INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No.

2 2007

THE RELATIONS BETWEEN PARENTING

AND ADOLESCENT MOTIVATION

Thienhuong N. Hoang
College of Education and Integrative Studies
Department of Education: Graduate Pedagogical Studies
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

Purpose of Study

There are many factors that influence the academic success and motivation of students.
Social cognitive theory contends that individuals learn and perform based upon a triadic
reciprocality of personal factors, behavior, and the environment (Bandura, 1986). Personal
factors such as beliefs, behaviors, and the environment equally influence one another. Existing
literature suggests that highly motivated students may attain more academic success (Grolnick &
Kurowski, 1999; Grolnlick & Ryan, 1989; Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991); Grolnick &
Slowiaczek, 1994). Thus, parenting practices that influence or teach adaptive motivational and
achievement outcomes are an aspect of a student’s success that are in need of consideration. This
study will examine motivational outcomes, as predicted by parenting practices that may
influence student behavior.
The purpose of this study is to expand upon the existing research on the relation between
parenting practices and motivation. Specific consideration will be given to the parenting
practices of parenting style and parent involvement, and two views of motivation, goal
orientation, and autonomy. The relations among the styles of parenting, the level and type of
parental involvement, and three goal orientations and autonomy will be examined.
Styles of parenting are generally described as patterns or configurations of parenting
behaviors. Specifically, the parenting styles of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive, as
described by Baumrind (1967), will be considered for this study. The parental involvement that
will be examined by the present study will include involvement such as attending school
functions, helping with homework, or simply showing interest in what is occurring in school may
be important to a student’s academic career. Parental involvement with both social aspects and
intellectually stimulating activities beyond schoolwork will also be assessed as proposed by
Grolnick and Slowiaczek (1994).
Several different theories attempt to explain what motivates individuals to initiate, persist
at, and follow through with certain activities or tasks. Achievement goal theory (Ames & Archer,
1988; Middleton & Midgley, 1997) and self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) are the
two views of motivation that will be focused on throughout the present study. Achievement goal
theory highlights the purposes behind achievement behaviors (Ames & Archer, 1988; Pintrich &
Schunk, 1996). Achievement goal theory examines the purpose behind certain achievement
behaviors and the standards of evaluation students use to assess their performance. Self-
determination theory examines the social and contextual factors that affect an individual’s self-
motivation and psychological development (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Self-
determination theory includes three innate needs that each individual is believed to have:
competence, relatedness, and autonomy. These are the innate psychological needs. The need for
autonomy will be the aspect of self-determination theory that will be examined here.
This study will contribute to the existing knowledge regarding the relation between

1
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

parenting practices and motivational processes that foster optimal motivation. Specifically, the
study considers parenting practices, such as parental involvement and styles of parenting, to see
how predictive they are of goal orientations and the autonomy component of self-determination
theory. In particular, this study will be guided by research questions that consider whether or not
a relation exists between parenting styles and parental involvement, and a student’s goal
orientation. In addition, the relation between parenting styles and parental involvement, and
student’s level of autonomy will be explored in the present study. Finally, the relation between a
student’s goal orientation and level of relative autonomy will be considered. Potential
implications of this study may address the issues surrounding the importance of parenting
practices in the academic career of a student.

Review of Literature

The present review of literature begins by discussing two specific parenting practices that
may promote more adaptive patterns of motivation. First, parenting style will be explored with
an emphasis on the implications of authoritative parenting and those styles that are aligned with
it. Second, any links between parenting style and any motivational or achievement variables will
be examined. Third, the specific aspects of parental involvement such as behavioral involvement,
personal involvement, and intellectual involvement will be defined and discussed. Fourth, any
relation between parental involvement and motivational or achievement variables will be
explored. Fifth a more specific glimpse into the relation between certain parenting styles and
goal orientation will be examined, as goal orientation is one of the two focal motivational
variables being considered in this study of parenting practices. Sixth, the other important
motivational variable for this study, the autonomy component of self-determination theory, will
be discussed. Seventh, autonomy and any relation to parenting practices will be considered.
Subsequently, the possibility of a relation between specific goal orientations and autonomy will
be examined. Finally, some conclusions based upon the literature will be drawn.

Parenting Styles

Parenting styles have been defined in several different ways by several different
researchers. The present study will consider the authoritative parenting style and autonomy
supportive parenting style to be synonymous, as they both describe the same behaviors, but have
different labels. For example, each of these parenting styles shares common characteristics where
autonomy support and authoritativeness both consider the child as being an integral part of
decision making, promote open communication between child and parent, encourage firm but
warm attitudes toward parenting, and are allowing of exploratory behaviors (Baumrind, 1967;
Ginsburg & Bronstein, 19934 Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Steinberg,
Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992).
The way that a parent views his or her role, the beliefs that the parent has, and the
parent’s engagement and behavior that influences a child are all aspects of the style of parenting
(Ginsburg & Bronstein, 1993). The parenting styles authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative,
introduced by Baumrind (1967), have been referenced in several parent-child relationship
studies. Baumrind examined the relation between the child-rearing practices of parents and their
preschool children. She observed the children in their university-based childcare system and
subsequently observed and interviewed the parents of these children in their homes. Based upon

2
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

these observations and interviews, Baumrind developed an understanding of the three parenting
styles mentioned above.
Based upon the observation of and interviews with parents and their children in the
aforementioned childcare system, the following generalizations were made (Baumrind, 1967).
An authoritarian parent stresses conformity, obedience and respect for authority. Authoritarian
parents may choose extracurricular activities, class schedules, and social events for their child
with no input from the child at all. Permissive parenting involves little enforcement of rules, few
demands on children, and a general acceptance of behavior whether good or bad. Children of
permissive parents may not be subject to a curfew, have few to no chores, and receive little
direction regarding academics from their parents. Authoritative parents nurture individuality,
openly communicate with their children, constructively respond to misbehavior, enforce rules,
and stress learning as a responsibility of the child and parent. This type of parent may allow
children to be a part of making the rules of the household. Authoritative parents may also allow
for their child to express his or her individuality through the extracurricular activities and
elective courses he or she chooses. Also, an authoritative parent may truly converse with and
respect their child and his or her opinions.
Baumrind’s (1967) results led her to the conclusion that the authoritative style of
parenting fosters self- esteem, maturity, cognitive development, responsibility, and
independence. Based on these conclusions, other researchers have considered the relation
between parenting styles and children’s motivation and achievement. For example, more
research lends support to the relation between the authoritative or autonomy supportive style of
parenting and relative autonomy (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989); intrinsic motivation (Ginsburg &
Bronstein, 1993; Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 1994); mastery goal orientation (Gonzalez,
Greenwood, & Hsu, 2001; Gonzalez, Holbein, & Quilter, 2002; Gonzalez, Willems, & Holbein,
2005); and in a mediational role between parenting styles and academic performance, control
understanding, perceived competence, and perceived autonomy (Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991).

Parental Involvement

Parental involvement describes the extent to which a parent is dedicated to, takes an
interest in, is knowledgeable about, and is actively participating in the child’s life (Ginsburg &
Bronstein, 1993; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994). Grolnick and Slowiaczek (1994) hypothesized
parental involvement as being multidimensional according to the following three dimensions:
behavioral involvement, personal involvement, and cognitive/intellectual involvement.
Behavioral involvement included participating in and regularly attending school functions, which
modeled the importance of school. Personal involvement was comprised of the child’s affective
experiences that reflect the positive feelings that a parent has conveyed to the child by his
participative and interactive engagement in all aspects of schooling. Cognitive/intellectual
involvement included exposing the child to cognitively and intellectually stimulating activities
and materials such as brainteasers, engaging books, and present event discussions.
These types of parental involvement have been coupled with student motivational
outcomes similar to those relations found with parenting styles. For example, research has
asserted a relation between parental involvement and mastery orientation (Gonzalez et al., 2002,
2005), and the mediational role that the motivational outcomes of perceived competence, control
understanding, and relative autonomy played between involvement and academic performance
(Grohzick & Slowiaczek, 1994). The balance between too little involvement and excessive

3
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

involvement has also been examined in the literature. According to Ginsburg and Bronstein
(1993), an excessive amount of parental involvement has been positively related to extrinsic
motivation suggesting that a healthy balance between excess and scarcity is necessary to
determine.

Achievement Goal Theory

Achievement goal theory represents the assertion that a relation exists among several
different variables including goals, motivational orientations, attributions, conceptions of ability,
conceptions of self-worth, and achievement behaviors (Schunk, 2000). In a general sense, the
research surrounding achievement goal theory examines the purpose behind certain achievement
behaviors and the standards of evaluation students use to assess their performance (Pintrich &
Schunk, 1996). One of the focal aspects of achievement goal theory is goal orientation.
According to Ames (1992), a pattern of beliefs that drive an individual’s engagement in and
reaction to achievement situations is represented by a goal orientation. In particular, goal
orientations include why individuals approach and engage in achievement tasks while
considering the standards by which the individual judge their performance and success in
reaching their goal (Ames, 1992). Mastery and performance goals have traditionally been the
two goal orientations studied and defines (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck & Leggett, 1988,
Urdan, 1998).
A mastery goal orientation is concerned with performing a task or behavior with the
purpose of mastering it or to learn the information on a deeper level. Mastery goals are
intrapersonal to a set of standards that are within an individual and that have little bearing on any
normative properties. A student with a mastery goal orientation may spend a great deal of time
learning and trying to understand physics because he or she has the desire to become an astronaut
and believes that understanding physics is a fundamental part of the process to becoming one.
A performance approach goal orientation is focused on more normative concerns.
Students adopting this type of goal are focused on performing a task for the purpose of
demonstrating ability in comparison to others. The major focus would be to outperform or out-do
others. A student adopting a more performance goal orientation may spend a great deal of time
learning and trying to understand physics because he or she wants to get an outstanding grade or
outperform others in his or her physics class.
Elliot and Harackiewicz (1996) studied the possibility of separate types of performance
goals that have been proposed by many researchers in the realm of goal orientations. It has been
proposed that there are actually two types of performance goals performance approach and
performance avoidance. Students who adopt performance avoidance goals do so for the purpose
of avoiding failure or looking incompetent (Elliot, 1997; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot &
Harackiewiez, 1996; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Midgley, Kaplan, Middleton, Maehr, Urdan,
Anderman, & Roeser, 1998). In keeping with the aforementioned example, a student who is not
concerned with truly understanding the application of physics, nor with outperforming others
publicly or privately, may adopt avoidance goals such that he will do just enough to not appear
less than or incapable.
This addition of the avoidance factor may assist the reader in clarifying which aspect of
performance orientation is more reflective of student behavior. Though more general
performance goals have sometimes been associated with more maladaptive patterns of
motivation (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991), it may

4
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

not be that performing for some type of an external reward or in order to comply with normative
standards is always detrimental to motivation and achievement. It may be that setting avoidance
goals that assist students in avoiding the appearance of being incapable are those that stifle
motivation (Harackiewicz, 2002). Setting a performance goal in order to complete a certain
amount of work in order to receive feedback from a respected mentor or employer may not be
negative if it helps a student to progress further in his or her academic career. For example, doing
well in a mathematics class may help a student to maintain a certain grade point average that
may lead to a scholarship, which will lead to a college education in a field that he or she has the
desire to master. It may be that having a healthy balance of both mastery and performance
approach goals will help to shape a highly productive student that is an authority in his or her
field.

Relative Autonomy

According to Ryan and Deci (2000), self-determination theory explores the innate
psychological needs and inherent tendencies that surround self-motivation, or that which drives
an individual from within to act or behave. As previously mentioned, this theory examines the
social and contextual factors that affect an individual’s self-motivation and psychological
development. According to this theory, the need for competence, relatedness, and autonomy are
innate needs that motivation is dependent upon. The need for autonomy explains the “why”
behind a certain behavior or activity.
This need for autonomy will be the focus of the present study, as it seems to be most
closely related to mastery orientation. Connell and Ryan (1987) discussed autonomy as an
individual being choiceful in his or her actions and as being the locus of initiation of those
actions. In particular, autonomy concerns the extent to which the initiation and regulation of an
action emanates from within (Grolnick et al., 1991). The choices being made are based upon
interests and needs, but well within the realm of being responsible. This freedom and
independence coupled with responsibility and constructive guidance can be highly motivating to
an individual.
Self-determination theory includes a continuum that describes the level of autonomy an
individual experiences while engaging in a given task (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Patrick, Skinner, &
Connell, 1993; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The continuum begins with a motivation or lack of
motivation to engage on one end, then proceeds to extrinsic motivation, and really to more
intrinsic motivation on the other end. The ways of being motivated or how individuals
incorporate social value and external contingencies and transform them into personal values are
believed to be the regulatory style. The regulatory style depends on the level of autonomy that an
individual is given in the particular situation. The continuum begins with a motivation and
proceeds to external, introjected, identified, integrated, and finally to intrinsic. Where a student
falls on this continuum describes his or her relative autonomy, or how autonomous the student
believes himself or herself to be relative to the other levels of autonomy represented on the
continuum. Engaging in a task for external reasons may be for a specific reward, such as candy.
There is very little autonomy and self-regulation at this point in the continuum because some
outside source such as a teacher or parent is facilitating the behavior.
Next, a task or behavior may require introjected regulation where the individual is
engaged in order to avoid feelings of guilt or shame. It is not purely external, but the individual
may have not truly accepted the reason for engagement as his own. Identified regulation

5
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

considers engagement to have originated externally to the individual, but have been accepted as
one’s own based upon the goals for behavior that an individual may have. The usefulness of the
task or behavior for the goals that he or she has adopted is internal though the task or behavior is
external or has originated from some outside source. Integrated regulation of tasks or behaviors
have been fully assimilated to the values that an individual governs himself or herself by. The
origin of the reasons for engagement may still be external, but they identify with some trait or
permanent component of the individuals personality or character.
Finally, intrinsic regulation is based upon the most autonomous reasons for engaging in a
task or behavior. The individual is self-regulated and highly autonomous because the origin of
the task or behavior emanates from within the person. This continuum is referred to as part of the
organismic integration theory, which is another subset of self-determination theory. Some
literature exists that examines the relation between relative autonomy and achievement, and the
self-regulatory aspect of autonomy.

Goal Orientation and Autonomy

Achievement goal theory’s mastery orientation is related to the qualities of an

autonomous child (Gonzalez et al., 2002, 2005). Exploratory, self-reliant, and intrinsically
motivated characterizes the individual that adopts a mastery goal orientation. These qualities are
similar to those that describe an individual that is autonomous (Ryan & Deci, 2000). From a
theoretical standpoint, it would seem that an individual who is mastery oriented will be more
autonomous, and a more autonomous individual will be mastery oriented. The relation between
the two constructs will be examined by the present study to determine if in fact a positive
relation exists, as this relation has not yet been supported by the literature in motivational
research. If a positive relation exists, then the implications for fostering autonomy may
contribute to the implications that a mastery orientation should also be fostered, and vice versa.

Conclusions Based upon the Literature

The present research will address two related gaps in the motivational research. One, this
study will examine the relation between parenting practices and students’ motivational beliefs.
The particular motivational beliefs examined include important constructs from both
achievement goal theory and self-determination theory. The present study will examine the
extent to which three parenting styles and parental involvement can be used to predict three goal
orientations and relative autonomy. The examination of the specific relation among parenting
styles and parental involvement, and the three goal orientations mastery, performance approach,
and performance avoidance will contribute to the small amount of research considering these
variables; as will examining these parenting practices in relation to how autonomous a student
believes himself or herself to be. It is hypothesized that a more authoritative parent will have a
child who is more mastery oriented. Similarly, a more involved parent will foster a more mastery
oriented child. As previously supported by a great deal of research, it is hypothesized that a more
authoritative and involved parent will have a more highly autonomous child.
Secondly, the present study will also examine the relations among the different personal
motivational beliefs. The study will also examine the relation between goal orientation and levels
of autonomy. As previously mentioned, a mastery goal oriented student and a highly autonomous
student share similar characteristics. Again, is there a positive relation that exists between the

6
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

level of autonomy and a mastery goal orientation? A positive relation would further imply that
authoritative parenting fosters positive outcomes in both the academic and social realm of an
individual. Finally, it is believed that a more mastery oriented student is also a highly
autonomous one. The following method will be used to determine if support can be given to
these hypotheses.
Method

Participants

Participants were 140 students (55% female) from a northern California public high
school enrolled in an Algebra I course. Most participants ranged in age from 14 to 17 years, with
3 participants being ages 18, 19, and 20. The participants were primarily ninth-grade students
(n = 122, 87%), although there were also some tenth-grade students (n = 14, 10%) and even
fewer eleventh graders (n = 4, 3%). With regard to ethnicity, 52 (37%) of the students identified
themselves as Hispanic, 48 (35%) as African American, 20 (14%) as White, 13 (9%) as Other,
and 7 (5%) as Asian American.

Procedures

Students that returned signed consent forms completed the study in a multipurpose
meeting room in groups of about 40. The researcher followed a standardized set of instructions
for completing study materials and remained with each group until materials were put in a
designated sealed box. The researcher returned two weeks later to administer the survey to
twenty students that were absent on the actual day it was east administered.

Measures

All participants completed a self-report survey that included 76 items. Each item on this
survey used a 7-point Likert scale ranging from Not at all true (1) to Very true (7), with the
exception of the parental involvement scales which ranged from Never (1) to Always (7). Survey
items were drawn from four separate instruments assessing parenting styles, parental
involvement, goal orientations, and relative autonomy.

Perceived Parenting Style. The Self-Report Measure of Family Functioning (Bloom,

1985) was used to measure three different parenting style variables. For the purpose of the
present study, the democratic family style (authoritative), the laissez-faire family style
(permissive), and the authoritarian family style were examined. Each of the three scales included
five items for each of the proposed parenting styles. The authoritative parenting scale reflected
the degree to which students reported their parents as being more democratic, autonomy
supportive, and open to joint decision-making (α = .67). The permissive parenting scale reflected
the degree to which participants reported their parents as being more laissez-faire, and not
enforcing, creating, or being consistent with rules (α = .59). The authoritarian parenting scale
reflected the degree to which participants reported their parents as being strict and unilateral in
decision-making (α = .44).

Perceived Parental Involvement. Parental involvement was measured by items from the

7
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

Parent Involvement Measure (Keith, Reimers, Fehrmann, Pottebaum, & Aubey, 1986; Wellborn
& Grolnick, 1988). This 23-item measure examined students’ perceptions as to the extent of
involvement that their parents had in their academic and social lives using four scales. This
measure generated scores for school involvement (5 items), home involvement (7 items),
cognitive involvement (5 items), and personal involvement (6 items). In order to remain
consistent with the literature and because of the issue of multicollinearity, the school and home
involvement scales were combined to create the behavioral involvement scale (Grolnick &
Slowiaczek, 1994).
Behavioral involvement. It reflected the degree to which participants reported their
parents going to school functions, and being involved or interested in their schooling while at
home (α = .82). Cognitive involvement reflected the degree to which participants reported their
parents as exposing them to cognitively stimulating activities beyond schoolwork (α = .83).
Personal involvement reflected the degree to which participants reported their parents as being
concerned with academic as well as social aspects of school (α = .85).

Goal Orientations. Three goal orientations were measured using items from the Patterns
of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS) (Midgley et a1., 1998). Mastery orientation included five
items that reflected the degree to which participants reported completing tasks in math in order to
master new material or improve their abilities (α = .93). The performance approach orientation
scale included five items that reflected the degree to which participants reported completing their
math work in order to get good grades or to perform better than others (α = .91). Finally, the
performance avoidance orientation scale included four items that reflected the degree to which
participants reported completing their math work in order to avoid looking “stupid” or less able
to be successful than their peers (α = .76).

Autonomy. Each participant’s level of autonomy or relative autonomy was measured

using the Academic Self-regulation Questionnaire (ASRQ) (Connell & Ryan, 1986). The ASRQ
examined students’ reported styles of regulating behaviors that are extrinsically motivating in the
realm of academics based upon a continuum from external control to autonomous self-
regulation. The 24-item self-report questionnaire contained items concerning students’
engagement in academic related activities such as doing homework and the reasons behind the
engagement. The questions included, “When you do your homework, why do you do it?” Each
question was then followed by items that reflected whether doing the homework was for fun,
understanding, obedience, or avoidance of guilt. Participant’s responses for these 24 items were
used to create 4 subscales.
The four subscales include external regulation, introjected regulation, identified
regulation, and intrinsic regulation. The external regulation scale reflected the degree to which
participants reported engagement in an activity based upon avoidance of consequences or
obedience of rules (α = .81). The introjected regulation scale represented the degree to which
participants reported engagement in a math activity for the purpose of gaining approval or
avoiding guilt (α = .91). The identified regulation scale indicated the degree to which the
participant reported engagement for the purpose of achieving a goal that is of value to the
individual (α = .91). Finally, the intrinsic regulation scale was representative of the participant’s
report of engagement for the inherent enjoyment of the activity (α = .92). The score from each of
the subscales is weighted according to its level of autonomy and combined to create the Relative
Autonomy Index (RAI), which describes the degree to which the individual feels autonomous in

8
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

regulating extrinsically motivating behaviors or tasks (Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994). Therefore,
the four subscale scores were combined to reflect the composite of all scores or the RAI. These
scores ranged from -14 to 14.

Results

Results are divided into three sections. First, descriptive information concerning each of
the variables is presented. Second, the bivariate relations between the parenting and motivation
variables are evaluated. Finally, the relations between the motivation variables, the parenting
variables, and some demographic information, are examined using multiple regressions.
Descriptive Statistics
The mean and standard deviation of each of the constructs measured in this study are
presented in Table 1. The means for the motivation constructs remained near the midpoint of the
response scale. This finding was reflective of some of the other studies concerning parenting
practices and motivation with adolescents (Gonzalez et a1., 2002, 2005; Gottfried, Fleming, &
Gottfried, 1994; Lamborn et al., 1991).

Table 1Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities for Parenting and Motivation Variables
Variable N M (SD) Range α
Parenting Variables
Authoritative 139 4.23 (1.29) 1-7 .67
Permissive 139 3.23 (1.26) 1-7 .59
Authoritarian 140 4.19 (1.16) 1-7 .44
Cognitive parental 139 3.58 (1.61) 1-7 .83
involvement
Personal parental 138 4.71 (1.70) 1-7 .85
involvement
Behavioral parental 139 3.97 (1.49) 1-7 .90
involvement
Motivational Variables
Mastery goal orientation 138 5.63 (1.47) 1-7 .93
Performance approach 138 4.28 (1.78) 1-7 .91
orientation
Performance avoidance 137 4.28 (1.69) 1-7 .76
orientation
Relative Autonomy 138 0.06 (4.13) -14-14 .93
Index
Note. N varies due to missing data

Bivariate Analyses

Table 2 reflects the relations among all of the parenting and student motivation variables
as indicated by Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. Generally, when considering a
mastery goal orientation, students reporting more authoritative, authoritarian, or personally
involved parents, also reported more intrinsic reasons for completing math assignments, while
those reporting more permissive parents did not.

9
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

Also, in regards to performance approach and avoidance goal orientations, there were no
significant correlations found with parenting styles. However, when students reported their
parents as being more involved, they also reported engaging in their schoolwork for reasons
based upon more external or normative standards, and even some for the purpose of avoidance,
which is reflective of the two respective performance orientations.
The correlational results also indicated a significant relation between a student’s level of
autonomy, as indicated by the relative autonomy index (RAI), and parenting style. Students
reporting more democratic and autonomy granting parents (authoritative parents) also reported
feeling more autonomous in regulating their academic behaviors. In contrast to the literature,
there were no significant correlations found between the RAI and parental involvement of any
kind.
Finally, the results indicate that there was a significant relation between a mastery goal
orientation and a student’s reported level of autonomy. These results contribute to the
understanding of the relation between the two motivational variables goal orientation and
autonomy. On average, students reporting more intrinsic standards for engagement in academic
tasks also reported feeling more autonomous in regulating their academic behaviors.

Table 2
Correlations between Parenting Practices and Motivation Variables
1. 2 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
. .
Parenting Variables
1. Authoritative -- - - .29* .33* .34* .34* .05 -.01 .29**
.0 .2 * * * *
5 0
*
2. Authoritarian -- - .17 .20* .26* .21* .16 .11 -.02
.5 *
0
*
*
3. Permissive -- -- - - - .05 .03
.20* .26* .35*
* *
4. Behavioral .77* .81* .11 .32* .27**
* *
Involvement
5. Cognitive -- .70* .05 .18* .08
*
Involvement
6. Personal Involvement -- .21* .26** .17*

Motivational Variables
7. Mastery goal -- .17* .05 .26**

orientation
8. Perf. approach -- .78** -.21*

orientation
9. Perf. avoidance -- -.34**

orientation
10. Relative Autonomy
Index
Note. *p <.05 **p <.01

10
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

Multivariate Analyses

A series of two-step hierarchical multivariate recessions were utilized to examine further

the relation between the parental practices and four motivational constructs. This form of
analysis was chosen in order to separately evaluate the ability of each parental practice variable
to predict each of the four specific motivational outcomes. The first step in each of the four
regressions performed included gender and level of mother’s education, which was considered to
be an indicator of socioeconomic status.
The second step in each of the four regressions performed included the two demographic
variables mentioned above, the authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles
constructs, and the behavioral involvement variable. Table 3 presents the results for the two-step
hierarchical regressions for each of the four motivational variables.

Mastery orientation. When considering mastery orientation as an outcome, the first step
in the hierarchical regression indicated that gender (β = -.15, p = .07) and level of mother’s
education (β = .13, p = .12) did not account for a significant amount of the variance in the
student’s report of adopting a mastery orientation (see Table 3). However, results from the
second step of these analyses indicated that authoritative parenting, authoritarian parenting,
permissive parenting, and behavioral involvement accounted for an additional 17% of the
variance (R²Δ = .17, p < .001), leading to a total of 21% of the variance in student’s self-reported
adoption of a mastery orientation (F(6,135) = 5.60, p < .001). Authoritative parenting served as
the strongest individual predictor of mastery orientation (β = .30, p < .001). Permissive parenting
also accounted for a significant portion of the variance in adopting a mastery orientation
(β = .19, p < .05). On average, having a more democratic and warm parent was predictive of a
student being more oriented toward engaging in academic tasks for the purpose of mastery. Net
of the other four predictors, gender (β = -.09, p = .25), level of mother’s education (β = .07,
p = .41), authoritarian parenting (β = .10, p = .28), and behavioral involvement (β = -.02, p = .78)
were not significant individual predictors of a mastery orientation.

Performance approach orientation. When considering performance approach orientation

as an outcome, results from the first step in the hierarchical regression indicated that gender
(β = -.05, p = .60) and level of mother’s education (β = -.01, p = .95) accounted for almost none
of the variance in the student’s report of adopting a more performance orientation (see Table 3).
However, results from the second step of these analyses indicated that authoritative parenting,
authoritarian parenting, permissive parenting, and behavioral involvement accounted for 16% of
the variance (R²Δ = .16, p. < .001) leading to a total of 16 % of the variance in student’s self-
reported adoption of a performance approach orientation, (F(6,135) = 4.00, p < .001). Behavioral
involvement served as the strongest individual predictor of a performance approach orientation
(β = .34, p < .001). Permissive parenting (β = .24, p < .05) and authoritarian parenting (β = .10,
p < .05) also accounted for significant portions of the variance in adopting a performance
approach orientation. Generally, being reported as a parent who was involved in the academic
aspects of their child’s life, laissez-faire in their parenting, or strict and inflexible in their
parenting, predicted the child’s report of engaging in academic tasks for reasons based on more
normative standards. Net of the other three predictors, gender (β = -.09, p = .26), level of
mother’s education (β = .03, p = .68), and authoritative parenting (β= 00, p = .97) did not

11
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

individually predict a performance approach orientation.

Performance avoidance orientation. In regards to a performance avoidance orientation as

an outcome, the first step in the hierarchical regression indicated that gender (β = -.14, p = .12)
and level of mother’s education (β = -.16, p = .07) did not account for a significant amount of the
variance in the student’s report of adopting a performance avoidance orientation. The second
step of these analyses indicate that authoritative parenting, authoritarian parenting, permissive
parenting, and behavioral involvement account for 13% of the variance (R²Δ = .13, p. < .05) in
student’s self-reported adoption of a more performance avoidance orientation, (F(6,134) = 3.23,
p < .01). Behavioral involvement served as the strongest individual predictor of a performance
avoidance orientation (β = .29, p < .001). Having parents involved in academic activities, at both
school and home, tended to serve as a predictor of student’s engaging in an academic task for the
purpose of avoiding failure or appearing incapable. Gender (β = -.17, p < .05) and level of
mother’s education (β = -.13, p < .05) also accounted for a significant portion of the variance in
adopting a mastery orientation. The remainder of the other three predictors authoritative
parenting (β = -.04, p = .65), authoritarian parenting (β = .10, p = .33), and permissive parenting
(β = .15, p = .15) did not individually predict performance avoidance orientation.
Table 3
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis
for Variables Predicting Motivational Outcomes

Mastery GO Performance Performance RAI

Approach GO Avoidance GO
Variable B SE B β B SE β B SE β B SE β
B B B
Step 1
Gender -.44 .25 -.15 -.17 .31 -.05 -.46 .29 -.14 1.10 .70 .13
Mother’s ed. .10 .06 .13 -.01 .08 -.01 -.14 .08 -.16 .44 .18 .21
level *
Step 2
Gender .-27 .23 -.09 -.34 .30 -.09 -.59 .29 -.17* 1.40 .70 .17
*
Mother’s ed. .05 .06 .07 .03 .08 .03 -.11 .08 -.13* .33 .18 .15
level
Authoritative .34 .10 .30* .01 .12 .00 -.05 .12 -.04 .87 .29 .27
** **
Permissive -.22 .11 -.19* .35 .14 .24* .20 .14 .15 -.34 .34 -
.10
Authoritarian .13 .12 .10 .32 .15 .20* .14 .14 .10 -.16 .35 -
.05
Behavioral -.02 .08 -.02 .41 .11 .34* .10 .10 .29* -.11 .25 -
Inv. ** * .04
Note.Mastery: R² = .04 for Step 1; Δ R² = .17 (p<.001) for Step 2
Performance Approach: R² = .00 for Step 1; Δ R² = .16 (p<.001) for Step 2
Performance Avoidance: R² = .04 for Step 1; Δ R² = .0 (p<.01) for Step 2
RAI: R² = .06 for Step 1; Δ R² = .08 (p<.05) for Step 2
* p <.05 ** p <.01 *** p <.001

12
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

Relative Autonomy. Finally, when a student’s perceived level of autonomy, as indicated

by the relative autonomy index, was considered as an outcome, the first step in the hierarchical
regression accounted for 6% of the variance in the student’s report of having a higher level of
relative autonomy (F(2,134) = 3.99, p < .05). Level of mother’s education (β = .21, p < .05)
served as a significant predictor, while gender (β = .13, p = .12) did not. The second step of these
analyses indicate that authoritative parenting, authoritarian parenting, permissive parenting, and
behavioral involvement increased the amount of variance being explained by all of the predictors
to 14%, (F(6,134) = 3.47, p < .01). Authoritative parenting served as the strongest individual
predictor of a higher level of autonomy (β = .27, p < .01). Reporting a more democratic parent
was predictive of student’s reporting feeling more autonomous in regulating their academic
behaviors. Gender also accounted for a significant portion of the variance in relative autonomy
(β = .17, p < .05) indicating that relative autonomy may vary by gender. Level of mother’s
education (β = .15, p = .07), authoritarian parenting (β = -.05, p = .64), permissive parenting
(β = -.10, p = .31), and behavioral involvement (β = -.04, p = .66) did not serve predict relative
autonomy.

Discussion

Mastery Goal Orientation and Parenting Style and Involvement

Findings from this study generally support the view that student’s perceptions about their
parents’ parental practices are related to their motivational attitudes and beliefs. In particular, as
was hypothesized, parents who are perceived to be more authoritative, or democratic, firm,
communicative with their child, nurturing, and supportive of independence have children with
the tendency to adopt a mastery goal orientation. That is, they adopt goals that reflect their
enjoyment of learning and for the inherent sake of learning. Multivariate analyses provide
support for the positive relation of authoritative parenting and student’s adoption of a mastery
orientation. Specifically, students believing they had more authoritative parents reported being
more mastery oriented. This finding is similar to that of Gonzalez et al., (2001, 2002, 2005) as
maternal authoritativeness was significantly related to older high-school and college level
students’ tendency to adopt mastery goals.
Findings indicated a negative relation between students reporting permissive parents and
a self-reported adoption of a mastery orientation. Specifically, students reporting permissive
parents reported being less mastery oriented. This finding is similar to that of Baumrind (1967)
when she observed the children of more permissive parents as being less independent and self-
reliant. Perhaps the lack of guidance that often characterizes a permissive parent does not
encourage the inherent interest in mastering new information and developing self-set standards
for achievement that often defines mastery oriented students.
It was expected that perceived parental involvement would be related positively to a
mastery goal orientation. Interestingly, multivariate analyses indicated no significant relation
between behavioral involvement and the adoption of a more mastery orientation. It may be that
omitting the other two parental involvement variables reduced the predictability of the parental
involvement variable as a whole. It may also be that a parent involvement scale that is reflective
of an older group of students’ idea about what parental involvement is perceived to be will
render a more concise scale that will be more predictive of motivational outcomes. As proposed
by Eccles and Harold (1996), as student’s transition to high school and beyond, there should

13
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

exist a healthy balance of involvement that includes guidance, but encourages autonomy also.
Nonetheless, as it pertains to the hypothesis speculating a positive relation between
authoritative parenting and a mastery goal orientation, the present findings contribute to the
literature describing that students who perceived their parents to be more authoritative, also
perceived themselves as being more oriented toward mastery (Gonzalez et al., 2001, 2002,
2005). Similarly, in regards to the hypothesis that student’s perceptions about parental
involvement will relate to their adoption of a mastery goal orientation, the present findings
contribute further evidence for the positive correlation that exists between certain types of
parental involvement and a mastery orientation.

Performance Approach Goal Orientation and Parenting Style and Involvement

Results from the multivariate analyses indicate authoritarian parenting as a positive

predictor of a performance approach orientation. Meaning, students reporting authoritarian
parents also tended to report a greater performance approach orientation. If the rules of the
household indicate that only an A is acceptable, a student may focus on doing whatever possible
to accomplish that grade, regardless of mastery of information.
Multivariate analyses revealed a positive relation between a student’s report of a
permissive parent and reporting themselves as more performance approach oriented.
Specifically, students’ reporting their parents as being permissive was predictive of these
students also reporting a more performance approach orientation. One explanation for this
finding offered by the present study is that the laissez-faire parenting style may leave students no
choice but to adhere to the normative standards that are sometimes imposed by the school
because of the lack of standards imposed by the parents. Adhering to normative standards
imposed by schools, may not always be as maladaptive if the standards are positive, functional,
and lead to progress toward a broader goal.
Multivariate analyses supported a positive relation between behavioral involvement and a
performance approach orientation. Results indicated that students’ reporting behavioral
involvement on the part of their parents was predictive of them also reporting the adoption of a
performance approach orientation. Previous literature indicated no link between parental
involvement and performance orientation (Gonzalez et al., 2001). Of course, the present study
included a more specific measure of parental involvement, as well as the two separate types of
performance orientation, which may have better reflected what parental involvement means for
some students and better explained their own behaviors. It may be that having a parent involved
in several aspects of a student’s schooling may elicit feelings of needing to perform above and
beyond not only peers, but also the standards set by the parent. The standards set by a parent may
be normative in nature or based upon what they believe to be a “good grade’’ or a successful
performance. In any case, if a student believes that his or her parent will be present for school
functions, question how well he or she is doing, maintain regular contact with the teacher, and
perhaps make random visits or make random phone calls to the school, the student may believe
that getting better grades or doing better than classmates will render a positive report for his or
her legally involved parents.

14
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

Performance Avoidance Goal Orientation and Parenting Style and Involvement

Students who believed their parents to be personally and behaviorally involved also
tended to adopt a performance avoidance orientation, or to perform in order to avoid feelings of
inferiority or feeling “dumb.” Further, results from multivariate analyses indicated a positive
relation between students reporting behaviorally involved parents and a performance avoidance
orientation. Meaning, students who reported their parents as being involved in school functions
and with schoolwork when in the home, adopted more performance avoidance goals. This was in
contrast to findings in literature stating that no significant relation exists between adopting a
more general performance orientation and parental involvement, which is consistent for both
studies specifically examining performance orientation and parental involvement. (Gonzalez et
al., 2001, 2002, 2005). To reiterate, the present study included a more detailed measure of
parental involvement and separated the two performance orientations. Again, students whose
parents were more actively involved in their lives may set goals that will allow them to avoid
looking inferior or less intelligent than others. As with performance approach orientation, this
avoidance occurs so that parents who have proven themselves involved to the student will
receive only positive reports of their academic standing or participation in the classroom.

Autonomy and Parenting Style and Involvement

As was hypothesized, a positive relation between specific parenting practices and a

student’s level of autonomy was indicated by the present study. Specifically, students who
perceived their parents to be more authoritative also believed themselves to be more autonomous
in pursuing their schoolwork. This relation was also supported by the multivariate analyses. So,
students who believe their parents to be more democratic and warm, also tend to feel more
autonomous in pursuing and regulating their academic behaviors. This was similar to the earlier
finding that parental autonomy support, which is analogous to authoritative parenting, was
positively related to students’ greater feelings of autonomy in general (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989).
In contrast to the literature, where several aspects of parental involvement showed a
strong positive relation to feelings of greater autonomy, there were no significant correlations
found in the present study between the student’s level of autonomy and parental involvement of
any kind (Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994). It is probable that the high school students’ perceptions
of acceptable and necessary parental involvement were different in terms of the perceptions of
the younger middle school students found in the Grolnick and Slowiaczek (1994)’s study. If the
desire for autonomy increases as students now older, then it would seem that parent involvement
would include less direct supervision, and more guidance concerning the facilitation of the
lessons taught to children at a younger age. Future research may include a parental involvement
scale that is more reflective of adolescent’s ideas about what defines an involved parent. It may
also be that having a parent involved in several aspects of a student’s life curtails their feelings of
autonomy. The student may feel that the locus of origin for his or her actions is defined by the
parent who is highly involved in his or her schooling, personal, and cognitive development. If
adolescence is truly coupled with feelings of wanting to be independent and responsible for one’s
own behavior, having a highly involved parent may not encourage that higher level of autonomy
that is being sought (Lamborn, Brown, Mounts, & Steinberg, 1992; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts,
1989).

15
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

Goal Orientation and Autonomy

The present study contributes to the literature regarding the relation between goal
orientations and relative autonomy. These four variables have often been related to similar
parenting variables such as parenting style and involvement. For example, authoritative
parenting, or autonomy supportive parenting, has previously been linked to both a mastery
orientation (Gonzalez et al., 2001, 2002, 2005); higher relative autonomy (Grolnick &
Slowiaczek, 1994); and intrinsic motivation (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). Present findings indicated
a positive relation between adopting a mastery goal orientation and a higher level of autonomy.
Specifically, students engaging in academic tasks for the sake of learning also tend to feel more
autonomous in their engagement of said tasks. Significant relations were found between both
mastery goal orientation and relative autonomy, and authoritative parenting. In particular,
authoritative parenting was predictive of both motivational variables further reflecting their
similarity to similar constructs. Future research should continue to pursue this relation as it
pertains to specific aspects of different parenting styles such as decision-making patterns and
allowance of exploratory behaviors. There are several components that create the authoritative
parenting heading, examining the specific components may bring further insight into the actual
aspects that are showing a relation to more adaptive patterns of motivation and achievement.

Limitations

One limitation of this study is in the design. Simplifying complex behaviors such as
motivation, and breaking them down into a single component may exclude some of the major
facets of the construct, thus compromising the multidimensional nature of this variable. For
example, autonomy is a motivational variable that may not have been fully conceptualized by the
survey questions given, thus limiting the scope of such a variable. Also, defining goal
orientation, autonomy, parenting practices and academic success can vary among researchers.
The measures used to operationalize and assist in defining these variables may not be reflective
of some of the beliefs of different audiences. Therefore, the potential relations found may be
more general than would be necessary for the purposes of making very specific statements about
relations and designing interventions based upon the conclusions.
Also, specific statements about the causal relation among these constructs cannot be
made due to the correlational design of the study. The direction of causality for obtained findings
can not be determined by this type of design. The design of the analyses implies that
motivational constructs such as a mastery orientation are a result of parenting variables including
authoritative parenting. The opposite may be true. It may be that students who are more mastery
oriented elicit more flexibility, warmth, and democracy from their parents because of their
intrinsic desire to learn, master new tasks, and put forth effort in all academic endeavors.
Another limitation of the study includes the low alpha reliability for the authoritarian
parenting scale. The authoritarian scale has previously indicated moderate reliability for similar
age groups (Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et a1., 1991). It may be that the items are not being
written in a way that they describe the idea of strictness, obedience to rules, and inflexibility in a
manner understood by this particular population. Parents making all of the decisions in the
family may not be viewed as authoritarian based upon the negative connotation that accompanies
the mere word “authoritarian.” Also, the item including severe punishment can be defined
differently by several students leaving the item vague and open to several interpretations. Future

16
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

research should incorporate items that are more easily understood and that leave little to the
interpretation of the participant. Operationalizing the terms punishment and rules may serve as a
beginning to increasing the reliability of this particular scale for this population.
Another limitation of this study includes the issue of multicollinearity with the parental
involvement scale. Previous research has found the behavioral, cognitive, and personal
involvement scales to be separate constructs detecting three separate aspects of parental
involvement (Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994). The present study utilized multivariate analyses to
determine relations between parenting practices and motivation. Including all three of the
involvement scales indicated high levels of multicollinearity and low tolerance. The researcher
chose to include only the one scale that in the literature had yielded significant results and best
defined the parent’s active participation at the school and with schoolwork when at home that
was believed to be most important to academic success and motivation. Future research may
include a factor analysis of the items to determine which items are detecting separate and
independent involvement practices.

Recommendation for Future Research

In addition to the several suggestions for research offered thus far, future research should
also include the purposeful examination of gender as predictor of motivation and determine what
role it may play in the realm of parenting practices and motivation in general. In the present
study, gender served as a significant predictor of a higher relative autonomy, even when
accounting for the four parenting practices and level of mother’s education. Therefore, gender
may influence how autonomous a student may feel. In particular, males tended to report higher
levels of autonomy than females. Determining the factors that have influenced this relation is a
case for future research. Gender also served as a negative predictor for a performance avoidance
orientation. So, a student’s gender may influence his or her adoption of a performance avoidance
orientation. Regardless of the direction, it is important to continue the inclusion of gender as a
significant factor in the understanding of academic motivation and success.
Future research should also consider the inclusion of the two aspects of permissive
parenting that literature has proposed (Steinberg, 1994). Permissive-indulgent parenting includes
warmth and affection, but with little guidance or discipline. Permissive-neglectful parenting is
characterized by more indifference and unresponsiveness that includes a lack of guidance and a
more laissez-faire attitude toward parenting. Perhaps the distinction between the two aspects
permissive parenting will offer a more appropriate description of how the child perceives his or
her parent’s behaviors. This may offer more information as to the specific parenting behaviors
that affect similar motivational and achievement variables.

Conclusion

Despite the limitations of the study, results present some evidence for the hypothesized
relation between parenting practices and student motivation. Authoritative parenting was
positively related to adopting a mastery orientation and a higher relative autonomy, indicating
that this parenting style may be an important factor to consider when examining the motivational
patterns of adolescents. The implications of authoritative parenting including the idea that
parents should promote exploration with some limitations, shared decision-making, warmth, and
firmness have been further supported by this study and research should continue to examine

17
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

these several aspects of this parenting style to determine which aspect is most influential to the
specified motivational or achievement variables.
Being involved in the child’s life is also an important factor for parents to consider when
bearing in mind motivation. Realizing that there may exist a healthy balance between excessive
and insufficient parental involvement is an important issue facing parents. It may be that students
are less likely to be motivated to pursue their goals or even complete their schoolwork if their
parent is too involved, or not enough involved. Exploring both ends of the spectrums may be an
important implication for future research. More generally, future research should continue to
examine parenting practices such as parenting style and involvement to determine the optimal
situation for fostering more adaptive patterns of motivation in students.

18
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

REFERENCES

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning
strategies and motivation processes. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 80, 260-267.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barth, J.M. & Parke, R.D. (1993). Parent-child relationship influences on children’s
transition to school. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 173-195.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior.
Genetic Psychology Monographers, 43- 88.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Present patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology
Monographs, 4, 1-102.
Bloom, B. L. (1985). A factor analysis of self-report measures of family functioning. Family
Process, 24. 225-239.
Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New
York: Plenium.
Dweck, C. & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95. 256- 273.
Eccles, J. & Harold, R. (1996). Family involvement in children’s and adolescent’s
schooling. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school links: How do they affect educational
outcomes (pp. 3-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Buchanan, C. M., Winfield, A., Reuman, D., & MacIver, D.
(1993). Development dolling adolescence: The impact of stage/environment fit on
young adolescent’s experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90-
101.
Elliot, A. & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.
Elliot, A. & Harackiewicz, J. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and
intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, p. 461-475.
Epstein, J. E. (1999). School and family connections: Theory, research, and implications
for integrating sociologies of education and family. Marriage and Family Review, 15, 99-
126.
Epstein, J. L. (1989). Family structures and student motivation: A developmental perspective. In
C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on Motivation in Education: Vo1.3. Goals and
conditions. Orlando: Academic Press.
Ginsburg, G. & Bronstein, P. (1993). Family factors related to children’s intrinsic/extrinsic
motivational orientation and academic performance. Child Development, 64, 1461-1471.
Gonzalez, A., Willems, P., & Doan Holbein, M. (2005). Examining the relationship
between parental involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychological
Review, 17, 50-67
Gonzalez, A., Doan Holbein, M., & Quilter, S. (2002). High school students’ goal
orientation and their relationship to perceived parenting styles. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 27, 450-470.

19
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

Gonzalez, A., Greenwood, G., & Hsu, J. (2001). Undergraduate students, goal orientations
and their relationship to perceived parenting styles. College Student Journal, 35(2), 182-
192.
Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J., & Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Role of parental motivational
practices in children’s academic intrinsic motivation and achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86, 104-113.
Grolnick, W. S., & Kurowski, C. O. (1999). Family processes and the development of
children’s academic self-regulation. Educational Psychologist, 34, 3-18.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s academic self-
regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educationa Psychology, 81, 143-
154.
Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). The inner resources for school
achievement: Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 508-517.
Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. (1994). Parent’s involvement in children’s schooling: A
multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 64, 237-
252.
Harackiewicz, J., Barron, K., Pintrich, P., Elliot, A., & Thrash, T. (2002). Revision of
achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94,
638-645.
Keith, T., Reimers, T., Fehrmann, P., Pottebaum, S., & Aubey, L. (1986). Parental
involvement, homework and TV time: Direct and indirect effects on high school
achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 373-380.
Lamborn, S., Brown, B., Mounts, N., & Steinberg, L. (1992). Putting school in perspective:
The influence of family, peers, extracurricular participation, and part-time work on
academic engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and
achievement in American secondary schools. (pp. 153- 181). New York: Teachers College
Press.
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.
Middleton, M. & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An
underemployed aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710-718.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr M., Urdan, T., Anderman, E., & Roeser, R.
(1998). The development and validation of scales assessing students’ achievement goal
orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23,113-131.
Pintrich, P. R. & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college
classroom. In Advances in Motivation and Achievement, (Vo1. 7). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pintrich, P. R. & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in Education: Theory, research and
applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Roeser, R., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological
environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school:
The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408 422.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-Determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Inherent details of self-regulated learning includes student

20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WHOLE SCHOOLING Vol 3 No. 2 2007

perceptions. Educational Psychologist, 30, 213-216.

Steinberg, L., Elmen, J., & Mounts, N. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial
maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424-1436.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S., Darling, N., Mounts, N., & Dornbusch, S. (1994). Over- time
changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative,
authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754-770.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S., Dombusch, S., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting
practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and
encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 65, 754-770.
Steinberg, L., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S., & Dornbusch, S. (1991). Authoritative parenting and
adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
1, 19-36.

21