
parental authority and parenting practices in parent-child conflict among
African American, Latino, and European American families. Journal of
Family Psychology, 22(1), 1-10.
91
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(5), 1244-1257.
Eamon, M. K. (2005). Social-demographic, school, neighborhood, and parenting
influences on the academic achievement of Latino young adolescents.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(2), 163-174.
EdSource Online (2006). Glossary. Retrieved November 19, 2006, from
http://www.edsource.org/glo.cfm#C
Education Data Partnership (2007). Ed-data: County reports. Retrieved February 23,
2007, from http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile%2Easp%3Fl
evel%3D04%26reportNumber%3D16
Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1990). Beginning school math competence:
Minority and majority comparisons. Child Development, 61(2), 454-471.
Executive Summary (2004, February 10). Retrieved October 31, 2006, from
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic
achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22.
Farkas, G. (2003). Racial disparities and discrimination in education: What do we
know, how do we know it, and what do we need to know? Teachers College
Record, 105(6), 1119-1146.
Garcia-Coll, C. T. (1990). Developmental outcome of minority infants: A process-
oriented look into our beginnings. Child Development, 61(2), 270-289.
Garcia-Coll, C. T., Meyer, E. C., & Brillon, L. (1995). Ethnic and minority
parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 2.
Biology and ecology of parenting (pp. 189-209). Hillsdale, NJ, England:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goodlad, J. I., & McMannon, T. J. (Eds.). (1997). The public purpose of education
and schooling. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Graesser, A. C., & Olde, B. A. (2003). How does one know whether a person
understands a device? The quality of the questions the person asks when the
device breaks down. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 524-536.
92
Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning
by understanding teaching and learning styles. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance
Publishers.
Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s
model of self-regulated learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of
Educational Research, 77(3), 334-372.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-
regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology,
81(2), 143-154.
Hamre, B. K., LoCasale-Crouch, J., & Pianta, R. C. (2008). Formative assessment of
classrooms: Using classroom observations to improve implementation
quality. In L. M. Justice & C. Vukelich (Eds.), Solving problems in the
teaching of literacy (pp. 102-119). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special
education? Understanding race and disability in schools. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by
age 3. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from
http://www.scfirststeps.org/docs/The%20Early%20Catastrophe.pdf
Holden, G. W., & Miller, P. C. (1999). Enduring and different: A meta-analysis of
the similarity in parents’ child rearing. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 223-
254.
Hong, S., & Ho, H. Z. (2005). Direct and indirect longitudinal effects of parental
involvement on student achievement: Second-order latent growth modeling
across ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 32-42.
Hughes, S. A. (2003). An early gap in Black-White mathematics achievement:
Holding school and home accountable in an affluent city school district.
Urban Review, 35(4), 297-322.
Immordino-Yang, M. H. (2008). The Jossey-Bass reader on the brain and learning.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Izsak, A. (2005). “You have to count the squares”: Applying knowledge in pieces to
learning rectangular area. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(3), 361-
403.
93
Jambunathan, S., Burts, D. C., & Pierce, S. (2000). Comparisons of parenting
attitudes among five ethnic groups in the United States. Journal of
Comparative Family Studies, 31(4), 395-406.
Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to
urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education,
40(3), 237-269.
Johnson, R. S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure
equity in our schools. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined effects of note-taking/-reviewing on learning and
the enhancement through interventions: A meta-analytic review. Educational
Psychology, 26(3), 459-477.
Kowaleski-Jones, L., Dunifon, R., & Ream, G. (2006). Community contributions to
scholastic success. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(3), 343-362.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Principles and practice in second language acquisition:
English language teaching series. London: Prentice-Hall International (UK)
Ltd.
Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns
of competence and adjustment among adolescents form authoritative,
authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62(5),
1049-1065.
Lane, K. L., Givner, C. C., & Pierson M. R. (2004). Teacher expectations of student
behavior: Social skills necessary for success in elementary school
classrooms. The Journal of Special Education, 38(2), 104-110.
Langer, J. A. (2000) Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to
read and write well. Albany, NY: Center on English Learning and
Achievement. (Report No. 12014).
Luna-Arocas, R., & Camps, J. (2008). A model of high performance work practices
and turnover intentions. Personnel Review, 37(1), 26-46.
Maccoby E. E., & Martin J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent-child interaction. Handbook of Child Psychology 4, 1-101.
Maryland Report Card. (2008). Retrieved January 30, 2009, from
http://www.mdreportcard.org/AypGraph.aspx?AypPV=14|1|99|AAAA|1|000
000|A
94
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Norford, J. S., Paynter, D. E., Pickering, D. J., & Gaddy, B. B.
(2001). A handbook for classroom instruction that works. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Ogbu, J. U. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of
academic disengagement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Payne, R. (2008). Nine powerful practices. Educational Leadership, 65(7), 48-52.
Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note taking.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 291-312.
Plunkett, S. W., Williams, S. M., Schock, A. M., & Sands, T. (2007). Parenting and
adolescent self-esteem in Latino intact families, stepfather families, and
single-mother families. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 47(3/4), 1-20.
Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S.D. (2007). The how, whom, and
why of parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always
better. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 373-410.
Price, S. A., & Hanson, R. K. (2007). A modified Stroop task with sexual offenders:
Replication of a study. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 13(3), 203-216.
Proctor, B. D., & Dalaker, J. (2002). Poverty in the United States: 2002. Retrieved
February 27, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-222.pdf
Ream, R. K. (2003). Counterfeit social capital and Mexican-American
underachievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(3), 237-
262.
Ream, R. K. (2005). Toward understanding how social capital mediates the impact
of mobility on Mexican American achievement. Social Forces, 84(1), 201-
224.
95
Ross, D. E., Singer-Dudek, J. & Greer, R. D. (2005). The teacher performance rate
and accuracy scale (TPRA): Training as evaluation. Education and Training
in Developmental Disabilities, 40(4), 411-423.
Ruban, L., & Reis, S. M. (2006). Patterns of self-regulation: Patterns of self-
regulatory strategy use among low-achieving and high-achieving university
students. Roeper Review, 28(3), 148-156.
Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past
decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis
results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454-499.
School City Inc. (2007). Retrieved May 3, 2008, from http://www.schoolcity.com/
Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Wu, C. I. (1991). Intergenerational
transmission of harsh parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 159-171.
Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting
styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review,
17(2), 125-146.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-
40.
STAR Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (2006, August 14). California
standards tests. Retrieved November 19, 2006, from
http://www.startest.org/cst.html
State Report Card: 2007-2008 – Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2008). Retrieved
January 30, 2009, from http://www.paayp.com/report_cards/PA/RC08M.PDF
Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child
left behind. Retrieved February 17, 2007, from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/white_papers/WP138/WP138.pdf
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M.
(1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents
from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child
Development, 65(3), 754-770.
96
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of
parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting,
school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development,
63(5), 1266-1281.
Thomas, J. W. (1980). Agency and achievement: Self-management and self-regard.
Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 213-240.
Tilly, W. T. (2006). Response to intervention: An overview - What is it? Why do it?
Is it worth it? The Special Edge, 19(2), 1-20.
U.S. Census Bureau (n.d.). American factfinder. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFPeople?_submenuId=people_1
0&_sse=on
U.S. Department of Education (n.d.). No child left behind. Retrieved February 17,
2007, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml
U.S. Department of Education (2009). State standards and assessment. Retrieved
January 29, 2009, from
http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/statesystems.pdf
Vega, A. M. (1981). Some sociological and psychological factors in the educational
achievement of Mexican Americans. Dissertation Abstracts International
42(1), 405.
Walker, J. M. (2008). Looking at teacher practices through the lens of parenting
style. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(2), 218-240.
White, R. W. (1963). Ego and reality in psychoanalytic theory. Psychological Issues.
3(3), 1-210.
Willis, W. (1992). Families with African American roots. In E. W. Lynch & M. J.
Hanson (Eds.), Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working
with young children and their families. (pp. 121-150). Baltimore, MD,
England: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P. & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context
effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal
of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.
Zhang, L. F. (2004). Thinking styles: University students’ preferred teaching styles
and their conceptions of effective teachers. The Journal of Psychology,
138(3), 233-252.
97
Appendix
Survey
Demographics
1. What is your name? (First and Last) _________________________
2. What is your email address? (Email address will not be used for any purpose
other than to contact the winners of the raffle.) ___________________
3. What school do you currently teach at? _______________________
4. What is your gender?
a. Male
b. Female
5. What is your age? _________________
6. What is your ethnicity? Check all that apply.
a. White
b. Black or African American
c. Latino or Hispanic
d. Asian
e. American Indian or Alaska Native
f. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
g. Other (please specify) ________________
7. What is your level of education?
a. Less than 9th grade
b. 9th to 12th grade, no diploma
c. High School graduate (includes equivalency)
d. Some college, no degree
e. Associate's degree
f. Bachelor's degree
g. Graduate or professional degree
98
8. What is your household income?
a. Less than $10,000
b. $10,000 to $14,999
c. $15,000 to $24,999
d. $25,000 to $34,999
e. $35,000 to $49,999
f. $50,000 to $74,999
g. $75,000 to $99,999
h. $100,000 to $149,999
i. $150,000 to $199,999
j. $200,000 or more
9. What is your family structure?
a. Married
b. Widowed
c. Divorced/Separated
d. Never married
e. Other (please specify) _______________
10. How many children do you have? ____________
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4
e. Other ____________
11. What is/are the age/ages of your child/children? Fill out all that apply.
a. 1
st
child __________
b. 2
nd
child __________
c. 3
rd
child __________
d. 4
th
child __________
e. Other ____________
12. How many years have you been teaching? _____________
99
13. What grade levels have you taught? Check all that apply.
a. Pre-K
b. Kindergarten
c. 1
st
d. 2
nd
e. 3
rd
f. 4
th
g. 5
th
h. 6
th
i. 7
th
j. 8
th
k. Other (please specify) _____________
14. What grade do you currently teach? Check all that apply.
a. 2
nd
b. 3
rd
c. 4
th
d. 5
th
e. 6
th
f. 7
th
g. 8
th
h. Other (please specify) _______________
15. What subjects do you teach? Check all that apply.
a. Math
b. Reading
c. Writing
d. Science
e. Social Studies
f. Music
g. Art
h. PE
i. Health
j. Other (please specify) _______________
100
Parental Authority Questionnaire
For each of the following statements, please mark the number on the 5-point scale
that best indicates how that statement applies to you and your approach to parenting.
Try to read and think about each statement as it pertains to the way you parented
your children as they were growing up at home. Again, your responses are totally
anonymous. There are no right or wrong answers, so please be as honest and
accurate as you can. Also, try not to spend a lot of time on any one item -- I am
simply looking for your overall impression regarding each statement. Please be sure
not to omit any items.
Thank you again for your participation!!
1. I feel that in a well-run home the children should have their way in the family
as often as the parents do.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
2. As my children were growing up, even if they didn't agree with me, I felt that
it was for their own good if they were forced to conform to what I thought
was right.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
3. Whenever I told my children to do something as they were growing up, I
expected them to do it immediately without asking any questions.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
4. As my children were growing up, once family policy had been established, I
discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children in the family.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
5. I have always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever one of my children
has felt that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
6. I have always felt that what children need is to be free to make up their own
minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with what
their parents might want.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
101
7. As my children were growing up, I did not allow them to question any
decision that I had made.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
8. As my children were growing up, I directed their activities and decisions
through reasoning and discipline.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
9. I have always felt that more force should be used by parents in order to get
their children to behave the way they are supposed to.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
10. As my children were growing up, I did not feel that they needed to obey rules
and regulations of behavior simply because someone in authority had
established them.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
11. As my children were growing up, they knew what I expected of them in the
family but they also felt free to discuss those expectations with me when they
felt that they were unreasonable.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
12. I feel that wise parents should teach their children early just who is boss in
the family.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
13. As my children were growing up, I seldom gave them expectations and
guidelines for their behavior.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
14. Most of the time as my children were growing up I did what the children
wanted when making family decisions.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
102
15. As my children were growing up, I consistently gave them direction and
guidance in rational and objective ways.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
16. As my children were growing up, I would get very upset if any of them tried
to disagree with me.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
17. I feel that most problems in society would be solved if parents would not
restrict their children's activities, decisions, and desires as they are growing
up.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
18. As my children were growing up, I let them know what behaviors I expected
of them, and if they didn't meet those expectations, I punished them.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
19. As my children were growing up, I allowed them to decide most things for
themselves without a lot of direction from me.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
20. As my children were growing up, I took their opinions into consideration
when making family decisions, but I would not decide for something simply
because the children wanted it.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
21. I did not view myself as responsible for directing and guiding the behavior of
my children as they were growing up.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
22. I had clear standards of behavior for the children in our home as they were
growing up, but I was willing to adjust those standards to the needs of each of
the individual children in the family.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
103
23. I gave direction for my children's behavior and activities as they were
growing up and I expected them to follow my direction, but I was always
willing to listen to their concerns and to discuss that direction with them.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
24. As my children were growing up, I allowed them to form their own point of
view on family matters and I generally allowed them to decide for themselves
what they were going to do.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
25. I have always felt that most problems in society would be solved if we could
get parents to strictly and forcibly deal with their children when they don't do
what they are supposed to as they are growing up.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
26. As my children were growing up, I often told them exactly what I wanted
them to do and how I expected them to do it.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
27. As my children were growing up, I gave them clear direction for their
behaviors and activities, but I was also understanding when they disagreed
with me.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
28. As my children were growing up, I did not direct their behaviors, activities,
and desires.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
29. As my children were growing up, they knew what I expected of them in the
family and I insisted that they conform to those expectations simply out of
respect for my authority.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
104
30. As my children were growing up, if I made a decision in the family that hurt
one of the children, I was willing to discuss that decision with that child and
to admit it if I had made a mistake.
1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree
Teaching Strategy Questionnaire
• Identifying Similarities and Differences: comparing, classifying, creating
metaphors and analogies
1. I clearly communicate the knowledge students will use for identifying
similarities and differences activities.
2. I make sure students know how to use the processes of identifying similarities
and differences.
3. Over time, I collect evidence about my students’ proficiency at identifying
similarities and differences.
• Summarizing and Note Taking
4. I clearly communicate the information students will summarize and/or
knowledge about which students will take notes.
5. I make sure the students know how to use the strategy I want them to use to
either summarize and/or take notes.
6. Over time, I collect evidence about my students’ proficiency at using a variety
of summarizing and note taking techniques.
• Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition
7. I teach my students about the relationship between effort and achievement.
8. I monitor the extent to which students believe effort will lead to achievement.
9. I clearly communicate my rationale for the recognition I provide in my
classroom to my students.
10. Over time, I collect evidence about the effect providing recognition has on my
student’s achievement.
• Homework and Practice
11. I have a clearly articulated homework policy that describes my expectations for
students and parents.
12. My students are aware of the purpose for the homework assignment.
13. I set up massed practice schedules for the skills or processes I want students to
master.
14. I provide opportunities for students to practice specific components or
subcomponents of a process.
105
• Representing Knowledge
15. I clearly identify the knowledge students will use to generate representations.
16. I made sure students know how to use the strategy that I want them to use to
represent knowledge.
17. Over time, I collect evidence about my students’ proficiency at using a variety
of methods to represent knowledge.
• Learning Groups
18. Over time, I vary the criteria I use to group students.
19. I make sure students understand the elements of cooperative learning they are
supposed to be using.
20. Over time, I collect evidence about my students’ proficiency at using a variety
of roles in a cooperative learning situation.
• Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback
21. I clearly communicate learning objectives to parents.
22. I monitor how well students are progressing toward meeting the learning
objectives.
23. My feedback to students is timely.
24. My feedback to students is specific and explains what they are doing correctly
and incorrectly.
• Generating and Testing Hypotheses: systems analysis, problem solving, decision
making, historical investigation, experimental inquiry, and invention
25. I clearly communicate the knowledge students will use for generating and
testing hypotheses.
26. I make sure students know how to use the processes of generating and testing
hypotheses.
27. Over time, I collect evidence about my students’ proficiency at generating and
testing hypotheses.
• Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers
28. I use explicit cues to help students access their prior knowledge.
29. I use questions that require students to make inferences and analyze
information.
30. I use advance organizers that best fit the content.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the parenting style of a teacher predicts the use of teaching strategies and academic achievement of their African American and Latino students as evidenced by California Standards Test scores (CST). This study utilized Baumrind's (1971) three parenting prototypes: Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive. It also made use of Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock's (2001) nine research-based teaching strategies. The study was quantitative and surveyed teachers of second through eighth grade who were also parents. Eighty-four teachers from twenty-five schools in nine districts and three charter schools participated in this study. Results reveal that the teachers' Authoritarian parenting style was positively related to gains in student CST Math scores. Males were negatively related to CST Language Arts scores. English Learners and students who qualified for free/reduced lunch were negatively related to both Language Arts and Math CST scores. Authoritative and Authoritarian parenting style of the teacher both positively predicted two teaching strategies: Similarities and Differences
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The relationship of teachers' parenting styles and Asian American students' reading motivation
PDF
Are acculturation and parenting styles related to academic achievement among Latino students?
PDF
The relationship between parenting styles, career decision self-efficacy, and career maturity of Asian American college students
PDF
The relationship between student perceptions of parental expectations, utility value, aptitude and English achievement among Asian American high school students
PDF
The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students
PDF
Motivational, parental, and cultural influences on achievement and persistence in basic skills mathematics at the community college
PDF
Factors that contribute to high and low performing Vietnamese American high school students
PDF
The relationship among the nurturance and monitoring dimensions of parenting, academic self-concept, and acculturation, in the academic achievement of Latino college students
PDF
Exploring the relationship between academic achievement and classroom behavior of Asian American elementary school students
PDF
Raising student achievement at Eberman Elementary School with effective teaching strategies
PDF
Goal orientation of Latino English language learners: the relationship between students’ engagement, achievement and teachers’ instructional practices in mathematics
PDF
The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students
PDF
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
Teacher management style: its impact on teacher-student relationships and leadership development
PDF
The relationship of values and parenting styles on academic achievement and occupational choice among Jewish-Americans and Jewish-Iranian Americans
PDF
The impact of parental involvement on student achievement
PDF
Moving from great to greater: Math growth in high achieving elementary schools - A gap analysis
PDF
A world of education: the influence of culture on instructional style and perceived teacher effectiveness
PDF
Relationships between teachers' perceptions of gifted program status and instructional choices
PDF
Student perceptions of teacher pedagogical practices in the elementary classroom
Asset Metadata
Creator
Babiarz, Sarah Jean
(author)
Core Title
Relationship of teacher's parenting style to instructional strategies and student achievement
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/08/2009
Defense Date
03/06/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,parenting style,student achievement,teaching strategies
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Chung, Ruth, H. (
committee chair
), Baca, Reynaldo R. (
committee member
), McCullough, Mary (
committee member
)
Creator Email
sbabiarz@sbcglobal.net,sbabiarz@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2064
Unique identifier
UC1413448
Identifier
etd-Babiarz-2722 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-213343 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2064 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Babiarz-2722.pdf
Dmrecord
213343
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Babiarz, Sarah Jean
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
parenting style
student achievement
teaching strategies