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
/
The relationship of teachers' parenting styles and Asian American students' reading motivation
(USC Thesis Other)
The relationship of teachers' parenting styles and Asian American students' reading motivation
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE RELATIONSHIP OF TEACHERS’ PARENTING STYLES AND
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENTS’ READING MOTIVATION
by
Alice Ra
____________________________________________________________
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 Alice Ra
ii
DEDICATION
To my students: past, present, and future.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to the many people who have shaped my life and helped me
along this journey. First, I wish to thank my dissertation committee. Dr. Ruth Chung,
for being my mentor and chair. I appreciate the continuous support you gave me
through my journey of developing as a researcher and educator. Thank you for your
encouragement and guidance. Dr. Michelle Riconscente for your endless feedback,
knowledge, and affirmation. Dr. Anne Jones for supporting me through the major
milestones of my educational career. I was truly blessed with an amazing group of
individuals who nurtured me as a student, researcher, and friend.
No words can ever express my endless gratitude for my family and friends.
Thank you dad, mom, and Richard for your unconditional love and support. My
hopes and dreams are able to become realities because of you all. Reuel, thank you
for walking alongside me on an often bumpy road, and for never letting go of my
hand. Thank you my friends, for your prayers and cheers. I love you all very much.
I would also like to acknowledge the members of my 2006 Thursday night
cohort, particularly Rebecca, Charles, Teresa, Jon, and Keith. Thank you for helping
me reach the end. I am also truly grateful to the teachers and students who
volunteered to participate in my study.
Most of all, I thank God for the incredible opportunity to develop as an
educator. Thank you Lord for giving strength to the weary and helping me soar.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ………………………………………………………………… ii
Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………. iii
List of Tables ……………………………………………………………... v
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………. vi
Abstract …………………………………………………………………... vii
Chapter 1: Introduction …………………………………………………... 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review ……………………………………………. 19
Chapter 3: Methodology ………………………………………………… 53
Chapter 4: Results ……………………………………………………….. 65
Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications ………………………………… 75
References ………………………………………………………………... 88
Appendices ……………………………………………………………….. 96
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Frequency Distribution of Teachers at Each Grade Level ………….. 55
Table 2: Frequency Distribution of Students by School ……………………… 55
Table 3: Frequency Distribution of Students by Ethnicity …………………… 56
Table 4: MRQ Dimensions and Reliability Data …………………………….. 60
Table 5: MRQ Dimensions Categorized According to Self-Regulation and
Self-Efficacy …………………………………………………………………. 61
Table 6: Correlations of the MRQ Motivations Scales ……………………… 66
Table 7: Correlations of the PAQ Parenting Scales …………………………. 67
Table 8: Mean and Standard Deviations of the MRQ Motivation Scales …… 68
Table 9: Range, Mean, and Standard Deviation of Teachers’
Parenting Styles ……………………………………………………………… 69
Table 10: Median Split and Frequency Distribution of Students According
to Teachers’ Parenting Styles ………………………………………………… 70
Table 11: Relations of Motivation and Teachers’ Parenting Style …………... 74
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Adapted Bronfenbrenner Ecological Model ………………………… 11
Figure 2: Parenting Styles Framework ………………………………………… 22
Figure 3: Adapted Eccles and Wigfield’s Expectancy-Value Model ………….. 45
vii
ABSTRACT
Diana Baumrind developed a parenting styles framework to examine adult-
control and the influences on child-rearing practices. Teachers and parents alike
contribute to children’s socialization and development. Teachers create learning
environments at school and parents shape socialization processes at home. This study
examined teachers through the lens of Baumrind’s parenting styles framework. It is
also an exploration of teachers’ parenting styles as they influence Asian American
students’ reading motivation. The motivational constructs of self-efficacy and self-
regulation were specifically examined since motivation is a variable that influences
academic achievement. Eighteen teachers and 107 Asian American students in
grades 4 and 5 from four Los Angeles County schools participated in the study.
Previous studies indicated that both authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles
are positively correlated to academic achievement in Asian Americans. Therefore,
this study hypothesized that authoritarian and authoritative teachers would promote
levels of reading self-efficacy and self-regulation for Asian American students.
Results reveal that students whose teachers demonstrated high levels of authoritarian
teaching behaviors have higher levels of reading self-efficacy than their peers.
1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was enacted in 2001 to set an
academic standard for the nation’s schools and bring all students to levels of
proficiency, particularly in English-Language Arts and Mathematics. As a result,
attention has been devoted to ascertaining which factors contribute to high academic
performance in both content areas. Because NCLB created an era that primarily
focuses on academic achievement, many schools and teachers feel pressured into
instructing for high results on standardized tests (Kim & Sunderman, 2005; Olson &
Sexton, 2009). Therefore, teachers focus their attention on the knowledge and skills
that such tests measure rather than creating classroom contexts that support student
learning and motivation (Hombo, 2003). Classrooms were once social arenas in
which conversation and relationships were built between teachers and students
(Osterman, 2000). However, the preoccupation with test scores can produce
classroom environments that hinder the development of such teacher-student
relationships. As a result, students become easily disengaged from school and
learning. This is problematic because such disengagement and lack of motivation can
lead to low levels of academic achievement, which is ironic given the primary goal
of NCLB.
A student’s academic achievement reflects factors both within and outside
the individual student. Relationships with parents are consistently intertwined with
students’ academic accomplishments (Wentzel, 2002). Studies indicated that social
2
and academic behaviors at school are related to supportive behaviors of parents
(Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, Dornbusch, 1994; Wentzel, 2002). Such
behaviors are characterized by consistent enforcement of fair behavior standards,
bidirectional communication, and encouragement of autonomy (Baumrind, 1991a).
Furthermore, a study that focused on teachers also described the teacher-student
relationship as having strong influences on student achievement, primarily through
social and academic adjustment (Pianta, 1992). Unlike family-school connections,
few studies have been conducted on how dimensions of teaching and the “parenting
styles” or teaching styles of teachers can create optimal developmental contexts for
students to thrive academically and socially (Wentzel, 2002).
Student motivation is a significant variable that influences academic
achievement (Broussard & Garrison, 2004). Student motivation is crucial to
achievement because it drives active engagement in academic tasks and persistence
towards meeting goals (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Learning is an effortful activity,
and the teacher-student relationship is a strong predictor of students’ effort and
engagement in school (Osterman, 2000). According to Stipek (2006), when students
have secure relationships with their teachers, they are more willing to engage in risks
that enhance learning. Such risks include asking for assistance when a concept is
confusing, tackling challenging problems, and persisting despite encountering
difficulties. Furthermore, students from urban schools report that when they believe
that a teacher cares about them, they are more willing to work towards academic
goals since they do not want to disappoint their teacher (Davidson & Phelan, 1999).
3
The issue of how teaching styles and teacher-student relationships impact
students’ academic achievement is important because it is often overlooked by
bureaucratic rules and regulations set by school districts, despite their implications
for students’ socialization and development. Educational acts such as NCLB do not
emphasize the role teachers have in creating a nurturing environment that parallels a
supportive home environment that is conducive for learning. Instead, there is an
expectation that teachers who properly implement the curriculum will produce
learning and academic achievement. However, it is necessary to understand how
teachers foster the mediating factors that impact student achievement.
One content area that NCLB focuses on is English-Language Arts. English-
Language Arts (ELA) is an elusive construct to examine since it involves several
multidimensional areas. First, it involves the notion of being literate. This includes
both reading and writing processes. Most of the research has focused on cognitive
aspects of reading and writing (Adams, 1990; Guthrie & Wigfield, 1997). However,
teaching students how to read relies on the students’ desire to read. Since reading is
an effortful activity that requires choice in engagement, cognition and motivation are
involved in the act of reading (Wigfield, 1997). For example, a child may need to
decide whether he is going to read or watch television. This involves the choice, or
desire to read. Motivation deals with the whys of a behavior: persistence, active
choice, and mental effort exerted towards a task. Strictly cognitive models cannot
explain why some children read while others do not. Similarly, cognitive models
cannot explain or predict academic achievement. Motivation and related
4
motivational constructs also need to be studied in order to understand academic
achievement.
In essence, parents and teachers serve analogous functions at school and
home. It is important to understand three distinct aspects of parenting that
characterize the socialization process of children. First, parents have expectations
and goals for their children. Second, parenting practices are used to help children
attain these goals. Third, parenting styles potentially determine the level of
socialization that occurs (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). While the goals of parenting
may be the same across cultures, the actual socialization process and parenting
practices tend to vary within ethnic groups (Wang & Phinney, 1998). Parenting
practices are generated based on parenting styles. However, the effects of parenting
style have different outcomes depending on ethnicity (Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling,
Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994).
This study was designed to explore the relationship of teachers’ parenting
styles and reading motivation of fourth and fifth grade Asian American students.
Teachers create classroom environments with distinct psychological and behavioral
structures that influence student engagement and learning. The parenting style
framework was used to assess teaching style and how it influences student
motivation, specifically self-efficacy and self-regulation, towards reading.
Background of the Problem
NCLB mandates that all students attain levels of proficiency in English-
Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics by the 2014. The rationale is that setting
5
high expectations and establishing measurable goals will improve student outcomes
in education. NCLB requires individual states to develop assessments in basic skills
to be given to all students in specific grades in order to receive federal funding for
schools. Positive and negative consequences resulted from the enactment of NCLB.
Students from struggling schools and school districts have demonstrated substantial
academic growth since 2001. However, many educators feel pressured into obtaining
academic growth by merely focusing on teaching the curriculum rather than creating
environments that maximize student engagement and learning (Kim & Sunderman,
2005; Hombo, 2003). ELA programs such as Open Court Reading have been highly
criticized by teachers as being too scripted and regimented (Olson & Sexton, 2009).
Additionally, in districts such as the Los Angeles Unified School District, ELA
instruction must take place during designated times for two and two-and-a-half hour
blocks. Teachers often feel restricted, resulting in poor teaching practices (Hombo,
2003).
Teacher Influence on Reading Motivation
Reading motivation varies across classroom contexts. Guthrie and Wigfield
(1997) stated that motivation is not simply a characteristic of the learner; rather, the
learner’s setting influences it. Aspects such as teacher beliefs and classroom
variables are crucial to understanding student motivation. Research documents that
characteristics of classroom environments impact student motivation
(Bronfenbrenner, 1976; Ryan & Patrick, 2001). Specifically, research focused on
teachers’ practices that promote positive social environments, which in turn enhance
6
or undermine students’ motivation and engagement. Moreover, students’ intrinsic
value for school is positively correlated to a sense of relatedness or belongingness at
school (Goodenow, 1993). Other research found that social interaction in cooperative
learning groups and social interaction within the classroom increases efficacy and
value towards both mathematics and reading (Guthrie et al., 1995; Nichols & Miller,
1994). Despite such research, limited attention has been placed on the roles that
teachers play in creating such classroom environments. Therefore, it is necessary to
understand the characteristics of effective teachers and their relationship to student
motivation.
Teachers significantly influence students’ academic and personal successes in
school (Ruddell & Unrau, 1997). They are responsible for creating classroom
contexts that facilitate the learning process. According to Ruddell and Unrau (1997)
influential teachers share several characteristics including:
• Show that they care about their students.
• Help their students to understand and solve their personal and academic
problems.
• Manifest excitement and enthusiasm about what they teach.
• Adapt instruction to the individual needs, motives, interests, and aptitudes
of their students and have high expectations for them.
• Use motivating and effective strategies when they teach.
• Engage students in a process of intellectual discovery.
7
High-achieving students, some of who are more motivated towards learning,
have twice as many influential teachers as lower achieving students (Ruddell &
Unrau, 1997). Such teachers emphasize intrinsic over extrinsic motivation and elicit
students’ internal motivation by exploring students’ autonomy and self-
understanding in addition to stimulating intellectual curiosity.
Asian Culture
Asian culture has largely evolved from Confucian beliefs. These beliefs
assert that there is a social order that should be maintained through roles and
responsibilities within a family. Thus, Asian family relationships are hierarchical and
require subordinate members to remain loyal and respectful of senior members
(Chao, 1994). In turn, senior members are expected to teach and discipline
subordinate members towards a standard code of conduct that value both a larger
society and elders (parents). These cultural expectations contribute to identifying
Asian parents as “restrictive” and “controlling” (Chiu, 1987).
It is important to note that there are group differences between Asian
American ethnicities, such as Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Filipinos, and
Vietnamese. These ethnic groups differ from one another in several ways,
particularly in their history of immigration, levels of acculturation, and
socioeconomic status (Santrock, 1996). More specifically, while Chinese, Japanese,
Koreans, Filipinos, and Vietnamese are all classified as Asian Americans, each
ethnic group has distinct cultures and patterns of immigration, in addition to diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds in their native countries as well as in the United States
8
(Santrock, 1996). Therefore, due to their diverse backgrounds, Asian Americans
should not be stereotyped as a single category. However, rarely does empirical
research conduct separate analyses of the various Asian American groups (Uba,
1994). The present study thus classified Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Filipinos, and
Vietnamese under Asian Americans based of their shared Confucian cultures.
Academic Achievement of Asian Americans
Research has noted that Asian American students academically outperform
their non-Asian peers (Eaton & Dembo, 1997; Sue & Okazaki, 1990; Wang &
Phinney, 1998). Several researchers attempted to determine specific factors that
cause such differential performances. Ogbu (1983) and Steinberg et al. (1992)
controlled for such factors as socioeconomic status as differential causes of academic
performance. However, researchers have not reached a complete consensus on
specific reasons for how Asian American students continue to outperform their non-
Asian counterparts. Previous research also indicated that Asian Americans attribute
their academic achievement primarily to effort over ability (Eaton & Dembo, 1997).
In other words, Asian Americans attribute higher academic achievement to an
internal and controllable source, their effort towards academic tasks. Thus, academic
success influences parental expectations. For example, Stevenson et al. (1991) found
that Asian American mothers had higher academic expectations than non-Asian
American mothers. The home environment and parental expectations were
associated to Asian American students’ academic goals and achievement.
9
Influences on Academic Achievement of Asian Americans
Although several studies have attempted to examine how parenting styles
influence the academic achievement of Asian American students, few studies have
addressed how Asian American students respond to teaching styles inconsistent with
those experienced in their home environments, which are primarily authoritarian
(Wang & Phinney, 1998). Baumrind suggested that authoritative parenting leads to
the most desirable outcomes, both socially and academically. Consequently, Asian
American students continue to attain high levels of academic success having been
raised in authoritative homes (Dornbusch et al., 1987; Wang & Phinney, 1998).
Theoretical Frameworks Used in Study
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model
Bronfenbrenner’s model provides a contextual setting to clarify how a
student is influenced by surrounding influences such as parents, teachers, and
culture. Bronfenbrenner (1976) created an ecological model that depicts how there is
a mutual accommodation between the growing human being and changing properties
of the immediate settings in which the developing person resides. He claimed that
the process is affected by relations between immediate settings and by the large
contexts in which the settings are imbedded.
Bronfenbrenner’s original nested systems model includes five levels: the
individual, microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem (chronosystem
was later added to his model). According to Bronfenbrenner, the individual is at the
core of the nested system. Traits such as gender, age, and race characterize the
10
individual within the core level. The second level, the microsystem, includes direct
interactions with social agents such as parents, teachers, and peers. The third level, or
the mesosystem, includes linkages and processes that take place between the
microsystem, in which events influence processes within the setting in which the
individual lives. This includes the home and school environments. The fourth level,
the exosystem, involves interactions between systems that include school districts
and the state standards set by the districts for academic achievement. Finally, the
macrosystem is the overarching system that characterizes the culture and social
interchanges of all the systems. When examining educational systems, this is a
parallel construct to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This study examined the
relationship between parenting styles of teachers and the relationship to reading
motivation among Asian American students. Bronfenbrenner’s nested systems model
shows how the surrounding environment such as culture, environment, parents, and
teachers all interact to influence the individual.
11
Figure 1
Adapted Bronfenbrenner Ecological Model
12
Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory describes how people develop knowledge through
their interactions and observations of others and the environment. According to
Bandura (1986), human behavior depends on reciprocal interactions between three
factors: thoughts and beliefs, behaviors, and the environment. Bandura (1986, 1997)
noted that self-efficacy for performing an action is sustained through expectations
and anticipations of success. In the education arena, research shows students’ levels
of self-efficacy beliefs influence behaviors such as choice of tasks, effort,
persistence, and achievement (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997). In turn, students’
behaviors can impact efficacy beliefs. For example, when a child engages in a
reading task, s/he may have the ability to evaluate their progress towards the learning
goals, such as understanding content vocabulary. If the child does not understand the
vocabulary, S/he may develop the perception of limited comprehension. However, if
the child is able to fully read and comprehend the text, the one goal is met, which can
convey that S/he is capable of reading well. This in turn enhances perceived self-
efficacy for continued learning since the individual experienced a successful
outcome.
Questions most directly related to achievement are, “ Can I succeed?” and
“Do I want to succeed and why?” Success is the focal point of self-efficacy. It deals
with individuals’ beliefs regarding abilities and expectancies about being able to
accomplish tasks. Bandura (1997) proposed that self-efficacy related expectations
are major determinants of activity choice, willingness to expend mental effort, and
13
persistence. When they think they are able accomplish a task, people are more likely
to engage in it. Similarly, students who believe they are competent and efficacious in
various content areas are more likely to engage and complete the activity. Training
students to be more efficacious therefore improves their achievement in subject areas
such as reading and mathematics (Wigfield, 1997).
Additionally, social cognitive theory has been applied to self-regulation, or
the process by which individuals sustain behavior towards a goal or task.
Specifically, it relates to the degree to which behaviors are self-initiated and
controlled (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). Goal setting and self-evaluation are critical
aspects of self-regulation. Goals motivate students to exert effort and to persist, in
addition to helping them focus on important task features. Self-evaluation assists
students with determining their capabilities and progress in skill acquisition (Schunk
& Zimmerman, 1997). Students who evaluate their own work are able to persist
longer, work harder, and are likely to seek assistance from teachers or peers if
needed. Furthermore, self-evaluation allows the student to progress and make
adjustments to his performance in order to attain his goals (Zimmerman, Bandura, &
Martinez-Puns, 1992).
Expectancy-Value Theory
Expectancy-value theory asserts that motivation primarily results from
individuals’ beliefs about the likely outcomes of their actions and the value they
place on those outcomes (Pajares, 1996; Rotter, 1982). According to Pajares (1996),
individuals are motivated to engage in tasks when they value the outcome expected.
14
Furthermore, individuals who expect success in particular tasks are more confident
and willing to engage in these behaviors.
Eccles and Wigfield (2002) elaborated on Atkinson’s (1964) expectancy-
value model to incorporate elements of achievement-related choices. They defined
expectancies for success as an individual’s immediate or long-term beliefs about how
well they will do on an upcoming task. There expectancies beliefs are analogous to
measures of Bandura’s (1997) personal efficacy expectations. However, Bandura’s
expectancy-value theories focus on outcome expectations while Eccles and
Wigfield’s model focus on personal or efficacy expectations.
Bandura (1986) argued that people’s beliefs in their potential
accomplishments greatly alter their outcome beliefs. However, it is important to note
that outcome expectations are independent of individuals’ perceptions of their own
competence (Pajares, 1996). For example, an individual may be highly efficacious in
math yet still have little value in how such skills will enhance his/her future success
in life (outcome belief). Therefore, the individual may choose not to engage in
higher-level math courses since there is a mismatch between the individual’s beliefs
and expected outcomes. Thus high self-efficacy and negative outcome expectations
are simultaneously possible.
Parenting Style
Parenting style is a pattern of attitudes that parents express towards their
children. It involves a socialization process in addition to the context in which
socialization takes place (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Diana Baumrind (1971)
15
identified three patterns of parenting authority: authoritative, authoritarian, and
permissive parenting. In general, research tends to hold authoritative parenting as the
most desirable and effective form of parenting (Baumrind, 1991a; Wentzel, 2003).
Traditionally, research has indicated that authoritative parenting is more
effective in fostering positive outcomes, and is therefore the parenting style of good
parents (Baumrind, 1971, 1991a). However, much of this research focuses on
Western cultures rather than ethnic minorities (Chao, 1994). According to Baumrind
(1991a), there is a gap in research that studies the parenting styles of ethnic groups,
especially Asian Americans. Chao (1994) conducted a study that identified
authoritarian parenting as the predominant Chinese parenting style. This
identification can be generalized to Korean, Japanese, and Vietnamese parenting
since there are commonalities (i.e. values around Confucian principles) between
these ethnic groups. Chao determined that the authoritarian concept has evolved
from a Western culture and psychology, largely rooted in evangelical and Puritan
religious beliefs. Therefore, she argued that scoring high on measures of
authoritarian parenting does not have the same meaning for Asian and European-
Americans since their socialization processes at home are different.
Since Western practices are prevalent in American schools, there is a
contradiction between the parenting styles of teachers and parents of Asian American
students. At home, Asian American students tend to experience characteristics of
authoritarian parenting (Wang & Phinney, 1998). However, once at school, effective
teachers demonstrate practices of authoritative parenting (Wentzel, 2002). Research
16
supports that Asian American students positively perceive both authoritarian and
authoritative parent behaviors (Chao, 1994; Eaton & Dembo, 1997). Despite such
findings, there may be a discrepancy between the types of parenting Asian
Americans receive at home and in the classroom.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the applicability of Baumrind’s
parenting styles on teachers and to the reading motivational outcomes of Asian
Americans. More specifically, this study examined whether a relationship exists
between teachers’ parenting styles and reading self-efficacy and self-regulation of
Asian American fourth and fifth grade students. The parenting styles of teachers
were explored as a way to understand the characteristics of effective and influential
teachers. Baumrind’s (1971, 1991a) dimensions of parenting provided the main
theoretical framework for the independent variables of this study. In particular,
Baumrind’s parenting model defined the characteristics of effective teachers and
pedagogical caring. Effective teachers possess characteristics of good parents
(Wentzel, 2002), which promote student motivation towards reading.
This study examined whether parenting styles of teachers predict reading
motivation. Specifically, fourth and fifth grade Asian American students were
examined since Asian Americans tend to experience significantly different parenting
styles at home from than the characteristics of effective teachers in the classroom.
The study focuses on a motivational approach since motivation determines whether
students choose to engage in various activities (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997).
17
Bandura’s social cognitive theory and Eccles and Wigfield’s expectancy-value
model served as the overarching theoretical foundation of student motivation for this
study, which includes self-efficacy and self-regulated behaviors (goals and values).
The student participants were selected from grades four and five since motivation
typically decreases from childhood to preadolescence (Eccles et al., 1998; Wigfield
et al., 1998; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Moreover, researchers have found
statistically significant differences between fourth and fifth graders favoring fourth
graders in the motivational areas of self-efficacy, recognition, and social (Wigfield &
Guthrie, 1997).
Overview of the Study
The remaining chapters are organized in the following manner: Chapter 2
examines the current research on reading motivation and parenting styles, including
the impact of parenting styles on Asian American students. The role of parenting
styles and academic achievement is discussed, specifically looking at the
motivational constructs that are associated with successful outcomes. The role of
pedagogical caring is also discussed as an important factor in student achievement
and motivation. Chapter 3 describes the methodology utilized for this study,
including the demographics of the teachers and student participants, instruments,
procedures for data collection, and the research design used to analyze the data.
Chapter 4 examines the results of the study, including correlations between variables
and significant findings. Chapter 5 discusses the results, limitations, implications and
future directions for both researchers and practitioners who are interested in
18
understanding the relationship between parenting styles and reading motivation of
Asian American students.
19
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
The following review of literature examines teachers through the lens of the
parenting styles framework and the relationship to Asian American students’ reading
motivation. Literature is provided on the primary independent variable used in this
study, which include Baumrind’s (1971) parenting styles. Teacher care and
pedagogical caring were also included as related factors to teachers’ parenting styles.
Additionally, Eccles and Wigfield’s (2002) expectancy-value model of achievement,
Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory and the self-efficacy component and
Zimmerman’s (2005) self-regulation model are also reviewed as a way to understand
reading motivation as it relates to teachers’ parenting styles. Research associated
with motivational constructs was limited to academic achievement and reading in
addition to specific studies that examined Asian Americans.
Parenting Styles
Parenting styles is defined as “typologies characterized by responsiveness
and demandingness” while parenting practices are actions such as helping with
homework, attending school functions, and monitoring after school activities (Spera,
2005). Oftentimes parenting styles and parenting practices are used interchangeably.
Darling and Steinberg (1993) were the first to note that it is important to distinguish
between parenting styles and practices since they impact students’ outcomes in
specific ways. The researchers defined parenting practices as specific behaviors that
aid in the socialization of children. For example, parents socialize children to
20
succeed in school by enacting practices such as reading and doing homework with
their children. Contrastingly, Darling and Steinberg defined parenting style as an
emotional climate in which children are raised by their parents. Dimensions of
parental responsiveness and demandingness have been used to characterize parenting
styles (Baumrind, 1971).
Baumrind’s Framework
Development of the theoretical model can be contributed Diana Baumrind
(1968, 1971, 1991a). In Baumrind’s original study (1967), research was extensively
conducted on parents of preschool children in Berkeley and Oakland, California. Her
participants were primarily Caucasian and from middle-class, well-educated
families. She wanted to analyze parenting styles and characteristics as a way to
identify how to maximize children and adolescents’ competence. During the study,
Baumrind used multiple measures to examine parenting styles, including
observations and interviews. Through her studies Baumrind identified three distinct
parenting styles: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive.
Baumrind (1971) attempted to replicate and modify her 1967 study. The
original objective of her study was to compare and differentiate patterns of parental
authority to understand the effects on behavior of nursery school students who
differed in social and emotional behavior. Baumrind discovered that preschool
students with authoritative parents were more independent, mature, and
achievement-oriented than children of nonauthoritative parents. Contrastingly,
preschool children of permissive parents scored low on measures of competence,
21
self-control, and self-reliance. Baumrind further examined the relationship between
parenting styles and school achievement during adolescence to examine whether her
previous findings were stable over time. She found that parenting styles and their
relationship to academic achievement were similar with the earlier preschool
findings.
Baumrind’s parenting typology has been widely accepted because she took a
longitudinal approach using multiple methods of data collection. Her studies resulted
in a conceptual framework for understanding the impacts of parenting styles on child
development for nearly 40 years. One limitation of her research was her restricted
sample size. The sample was relatively small consisting of ethnically homogenous
subjects, middle-class Caucasian families. Despite this limitation, Baumrind’s
parenting model has yielded predominantly consistent results.
Maccoby and Martin (1983) furthered specified parenting styles by using two
dimensions of parental behaviors, responsiveness and demandingness (Walker, 2008;
Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Warmth and encouragement characterize the dimension
of responsiveness while high expectations, standards, and the supervision of their
children’s activities represent the construct of demandingness.
22
Figure 2
Parenting Styles Framework
The following section describes each dimension of Baumrind’s parenting
model. Additionally, this section reviews literature that defines characteristics of
effective teachers and how they resemble qualities of a good parent.
Authoritative Parenting
Several research studies have determined a positive relationship between
authoritative parenting styles and student achievement (Baumrind, 1971; Steinberg et
al. 1994). Baumrind described authoritative parents as being warm and responsive.
Authoritative parents nurture their children with affection and provide support in
their explorations and interests. They have high maturity demands and expectations
of achievement for their children, and encourage these maturity demands through
bidirectional communication, encouragement of independence, and explanations of
their behavior. More specifically, when socializing their children, authoritative
23
parents might provide their children with explanations and a rationale for their
actions. For example, an authoritative parent will communicate the notion of doing
well in school by explaining that it will provide more opportunities to succeed as an
adult. Authoritative parents score high on measures of warmth and responsiveness
and of control and maturity demands (Spera, 2005). Children from authoritative
homes were found to be the most competent children in behavioral and psychosocial
dimensions when compared to children from authoritarian and permissive parents
(Baumrind, 1971).
Authoritative parenting has been described as the most optimal model of
parenting but there are variations between ethnic groups. It is associated with higher
school performance in European and Hispanic American adolescents than among
Asian and African American adolescents (Chao, 1994; Steinberg et al., 1991).
Authoritarian Parenting
Baumrind described authoritarian parents as being neither warm nor
responsive to their children. Similar to authoritative parents, authoritarian parents
have high maturity demands for their children. However, such demands primarily
result from intolerance towards selfish or inappropriate behavior. Authoritarian
parents are characterized as strict disciplinarians who expect obedience and assert
power and control when their children misbehave. They express their maturity
demands and expectations to their children through rules and order, and do not
communicate the rationale behind such rules. For example, authoritarian parents
might express their demands of doing well in school by stating the reasoning of
24
“because I said so.” Therefore, they are reluctant in encouraging verbal interactions
with their children. Authoritarian parents score high on measures of control and
maturity demands but low on measures of warmth, responsiveness, and bidirectional
communication. Children from authoritarian families tend to have difficulties
communicating with their peers. However, they seem to function at higher cognitive
levels than children from permissive homes.
Permissive Parenting
Baumrind described permissive parenting as a third parenting typology.
Permissive parents range between high and low in the how they respond to their
children’s needs. These parents are excessively lax in their expectations, both
towards their children’s maturity levels and misbehavior. Socialization between
permissive parents and their children is typically one of dismissiveness and
unconcern. Permissive parents score moderately high on measures of responsiveness
but low on measures of maturity demands and control. Maccoby and Martin (1983)
added indulgent parenting as a fourth dimension to Baumrind’s parenting typology
(Spera, 2005). Indulgent parents display similar characteristics to permissive parents
with one major exception. Indulgent parents tend to score low on measures of
responsiveness, warmth, and control.
Permissive parents make few demands on their children and believe that their
children are able to self-regulate their behaviors. However, children from permissive
homes do not learn how to self-regulate their own behaviors since their parents do no
provide the necessary guidance. Comparative to children from authoritative and
25
authoritarian homes, children raised by permissive parents seem to lack self-reliance
and self-control.
Application of Baumrind’s Framework to Asian Americans
Previous research indicated that most minority parents are characterized as
authoritarian (Chao, 1994; Dornbusch et al., 1987). Furthermore, Asian American
parents typically score high on indices of parental control, which are characteristics
of authoritarian parents. Authoritarian parents typically apply absolute standards for
conduct and behavior as a way to control and evaluate the behaviors and attitudes of
their children (Baumrind, 1971). Baumrind indicated that such parenting behaviors
are ineffective and result in reduced classroom efficiency. However, Chao (1994)
suggested that there is a paradox in the literature when examining Chinese parenting.
Most Chinese parents score high on authoritarian scales. However, contrary to
Baumrind’s description, Asian Americans perform well in school. A study conducted
by Dornbusch and colleagues (1987) concluded that Baumrind’s traditional styles of
parenting cannot explain the academic success that Asian students have had in the
public schools.
Baumrind (1991) acknowledged that parenting styles may differentially
impact various racial and ethnic groups. Park and Bauer (2002) and Steinberg et al.
(1994) also noted that authoritative parenting and academic achievement are only
correlated with Caucasian students. Furthermore, Chao (1994) argued that the
concepts of authoritative and authoritarian parenting practices do not express salient
features of child rearing in Asian American families. For example, Asian cultures
26
value Confucian doctrines of filial piety, which emphasizes that children should
unquestionably obey and respect authority, and fulfill parental expectations (Wang &
Phinney, 1998). Despite demonstrating high levels of control, Asian parents
encourage their children to be independent and self-reliant (Wang & Phinney, 1998).
Chao (1994) also noted that authoritarian parenting often helps children achieve
specific aspirations that are highly valued in Asian culture, such as education.
Furthermore, Lau and Cheung (1987) also noted that authoritarian parenting
practices, such as parental obedience and aspects of strictness, are perceived as
concern, care, and involvement in Asian homes. Thus the application of Baumrind’s
parenting framework to the development outcomes of Asian Americans yielded
inconclusive results.
It is important to note that in the last decade, there has been some debate
surrounding the dominant Asian parenting style. Wang and Phinney (1998) noted
that authoritarian parenting is the most widely used parenting style within Asian
American homes. However, more recent studies indicated that authoritative
parenting is becoming more commonplace, resulting from an increased exposure to
Western culture (Kim & Chung, 2003). Furthermore, in the same study authoritative
parenting was highly associated with higher academic competence and morality,
while authoritarian parenting was significantly correlated with lower self-reliance.
In summary, Asian American parents are generally characterized as being
highly demanding and inadequate in demonstrating levels of warmth and nurturance.
Thus, most Asian American parents are classified as authoritarian. Furthermore,
27
authoritarian parenting has also been deemed as undermining the development of
positive self-concepts, thereby reducing the ability for children to develop high
levels of self-efficacy. However, there seems to be a discrepancy in the applicability
of Baumrind’s parenting typology to cultures that are considered collectivist
(Sorkhabi, 2005). Despite demonstrating high levels of control, Asian parents
encourage their children to achieve specific aspirations that are highly valued in
Asian culture, such as academic achievement. The next section describes how
teachers influence the development of motivational outcomes through similar indices
utilized in the parenting style framework.
Pedagogical Caring and Parenting Styles of Teachers
This section addresses the major issues associated with pedagogical caring.
Since there is a limited amount of literature related to pedagogical caring, teacher
caring will also be examined as a way to intertwine such characteristics with
parenting styles. A brief overview of teacher care is followed by a discussion of
teacher beliefs on caring, teacher-student relationships, and pedagogical caring.
Teacher Care
Milton Mayerhoff (1971) was one of the first researchers to address caring in
schools. He noted that in the school setting, the teachers assist students to achieve.
The teacher recognizes the value of each student and helps that individual to develop
throughout the year. Mayeroff emphasized that a care giver (teacher) must recognize
the value of the cared-for (student) by listening, being attentive, and responding to a
given individual. Furthermore, he listed several significant factors for caring which
28
focus on the needs of the cared-for (student). Such needs include patience, honesty,
trust, hope, and courage. Caring requires involvement with the one being cared-for,
being present with the person in his or her world. This would include a teacher
remembering the joys and challenges of being a student. Finally, Mayeroff suggested
that there is a reciprocal relationship between the care giver (teacher) and the cared-
for (student). This relationship relies on the notion that the care giver is selfless in his
or her role.
Nel Noddings (1984) built on Mayeroff’s reciprocal nature of caring and
recommended that schools be redesigned to incorporate elements of caring at every
age level. While Mayeroff focused on the selflessness of the caregiver, Noddings
attempted to understand the actions of the teacher. Nodding indicated that caring is
something that teachers do. She suggested that care requires teachers to see the world
from a student’s lens. Students feel validated, accepted, and loved when they believe
that a teacher cares from them.
Teachers’ Beliefs on Caring
Empirical research that describes teachers’ beliefs about caring utilizes
research findings for effective teachers treating students equitably. Pajares and
Graham (1998) conducted a study to find positive ways to teach students to achieve
their maximum potential, both developmentally and academically. Traditionally, it
was believed that teachers needed to treat all students equally. However, Pajares and
Graham argued that this ideology has been often misinterpreted and misapplied, and
has resulted in a one-size-fits-all approach to education that does not serve all
29
students. While treating all students equally was founded on the idea of
strengthening students’ self-confidence and self-esteem, it did not account for the
fact that applying such a principle without modifications can interfere with
effectively reaching all students. Pajares and Graham wanted to examine this
phenomenon in further detail. They interviewed 27 middle school language art
teachers and asked them how they would respond to students’ poems. Most of the
teachers were primarily concerned with students’ self-esteem, and therefore
attempted to project the students in a positive manner regardless of the academic
value of the poems. Only three teachers considered the students’ needs of receiving
accurate feedback. Pajares and Graham then asked 216 eighth grade students to write
about how they wanted their teachers to respond to their poems. Very few students
wrote about how they wanted their poems to be praised. Most students wanted their
teachers to accurately asses the poems, considering the individual needs of the
students. They further noted that they wanted reciprocal conversations focusing on
the merits of the poem and how to write poetry well.
Equality is an elusive construct for teachers because they want to address the
same material equally with all students. However, all students are unique with
specific needs. Therefore, teachers need to consider each child in planning effective
instructional strategies and practices.
The literature on teachers’ beliefs on caring also addresses the use of power
in positive and negative ways. Diero (2003) studied six middle school teachers in an
attempt to examine their caring relationships with their students. She found that
30
teachers who exemplified their power through positive attitudes towards students
demonstrated higher levels of care. Contrastingly, teachers who use their power in
negative ways withheld care until students behaved in appropriate ways. In such
cases, the care giver (teacher) exploited the cared-for by creating care dependent on
extrinsic rewards such as candy for completing homework. The goal became candy
rather than corrective behavior.
Since literature on caring is intertwined with identifying individual needs,
teachers are urged to become aware of student diversity and respond to them
appropriately. Students indicated the desire to feel included and expect teachers to be
understanding of their individual needs. This is similar to how parents care for their
children. Parents are unable to treat their children exactly the same. Instead, parents
typically understand that children are individuals and need to be addressed according
to their personal needs.
Pedagogical Caring
The teacher-student relationship, especially in primary grades, can influence
feelings of motivation and self-worth (Pianta & Steinberg, 1992). Wentzel (2003)
studied motivation and students’ perspectives of schooling and determined that a
caring teacher was critical for students to be motivated to learn. She created a model
based on Nodding’s (1992) work, which suggested aspects of a caring teacher. Such
behaviors include: (a) a demonstration of caring behaviors, (b) establishment of
dialogues for common understanding, (c) provision of positive encouragement and
feedback, and (d) creation of opportunities for students to care for one another.
31
In 1997, Wentzel conducted a study that explored the relationship between
teacher and students. She sampled 248 six through eighth grade students in a mid-
Atlantic suburb. Ninety-two percent of the students were Caucasian. Wentzel
examined students’ perceptions of pedagogical caring as they related to motivation
for positive social and academic achievement. The measurement instruments
included published inventories and student generated data. The inventories included
the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory, which measured psychological distress, and
the Multidimensional Measure of Children’s Perceptions of Control. Wentzel
measured the pursuit of social goals and academic effort through questionnaires.
Students were asked to rate their peers for irresponsible behaviors and nominate
peers for pro-social behavior. The students were then asked to list and explain
characteristics that define a caring teacher. Wentzel found that students valued
reciprocal communications in addition to teacher practices such as making classes
interesting and basing achievement expectations on individual strengths rather than
on generalizations. Additionally, nurturance through actions such as praising the
student and checking student work was also addressed as practices of a caring
teacher.
Wentzel (2002) conducted a follow-up study that targeted whether effective
teachers share the same characteristics of good parents. Her study examined the
utility of Baumrind’s (1991) parent socialization models for understanding teachers’
impact on student adjustment in sixth grade students. The teachers were assessed on
Baumrind’s parenting dimensions of control, maturity demands, democratic
32
communication, and nurturance in addition to their modeling of motivation. Her
studies were founded on the notion that supportive parenting is characterized by
“consistent enforcement of fair standards for behavior, encouragement of
bidirectional communication and valuing adolescents’ options, expectations for self-
reliant and mature behavior, and concern for emotional well-being” (Wentzel, 2002).
Since teacher-student relationships have obvious influences on academic and
motivational outcomes, it is possible to infer that positive outcomes would result
from relationships similar to supportive parent-child relationships. Therefore, one
would expect that effective teachers would embody the same characteristics as good
parents. Since effective parenting in Western culture tends to be associated with
authoritative parenting behaviors, the same assumptions are placed on effective
teachers. However, as described earlier, Baumrind’s parenting typology may not be
generalizable to cultures that are considered collectivist, such as Asian cultures
(Sorkhabi, 2004; Chao, 2001). Thus, Asian American students may respond
differently to authoritative teachers than their Caucasian peers.
Wentzel noted that few studies of teachers and students have been examined
using models of socialization such as Baumrind’s parenting model. Additionally,
limited research has been conducted on specific characteristics of teaching that
potentially develop positive motivational outcomes using a socialization model. She
claims that there is significant relevance for using socialization models for
understanding teacher practices and adolescent school adjustment. Wentzel’s study
mainly focused on the relationships between middle school teachers and European
33
American adolescent students. As a result, her study is limited in understanding if
effective teachers, as characterized through Baumrind’s parenting model, influence
reading motivation in ethnic minority groups.
Parenting Styles of Teachers
There is a single study that specifically examined teacher practices through
Baumrind’s parenting style framework. Walker (2008) used the parenting style
framework to explain the influence of teacher practices on student outcomes. Her
research focused on fifth grade teachers and their students in mathematics. Similar to
previous research findings (Baumrind, 1971; Steinberg et al. 1994), Walker
determined that the most academically and socially competent students were those
who came from authoritative teachers. Walker also found that students from
authoritarian teachers were disengaged and had lower levels of ability beliefs. These
results may not be generalizable to a larger population, especially Asian Americans
since Walker’s study had a small sample of three teachers and 45 students.
Furthermore, all student participants were Caucasian. However, her study was able
to utilize Baumrind’s parenting style framework to examine teachers’ classroom
management and support within the categories of demandingness and
responsiveness, thereby creating a parallel between parenting and teaching styles.
Since limited empirical research exists on parenting styles of teachers, this
study utilizes Walker’s research as a informal platform to examine the relationship of
teachers’ parenting styles to Asian American fourth and fifth grade students’ reading
motivation.
34
Motivation Theories Related to Achievement and Reading
Students’ motivation for learning is often regarded as a critical determinant of
successful learning outcomes (Broussard & Garrison, 2004). Thus, motivation may
have significant implications for school success. There is a limited amount of
empirical research that discusses classroom motivation and academic achievement of
elementary school-aged children. Studies conducted by Fortier, Vallerand, and Guay
(1995) and Niebuhr both examined high school students and reported contradictory
findings. Fortier and colleagues found significant results that support the relationship
between motivation and academic achievement. However, Neibuhr reported that
student motivation had no significant relationship with academic achievement.
However, a later study conducted by Golderg and Cornell (1998) found a positive
relationship between motivation and academic achievement in 900 second and third
grade students spanning across 10 states.
Even less is known about motivation of children from diverse racial and
ethnic backgrounds. Eaton and Dembo (1997) conducted a study that explored the
differences in motivational beliefs between Asian American and non-Asian
American students. They wanted to determine whether motivational beliefs predicted
the achievement motivation of Asian American and non-Asian students. Eaton and
Dembo further explored whether culturally influenced self-efficacy belief explained
achievement motivation for Asian American students. Fear of failure combined with
the belief of importance of effort. Fear of failure can be potentially linked to type of
parenting style. Authoritarian parents place an emphasis on success through threats
35
such as, “You must get an A or else.” One major implication of the study was that
motivational beliefs generate different responses in various cultural-ethnic groups.
Similarly, in a study about mathematics achievement, Whang and Hancock (1994)
asserted that Chinese Americans attribute their academic success to trying hard and
failures to lack of effort. However, their Caucasian peers explained their academic
failures through a mixture of luck, ability, and effort.
Despite some contradictory findings, it appears that motivation is an
influential variable on academic achievement. Students who are motivated are more
likely to demonstrate higher levels of academic success. While little is known about
the motivation of racially and ethnically diverse elementary aged children, a few
studies noted that Asian Americans attribute positive academic outcomes to effort
and motivation (Eaton & Dembo, 1997; Whang & Hancock, 1994).
Self-Efficacy
Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory identifies the importance of social
influences on behavior of individuals. People develop knowledge and beliefs by
observing others (i.e. models). Social cognitive theory also describes the role
motivation plays in influencing behavior. Self-efficacy, or an individual’s perceived
ability to perform actions at specific levels, is a fundamental component that
influences motivation. Self-efficacy influences an individual’s choice of activities,
effort, and persistence (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). According to social
cognitive theory, people with high levels of self-efficacy are more likely to engage in
a task since they believe in their ability to successfully participate in it. Belief in
36
personal ability to successfully approach and accomplish a task can therefore be a
motivating factor that facilitates engagement in reading tasks.
Many researchers who are interested in motivation examine students’ sense
of efficacy and beliefs about their ability (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Wigfield &
Guthrie, 1997; Bandura, 1986). Children’s ability beliefs serve as evaluations of their
competence. Bandura (1986) defined self-efficacy as one’s perceived capabilities for
learning or performing a specific task. It is a critical motivational component that
affects whether individuals approach a task in addition to the amount of effort and
persistence that is put forth towards the task. Individuals differ in levels of self-
efficacy based on personal factors, prior experiences, and social support (Schunk,
Pintrich, & Meece, 2008).
Early conceptualization of self-efficacy can be linked to Rotter’s (1966) locus
of control theory. A locus of control refers to an individual’s attributions concerning
where control for future events reside. According to Rotter, the locus of control is
divided into two distinct sources of control: internal and external. People with an
internal locus of control believe that experiences are determined by personal efforts
and skill. Contrastingly, people who posses an external locus of control usually
attribute their experiences to chance or luck.
Research indicates that self-efficacy also affects active choice of task, effort,
and persistence (Bandura, 1997; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Self-efficacy within a
reading task is associated with choosing to engage in the task and using self-
regulation strategies. Wigfield (1997) found that when children believe they are
37
competent and efficacious in reading, they are more likely to engage in reading tasks
and activities. Similarly, Schunk and Zimmerman (1997) showed that children’s
sense of efficacy relates to academic performance. They proposed that training
students to increase their sense of efficacy improves students’ achievement in
various subject areas such as math and reading. Thus, children are likely to be
motivated towards reading if successful outcomes are probable.
In summary, self-efficacy is associated with whether an individual chooses to
engage in a task. Students who demonstrate high levels of self-efficacy are more
likely to participate in activities that facilitate academic growth and ultimately
achievement. Additionally, when students are efficacious in content areas such as
reading, they demonstrate higher levels of motivation towards reading tasks such as
reading outside of school for pleasure. Other motivational constructs such as self-
regulation also influence whether a student is likely to engage in reading. Next, self-
regulation and its role in reading motivation will be discussed.
Self-Regulation
This study primarily focuses on students’ ability to set goals, self-monitor
and evaluate their reading behaviors. Therefore, the following section limits the
description of self-regulation to encompass such processes.
Social cognitive theorists describe self-regulation as “self-initiated personal,
behavioral, and environmental processes designed to attain personal goals cyclically”
(Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005). Zimmerman and Kitsantas further defined self-
regulation as the degree to which the student is metacognitively, motivationally, and
38
behaviorally an active participant in his/her learning process. Persistence in reading
would require proficiency in self-regulation. Moreover, self-regulation has a key role
in supporting readers to coordinate their strategies and knowledge in order to meet
personal goals.
Every student has some sense of self-regulation, which varies depending on
personal beliefs and will power (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005). Regular
adjustments are necessary during the course of learning and performance since
personal, behavioral, and environmental factors are constantly changing. An
individual monitors his or her behavior through self-oriented feedback loops:
behavioral, environmental, and covert self-regulation. Additionally, research
suggests that successful students use an array of self-regulatory processes that
continuously move through feedback loops.
Zimmerman and Kitsantas identified eight key self-regulatory processes that
include: (a) goal setting, (b) task strategies, (c) imagery, (d) time management, (e)
self-monitoring, (f) self-evaluation, (g) environmental structuring, and (h) adaptive
help seeking. One key self-regulatory process is an individual’s ability to set goals
(i.e. goal setting). Goal setting refers to the ability to specify actions towards a
selected end (Locke & Latham, 1990). It is crucial to set goals that are almost
attainable, thereby requiring effort from the goal setter. Goals that are too easily
attainable without much work or thought limit the growth and potential of the
individual. For example, students tend to set academic goals during their school
careers. A fifth grade student may strive to earn a D on his next mathematics exam.
39
By setting such a low goal, the student is not likely to maximize his academic
potential and will therefore become complacent with low expectations.
A second key form of self-regulation is the ability to evaluate (Zimmerman &
Kitsantas, 2005). This requires the individual to track and observe his performance
and outcomes. An example of self-monitoring is recording one’s processes and
outcomes while attempting to accomplish a task. In the case of studying for an
upcoming exam, this includes creating lists of key vocabulary words and checking
items off as the definitions are memorized. Thus, self-monitoring involves self-
observation while building on previous accomplishments or knowledge.
Finally, self-evaluation is closely related to self-monitoring. It requires an
individual to make self-judgments about his progress. Standards must be set
appropriately so they are challenging yet attainable, as describe in goal setting. When
self-evaluative standards are set too high, frustration and higher levels of error are
likely to occur. Students need to be able to self-evaluate their reading behaviors as a
way to improve their reading skills. If students lack the ability to self-evaluate, it is
possible that they will not engage in reading behaviors since they believe their
reading abilities are adequate.
Grolick and Ryan (1989) conducted a study that assessed three dimensions of
parenting style, autonomy support, involvement, and provision of structure, and the
impact such dimensions have on children’s self-regulation and competence in school.
The researchers defined self-regulation as a construct that relates to an individual’s
“role (or lack thereof) in eliciting and maintaining behaviors.” They researched
40
parenting styles and behaviors as a way to understand how they were related to
specific aspects of children’s development and school performance outcomes.
Grolick and Ryan hypothesized that more involved parents provide the necessary
emotional support essential to promote self-direction, or self-regulation and
confidence that lead to academic achievement. Additionally, the researchers
attempted to build on previous research by examining how the three different
parenting variables impacted various aspects of children’s self-regulation.
They sampled 480 children, 447 parents, and teachers from 20 classrooms,
five each of third through sixth grades, in an almost exclusively Caucasian and
middle class elementary school context. Parents were studied through parent
interviews and levels of self-regulation were assessed using the Academic Self-
Regulation Questionnaire, or the ASRQ (Connell & Ryan, 1986).
Findings from the study determined that within intact, two-parent families,
parents have important influences on children’s self-regulation and competence.
Specifically, dimensions of autonomy support positively predicted self-regulation
and achievement as measured by standardized assessments and grades. Grolick and
Ryan noted that fostering autonomy prepared their children for educational
environments that required self-regulation and mastery. However, the researchers
stated that the applicability of the study’s findings is unknown to families that differ
in structure or ethnicity.
While the study may not be applicable to other ethnic groups or non-nuclear
families, it still has important implications for understanding how parenting styles
41
affect students’ self-regulation. The study found evidence that indicates parenting
styles affect children’s motivational levels, especially beliefs about competence and
self-regulation. Similarly, if teachers are parallel to parents, teachers who support
autonomous behaviors with corrective feedback are likely to positively influence
self-regulation towards academic tasks such as reading. Grolick and Ryan’s findings
support Baumrind’s authoritative parenting construct since authoritative parents
typically demonstrate warmth and responsiveness while allowing their children to
experience autonomy.
Similar to Grolick and Ryan, Swalander and Taube (2007) investigated the
influences of parents on self-regulation. Their study investigated the effect of self-
regulated learning through the indices of academic self-concept, motivation and
learning strategies, and reading attitudes on reading ability. Swalander and Taube
defined self-regulated learning as the degree to which individuals are
metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own
learning process. Furthermore, they identified self-regulation as a key variable for
engagement in reading. Swalander and Taube described good reading ability as the
key to success in school. Their study has significant implications for educational
outcomes since they were attempting to discover which educational and
psychological variables explain variations in reading engagement and ability.
Swalander and Taube hypothesized that relationships existed between
parental expectations towards reading which impact children’s reading attitudes,
self-regulation, and reading achievement. The researchers determined that a home
42
full of books in which parents were good reading models stimulated positive
attitudes towards reading. For example, well educated parents who read many books
and daily newspapers create a home environment with direct and positive influences
on students’ beliefs in their own abilities to perform well at school (a positive self-
concept). This self-concept showed a strong influence on reading ability and
engagement. When a student who has a strong belief in his or her ability to manage
different tasks at school, S/he is more likely to engage in academic behaviors such as
reading than a student with a negative self-concept. Consequently, students’ self-
concepts seems to be a key motivating factor in the use of learning strategies such as
self-regulation. Therefore, the relationship is cyclical: parents who set expectations
for reading achievement influence children’s self-concepts about reading ability.
Positive self-concepts contribute towards the engagement in learning tasks such as
self-regulation. In turn, self-regulated learning affects the academic motivation and
learning strategies that are prerequisites to engaging in activities such as reading. A
limitation of the study is that there is no certainty that being a self-regulated learner
is the same as being a self-regulated reader. The researchers emphasized the need to
address this issue in controlled designs in future studies.
Purdie and colleagues (Purdie, Carrroll, and Roche, 2004) further explored
the model of how a relationship exists between academic self-regulation and
parenting. They examined the relationship between adolescents’ academic and non-
academic self-regulation and authoritative parenting. Authoritative parenting was
defined through the levels of involvement, strictness, and autonomy granting. Two
43
hundred fourteen high school students were drawn from 30 high schools in Australia.
Four instruments were used to address the research question: Self-Regulated
Learning Survey (Purdie and Hattie, 1998); Strategies for Prosocial Self-Regulation
Survey (Purdie, Carroll, and Roche, 2000); the Parent Self-Efficacy Scale (Bandura,
1990); and the Authoritative Parenting Measure (Steinberg et al., 1994).
The researchers’ findings supported their hypothesis that intellectual
development and social functioning are closely connected to environmental factors.
They discovered when adolescents have high levels of self-efficacy, they tend to be
self-regulated in their learning, in addition to being more likely to be prosocial and
popular. Additionally, the research indicated that parents’ involvement seemed to be
the most predictive parenting behavior with respect to students’ self-regulatory
behaviors. These findings are consistent with previous findings that identify parents
as important factors in the development of students’ self-regulatory behaviors. It is
therefore likely that teachers also strongly influence students’ motivational
development in classroom environments. Therefore, research needs to be conducted
on how teachers specifically impact self-regulation.
Expectancy-Value Model
Self-efficacy and self-regulation are key components of Eccles and
Wigfield’s expectancy-value model of achievement. According to both Eccles and
Wigfield (2002) and Bandura (1997) self-efficacy, or ability self-perceptions
influence the development of task values. If an individual has a high self-perception
for success, S/he will likely develop a high task value and goal-setting behavior.
44
Both the expectation for success and task value influence achievement-related
choices and performance. Such achievement-related choices incorporate self-
regulated behaviors since self-regulation is the ability to set goals, self-monitor and
evaluate personal behaviors. Figure 3 depicts the how self-efficacy and self-
regulation fit into Eccles and Wigfield’s expectancy-value model.
To summarize, motivational constructs such as self-efficacy and self-
regulation influence students’ engagement in reading behaviors. This study focused
on how the parenting styles of teachers are related to reading motivation of fourth
and fifth grade Asian American students. The following section discusses the
research on reading motivation, particularly Asian American students.
45
Figure 3
Adapted Eccles and Wigfield’s Expectancy-Value Model
Reading Motivation
Engagement in reading behaviors is an effortful activity that often involves
choice and motivation (Wigfield et al., 2004). Motivation theorists attempt to
understand how individuals make choices to engage in activities and their persistence
and effort towards such activities. There is limited research on motivation in specific
curricular areas. Furthermore, little research has been conducted on children’s
motivation for reading. Most of the research on children’s reading has examined the
46
cognitive aspects of reading, such as word recognition and reading comprehension
(Baker & Wigfield, 1999). However, there are several studies that examine reading
in terms of attitudes toward reading.
Some studies have found statistically significant relationships between the
dimensions for reading motivation and the amount of breadth of reading for students.
Cox and Guthrie (2001) examined third and fifth grade student to understand the
relationship between reading motivation and breadth of reading. They differentiated
the amount and breadth of reading between reading for pleasure and reading for
school. Cox and Guthrie found that third graders’ motivation to read was determined
based on satisfactory reading achievement and personal motivation. However, fifth
graders primarily relied on personal levels of motivation. Such findings have two
major implications. First, as students grow older, motivation to read has a significant
impact on whether a student will choose to engage in reading tasks. Second, self-
efficacy is a strong predictor of reading engagement. Students who are efficacious in
their reading abilities are more likely to be motivated to read than their less
efficacious peers.
Wigfield and Guthrie are currently the dominant researchers in the area of
reading motivation. The literature on reading motivation of elementary school
students is sparse and is under investigation by both researchers and their colleagues.
In 2004 Wigfield and his colleagues conducted a study to better understand
children’s motivation to read and the cognitive skills required to read well (Wigfield
et al., 2004). They noted how cognitively skilled readers may not spend much time
47
reading if there is a deficit in motivation. In order to understand persistence and
active engagement in reading tasks, motivation was examined through the constructs
of self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation to read.
Baker and Wigfield (1999) conducted a study that approached reading
motivation grounded in the notion that reading is a purposeful activity that requires
an active choice on the part of the reader. Participants in the study were fifth and
sixth graders who attended one of six elementary schools in a large mid-Atlantic
U.S. city. One school was in the inner city with a population of that was almost
exclusively of African American descent. The remaining five schools were located
within a mile or two of the inner city and served students from homes of varying
ethnicities and incomes. The researchers administered the Motivation for Reading
Questionnaire (MRQ) as a way to assess the 11 possible dimensions of reading
motivation, including self-efficacy, intrinsic and extrinsic reading motives, social
aspects of reading, and the desire to avoid reading.
One significant finding from this study was that all the dimensions of reading
motivation were statistically significantly correlated with students’ reported reading
activity. Self-efficacy and Challenge were strongly related to intrinsic motivation
while Curiosity and Involvement were influential social dimensions for reading. As
expected, Work Avoidance was negatively correlated to reading engagement.
Students who sought to avoid reading-related work were not seeking outside reading
opportunities. Thus, Baker and Wigfield were able to conclusively demonstrate that
various dimensions of reading motivation influence students’ reading activity and
48
achievement. They also noted that it is important to think about reading motivation
as being multifaceted rather than a single thing, and that students should not be
characterized as either motivated or unmotivated to read. Instead, Baker and
Wigfield emphasized that students are motivated to read for different reasons or
purposes and that importance should be placed towards understanding them.
Summary
Parenting style is defined as “typologies characterized by responsiveness and
demandingness” (Spera, 2005). Furthermore, parenting styles are described as
specific behaviors that parents use in raising their children. Diana Baumrind (1968,
1971, 1991a) conducted the primary research on parenting styles and parent-child
relationships. Her research identified three parenting typologies: authoritative,
authoritarian, and permissive.
Darling (2000) characterized authoritative parents as possessing high levels
of demandingness and responsiveness (Darling, 2000). Children from authoritative
homes were determined as the most competent children in all behavioral and
psychosocial dimensions when compared to children from authoritarian and
permissive parents (Baumrind, 1971). Furthermore, authoritative parents set clear
and high expectations for their children while recognizing and supporting their
children’s autonomy, thereby promoting independence (Spera, 2005).
Authoritarian parents are described as showing high levels of demandingness,
but not responsiveness (Darling, 2000). Additionally, authoritarian parents want to
mold their children’s attitudes and behaviors based on their standard of conduct
49
(Baumrind, 1991). Obedience is a virtue and is expected without any explanation
(Baumrind, 1991).
Finally, according to Baumrind (1991a), permissive parents have low levels
of responsiveness and demandingness. While permissive parents show higher levels
of warmth than authoritarian parents, they have few demands of their children. Thus,
permissive parents allow their children to freely explore and make their own
decisions. Furthermore, permissive parents accept and affirm their children’s actions
and impulses without punitive consequences (Baumrind, 1991a).
The theoretical construct of parenting styles has been used to describe
characteristics of effective teachers (Wentzel, 2002). Moreover, teachers are
encouraged to use authoritative-based teaching behaviors in order to create positive
academic and motivational outcomes. Research on the effects of Baumrind’s
parenting styles on developmental outcomes for Asian Americans is still debated
(Chao, 2001). Many studies consistently demonstrated the beneficial implications of
authoritative parenting on Caucasian children, including higher levels of academic,
social, and psychological competence, (Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch,
1991; Wang & Phinney, 1998). Chao (1994, 2001) argued that cultural differences
potentially influence the applicability of the authoritarian parenting typology to
Asian Americans. Similarly, Sorkhabi (2005) indicated that there seems to be a
discrepancy in the applicability of Baumrind’s parenting typology to cultures that are
considered collectivist, such as Asian cultures. Specifically, authoritarian parenting
practices is often perceived as demonstrations of care and concern within Asian
50
American families. However, Western cultures interpret such practices as a lack of
warmth for their children. Asian Americans tend to have positive outcomes despite
such the authoritarian practices of their parents (Eaton & Dembo, 1997; Sue &
Okazaki, 1990; Wang & Phinney, 1998). Therefore, Asian American children may
experience inconsistencies between the parenting styles of their teachers and parents.
Pedagogical caring, or teacher care, is an influential element that can
influence students’ feelings of motivation and self-worth (Pianta & Steinberg, 1992;
Wentzel 1997, 2002). Very little is known about reading motivation of many racial
and ethnic groups, especially Asian Americans. Current research on reading
motivation encompasses aspects of academic achievement (Broussard & Garrison,
2004; Eaton & Dembo, 1997). Well-defined motivation theories such as social
cognitive and expectancy-value include the components of self-efficacy and self-
regulation. Both components provide a theoretical foundation for understanding how
expectancies for success, values, and goals motivate individuals to engage in reading
tasks.
Research has also found that behavior is regulated on an individual’s
perception of ability and efficacy (Bandura, 1993; Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele,
1998; Wigfield, Eccles, & Rodriguez, 1998). The construct of self-efficacy
determines levels of effort and persistence in addition to choice of task (Bandura,
1993; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992). Similarly, students who are
efficacious tend to self-regulate their behaviors. A critical implication of
motivational research on reading is that when children perceive they are competent
51
and efficacious at reading, they are more likely to engage in the activity (Wigfield,
1997). Therefore, it is critical to understand how parenting styles of teachers relate to
student motivation outcomes, which can ultimately influence academic achievement.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore how parenting styles of teachers
support or undermine reading motivation among Asian American students. It focused
on the relationship of teachers’ parenting styles and fourth and fifth grade Asian
American students’ reading self-efficacy and self-regulation. Furthermore, the study
attempted to understand which parenting style, if any, is more likely to promote
reading motivation in this population of students.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The following research question and hypotheses were addressed in this study:
Research Question
Do parenting styles of teachers predict reading self-efficacy and self-
regulation in fourth and fifth grade Asian American students? If so, which parenting
style predicts higher levels of reading self-efficacy and self-regulation in Asian
American fourth and fifth grade students?
Hypothesis 1
Authoritarian and authoritative parenting will predict higher reading self-
efficacy.
52
Hypothesis 2
Authoritarian and authoritative parenting will predict higher reading self-
regulation.
53
CHAPTER 3
Methodology
Research Approach and Rationale
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the
parenting styles of teachers and students’ reading motivation in Asian American
students. The study was based on the assumption that teachers are influential
nonparental adults, and that they share similar relationships with students as parents
do with their children (Pianta, 1992). The goal was to understand the relation
between the parenting styles of teachers and self-efficacy and self-regulation of
fourth and fifth grade Asian American students. Additionally, if a relationship exists,
which parenting style promotes reading motivation?
This chapter describes the methodology and measures of parenting styles of
teachers and reading motivation. This chapter also outlines the subjects,
instrumentation, procedures for data collection, and data analyses utilized in the
study.
Research Design
The present quantitative study is a descriptive study, posttest design that
explored how parenting styles of teachers support or undermine reading motivation
of Asian American students. This study measured the independent variable of
parenting style of teachers and dependent variable of students’ reading motivation,
specifically levels of self-efficacy and self-regulation. The Parental Authority
Questionnaire (PAQ) developed by Buri (1991) measured teachers’ parenting style.
54
Self-efficacy and self-regulation, the dependent variables, were measured through
The Motivations for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ) created by Wigfield and Guthrie
in 1995 and revised in 1996.
This study used the survey method to collect data. Teachers completed an
online version of the PAQ. The researcher administered paper-and-pencil copies of
the MRQ to the students. Independent-samples t-tests were applied to the data in
order to compare the means between students whose teachers were low or high on
permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative parenting styles scales.
A sample of 107 student and 18 teacher questionnaires were coded and
prepared before using the computerized analysis program, SPSS. All student
questionnaires were used. However, one teacher questionnaire could not be used
since no student participants were recruited from her class.
This study had two distinct subject groups, teachers and students. Eighteen
teachers were recruited from the four participating elementary schools. One male and
17 female teachers participated. All teacher participants indicated their ethnicity was
White (n = 15) and Asian (n = 3). Subjects in the sample ranged in mean ages from
27.5 to 57.5 years of age (M = 41.4 years). The majority of participants have been
teaching for three or more years (n = 17, 94.4%), with a mean of 8.9 years teaching
experience. As shown in Table 1, 9 participants reported teaching fourth grade, 7
participants reported teaching fifth grade, while 1 participant reported teaching third
and fourth combination class. One teacher was excluded from the analyses since
there were no students participating in the study from her class.
55
Table 1
Frequency Distribution of Teachers at Each Grade Level
Grade level n Percentage
Grade 4 9 53
Grade 5 7 41
Grades 3 and 4 1 6
Note: Percentages were rounded to whole numbers.
One hundred seven Grade 4 and 5 students from four elementary schools in
Los Angeles County participated in the study. There were 64 fourth graders and 43
fifth graders; 52 of the students were girls and 55 were boys. The students’ teachers
reported that the student subjects ranged from 8-11 years of age and were from
middle and high socioeconomic backgrounds. Table 2 shows the number of
participants from each school, which ranged from 12-46 students. All participants
were identified as Asian American by their parents, teachers, and school
demographic information.
Table 2
Frequency Distribution of Students by School
School ID n
School 1 46
School 2 37
School 3 12
School 4 12
56
Table 3 describes the student participants in this study. The participants
included Chinese Americans (n = 18), Japanese Americans (n = 42), Korean
Americans (n = 26), Filipino Americans (n = 7), and Eurasians (n = 14). The student
participants were one point five generation or above in the United States. One-point-
five generation means that they were born outside of the United States but
immigrated before the age of twelve. Thus, students were from both immigrant and
nonimmigrant families. Despite several students being classified as English
Language Learners (ELLs), all students preferred English over their ancestral
languages.
Table 3
Frequency Distribution of Students by Ethnicity
Ethnicity n Percentage
Chinese 18 16.8
Japanese 42 39.3
Korean 26 24.3
Filipino 7 6.5
Eurasian 14 13.1
Instruments
Parenting Style
Parenting style of teachers was the independent variable of this study. The
Parental Authority Questionnaire, or PAQ (Buri, 1991) was used to measure the
57
parenting styles of participating teachers. Teachers answered 30 questions related to
Baumrind’s parenting style typology.
The PAQ measured permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative parental
practices of the participating teachers. Conceptualization of the PAQ was derived
from Baumrind’s parental authority typologies (Buri et al., 1988). The PAQ consists
of 30 five-point Likert statements (10 permissive, 10 authoritarian, and 10
authoritative items). The Likert scale ranges from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree),
3 (undecided), 4 (agree), to 5 (strongly agree). Each of the three parenting styles had
a different score with a range of 10 to 50. Each item was stated from the perspective
of the respondent appraising the type of authority exercised by his or her mothers
and fathers (Buri, 1989). Since this study focused on the parenting style of teachers,
the phrasings of the statements were adjusted to measure teachers’ parenting styles
(i.e. my students rather than my children).
Each teacher was assigned into a low or high group for each parenting style
based on the median score for each of the three parenting style scales. Teachers who
scored below the median score were placed into the low groups while teachers who
scored above the median score were placed into high groups. Some teachers earned
the median score for each parenting style and therefore were not used for the
analysis.
Buri (1991) found that the PAQ demonstrates high levels of reliability. Buri
reported that each of the three parenting styles had a test-retest reliability that ranges
from .77 to .92. Additionally, internal consistency reliability ranged from .74 to .87.
58
Buri also reported that the PAQ has high discriminant and criterion-related validity.
The reliability from the present study’s sample ranged from .723 to .783. Dr. Buri
granted permission to use the PAQ through an e-mail correspondence.
Self-Efficacy and Self-Regulation
Self-regulation enhances students’ self-concept and self-efficacy (McCombs
& Whisler, 1997). Since the constructs of self-regulation and self-efficacy are
interrelated, it was necessary to specifically define each dimension of the MRQ
according to distinct characteristics of each construct. Self-regulation is defined as
self-initiated behavior that continues to persist. In order for such behavior to persist,
an individual needs to express interest in the task. Furthermore, personal willpower
to engage in an act such as reading requires self-regulation. Additionally, goal setting
is considered a key self-regulatory process (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005). The
dimensions of Challenge, Competition, and Reading Work Avoidance were
classified under the self-regulatory process of goal setting while Curiosity and
Involvement were identified as interest-related dimensions.
Self-efficacy in reading refers to an individual’s beliefs about personal
capability to read at a designated level of proficiency. If a child believes in his
reading ability, he is more likely to engage in reading activities and challenging
passages (Wigfield & Baker, 1999). The MRQ dimensions of Efficacy and
Importance (i.e. value) attempt to elicit information on how the student’s self-
perception as a reader. Recognition, Grades, Social, and Compliance are closely
59
related to extrinsic motivation, which has been determined to have significant
correlations with self-efficacy.
The Motivations for Reading Questionnaire, or MRQ (Wigfield & Guthrie,
1996) was utilized to measure the dependent variable, reading motivation. Other
researchers who have attempted to measure reading motivation administered other
measures such as the Motivation to Read Profile (Gambrell et al., 1996) to assess
levels of reading motivation. However, the MRQ is a more comprehensive measure
of the motivational constructs of this study.
Originally, the MRQ consisted of 82 items that measured 11 dimensions of
reading motivation (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1995). In a follow-up study, Wigfield and
his colleagues (1997) removed 28 items to enhance the psychometric properties. This
resulted in a 53-item instrument that also measures 11 dimensions of reading
motivation. Table 4 shows the 11 dimensions of reading motivation and the
reliability data.
As shown in Table 4, the Cronbach alpha reliabilities were highest on the
Competition (α = .81), Challenge (α = .80), Curiosity (α = .76), Involvement (α =
.76) and Social (α = .72) (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1995). As evident from Table 4, some
dimensions of the MRQ such as Grades (∝ = .43) and Importance (∝ = .52) had low
reliabilities. However, the MRQ was the only widely used questionnaire to measure
reading motivation of students in grades 3 though 6, and the low reliabilities were
taken into consideration when interpreting the results. The MRQ consists of 53 four-
point Likert statements from 1 (very different from me), 2 (a little different from
60
me), 3 (a little like me), and 4 (a lot like me). Both self-efficacy and self-regulation
are measurable through the MRQ but are grouped according to the motivational
constructs of expectancy-value theory. For the purposes of this study, each
dimension of the MRQ was categorized under self-efficacy (expectations for
success) or self-regulation (goal setting). Each MRQ dimension had to match a key
process of either self-efficacy or self-regulation in order to be classified in either
category.
Table 4
MRQ Dimensions and Reliability Data
MRQ Dimension Number of Items
Reliability
∝
Self-Efficacy 3 .68
Challenge 5 .80
Curiosity 6 .76
Involvement 6 .76
Importance 2 .52
Recognition 5 .69
Grades 4 .43
Social 7 .72
Competition 6 .81
Compliance 5 .55
Work Avoidance 4 .60
61
Table 5
MRQ Dimensions Categorized According to Self-Regulation and Self-Efficacy
Self-Regulation
Goal Setting
Self-Efficacy
Expectations for Success
Challenge Reading Efficacy
Competition Importance
Work Avoidance Grades
Curiosity Social
Involvement Compliance
Recognition
Several statistical analyses such as descriptive statistics, item-total
correlations, internal consistencies reliabilities, and factor analysis, were run to test
the reliability and validity of the Motivations for Reading Questionnaire (Wigfield &
Guthrie, 1995; Wigfield et al., 1996). Social, Challenge, Recognition, Competition,
and Importance demonstrated reliabilities greater than .70. Self-Efficacy, Curiosity,
and Aesthetic Enjoyment (currently referred to as Involvement) showed reliabilities
that approached .70. The dimension of Compliance was redesigned using a 3-item
scale rather than a 5-item scale to raise the reliability. Permission to utilize the MRQ
was obtained through e-mail correspondence directly from Dr. Wigfield for this
study.
Procedure of Data Collection
The data was collected during the first trimester of the 2008 academic year.
Four public elementary schools in suburban communities in Los Angeles County
62
were selected for data collection because the schools had significant Asian American
populations (over 30 percent of the enrolled populations). During the first phase of
data collection, subjects were identified and recruited. Recruitment began by
contacting the district office to receive permission to enter the elementary schools.
From there, principals of schools that had large percentages of Asian American
students were contacted, and notified of the elements and the benefits of participation
in the study (i.e. findings that may enhance teacher practices for promoting reading
motivation for Asian Americans). With permission from the principals, participation
from fourth and fifth grade teachers was elicited through the attendance of faculty
meetings, visitations to classrooms after school, and through e-mail correspondences.
Fourth and fifth grade Asian Americans students were purposefully sampled
from the participating teachers’ classrooms. The students took home packets with
information about the study to their parents. During the first semester of school,
participating teachers’ classrooms were visited as a way to further describe the study
to the teachers and give them packets with letters of informed consent to distribute to
the students. The consent letter was originally written in English and later translated
into Chinese, Japanese, and Korean to ensure the parents’ ability to fully understand
the purpose and scope of the study. Students who returned signed informed consent
forms received a pencil or eraser. The researcher returned to each school site on two
subsequent days to collect the parental consent forms.
Approximately 200 consent forms were distributed and a total of 107 consent
forms were returned. The sample consisted of students from Chinese, Japanese, and
63
Korean, ethnic groups since these cultures share similar Confucian beliefs and
practices. Filipino, Indian, and Eurasian students were also recruited as a way to
increase the potential sample size. After obtaining parental consent, each student was
coded with his or her teacher with corresponding labels to maintain anonymity.
The two main sources of data for this study were two questionnaires, The
Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) and the Motivations for Reading
Questionnaire (MRQ). Teacher participants completed the PAQ while Asian
American fourth and fifth grade students completed the MRQ. The researcher began
the data collection process with fourth and fifth grade teachers who volunteered to
participate in the study. The purposes and instructions of the questionnaire were
explained to all the participants by the researcher at faculty meetings and during
individual appointments after school. An online version of the PAQ was created
through Qualtrics, an online survey software. The teachers were given a web address
and unique study identifications in which they could directly access the survey. The
participants were told that the expected time to complete the questionnaire was a
maximum of 25 minutes. Eighteen fourth and fifth grade teachers completed the
survey online, with an average completion time of nine minutes.
After the data were collected from the teachers, the researcher visited their
classes during December, 2008 to gather data from the participating students. One
hundred seven students who received parental consent to participate in the study
were asked to move to a separate room to complete questionnaires to measure their
reading motivation. The students were told that they were going to answer questions
64
about their reading and that there were no wrong or right responses. First, the
students were asked to identify their grade level and teacher. Then the researcher
orally read 53 questions aloud to the students and waited for all students to complete
each question before moving on to the next question. The questionnaire took
approximately 30 minutes for the students to complete. The researcher collected the
questionnaires and offered a candy reward for completing the surveys.
Originally, the researcher planned to visit the schools sites in December,
2008 to administer the MRQ to the same students for a second time. This was to
maximize the reliability of the first set of results (split-half reliability). However, due
to restrictions on visitation times and dates from principals and teachers, and a
lengthy IRB process, the MRQ was only administered once.
65
CHAPTER 4
Results
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether parenting styles of
teachers predict levels of Asian American students’ reading motivation. The goal
was to understand the interaction between the parenting styles of teachers and self-
efficacy and self-regulation of fourth and fifth grade Asian American students.
Independent-samples t-test statistical analyses were used to address the primary
research question, do parenting styles of teachers predict reading self-efficacy and
self-regulation in fourth and fifth grade Asian American students? The three types of
parenting styles were the independent variables, while reading motivation of Asian
American fourth and fifth grade students was the dependent variable in this study.
The mean scores from the MRQ were compared between the students in the low and
high groups for parenting styles of each teacher. An analysis of each research
question follows the preliminary correlational overview.
Preliminary Analyses
Correlations
Using Pearson product correlation analyses, the relationships of the 11
motivation variables from The Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ) and the
three parenting styles of The Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) were
examined. Significant results are summarized in Tables 6 and 7. Most of the relations
between the motivation dimensions were positive, and ranged from low to
moderately high. The strongest relations included those between Recognition and
66
Importance (r = .601, p < .01), Efficacy and Importance (r = .578, p < .01), Efficacy
and Recognition (r = .550, p < .01), and Challenge and Importance (r = .511, p <
.01). The Work Avoidance scale related negatively to all the scales except to
Competition.
67
As shown in Table 7, permissive parenting was inversely correlated with both
authoritarian (r = -.215, p < .05) and authoritative parenting (r = -.003, p < .05).
However, authoritarian parenting related positively to authoritative parenting (r = -
.217, p < .05). Such low correlations may have influenced the statistical significance
of the results.
Table 7
Correlations of the PAQ Parenting Scales
Parenting Style 1 2 3
1. Permissive --
2. Authoritarian -.215 --
3. Authoritative -.003 .217 --
Note: n = 18
Analyses of Research Questions
Reading Motivation
The student participants responded to 53 questions related to 11 scales of
reading motivation. The 11 scales were reading Self-Efficacy, Challenge, Curiosity,
Involvement, Importance, Recognition, Grades, Social, Competition, Compliance,
and Work Avoidance. The questionnaire used a 4 point Likert scale that ranged from
1 (very different from me) to 4 (a lot like me). The results are presented in Table 8.
The importance subscale received the highest mean ratings (M = 3.46) while the
work avoidance subscale received the lowest mean ratings (M = 2.02).
68
Table 8
Mean and Standard Deviations of the MRQ Motivation Scales
MRQ Scales M SD
Self-Efficacy 3.15 .65
Challenge 3.17 .53
Curiosity 3.04 .58
Involvement 3.28 .46
Importance 3.46 .69
Recognition 3.06 .66
Grades 3.42 .57
Social 2.40 .54
Competition 2.93 .74
Compliance 2.78 .41
Work Avoidance 2.02 .70
Note: n = 107
Teachers’ Parenting Styles
The teacher participants responded to questions on the Parental Authority
Questionnaire (PAQ). Each question was related to one of three parenting styles:
permissive, authoritarian, or authoritative. The authoritative subscale received the
highest ratings and the permissive received the lowest ratings. The authoritative
mean score (M = 4.25) indicated that the teacher participants agreed (between the
range of 4 [agree] and 5 [strongly agree] with the questionnaire items that described
authoritative parenting styles. The mean scores for the permissive (M = 2.27) and
authoritarian subscales (M = 2.38) indicated that the teacher participants disagree
69
with the questionnaire items that exemplified permissive parenting (between the
range of 2 [disagree] and 1 [strongly disagree]).
Table 9
Range, Mean, and Standard Deviation of Teachers’ Parenting Styles
Parenting Styles Minimum Maximum M SD
Permissive 1.50 2.90 2.27 .43
Authoritarian 1.60 3.50 2.38 .48
Authoritative 3.60 5.00 4.25 .41
Note: n = 18
The median scores from the range of each parenting style were calculated in
order to create two groups within each parenting style subscale. Teachers were then
assigned into low and high groups for each parenting style based on the calculated
mean scores for the individual parenting styles. Table 10 presents the median splits
for the individual parenting styles (permissive, authoritarian, authoritative). In all,
eight teacher participants were assigned to both the low and high groups for each
parenting style depending on if they fell below and above the median split. Two
teacher participants, 11.1 % of the teacher participants were excluded from the
analyses since they earned the median scores on each parenting style subscale.
70
Table 10
Median Split and Frequency Distribution of Students According to Teachers’
Parenting Styles
Parenting style Median Split
Low
n
Percentage
a
High
n
Percentage
a
Permissive 2.2 42 39.2 55 51.4
Authoritarian 2.2 50 46.7 50 46.7
Authoritative 4.3 56 52.3 39 36.4
Note: Missing cases due to median split
a
Percentages do not add up to 100 due to missing data.
One hundred seven students and 18 teachers participated in this study. The
students were grouped according to the parenting style group of their teachers. As
shown in Table 10, 42 students were grouped in the low permissive group while 55
students were assigned to the high permissive group. Fifty-two students were in the
low authoritarian group and 50 students were placed in the high authoritarian group.
Finally, 56 students were assigned to the low authoritative group and 39 students
were grouped in the high authoritative group. There was no discrepancy between the
number participants in the low and high authoritarian groups. However, the both the
permissive and authoritative parenting groups had a disproportionate number of
student participants in each group. The permissive groups had n = 42 in the low
group and n = 55 in the high group. The authoritative groups had n = 56 in the low
group and n = 39 in the high group.
71
Self-Efficacy
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare students’ reading
self-efficacy with teachers with low and high permissive, authoritarian, and
authoritative parenting styles. The scales of the MRQ that measured self-efficacy
were Self-Efficacy, Importance, Recognition, Grades, Social, and Compliance.
However, each of the original MRQ subscales was designed to be individually
assessed. Since the subscale of Self- Efficacy is equivalent to self-efficacy in
reading, the Self- Efficacy dimension was compared to each of the parenting style
groups through independent-samples t-tests.
Table 11 shows the results from the independent-samples t-tests. It was
hypothesized that both authoritarian and authoritative parenting will predict high
reading self-efficacy in fourth and fifth grade Asian American students. There were
significant findings for self-efficacy of students with authoritarian teachers. The Sig.
(2-tailed) value for self-efficacy was less than .05, which indicated a significant
difference in mean scores in self-efficacy between students in the low and high
authoritarian groups (p = .002). The magnitude of differences in the means (mean
difference = -.387, CI: -.623 to -.140) was moderate (eta squared = .09). As
hypothesized, Asian American students with authoritarian teachers have higher
levels of reading self-efficacy. However, no evidence was found to support the
hypothesis that authoritative teachers promote higher levels of reading self-efficacy
in Asian American students.
72
For permissive teachers, students’ levels of Recognition were approaching
significance (p = .091). Students from classes with authoritarian teachers
demonstrated marginally significant results in the Importance subscale (p = .066).
Finally, students with authoritative teachers show marginally significant results in
the Grades subscale.
The data show that fourth and fifth grade Asian American students with
authoritarian teachers have higher levels of reading self-efficacy. However, no
support was found indicating that students from authoritative teachers have higher
levels of reading self-efficacy. There were no significant findings for students with
permissive teachers. However, permissive parenting was not hypothesized as
predicting reading self-efficacy in fourth and fifth grade Asian American students.
Self-Regulation
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare students’ reading
self-regulation with teachers with low and high permissive, authoritarian, and
authoritative parenting styles. The scales of the MRQ that measured self-regulation
were Challenge, Curiosity, Involvement, Competition, and Work Avoidance. There
were no significant findings that support the hypotheses that authoritarian and
authoritative parenting will predict higher levels of self-regulation. Therefore, only
self-efficacy was taken into account for further analysis.
Post-Hoc Analysis
As discussed in chapter 1, it is important to note that there are group
differences between Asian American ethnicities, such as Chinese, Japanese, Koreans,
73
Filipinos, and Vietnamese. Each ethnic group differs from one another in several
ways, particularly in their immigration history, levels of acculturation, and
socioeconomic statuses (Santrock, 1996). However, rarely does empirical research
conduct separate analyses of the various Asian American groups (Uba, 1994). In an
attempt to bridge the gap in research, an independent-samples t-test was conducted to
compare the means between Japanese and Korean students. These two ethnic groups
were selected since the frequency distribution of the student participants was highest
in the Japanese (n = 42) and Korean (n = 26) participant groups. The results were
inconclusive due to a lack of power. Therefore, it is uncertain whether the two Asian
subgroups differed.
74
75
CHAPTER 5
Discussion and Implications
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between parenting
styles of teachers and reading motivation of Asian American fourth and fifth grade
students. The primary theory applied in this study was the parenting style framework
conceptualized by Diana Baumrind (1971). This study specifically focused on
teachers as nonparental adults who also influence academic and social outcomes of
children. Thus the study examined whether parenting styles of teachers predict levels
of reading motivation, specifically self-efficacy and self-regulation, in a population
of Asian American fourth and fifth grade students. This chapter is a discussion of the
findings, implications, limitations of the study, and directions for future research.
Discussion of the Results
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between
parenting styles of teachers and Asian American fourth and fifth grade students’
reading motivation. This was examined through several independent-samples t-tests
for each dimension of reading motivation as measured through the Motivations for
Reading (MRQ) questionnaire. The motivation differences between students with
teachers who were in either low and high groups for permissive, authoritarian, and
authoritative parenting styles were examined to determine whether significant
differences existed between each group. As a way to examine the hypotheses, Asian
American fourth and fifth grade students were assigned to either a low or high group
76
for permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative parenting styles based on their
teachers’ scores on each parenting style dimension.
Discussion of Primary Findings
Based on empirical research, the assumption was that Asian American
students would demonstrate higher levels of reading motivation in classrooms with
authoritarian and authoritative teachers. As predicted, this study found that Asian
American students with high authoritarian teachers had higher levels of reading self-
efficacy when compared to students with low authoritarian teachers. However, the
findings do not suggest that students with authoritative teachers have higher levels of
reading self-efficacy. Chao (2001) determined that Chinese youth from authoritative
families were not better off in school than Chinese youth from authoritarian homes.
She suggested that authoritative parenting should not be treated as the prototype for
all Asian American groups. Similarly, the results from this study also indicate that
Asian American students with authoritative teachers do not necessarily have higher
levels of reading motivation and possibly positive academic outcomes. However,
since motivation is one variable that can promote academic achievement, such
results support previous findings that Asian Americans from authoritarian homes
attain higher levels of academic success. Thus, there is a possibility that authoritarian
parenting at home in and the classroom have beneficial effects for Asian American
students. This notion must be examined in depth in future studies. In summary,
Asian American students with authoritarian teachers demonstrated higher levels of
reading self-efficacy.
77
The second hypothesis that authoritarian and authoritative parenting predicts
higher levels of self-regulation was not supported in this study. One again, Asian
American fourth and fifth grade students were grouped according to their teachers’
results on the PAQ. Although several dimensions of the MRQ were utilized as an
attempt to measure self-regulation (i.e. Challenge, Involvement, Competition, and
Work Avoidance), significant results were not found. The lack of support for this
hypothesis may have resulted from a relatively small number of student and teacher
subjects, thus a lack of power to detect significant differences. As such, the analyses
may be unreliable. Furthermore, the MRQ was administered to students during the
third month of the school year. There is a possibility that the students had not been in
their respective teachers’ classes for a long enough duration for the teachers’
parenting styles to influence their levels of reading motivation. Additionally, the
students’ prior levels of reading motivation were not measured or controlled, and a
student’s increase or decrease in motivation could not be compared. Finally, the
teachers self-reported their parenting styles. It is possible that the teachers’ self-
perceptions of their parenting styles were inaccurate, thus affecting the grouping of
their students. Some students may have been grouped in a high authoritarian teacher
group when in fact their teachers are low on the parenting style scale. Furthermore,
the teacher participants were primarily Caucasian (n = 15) and rated themselves high
on the authoritative parenting dimension (M = 4.25). However, since Asian
Americans are primarily from authoritarian homes (Chao, 1994; Dornbusch et al.,
1987), there appears to be mismatch between the parenting styles at home and
78
school. In summary, there did not appear to be a relationship between teachers who
demonstrated high levels of authoritarian and authoritative parenting and students’
reading self-regulation.
The majority of Asian Americans come from authoritarian homes
(Dornbusch et al., 1987). Additionally, Asian American students are less likely to
describe their parents as authoritative (Steinberg et al., 1991). However, there is
some controversy surrounding the dominant parenting style of Asian Americans
parents. Research conducted by Dornbusch et al. (1990) and Radziszewska et al.
(1996) indicated that most Asian American adolescents were raised in authoritative
homes. Thus, Asian Americans may come from both authoritarian and authoritative
homes (Chao, 2001; Steinberg et. al., 1992). Generally, Asian Americans also
demonstrate higher levels of academic achievement than their peers (Wang &
Guthrie, 2004; Wang & Phinney, 1998).
Since levels of motivation influence academic outcomes (Baker & Wigfield,
1999; Wang & Guthrie, 2004), one can assume that Asian Americans students have
high levels of motivation. According to Gottfried (1985), children who were
motivated at a young age (age 7) demonstrated success in future reading tasks. This
can be tied to an Asian American study that indicated learning and academic
engagement is an important aspect in Chinese socialization (Chang et al., 2003),
Moreover, Asian American students’ socialization at home focuses on attaining
successful academic outcomes. This exemplifies high levels of demandingness,
which is consistent with both authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles
79
(Baumrind, 1991; Darling & Steinberg, 1993). This study hypothesized that students
with authoritarian and authoritative teachers would have higher levels of reading
motivation. While there was no significant difference between reading motivation for
authoritative parenting, the data supported the hypothesis that higher authoritarian
parenting predicts higher levels of reading self-efficacy. Thus this study’s findings
are somewhat consistent with empirical findings that Asian Americans typically
come from authoritarian homes and enjoy high levels of academic success (Darling
& Steinberg, 1993; Sorkhabi, 2005; Wang & Phinney, 1998).
However, as noted by Eaton and Dembo (1997), popular motivational
constructs may not be appropriate for all cultures. They indicated that theories of
achievement motivation were developed in Western countries, and are rooted in
individualism and stress personal choice and responsibility. This is contrary to East
Asian culture, since most East Asian homes stress the importance of collectivism
(Chao, 1994). Thus the limited findings of this study may have resulted from a
mismatch between the applied motivational constructs and the cultural background
of the student participants.
There were inconclusive findings for a secondary research question regarding
whether one particular parenting style promotes reading motivation. Significant
differences did not exist between Asian American students with teachers who scored
low and high on the permissive parenting scale. Thus Asian American students are
not more efficacious or regulated towards reading when taught by permissive
teachers. These findings are consistent with previous research, that Asian American
80
children are less likely to come from permissive homes since most Asian and Asian-
immigrant parents are classified as authoritarian (Chao, 1994; Dornbusch et al.,
1987; Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Steinberg, 1996). Since Asian Americans do not
typically come from permissive homes, it is assumed that permissive parenting style
has little, if any, influence on Asian American students’ motivational outcomes.
Implications
The results of this study provide important implications for researchers
currently examining theories to explain academic achievement of Asian American
students. The role of teachers and motivation should be considered as important
factors when developing an understanding of the variables that influence academic
outcomes of Asian Americans. However, there seems to be a nonexistence of
empirical studies that have actually been conducted on the specific roles teachers’
parenting styles have on Asian American students’ reading motivation. Furthermore,
few studies have examined the relationship of reading motivation to reading
readiness and success of ethnic minorities in grades K-5. Thus, further development
is needed in these areas.
The findings from this study also have important implications for educators.
Based on Baumrind’s parenting style constructs, the positive effects of authoritative
parenting have been consistently demonstrated in European American children
(Chao, 2001). This research has therefore been widely accepted as the prototype for
appropriate parenting. Similarly, the research promotes that teachers should exhibit
authoritative parenting in their classrooms. Thus, authoritative parenting is typically
81
held as the preferred parenting style to encourage successful academic and social
outcomes. However, this study’s findings suggest that authoritative teachers do not
necessarily promote motivational outcomes, which are often associated with
academic achievement. Instead, the results show that Asian American students with
authoritarian teachers demonstrate higher levels of reading self-efficacy. While
further research needs to be conducted, this indicates a need to examine how
currently held beliefs about positive teaching practices (i.e. those associated with
authoritative parenting) may not necessarily have the same effects on all ethnic
populations. Educators need to consider that students from multicultural
backgrounds may only positively respond to parenting practices similar to those
experienced at home.
Authoritative parenting behaviors such as bidirectional communication and
high levels of nurturance are associated with pedagogical caring, or teacher care
(Wentzel, 2002). However, the findings do not support that teachers’ authoritative
parenting practices predicts higher levels of reading motivation in Asian American
students. Chao (2001) reported that Chinese American students had higher grades
and levels of school effort than European Americans. These students reported that
their parents were authoritarian and authoritative. However, they reported higher
proportions of authoritarian parents than European Americans. Closeness to their
parents was one variable that was examined to determine whether there were cross-
cultural differences. There were minimal differences reported between the Chinese
and European students in levels of parental closeness. It is therefore questionable if
82
pedagogical caring, or closeness to teachers, influences Asian Americans students
the same way as European Americans. Since the present study’s findings did not
support the hypothesis that Asian American students with authoritative teachers have
higher levels of reading motivation, there is a possibility that pedagogical caring may
also have limited influences on Asian American students. Further investigations
should occur that measure group differences based on Asian American students’
acculturation levels.
Limitations
There were several limitations in this study. First, the sample size was
relatively small. Ideally, more teachers and students would have participated in the
study. However, it was difficult to recruit both teachers and students. Principals had
to allow the researcher access to their schools prior to the recruitment process. Many
principals were unwilling to respond to the researcher’s requests for a short
conference to discuss the study. Once the researcher had access to the schools,
teachers were asked to participate in the study. Once again, there was a large
unwillingness to participate in the study. This may be due to several reasons, most of
which are related to additional time and effort on the teachers’ end. First, it would
require extra time for teachers to complete the PAQ. Second, parent-teacher
conferences were taking place during the data collection period, which meant report
cards had to be completed and students had shortened instructional days. Finally,
some teachers expressed the concern of isolating their Asian American students
despite the fact that the study was specifically designed around Asian Americans.
83
The teachers believed that all students should have the opportunity to participate in
the study.
The student sample size was also small since it was limited to those who
received parental consent. There is a possibility that some parents did not receive the
informed consent forms and therefore could not provide consent. Additionally,
several parents did not seem to understand the research design and were concerned
about maintaining their children’s anonymity. Another obstacle was students could
only be recruited from participating teachers’ classrooms. Thus, a sampling bias may
have resulted since the student participants were limited to the participating teachers’
classrooms rather than all Asian American students. Furthermore, it is probable that
the student sample consisted of children with educated parents or ones with higher
acculturation levels since such parents would have more knowledge of research and
its importance.
There were several other limitations related to the research methodology. The
relationship between parenting style and Asian American students’ reading
motivation should be examined through mixed methods. The use of self-reported
questionnaires relied on the teachers’ self-perceptions of their parenting styles. Their
self-perceptions may have been different from their actual parenting styles. The
parenting styles could have been validated if students also reported on the
perceptions of their teachers’ parenting styles. However, the use of multiple
methodologies would include the combination of teacher and student self-reports,
interviews, and case studies with the survey method. Therefore, the use of both
84
quantitative and qualitative methods would have been preferable since interview and
observation data could have explained some phenomena that cannot be explained
through self-report data. Nevertheless, the present study utilized teacher and students
self-report surveys since it required lower levels of cost and time investment than
alternative methodologies, in addition to less intrusion and risk to the participants.
Additionally, there was a limitation in the type of instrument used to measure
students’ reading motivation. There was a discrepancy between the theoretical
foundation and the measure used to examine the independent variables. A social
cognitive and expectancy-value model served as the theoretical framework for the
dependent variables of self-efficacy and self-regulation. An instrument that specially
measures reading self-regulation did not appear to exist. Therefore, the MRQ
subscales were organized based on similarities shared with self-regulation theory.
One major limitation of the student instrument was that it did not have specific
subscales that measure self-regulation. Thus, the instrument did not necessarily
maintain consistency with self-regulation theory and standard approaches to its
measurement. Also, low Cronbach alpha reliabilities were found for several of the
MRQ subscales, which potentially indicate unreliability.
A second major limitation is associated with the student participants’
relatively high socioeconomic backgrounds. According to the demographic data as
reported by teachers, most of the students were from middle or upper-middle
socioeconomic homes based on high family incomes. Additionally, many of the
students were from nuclear families. Therefore, the findings may not be
85
generalizable to the broader Asian American student population, especially students
from different family structures and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Finally, longitudinal research is preferred to the cross-sectional study as a
way to track students through their developmental years in various teachers’
classrooms. According to Cox and Guthrie (2001), as students grow older,
motivation to read has a significant impact on whether a student will choose to
engage in reading tasks. Students who demonstrated lower levels of reading
motivation during early childhood were less likely to choose to read during late
childhood. A longitudinal study could examine whether Asian American students
exhibit similar patterns.
Future Directions
This study provided some insight into the relationship between parenting
styles of teachers and fourth and fifth grade Asian American students’ reading
motivation. The data indicate that authoritarian parenting predicts higher levels of
reading self-efficacy. However, this study was not able to support the hypotheses
that authoritarian parenting predicts higher levels of reading self-regulation or that
authoritative parenting predicts higher levels of reading self-efficacy and self-
regulation in Asian American students. This requires further investigation that may
require a combination with the variable of academic achievement. Research indicates
that as a whole, Asian American students from authoritarian and authoritative homes
have higher levels of academic achievement (Dornbusch et al., 1990; Radziszewska
et al., 1996; Steinberg et al., 1991). Thus the assumption is that they would have
86
higher levels of reading motivation since levels of motivation tend to influence
achievement and engagement (Baker & Wigfield, 1999). Therefore, future studies
should include the additional variable of academic achievement for better
understanding how parenting styles of teacher relate to both academic success and
motivation in Asian American students.
The preferred research methodology is a longitudinal design that utilizes a
mixed-methods approach. This would allow a long-term examination of how
teachers’ parenting styles relate to Asian American students’ development from late
childhood into adolescent stages. It is important to note that students generally
change teachers yearly, and therefore a single teacher’s parenting style is not the
only source for understanding Asian American students’ reading motivation.
Additionally, it is recommended that further investigation included variables such as
parenting style experienced at home and peer socialization.
Finally, findings from the present study do not provide information about
other racial comparison groups. Therefore, group differences between various racial
groups could not be examined. It is recommended that future research include at
least one additional racial comparison group as a way to investigate differences
between the populations in terms of teachers’ parenting styles and students’ reading
motivation. Furthermore, future studies should also consider disaggregating the
Asian American groups and examine within-group differences through various
statistical analyses.
87
Conclusion
The present research suggests that teachers’ parenting style plays a role in
Asian American students’ reading motivation, particularly reading self-efficacy.
Specifically, it is evident that authoritarian parenting helps Asian American students
develop a sense of reading self-efficacy, the belief that they will do well in reading
related tasks. This is contrary to the belief that authoritative parenting is the preferred
form of parenting and will most likely lead to positive outcomes such as academic
achievement and prosocial behavior. The beneficial effects of authoritarian parenting
may therefore extend to teachers’ parenting style since teachers are influential
nonparental adults. By examining teachers’ parenting style on Asian American
students’ reading motivation, this study was able to demonstrate that authoritarian
parenting behaviors can yield similar effects on Asian Americans’ motivational
outcomes as aspects of authoritative parenting does on European Americans.
88
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading
and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading
Research Quarterly, 34, 452-477.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Baumrind, D. (1968). Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental control. Adolescence,
3(11), 255-282.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental
Psychology Monographs, 4, 1-103.
Baumrind, D. (1991a). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In
P.A. Cowan & E.M. Hetherington (Eds.), Advances in family research (pp.
11-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The experimental ecology of education. American
Educational Research Association, 5, 5-15.
Broussard, S. C.,& Garrison, M. E. (2004). The relationship between classroom
motivation and academic achievement in elementary-school-aged children.
Family and Consumer Science Research Journal, 33, 106-120.
Buri, J. R., Louiselle, P. A., Misukanis, T. M., & Mueller, R. A. (1988). Effects of
parental authoritarianism and authoritativeness on self-esteem, Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 271-282.
Buri, J. R. (1989). Self-esteem and appraisals of parental behavior. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 4, 33-49.
Buri, J. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment,
57, 110-119.
89
Chang, L., McBride-Change, C., Stewart, S. M., & Au, E. (2003). Life satisfaction,
self-concept, and family relations in Chinese adolescents and children.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 72, 1832-1843.
Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style:
Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training.
Child Development, 65, 1111-1119.
Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for
Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832-
1843.
Chiu, L. H. (1987). Child-rearing attitudes of Chinese, Chinese-American, and
Anglo-American mothers. International Journal of Psychology, 22, 409-419.
Cox, K. E., & Guthrie, J. T. (2001). Motivational and cognitive contributions to
students’ amount of reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26,
116-131.
Darling, N. (2000). Parenting style and its correlates (Report No. EDO-PS-99-3).
Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearninghous on Elementary and Early Childhood
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427896)
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496.
Davidson, A., & Phelan, P. (1999). Students’ multiple worlds: An anthropological
approach to understanding students’ engagement with school. In Advances in
motivation and achievement: Role of context, volume II (pp. 233-283).
Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Diero, J. A. (2003). Do your students know you care? Educational Leadership, 60,
60-62.
Dornbusch, S., Ritter, P., Mont-Reynaud, R., & Chen, Z. (1990). Family decision
making and academic performance in a diverse high school population.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 5, 143-160.
Dornbusch, S., Ritter, P., Leiderman, P., Roberts, D., & Fraleigh, M. (1987). The
relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child
Development, 58, 1244-1257.
90
Eaton, M. J., & Dembo, M. H. (1997). Differences in the motivational beliefs of
Asian American and non-Asian students. Journal of Educational Psychology,
89, 433-440.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 109-133.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). The development of achievement
motivation. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:
Socialization, personality, and social development (5th ed., pp. 601-642).
New York: Wiley.
Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Guay, F. (1995). Academic motivation and school
performance. Toward a structural model. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 20, 257-274.
Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B.M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing
motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49, 518-533.
Goldberg, M. D., & Cornell, D. G. (1998). The influence of intrinsic motivation and
self-concept on academic achievement in second-and third-grade students.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 179-205.
Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students:
Relationships to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence,
13, 21-43.
Gottfried, A. E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior high
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 631-645.
Guthrie, J. T., Schafer, W., Wang, Y. Y., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Relationships of
instruction to amount of reading: An exploration of social cognitive, and
instructional connections. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 8-25.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (1997) Reading engagement: Motivating readers
through integrated instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Hombo, C. M. (2003). NAEP and No Child Left Behind: Technical challenges and
practical solutions. Theory Into Practice, 42, 59-65.
91
Kim, H., & Chung, R. H. (2003). Relationship of recalled parenting style to self-
perception in Korean American college students. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 164, 481-492.
Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the
No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational
Researcher, 34, 3-13.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task
performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lamborn, S., Dornbusch, S., & Steinberg, L. (1996). Ethnicity and community
context as moderators of the relations between family decision making and
adolescent adjustment. Child Development, 67, 283-301.
Lamborn, S., Mounts, N., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. (1991). Patterns of
competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative,
authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62,
1049-1065.
Lau, S., & Cheung P.C. (1987). Relations between Chinese adolescents’ perception
of parental control and organization and their perception of parental warmth.
Developmental Psychology, 23, 726-729.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent–child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol.
Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and
social development (4th ed., pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.
Matthewson, G. C. (1994). Model of attitude influence upon reading and learning to
read. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models
and processes of reading (4th edition, pp. 1131-1161). Newark, DE.:
International Reading Association.
Mayerhoff, M. (1971). On caring. New York: Perennial Library.
McCombs, B., & Whisler, S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McKenna, M.C., Kear, D.J., & Ellsworth, R.A. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward
reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934-955.
92
Nicholls, J. D., & Miller, R. B. (1994). Cooperative learning and student motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 167-178.
Niebuhr, K. (1995). The effect of motivation on the relationship of school climate,
family environment, and student characteristics to academic achievement
(Report No. EA 027467). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on
Teacher Learning.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education.
Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Olson, B., & Sexton, D. (2009). Threat, rigidity, school reform, and how teachers
view their work inside current education policy contexts. American
Educational Research Journal, 46, 9-44.
Osterman, K. E. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community.
Review of Educational Research, 70, 323-367.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66, 543-578.
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1998). Formalist thinking and language arts instruction:
Teachers’ and students’ beliefs about truth and caring in the teacher
conversation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 855-870.
Park, H.S., & Bauer, S. (2002). Parenting practices, ethnicity, socioeconomic status
and academic achievement in adolescents. School Psychology International,
23, 386-397.
Pianta, R. C. & Steinberg, M. (1992). Teacher-child relationships and the process of
adjusting to school. In R. Pianta (Ed.), New directions for child development.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Purdie, N., Carroll, A., & Roche, L. (2004). Parenting and adolescent self-regulation.
Journal of Adolescence, 27, 664-676.
Radziszewska, B., Richardson, J. L., Dent, C. W., & Flay, B. R. (1996). Parenting
style and adolescent depressive symptoms, smoking, and academic
achievement: Ethnic, gender, and SES differences. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 19, 289-305.
93
Rotter, J.B. (1982). Social learning theory. In N. T. Feather (Ed.), Expectations and
actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology (pp. 241-260). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (1997). The role of responsive teaching in focusing
reading intention and developing reading motivation. In J. T. Guthrie & A.
Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated
instruction (pp. 102-125). Newark, DE.: International Reading Association.
Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in
adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American
Educational Research Journal, 38, 437-460.
Santrock, J. (1996). Adolescence: An introduction. Dubuque, IA: Brown &
Benchmark.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education:
Theory, research, and applications (3rd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Developing self-efficacious readers and
writers: The role of social and self-regulatory processes. In J. T. Guthrie & A.
Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated
instruction (pp. 34-50). Newark, DE.: International Reading Association.
Sorkhabi, N. (2005). Applicability of Baumrind’s parenting typology to collective
cultures: Analysis of cultural explanations of parent socialization effects.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 552-563.
Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting
styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review,
17, 125-146.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M.
(1994). Overtime changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents
from authoritative, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development,
65, 754-770.
Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S., Chen, C., Lummis, M., Stigler, J., Fan, L., & Ge, F.
(1991). Mathematics achievement of children in China and the United States.
Child Development, 61, 1259-1270.
94
Stipek, D. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind comes to preschool, The Elementary
School Journal, 106(5), 455-465.
Sue, S., & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian-American educational achievements: A
phenomenon in search of an explanation. American Psychologist, 45, 913-
920.
Uba, L. (1994). Asian Americans: Personality patterns, identity, and mental health.
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Walker, J. M. (2008). Looking at teacher practices through the lens of parenting
style. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 218-240.
Wang, J. H., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation,
extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on
text comprehension between U.S. and Chinese students. Reading Research
Quarterly, 39, 162-186.
Wang, C.C., & Phinney, J.S. (1998). Differences in child rearing attitudes between
immigrant Chinese mothers and Anglo-American mothers. Early
Development and Parenting, 7, 181-189.
Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived
pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 411-419.
Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and
student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73, 287-301.
Whang, P. A., & Hancock, G. R. (1994). Motivation and mathematics achievement:
Comparisons between Asian-American and non-Asian students.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 302-322.
Wigfield, A. (1997). Children’s motivations for reading and reading engagement. In
J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers
through integrated instruction (pp. 14-33). Newark, DE.: International
Reading Association.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J.T. (1995). Dimensions of children’s motivations for
reading: An initial study (Reading Research Report No. 34). Universities of
Georgia and Maryland: National Reading Research Center.
95
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading
to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 420-432.
Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., & McGough, K. (1996). A questionnaire measure of
children’s motivations for reading (Instructional Resource Report No. 22).
Universities of Georgia and Maryland: National Reading Research Center.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Rodriguez, D. (1998). The development of children's
motivation in school context. Review of Research in Education, 23, 73- 118.
Wigfield, A., Wilde, K., Baker, L., Fernandez-Fein, S., & Scher, D. (Summer 1996).
The nature of children’s motivations for reading, and their relations to
reading frequency and reading performance (Reading Research Report No.
63). Universities of Georgia and Maryland: National Reading Research
Center.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). The hidden dimension of personal
competence. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of Competence
and Motivation (pp. 509-526). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Puns, M. (1992). Self-motivation for
academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal
setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676.
96
APPENDIX A
Teacher Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Alice Ra, M.A.T., and
Ruth H. Chung, Ph.D., from the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California. The results will contribute to the completion of Alice Ra’s
doctoral dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study
because you are fourth or fifth grade teacher. Your participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
You are being invited to participate in a research study conducted by Alice Ra,
M.A.T., from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You were selected as a possible participant because you currently teach
either fourth or fifth grades. The study will last a few months, starting this October,
2008, and ending in May, 2009.
The purpose of this study is to learn more about Asian American students’
motivation for reading, including what kinds of teacher support promotes motivation.
All fourth and fifth grade teachers who receive this invitation and choose to
participate will be included in the study. I expect that this project will give us
information that can help educators make reading more motivating for young people.
Completion of this questionnaire will constitute consent to participate in this research
project.
PROCEDURES
You are asked to complete the following online questionnaire that will take about
twenty minutes to complete. If you are unable to complete the questionnaire in one
setting, you may save your progress and return to the website at a later time.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may be inconvenienced from
taking time out of your day to complete the survey. You are free to skip any
questions you do not feel comfortable answering.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
I expect that participation in the study will produce results that may offer you new
insights into students’ reading motivation, which can assist you in honing your own
professional skills. While complete confidentiality of responses will be maintained in
reporting results, this study is designed to yield insights into issues relevant to K-5
reading instruction. In addition, I hope that the results of this study will enable
97
researchers and educators to better understand the condition, causes, and
consequences of elementary students’ reading motivation.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be financially compensated for your participation in this study.
However, you are eligible to enter a raffle to win a $50, $20, or $10 Target gift card.
In order to participate in the raffle, you will provide your name and e-mail address at
the end of the survey, which will be stored separately from your responses. You will
be notified via e-mail if you are chosen as a raffle winner.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The University of Southern California and myself take your confidentiality very
seriously. Therefore several steps will be taken so that no one outside the research
team will know what responses you personally gave to the survey questions. Any
information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be given out only with your permission or
as required by law.
If you choose to enroll in the study, you will be randomly assigned a study ID. Any
responses you provide as part of this study will be stored with your study ID, not
with your name. Only Alice Ra and her dissertation committee will have access to
the list that links your study ID to your name. All study data will be stored in the
investigator’s office at Loyola Marymount University in a locked file cabinet or
password-protected computer. Only Alice Ra and her dissertation committee will
have access to the study data and to the list that links your study ID to your name.
After five years, the paper data will be destroyed.
When results of the research are published, presented, or discussed with anyone
outside the research team, the responses you give will be grouped with the responses
from other teachers in the study. This means your choice to participate and your
individual responses will not be shared with your parents, teachers, school or anyone
not on the research team.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.
98
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Ruth Chung, Ph.D. at rchung@usc.edu, Alice Ra, M.A.T. at alicera@usc.edu, or call
or visit (213) 740-9323, at the Rossier School of Education, USC, WPH 802, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-4038.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study participant or you would like to speak with someone independent of the
research team to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the
research staff can not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of
the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles,
CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu. I agree-Please send me the
survey.
99
APPENDIX B
Parent Information Consent Form
Students’ Reading Motivation
Purpose
Your child is being invited to participate in a research study conducted by Alice Ra,
M.A.T. from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. Your child was selected as a possible participant because he or she is a
fourth or fifth grade Asian American student at an elementary school that is
participating in the study.
The purpose of this study is to learn more about Asian American students’
motivation for reading, including what kinds of teacher support promotes motivation.
All fourth and fifth grade Asian American students at the elementary school are
being invited to participate.
Your child’s participation is completely voluntary. Your child’s grades will not be
affected whether or not s/he participates, and the school will not be told whether or
not s/he participates in this study. Please take as much time as you need to read the
information below before deciding whether or not to allow your child to participate.
If you agree to allow your child to participate, s/he will also be asked if s/he wants to
participate. Your child will be given a separate form, called an Assent Form to read.
The individuals listed at the end of this form will be happy to answer any questions
you have about this form or the study. You, or your child, are welcome to discuss the
study with anyone you like before making your decision. A second copy of this form
is included in this packet for you to keep.
If you give permission for your child to participate, you will be asked to sign this
form. Even if you do give your permission, the final decision lies with your child,
who may choose whether or not to participate in the study.
Procedures
If you give your permission, and your child also agrees to participate in this study, he
or she will be asked to do the things described below.
Your child can participate in all or some of them.
1. Complete Surveys. Your child will be asked to complete a short survey about his
or her motivation for reading. The survey will ask your child to rate his or her level
of agreement with questions such as, “I find reading interesting,” or “I try really hard
in reading.” If you would like a copy of the survey please contact the researcher at
100
the numbers given at the end of this form. The survey is available and can be
requested at any time. The survey will take about 20-30 minutes to complete and will
be administered by the Principal Investigator, Alice Ra, with teacher or parental
supervision during recess or immediately after school at the school.
2. CST Scores. The second part of the study may involve the researcher receiving
your child’s CST score in English Language Arts and English language proficiency
for the 2008-09 school year. Your written permission is required to do this. If you
agree to allow your child’s scores to be released, please check the appropriate section
at the end of the consent form. Your child can still participate in the survey portion if
you do not want the researcher to access his/her grades.
Confidentiality
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with your child will remain confidential and will be given out only with
your and your child’s permission or as required by law.
Your child’s participation is voluntary and all responses are confidential. If enrolled
in the study, your child will be randomly assigned a study ID. Any responses your
child provides as part of this study, and any other data obtained about him or her as
part of this study, will be stored with his or her study ID, not with his or her name.
All study data will be stored in the investigator’s office at Loyola Marymount
University in a locked file cabinet or password-protected computer. Only Alice Ra
and her dissertation committee will have access to the study data and to the list that
links your child’s study ID to his or her name. After five years, all of the data will be
destroyed (shredded or deleted). Your child’s responses will not be shared with
his/her teacher or anyone at their school. You will not have access to your child’s
responses.
When results of the research are published, presented, or discussed with anyone
outside the dissertation committee, the responses your child gives will be grouped
with the responses from other students in the study. This means your child’s choice
to participate and his or her individual responses will not be shared with you, your
child’s teachers, the school or anyone not on the research team.
Potential Risks and Discomforts
There are no known risks associated with your child’s participation in this research
project. Your child can choose not to answer any question during the survey that s/he
is not comfortable answering.
Potential Benefits to Participants and to Society
Your child will not directly benefit from his/her participation. It is hoped that this
research will help teachers and researchers learn more about reading motivation.
101
Compensation for Participation
Your child will not be paid for participating in this study.
Freedom to Withdraw
Your child’s participation is voluntary, and your child is free to withdraw from this
study and to refuse to answer any questions he or she does not want to answer
without consequences of any kind. Your child’s grades will not be affected, whether
or not s/he agrees to participate. The investigator may withdraw your child from this
research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so, for example, if your child is
disrupting the class.
Alternatives to Participation
Your child’s alternative is to not participate. If you, or your child, do not want to
participate in the research study, s/he will be participate in recess and/or after school
activities as usual.
Obtaining Copies of Research Instruments
To obtain copies of the interview questions and survey, please contact the principal
investigator at the address below.
Rights of Research Participants & Contact Information
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue your child’s
participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your permission for your child to participate in this research
study. If you have any questions about your rights and/or your child’s rights as a
study participant or you would like to speak with someone independent of the
research team to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the
research staff can not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of
the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles,
CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
Identification of Investigator
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Alice Ra, M.A.T., Principal Investigator, 1 LMU Drive, University Hall 3404, Los
Angeles, CA 90045-2659; telephone: 310-483-9703; email: alicera@usc.edu OR Dr.
Ruth Chung, Ph.D., Dissertation Chair at rchung@usc.edu.
102
APPENDIX C
Student Assent Form
1. My name is Alice Ra.
2. We are asking you to take part in a research study because you are in 4
th
or 5
th
grade and are Asian. The researchers are trying to learn more about what makes
students’ want to read. We want to know what types of activities and goals make
you want to read.
3. If you agree to be in this study you will be asked to answer some questions about
your reading habits, like why you want to read, if you like reading certain types
of books.
4. There are no risks if you participate in this study. You will only be asked to
answer some questions during recess or after school. It will take about 20 to 30
minutes to answer the questions. There are no right or wrong answers but if you
feel uncomfortable answering a question, you can skip it. You will not be graded
on your answers.
5. There are no direct benefits for your participation in the study.
6. Please talk this over with your parents before you decide whether or not to
participate. We will also ask your parents to give their permission for you to take
part in this study. But even if your parents say “yes” you can still decide not to
do this. Please take as much time as you need to read this form. You may also
decide to discuss it with your family or friends. If you decide to participate, you
will be asked to sign this form.
7. If you don’t want to be in this study, you don’t have to participate. Remember,
being in this study is up to you and no one will be upset if you don’t want to
participate or even if you change your mind later and want to stop. If you don’t
want to participate, you can continue with your regular activities.
8. You can ask any questions that you have about the study. If you have a question
later that you didn’t think of now, you can call me (310) 483-9703 or ask me next
time.
9. If you have any questions about your rights as a study subject or you would like
to speak with someone who isn’t part of the research team to answer questions
about the research, or in the event the research staff can not be reached, please
contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research
103
Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213)
821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
10. Signing your name at the bottom means that you agree to be in this study. You
and your parents will be given a copy of this form after you have signed it.
104
APPENDIX D
Adapted Parental Authority Questionnaire - BURI (1991)
Demographic Information
Directions: Please check the items that describe who you are or fill in the requested
information.
1. Age _____
2. Gender: ____Male ____Female
3. Teaching status: ____ Probationary ____Permanent
4. How many years of education do you have after your undergraduate degree?
5. In what state did you earn your teaching credential?
6. How long have you been teaching?
7. How long have you been teaching in California?
8. How long have you been teaching in your current school district?
9. How would you describe the class background of most of your students?
_____ working class _____ middle class _____ upper class
_____ lower middle class _____ upper middle class
105
Parental Authority Questionnaire
Directions: For each of the following statements, circle the number on the 5-point
scale that best indicates how that statement applies to you and your students. Try to
read and think about each statement as it applies to you and your students in the
classroom environment. There are no right or wrong answers, so don’t spend a lot of
time on any one item. We are looking for your overall impression regarding each
statement. Be sure not to omit any items.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
1. I believe that in a well-run classroom the students should have their way in the
classroom as often as I do.
2. Even if the students don’t agree with me, I feel that it is for their own good for
them to conform to what I believe is right.
3. Whenever I tell my students to do something as I did when in school, I expect
them to do it immediately without asking any questions.
4. Once classroom policy has been established, I discuss the reasoning behind the
policy with the students in my classroom.
5. I always encourage verbal give-and-take whenever my students feel that
classroom rules and restrictions are unreasonable.
6. I always feel that what students 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 I may want.
7. I do not allow my students to question any decision that I have made.
8. I direct all of the activities and decisions of the students in the classroom through
reasoning and discipline.
9. I have always felt that more force should be used by teachers in order to get
students to behave in they way they are supposed to.
10. I do not feel that my students need to obey rules and regulations of behavior
simply because someone in authority established them.
106
11. My students know what is expected of them in the classroom but they also know
that they are free to discuss the expectations with me when they feel that the
expectations are unreasonable.
12. My parents felt that wise parents should teach their children early just who is
boss in the family.
13. As I was growing up, my parents seldom gave expectations and guidelines for
my behavior.
14. Most of the time as I was growing up my parents did what the children in the
family wanted when making family decisions.
15. As the children in my family were growing up, my parents consistently gave us
direction and guidance in rational and objective ways.
16. As I was growing up my parents would get very upset if I tried to disagree with
them.
17. My parents 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.
18. As I was growing up, my parents let me know what behaviors they expected of
me, and if I didn’t meet those expectations, they punished me.
19. As I was growing up, my parents allowed me to decide most things for myself
without a lot of direction from them.
20. As I was growing up my parents took the children’s opinions into consideration
when making family decisions, but they would not decide for something simply
because the children wanted it.
21. My parents did not view themselves as responsible for directing and guiding my
behavior as I was growing up.
22. My parents had clear standards of behavior for the children in our homes as I was
growing up, but they were willing to adjust those standards to the needs of each
of the individual children in the family.
23. My parents gave me direction for my behavior and activities as I was growing up
and they expected me to follow their direction, but they were always willing to
listen to my concerns and to discuss the directions with me.
107
24. As I was growing up my parents allowed me to form my own point of view on
family matters and they generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was
going to do.
25. My parents 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.
26. I often tell my students exactly what I want them to do and how they expected to
do it.
27. I give clear direction for my students; behaviors and activities, but I also
understand when my students disagree with me.
28. I do not direct the behaviors, activities, and the desires of the students in the
classroom.
29. My students know what I expect of them in the classroom and I insist that the
students conform to those expectations simply out of respect for my authority.
30. If I make a decision in decision in the classroom that may hurt a student, I am
willing to discuss it with the student and to admit it if I made a mistake.
108
APPENDIX E
Motivations For Reading Quesionnaire - WIGFIELD (2005)
We are interested in your reading.
The sentences tell how some students feel about reading. Listen to each sentence
and decide whether it talks about a person who is like you or different from you.
There are no right or wrong answers. We only want to know how you feel about
reading.
For many of the statements, you should think about the kinds of things you read in
your class.
Here are some ones to try before we start on the ones about reading:
I like ice cream.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
If the statement is very different from you, circle a 1.
If the statement is a little different from you, circle a 2.
If the statement is a little like you, circle a 3.
If the statement is a lot like you, circle a 4.
I like spinach.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
If the statement is very different from you, what should you circle?
If the statement is a little different from you, what should you circle?
If the statement is a little like you, what should you circle?
If the statement is a lot like you, what should you circle?
109
Okay, we are ready to start on the ones about reading. Remember, when you give
your answers you should think about the things you are reading in your class.
There are no right or wrong answers, we just are interested in YOUR ideas about
reading. To give your answer, circle ONE number on each line. The answer lines
are right under each statement.
Let’s turn the page and start. Please follow along with me while I read each of the
statements, and then circle your answer.
110
1. I like being the best at reading.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
2. I like it when the questions in books make me think.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
3. I read to improve my grades.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
4. If the teacher discusses something interesting I might read more about it.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
5. I like hard, challenging books.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
6. I enjoy a long, involved story or fiction book.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
111
7. I know that I will do well in reading next year.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
8. If a book is interesting I don’t care how hard it is to read.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
9. I try to get more answers right than my friends.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
10. I have favorite subjects that I like to read about.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
11. I visit the library often with my family.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
12. I make pictures in my mind when I read.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
112
13. I don’t like reading something when the words are too difficult.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
14. I enjoy reading books about people in different countries.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
15. I am a good reader.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
16. I usually learn difficult things by reading.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
17. It is very important to me to be a good reader.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
18. My parents often tell me what a good job I am doing in reading.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
113
19. I read to learn new information about topics that interest me.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
20. If the project is interesting, I can read difficult material.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
21. I learn more from reading than most students in the class.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
22. I read stories about fantasy and make believe.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
23. I read because I have to.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
24. I don’t like vocabulary questions.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
114
25. I like to read about new things.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
26. I often read to my brother or my sister.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
27. In comparison to other activities I do, it is very important to me to be a good
reader.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
28. I like having the teacher say I read well.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
29. I read about my hobbies to learn more about them.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
30. I like mysteries.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
115
31. My friends and I like to trade things to read.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
32. Complicated stories are no fun to read.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
33. I read a lot of adventure stories.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
34. I do as little schoolwork as possible in reading.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
35. I feel like I make friends with people in good books.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
36. Finishing every reading assignment is very important to me.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
116
37. My friends sometimes tell me I am a good reader.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
38. Grades are a good way to see how well you are doing in reading.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
39. I like to help my friends with their schoolwork in reading.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
40. I don’t like it when there are too many people in the story.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
41. I am willing to work hard to read better than my friends.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
42. I sometimes read to my parents.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
117
43. I like to get compliments for my reading.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
44. It is important for me to see my name on a list of good readers.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
45. I talk to my friends about what I am reading.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
46. I always try to finish my reading on time.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
47. I am happy when someone recognizes my reading.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
48. I like to tell my family about what I am reading.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
118
49. I like being the only one who knows an answer in something we read.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
50. I look forward to finding out my reading grade.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
51. I always do my reading work exactly as the teacher wants it.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
52. I like to finish my reading before other students.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
53. My parents ask me about my reading grade.
Very A Little
Different Different A Little A Lot
From Me From Me Like Me Like Me
1 2 3 4
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The relationship between parenting styles, career decision self-efficacy, and career maturity of Asian American college students
PDF
Relationship of teacher's parenting style to instructional strategies and student achievement
PDF
Are acculturation and parenting styles related to academic achievement among Latino students?
PDF
Motivational, parental, and cultural influences on achievement and persistence in basic skills mathematics at the community college
PDF
Exploring the relationship between academic achievement and classroom behavior of Asian American elementary school students
PDF
The relationship of model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian American college students
PDF
Factors that contribute to high and low performing Vietnamese American high school students
PDF
The relationship of values and parenting styles on academic achievement and occupational choice among Jewish-Americans and Jewish-Iranian Americans
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
The relationship between student perceptions of parental expectations, utility value, aptitude and English achievement among Asian American high school students
PDF
Factors influencing nursing students' motivation to succeed
PDF
Teacher management style: its impact on teacher-student relationships and leadership development
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
The relationship of ethnicity, gender, acculturation, intergenerational relations, and sense of belonging in the institution to academic success among Asian American undergraduates
PDF
The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students
PDF
Latino parental aspirations and literacy practices related to children's reading engagement
PDF
The role of parenting style, ethnicity, and identity style on identity commitment and career decision self-efficacy
PDF
Expectancy value theory and African American student motivation
PDF
The effect of reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value, and metacognitive self-regulation on the achievement and persistence of community college students enrolled in basic skills reading courses
PDF
The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ra, Alice
(author)
Core Title
The relationship of teachers' parenting styles and Asian American students' reading motivation
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/07/2009
Defense Date
03/03/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Asian American reading motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher parenting style
Place Name
Los Angeles County
(counties)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Chung, Ruth, H. (
committee chair
), Jones, Anne (
committee member
), Riconscente, Michelle (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ahra36@gmail.com,ara212@sbcglobal.net
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2056
Unique identifier
UC1308289
Identifier
etd-Ra-2769 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-206756 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2056 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Ra-2769.pdf
Dmrecord
206756
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Ra, Alice
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
Asian American reading motivation
teacher parenting style