PORTER CYNTHIA FINAL

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARENTING STRATEGIES AND SCHOLARSHIP
AWARD: A QUANTITATIVE CORRELATION STUDY
by
Cynthia K Porter
Copyright 2015
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership with a Specialization in Curriculum and
Instruction
University of Phoenix

iii
ABSTRACT
Researchers support a positive correlation between specific parenting strategies and student
motivation and between student motivation and academic achievement. This study focused on
determining correlative presence between research-based parenting strategies and scholarship
award to post-secondary education. The examination of the educational opportunities made
possible by scholarship award to post-secondary education through the influence of parenting
strategies may lead to future study of parenting accountability in education policy and law, and
the relationship to level of education of the societal member and the ultimate contribution the
member makes to the society. Dependent variables of scholarships applied for and awarded, and
the independent variables of research-supported parenting strategies, GPA, cumulative ACT,
parent or guardian education and household income were analyzed in a quantitative correlation
method and design using z-scores, Pearson’s r for significance, descriptive data analysis, and
multiple and logistic regression. The sample was derived from a population of 18 to 23 year olds
having graduated from a specific high school in a rural Western region of the United States using
Facebook to distribute the link to the survey on Survey Monkey. A logistic regression indicated
no significant correlation on scholarship award when considering the cumulative effect of
research- supported parenting strategies.
Keywords: parenting strategies, parent involvement, parenting method, student accountability,
parent accountability, teacher accountability, scholarship, merit-based scholarship, student
achievement, student motivation, human capital, social capital, post-secondary education,
education policy, education program, accountability

iv
DEDICATION
To Jayden Delaney and Jaci Rain, the two Souls that are my reason for everything I work so
hard to accomplish. May I always work toward being the example in this world you can respect;
the example of servant and leader to our society you aspire for; may I only set a bar of
expectations which you come to know as minimums, and fulfill your own destiny on this Journey
of Life. My Daughters, thank you for your unwavering belief in Mom, thank you for your
capacity of Love and Forgiveness. Thank you for choosing me each day to be your Mom, and for
inspiring my reason for persevering. The tears of frustration have become tears of Joy, the stress
replaced by Accomplishment, and the angst replaced with Peace. This journey we have been on
ends in one regard, and begins anew in a different form. This Journey has been a story of Our
Journey, as a family. May you always remember hard times are necessary in order to appreciate
Content, and maybe even Happy. I love you Chocolates and Baby Llama. - Mom

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To my mother, Sandy Lovesee, for being my educational champion K- 12 and putting the idea
in my head as a child to earn a doctoral degree someday. It was my mother who made me first
understand the important role of parents in a child’s educational journey. To Katie Chase, for her
enduring friendship, even when, for the past almost-five years, I would say, “I can’t, I have to
write a paper.” Jon Lever, thank you for all the conversations regarding data on Saturday
afternoons, the borrowed books and for “wondering” with me over the numbers. Phyllis and
Steve Martinelli, thank you for being borrowed grandparents to my kiddos, adopted parents to
me, and the best “nosy” neighbors. Susan Marshall, thank you for being my goddess mother;
touchstone and bearer-of-faith. Susan McConnell and Dr. Raeleen Manjak, thank you for being
on this journey with me, staying in the cohort, checking into one another’s lives when needed,
and holding me accountable. Dr. Peg Carver-Grupp, Dr. Sandy Kohlberg, Dr. Dale Hunt, Dr.
Christi Kasa, Dr. Christopher Tienken, Dr. Steven Newton, Dr. Rob Olding, and Dr. Paul Shuler,
each of you has shared with me the best pieces of you, and inspired me to never stop wanting to
be a positive change agent for the world I live in. I see now there is no end to learning and
growing, and from observing you, I know that I have to live in the moments, for that is where my
world exists. The community of Douglas, WY, thank you for being the perfect small town to call
home for four years and for sharing your kids with me; I am proud to have called them “my
students.” The Instructional Facilitators of Natrona County School District, you are the smartest
group of professionals I have ever worked with; thank you for bringing me into the fold and
allowing me to grow amidst our great conversations.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents Page
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................xv
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. xvi
Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................... 4
Motivation............................................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... 7
Significance of the Study.................................................................................................... 8
Significance of the Study to Leadership ........................................................................... 10
Nature of the Study........................................................................................................... 13
Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................................................................ 15
Theoretical Framework..................................................................................................... 16
Social Cognitive Learning Theory........................................................................ 16
Choice Theory....................................................................................................... 17
Self-Actualization ................................................................................................. 19
Authoritative Parenting......................................................................................... 19
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 20
Assumptions...................................................................................................................... 22

vii
Scope and Limitations....................................................................................................... 23
Delimitations..................................................................................................................... 24
Summary........................................................................................................................... 25
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature.............................................................................................. 26
Education and Human Capital .......................................................................................... 27
Human Capital ...................................................................................................... 27
Education .............................................................................................................. 28
Figure 1 ................................................................................................................. 29
Education Policy................................................................................................... 30
Scholarship............................................................................................................ 31
Education and Accountability........................................................................................... 31
Germinal Research................................................................................................ 32
Parental Involvement and Parenting Strategies ................................................................ 35
Parental Involvement ............................................................................................ 35
Parenting Strategies .............................................................................................. 36
Bias in Parenting Strategies .................................................................................. 37
Parent Involvement, Strategies and Student Motivation....................................... 38
Theories on Motivation, Achievement and Learning ....................................................... 40
Motivation and Learning....................................................................................... 40
Parent Engagement and the Classroom................................................................. 43

viii
Parents and Learning................................................................................. 43
Academic Achievement and Scholarship Award ............................................................. 44
Education in the United States.......................................................................................... 45
Education Policy and Program.............................................................................. 45
Accountability....................................................................................................... 47
Changing Policy.................................................................................................... 48
College and Career Ready .................................................................................... 49
Implementation ......................................................................................... 50
Assessment and Scholarship..................................................................... 51
Summary........................................................................................................................... 53
Chapter 3: Methods....................................................................................................................... 55
Research Method and Design Appropriateness ................................................................ 56
Hypotheses........................................................................................................................ 61
Population ......................................................................................................................... 62
Sampling ........................................................................................................................... 64
Informed Consent.................................................................................................. 65
Confidentiality ...................................................................................................... 65
Pilot Study and Pilot Test ..................................................................................... 66
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 67
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 69

ix
Validity and Reliability..................................................................................................... 69
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 70
Summary........................................................................................................................... 72
Chapter 4: Results......................................................................................................................... 74
Purpose.............................................................................................................................. 74
Research Method and Design ........................................................................................... 74
Research Questions........................................................................................................... 76
Pilot Study: Survey Instrument Validation....................................................................... 77
Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................... 78
Question Logic...................................................................................................... 78
Sample Size........................................................................................................... 79
Participation Rate.................................................................................................. 80
Data Presentation .............................................................................................................. 81
Socioeconomic Statistics ...................................................................................... 81
Variables ............................................................................................................... 82
Independent variables ............................................................................... 82
Dependent variables.................................................................................. 84
Additional Comments........................................................................................... 84
Table 1 ...................................................................................................... 85
Descriptive Statistics: Raw Data........................................................................... 87

x
Mean and Mode ........................................................................................ 87
Table 2 ...................................................................................................... 88
Descriptive Statistics: Calculation of the Z-Score................................................ 89
Correlations and Level of Significance................................................................. 90
Table 3 ...................................................................................................... 92
Figure 2 Sorting Based on Scholarship Award..................................................... 93
Figure 3 Sorting Based on Scholarship Application............................................. 93
Figure 4 Scholarship (61) and Non-Scholarship (21)........................................... 94
Figure 5 Scholarship Applied For (61) and Scholarship Not Applied For (21) ... 94
Table 4 ...................................................................................................... 96
Table 5 ...................................................................................................... 97
Table 6 ...................................................................................................... 98
Regressions ........................................................................................................... 98
Forward, backward, and stepwise............................................................. 99
Dependent variable (Y0): The number of scholarships applied for........ 100
Multiple regression with sample (82): Parenting strategies versus Y0 ....................... 100
Figure 6 Multiple Regression (82):..................................................................... 100
Multiple regression with scholarship subsample (61): Parenting strategies versus Y0
..................................................................................................................................... 100
Figure 7 Multiple Regression (61)...................................................................... 101

xi
Multiple regression non-scholarship (21): Parent strategies versus Y0 ...................... 102
Figure 8 Multiple Regression (21)...................................................................... 102
Dependent variable (Y1): Scholarship award.......................................... 102
Figure 9 Logistic Regression Z-Scores (82)....................................................... 103
Dependent variable (Y2): The number of merit-based scholarships
awarded................................................................................................... 103
Table 7 .................................................................................................... 104
Multiple regression scholarship (61): Parent strategies and GPA, ACT versus Y2.... 104
Figure 10 Multiple Regression (61).................................................................... 105
Multiple regression scholarship (53): Parent strategies and GPA, ACT versus Y2.... 105
Figure 11 Multiple Regression (53).................................................................... 105
Dependent variable (Y3): Total dollar amount of merit-based scholarships awarded 105
Multiple regression scholarship (61): Parent strategies versus Y3.............................. 106
Figure 12 Multiple Regression Raw Data and Z-Score Parenting Strategies (61)
............................................................................................................................. 107
Table 8 .................................................................................................... 107
Summary......................................................................................................................... 108
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................... 109
Purpose of the Study....................................................................................................... 109
Hypotheses and Findings ................................................................................................ 110

xii
Hypothesis 1........................................................................................................ 110
Hypothesis 2........................................................................................................ 111
Hypothesis 3........................................................................................................ 112
Comparison to Literature Review................................................................................... 112
Suggestions for Further Research ................................................................................... 115
Implications of the Study................................................................................................ 118
Social Significance.......................................................................................................... 118
Discussion....................................................................................................................... 119
Correlations between Variables .......................................................................... 119
ACT and GPA as Predictive of Scholarship Award, Number and Dollars ........ 120
Recommendations to Educational Leaders..................................................................... 121
Summary......................................................................................................................... 122
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 123
References................................................................................................................................... 125
Appendix A: Survey Instrument for Scholarship Award............................................................ 140
Appendix B: Survey Instrument for Non-Scholarship Award.................................................... 143
Appendix C: Signed Informed Consent: Permission to Use Premises, Name, and/or Subjects of
Facility, Organization, University Institution, or Association........................................ 145
Appendix D: Informed Consent: Participants 18 years of Age and Older ................................. 146
Appendix E: Email Request for Survey...................................................................................... 147

xiii
Appendix F: Social Media Request for Referral for Survey....................................................... 148
Appendix G: Face-to-Face Request for Survey.......................................................................... 149
Appendix H: Request for Referrals from Others for Survey...................................................... 150
Appendix I: Pilot Study .............................................................................................................. 152
Appendix J: Survey Monkey Survey of Questions..................................................................... 160
Appendix K: Facebook Survey Request Message...................................................................... 167
Appendix L: Additional Comments............................................................................................ 168
Appendix M: SPSS v21 Raw Data Descriptives of Mean, Median, Mode and
Frequency Tables............................................................................................................ 169
Appendix N: SPSS v21 Z-Score Computations......................................................................... 183
Appendix O: SPSS v21 Correlations and Level of Significance: Raw Data and Z-Score ........ 185
Appendix P: SPSS v21 Z-Score Descriptives and Correlations (13) Y0 = 0 & Y1 = 0 ............. 194
Appendix Q: SPSS v21 Z-Score Descriptives and Correlations (8) Y0 = 0 & Y1 = 1............... 198
Appendix R: SPSS v21 Z-Score Descriptives and Correlations (8) Y0 > 0 & Y1 = 0.............. 202
Appendix S: SPSS v21 Z-Score Descriptives and Correlations (53) Y0 > 0 & Y1 = 1 ............ 206
Appendix T: SPSS v21 Multiple Regression (82) Parenting Strategies (X1-8) versus
Scholarships Applied For (Y0)........................................................................................ 210
Appendix U: SPSS v21 Multiple Regression (21) and (61) Parenting Strategies (X1-8) versus

xiv
Appendix V: SPSS v21 Multiple Regression Stepwise Split File (21) and (61) Parenting
Strategies, GPA, ACT (X1-10) versus Scholarships Applied For (Y0) ............................ 214
Appendix W: SPSS v21 Logistic Regression: Parenting Strategies, GPA, ACT, Household
Income, Parent Education (X1-12) and Scholarship Award (Y1= 0 or Y1 = 1) ................ 217
Appendix X: SPSS v21 Multiple Regression Raw Data (61) Parenting Strategies (X1-8) versus
Number Awarded (Y2).................................................................................................... 220
Appendix Y: SPSS v21 Multiple Regression Stepwise Z-Scores (61) Parenting Strategies, GPA,
ACT (X1-10) versus Number Awarded (Y2) .................................................................... 221
Appendix Z: SPSS v21 Multiple Regression when Y0 > 0 and Y1 = 1 (53) Parenting Strategies,
GPA, ACT (X1-10) versus Number of Scholarships Awarded (Y2) ................................ 223
Appendix AA: SPSS v21 Multiple Regression (61) Raw Data Parenting Strategies (X1-8) versus
Appendix AB: SPSS v21 Multiple Regression (61) GPA, ACT (X9-10) versus Scholarships
Awarded (Y3).................................................................................................................. 228
Appendix AC: Multiple Regression Stepwise (Raw Data and Z-Score) Parenting Strategies,
ACT, GPA versus Dollars Awarded (X1-12 versus Y3) ................................................... 229
Appendix AD: SPSS v21 Multiple Regression (8) Parenting Strategies, GPA, ACT versus
Dollars Awarded (X1-10 versus Y3) Y0 = 0 & Y1= 1 ....................................................... 232

xv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Categorical Codes made to Scale Score for SPSS from Data ........................................ 85
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics – Raw Data Sample Means, Median and
Mode (82), Scholarship (61), Non-Scholarship (21) .................................................................... 88
Table 3: Partial representation of raw data significant correlations r > .600................................ 92
Table 4: Correlations – Did not apply for scholarships and awarded scholarships...................... 96
Table 5: Correlations – Did apply for scholarships and not awarded scholarships...................... 97
Table 6: Correlations – Did apply for scholarships and awarded scholarships ............................ 98
Table 7: Comparison of Negative Z-Scores Means.................................................................... 104
Table 8: Summary of Predictive Independent Variables to Dependent Variables
Indicated by Sample Size............................................................................................................ 107

xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Model of Human Capital Accountability...................................................................... 29
Figure 2: Sorting Based on Scholarship Award............................................................................ 93
Figure 3: Sorting Based on Scholarship Application.................................................................... 93
Figure 4: Scholarship (61) and Non-Scholarship (21).................................................................. 94
Figure 5: Scholarship Applied For (61) and Scholarship Not Applied For (21) .......................... 94
Figure 6: Multiple Regression (82)............................................................................................. 100
Figure 9: Logistic Regression Z-Scores (82).............................................................................. 103
Figure 10: Multiple Regression (61)........................................................................................... 105
Figure 11: Multiple Regression (53)........................................................................................... 105
Figure 12: Multiple regression raw data and Z-Score parenting strategies (61)......................... 107

1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background of the Problem
The relevance of a study related to student achievement and motivation to earning
scholarships reflects the K-12 continuum end state goals; college and career readiness (Council
of Chief State School Officers and National Governors Association, 2013). The correlation
between parenting strategies and college scholarships for graduating high school seniors is
unknown. The possibility of significant correlation exists because college scholarship awards are
typically linked to academic achievement, and academic achievement has been empirically
shown to be impacted by parenting strategies and student motivation (Desforges & Abouchaar,
2003; Domina, 2005; Fan & Williams, 2010).
The National Committee on Excellence in Education (1983) released the report, A Nation at
Risk. The publication, an open letter to the American people, made declarative statements
regarding an impending education crisis in America. The opening paragraph to the three-decade
old document:
All, regardless of race or class or economic status, are entitled to a fair chance and to the
tools for developing their individual powers of mind and spirit to the utmost. This
promise means that all children by virtue of their own efforts, competently guided, can
hope to attain the mature and informed judgment needed to secure gainful employment,
and to manage their own lives, thereby serving not only their own interests but also the
progress of society itself. (National Committee on Excellence in Education, 1983)
The report findings indicated a decline in American educational standards and an
imminent threat to America’s standing as the dominant global power. Statements of concern

2
made by the National Committee on Excellence in the 1983 document spoke to American
students scoring low on a global scale and of having no national common understanding of the
complex issues facing education.
The national legislative reaction to A Nation at Risk (National Committee on Excellence in
Education, 1983) was reform of federal education policy and programming. The 2001
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left Behind, outlined
governing policies and standards in education and indicated teacher and school district
accountability as the solution to improving education. No Child Left Behind mandated school
districts have policies and procedures surrounding specific types of school-parent
communication and parent involvement (NCLB, 2001; U.S. Department of Education, 2001).
The nationally adopted Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) laud and promote the
value and quantitative goals of college and career readiness three decades later, thereby
suggesting the problems of 1983 are present in current times. The decades since A Nation at Risk
have witnessed a continuum of education reform culminating to the current policy of a national
standards adoption manifesting in Common Core State Standards. The education continuum of
policy and programming places accountability for college and career readiness on the national K-
12 system of education while encouraging parental involvement and engagement with the
process of educating children.
Teacher preparation programs uphold the high standards of teacher certification enacted by
No Child Left Behind. The praxis of educational professionals proposed by teacher preparation
programs is to inquire of research to reveal the steps that can be taken toward improving student
motivation for learning, experience, and achievement at the secondary level and improve upon

3
pedagogy (Danielson, 2002; Fan & Chen, 2001; Korkmaz, 2007). In addition to a highly
qualified teacher, parenting strategies and parental involvement have the greatest impact on
student academic achievement and motivation.
The release of A Nation at Risk incited researcher interest regarding the impact of parental
involvement on student academic achievement. Scholars such as Bloom, Epstein, Marjoribanks
and Walberg began publishing research supporting the relationship between specific parenting
strategies and involvement on student academic achievement and motivation (Bloom, 1980;
Epstein, 1986; Marjoribanks, 1983; Walberg, 1986). The statistics of the United States
Department of Education and the National Center for Education Statistics (2012) described a
dismal future for inner-city children: the statistical reality that inner-city children have a 50%
chance of graduating from high school and are at an increased risk of living in poverty, of being
a single parent or in prison.
The National Center for Education Statistics (2012) reported the average 25 to 34 year old,
male high school graduate earned $32,800 in 2010 and females in the same categorical age range
earned a median income of $25,000. The same age category of males with a bachelor’s degree
earned a median income of $49,800 and females earned $40,000 in 2010. These discrepancies in
possible futures and future income earnings are demonstrative of the possible effects of an
inefficient or ineffective system of education, or lack of education, for a United States citizen.
The exploration of accountability for education produced research supporting a connection
between parenting strategies and academic achievement (Fan & Chen, 2001). Schools are able to
draw from germinal research on parenting strategies. For example, engaging parents as a part of
the learning model may serve to positively impact student academic achievement (Marjoribanks,
1983; Epstein, 1986). A subsequent marker in the educational timeline is to inquire about the

4
effects of parenting strategies and the relationship to post-secondary education. The post-
secondary education realm is unregulated in the sense that students move from the K-12
academic environment dictated by federal expectations of accountability into an academic
metaphorical free-fall requiring personal accountability for both academics and fiscal
responsibility for obtaining the desired education. Students embracing the life-long learner model
for education have immediate academic and fiscal responsibilities come into fruition during the
transition from high school graduation and the entrance into a post-secondary educational
institution. The purpose of this study was to determine if significant correlation existed between
the parent strategies affecting students to achieve throughout the K-12academic environment and
scholarship award to post-secondary education.
Statement of the Problem
The general problem is a gap in data determining longitudinal correlation between parenting
strategies and measurable student academic achievement, and the conflict with parent
accountability laws and education accountability laws within the United States. The
accountability of parenting strategies and behaviors and any subsequent affect over academic
achievement has not been included by United States law, policy or edict. The United States
education system, professionals working within, and organizational structures are held
accountable by law to student achievement and the family organization. The fundamental
development structure of a child is not held synonymously accountable (Garcia, 2001; Iowa
Supreme Court, 2011; NCLB, 2001; U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
This study detailed the journey of the development of education accountability laws, resulting
pedagogy, the theories fundamental to education praxis, and the diverging germane research
focused on parent accountability to education and student academic achievement. The research

5
questions were worded to bring focus to a measurable moment in time when the result of both
parenting strategies and the education system converge. The hypotheses were intended to permit
data collection to occur for a quantitative correlational analysis. The inclusion of global variables
such as ACT, GPA, parent education, and household income was a suggestion from previous
researchers and enriched the data analysis process by providing more opportunities for
disaggregation.
Discussion among facets of United States society contend fundamental problems exist in the
education system ranging from curriculum to funding to programs of teacher development to the
ability of students graduating from post-secondary institutions to compete as valuable human
capital within the economy (Castillo-Climent, 2010; Grootaert, 1999; Worldbank, 2002). This
study contributed data regarding parenting strategies that impact student motivation toward
academic achievement, and the strength of the correlation of the strategies to student
achievement and motivation at the time of high school graduation. The data analysis determined
correlation between student perceptions of research-based parenting strategies to scholarship
award. Scholarship earnings are indicative of academic and activities achievement and a
development of rigor in character that engages the qualities of perseverance and inspiration on
behalf of the student (Singell, 2001; Singell & Stater, 2006).
Motivation
The study discounts the use of the word motivation because of the complexities associated
with defining human motivation (Brackett, 2007; Fan & Williams, 2010). Motivation is an
elusive and complicated topic for many reasons including but not limited to intrinsic and
extrinsic factors, unique human needs and desires and the age, gender, maturity of the individual
(Martinez, 2010). Motivation as a general human quality has been well studied, defined in a

6
variety of ways and extensively discussed in written work (Blomster, 2001; Fan & Williams,
2010; Harter, 1982; Martinez, 2010). Motivation pertaining to students of a variety of ages and
diversity and the relationship to academic achievement is a subset of overall human motivation.
Specific elements relating parenting strategies and academic achievement are bound by elements
of motivation (Fan & Williams, 2010).
A preferable word choice to using motivation may be inspiration because the word inspiration
has implications of moving the individual toward action and the process of being awarded
scholarships requires action on the part of the student (Brackett, 2007). According to Brackett
(2007), teaching students that intelligence can grow impacts achievement more than learning a
content area alone; therefore, the concept of inspiration may be more relevant than motivation
which comes from the self (Miron, Jones, & Kelaher-Young, 2012). A review of the literature
further implicates the use of the word motivation when studying student achievement. The
definitive clarity of the word motivation is frequently lamented in the context of research on
motivation and student achievement (Fan & Williams, 2010). However, the use of the word
motivation continues to be considered an independent, subjective, and unmeasurable variable
related to this study. There exists research supporting a relationship between student motivation
and the impact on student achievement, thereby having possible impact on scholarship award.
Regardless, motivation has been intentionally left from being measured in the scope of the study
variables and data collection (Horyna & Bonds-Raacke, 2012; Rothon, Arephin, Klineberg,
Cattell, & Stansfeld, 2011).
Further query engages consideration of fundamental cause and effect relationships such as
early education and the connection between the family and the education system (Epstein, 1986;
Marjoribanks, 1983; Walberg, 1986). The laws inciting education in the United States create

7
accountability measures for the schools, teachers, students and the governing agencies over the
educational institutions. The resulting interest over the unregulated influences of parenting on
academic achievement is a relatively recent topic in education research considering the historical
timeline of federalized public education beginning in the 19th
century (Bloom, 1980). Germinal,
key and current research on the topic of parenting strategies and academic achievement has
primarily occurred since approximately 1980. Results and findings of studies indicate the
relevance of motivation or inspiration to student academic achievement (Fan & Williams, 2010).
The consequent interest in student motivation and academic achievement spawned the idea of
measuring the strength of correlation between parenting strategies and a measurable educational
goal, which is high school graduation and post-secondary education. Scholarship award is
tangible and measurable as a global indicator and may correlate to parenting strategies and
involvement (Fehrman, Keith & Reimers, 1987; Keith, 1982).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to add to the body of research
determining the strength of the relationship between the independent variables of parenting
strategies and scholarship award at the time of high school graduation. The data analysis purpose
was to search for the strength of the correlation of those parenting strategies to scholarship
award. The study design measured the dependent variables of: (a) the number of scholarships
applied for, (b) the number of scholarships awarded, and (c) total scholarship dollars awarded at
the time of graduation.
The independent variables were research-supported parenting strategies defined by studies of
Fan and Chen (2001) in a meta-analysis of 25 related studies on parenting strategies and student
academic achievement. Data collection included additional independent global variables: (a)

8
high school GPA, (b) ACT score, (c) highest level of education of parent or guardian and, (d)
combined household income. The ACT score alone, not SAT nor other college placement exam,
was included in the survey and data because the sample, apart from outliers, does have an ACT
cumulative score as a global variable. The ACT score is guaranteed because the state of
Wyoming, which contains the sample, has required and paid for all high school juniors to take
the ACT, and as of school year 2013-2014, uses the ACT suite of assessment tests as a state
standardized assessment. The consistency of collecting a homogenous college placement exam
test score facilitates study validity and reliability.
Significance of the Study
The results of this study may be informative to stakeholders in education. The information
gathered by the study could be used to contribute to school-home visits or in setting up
community-based programs in partnership with school districts for parents and guardians. The
premise of the programs would be based on assisting parents and guardians to focus on
significant correlative parenting strategies contributing to student academic achievement and
motivation. The information could be shared with parents in low socio-economic status
interested in preparing their child for academic success and ultimately the economic value
measured by human capital value. Successfully implemented parenting strategies could be a
contributing longitudinal factor to improved student academic achievement, successful schools,
increased graduation rate, and school accountability.
Relevance of the study is amplified by the continued rising costs of post-secondary education
in the United States (Doyle, 2012). The cost of post-secondary education continues to climb for
public, private not-for-profit and private for-profit institutions. Public institutions increased
approximately 42% private not-for-profit rose 31% and the outlier is private for-profit with a

9
decade-long increase at 5% from 2001 – 2012. The increasing cost of post-secondary education
is commensurate with inflation during the same time. Cost of post-secondary education at a
public institution is predicted to have an end-result cost of approximately $20,000 at four-year
institutions. The cost decreases by nearly $10,000 when a student lives at home, or the school is
a vocational or technical school and increases when the institution of learning is private (U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2012).
Reasons to research the possible connections between parenting strategies, academic
achievement and student motivation are based in tangible and intangible potential societal and
economic manifestations. Estimated lifetime earning difference between individuals obtaining a
high school diploma and individuals receiving post-secondary education may be connected to
parenting strategies and how those strategies manifest in student motivation and academic
achievement. Lifetime earnings of a college graduate are approximately $1.2 million more than a
high school graduate (Carnevale, Rose & Cheah, 2011). A community earning more will also
spend more affecting the economics of the community and the parent society. If the community
membership continues to strive toward obtaining education, then money is regarded with fiscal
responsibility. The regard for fiscal responsibility creates jobs which perpetuates the cycle of
economics, and a cyclic model of economic health is created (Becker & Chiswick, 1966;
Castillo-Climent, 2010; Grootaert, 1999). The economy of a community is significantly vested in
the education of the people (Becker & Chiswick, 1966; Castillo-Climent, 2010; Grootaert, 1999).
Human capital theory explores the interdependence of a community’s economy to the
education of the people engaged in the community (Castillo-Climent, 2010; Grootaert, 1999).
Educated people have greater lifetime earnings, are capable of cycling money through the
economy through saving, spending, and investing, and in turn assist with propagating a cycle of

10
supply and demand (Castillo-Climent, 2010). An educated population may be a more pro-social
and functional society with regard to fertility and life-expectancy (Castillo-Climent, 2010).
Education is touted to be foundational in building self-esteem. A culture is created in an educated
society, which impacts future generations with expectations of continued education (Becker &
Chiswick, 1966; Castillo-Climent, 2010; Grootaert, 1999).
The secured and unsecured debt of the average adult citizen of the United States in 2011 was
$70,000 (Vornovytskyy, Gottschalck, & Smith, 2011). Students entering post-secondary
educational institutions are entering with a palpable culture of debt (Cellini, 2012). The
turbulence of the global economy, the national economy and national debt, the national
unemployment rates and the continued increasing inability of college graduates to repay student
loans may incite a motivation for students graduating from high school to seek scholarships as a
method to pay for post-secondary education or training (Manton & English, 2002; Student Loan
Debt, Widespread and Worrisome, 2013). The impact of developing a perspective on student
motivation to attend college by earning scholarships may also impact understanding why student
will or will not be academically successful at college and other post-secondary education and
training institutions. Students are most susceptible to dropping out of post-secondary education
and training institutions within the first year of attendance (Barefoot, 2004). The creation of a
relevantly skilled and capable workforce ready to engage in the economy as human capital is
essential to economic growth (Castillo-Climent, 2010; Grootaert, 1999).
Significance of the Study to Leadership
The study of parenting strategies relative to the outcome of successful student achievement
and motivation at the time of high school graduation furthers the key and current literature
efforts in the area of education reform. The importance and relevance of specific parenting

11
strategies may lead to the development of a parenting accountability model specific to post-
secondary education and the impact on human capital value. The model may then be worked into
the role of increasing parent leadership roles with the purpose of student motivation and
achievement.
Student motivation has been shown to affect student achievement and the recurring questions
are where and how does that motivation develop (Coleman & McNeese, 2009; Manzo, 2008).
Bandura (1986) expressed the importance of self-efficacy to student achievement. Self-efficacy
and motivation are easier to develop and achieve in earlier years prior to adolescence (Manzo,
2008). A strong parenting strategy predictor leading to successful student achievement is
suggested to be parent expectations and aspirations of the student specifically in the content areas
of math and science (Fan & Williams, 2010). Fan and Williams have suggested more areas of
research needed to discover the multidimensional parenting strategies effectively used to produce
successful student achievement and continued student motivation.
The leadership of post-secondary institutions may benefit from research to better understand
how to attract and recruit the students that are the best fit for the respective institution.
Organizations awarding scholarships may benefit from further research investigating the
relationships between the variables that inspire students toward achievement and eventual
application for post-secondary scholarships. Early education experts may be able to further
communicate the longitudinal effects of research-based parenting strategies to parents and early
childhood centers, thereby, furthering the efforts of national education policy and program
(Domina, 2005).
Leadership in the K-12 education continuum may impact education and achievement
outcomes armed with correlative knowledge between research-supported parenting strategies and

12
scholarships when engaging in professional learning communities, educator professional
development and parent-school committees. Teacher preparation programs present another
opportunity where educational leadership could impact student achievement. The propagation of
informed educators regarding the possible significant correlation between parenting strategies
and scholarship award would assist in the perpetuation of parent awareness (Domina, 2005;
Korkmaz, 2007). The K-12 education reformation movement continues to tout the goals of
college and career readiness but without the empirical evidence as to how to achieve those goals.
Education experts look abroad to China, Finland and other nations to better understand the
process and curriculum of creating college and career ready students resulting in the formation of
the Common Core State Standards (Council of Chief State School Officers and National
Governors Association, 2012).

13
Nature of the Study
The research study is a quantitative method and a correlation design. The premise for the
choice of quantitative correlation was a decision made based on how the researcher perceived the
relationship between the multiple independent and dependent variables; the likelihood of a
function was evident. The quantitative correlational study included a data collection method of
student surveys on a Likert-type scale of one to five; one represents never and five represents
always. The survey prompted student response using questions citing existing empirically-
supported parental strategies and behaviors shown to positively support student motivation and
academic achievement, and then inquire to what degree each strategy or behavior influenced
either the number of post-secondary scholarships applied for, number awarded, or the monetary
value of scholarships awarded (Fan, 2001; Fan & Chen, 2001; Fan & Williams, 2010).
The suggestion for further study of parenting strategies and student academic achievement
included use of a global indicator such as grade point average or content-area specific grades
(Keith, 1982; Fehrman, Keith & Reimers, 1987). The repeated suggestion within the context of
the review of the literature of use of a global indicator lent itself to definthe idea for this study
and the use of post-secondary scholarship award as a measurable variable. The consequent
interest in student motivation and academic achievement spawned the idea of measuring the
strength of correlation between parenting strategies and a measurable educational goal, which is
high school graduation and post-secondary education. Scholarship award is tangible and
measurable as a global indicator and may correlate to parenting strategies and involvement
(Fehrman, Keith & Reimers, 1987; Keith, 1982).
The sample exports from one Wyoming high school containing a student population of 465
graduates (Wyoming Department of Education, 2015). The sample included those graduated

14
students in the age range of 18 to 23 years (Roth, Harkins, & Eng, 2014;. Sigurdsson,
Sigvaldason, Gudmundsdottir, Sigurdsson, & Briem, 2009; Whitney, & Froiland, 2015). The
survey instrument was intentional in requesting the perceptions students have regarding research-
based parenting strategies from their own experience and to indicate open response information
regarding GPA, ACT cumulative score, combined household income, and the highest level of
education of a parent or guardian (Fan, 2001; Fan & Williams, 2001). The researcher designed
the survey instrument and a pilot study was accomplished prior to the complete data collection
for study validity and reliability. Athletically-based scholarships were excluded because of the
range of immeasurable variables, and variables outside the scope of student academic
achievement, parenting strategies and academic merit (Ormrod & Leedy, 2010).
The organization is a community school district of 6,000 people, with approximately 10,000
people in the county, located in the state of Wyoming. The community has a consistent economy
reliant on the state’s natural resources of energy; coal, wind and oil reserves. The railroad
industry is also one of the busiest rail lines in the country because of the need to transport the
coal out of the region. The oil, mining and agricultural industry is approximately 20% of
community employment while another 20% comes from employment in the health and human
services industries such as the hospital and education. The region’s coal supply is responsible for
approximately 20% of the nation’s electricity. The industries of coal, oil, railroading and
agriculture require fundamental vocational and work ethic skills (Wyoming Department of
Education, 2015).
The curriculum development for the school district is impacted by the local cultural and
economic influences, which in turn have impacted instruction, assessment, and funding
allocation. The economic forces favor vocational skills over science, technology, engineering

15
and math (STEM) careers and students may have the impression core content areas such as math,
science, social students and language arts do not have application in the real world.
Consequently, students may perceive career readiness as more relevant than college readiness at
the time of high school graduation. The nationally implemented program, Common Core State
Standards, lauds the goals of college and career readiness. Students, because of family cultural
influences, may have experienced that a high school diploma is adequate to acquire a job with
the local economy. The converse effect to learner apathy toward college and career readiness is
represented in the population of senior students recognized each year at the awards ceremony
prior to graduation, where a mean of 38% of the graduating class earn significant scholarship
monies to continue their education. In excess of one million dollars in post-secondary institution
awards were presented to graduating seniors at the end of school years 2012 and 2013 (Wyoming
Department of Education, 2015).
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The study addressed the issue of merit-based scholarship awards, and whether parenting
strategies are correlated to the award of such scholarships. Specifically, the quantitative
correlation study had three research questions to be answered: (a) what is the correlative strength
of research-supported parenting strategies to predicting merit-based scholarships awarded for
post-secondary education at the time of high school graduation when other variables such as high
school GPA and ACT cumulative score are held constant, (b) which of the research-supported
parenting strategies correlate to merit-based scholarship award, and (c) how many and how much
merit-based scholarship.

16
The research design was intentionally directed to parenting strategies and global variables,
and purposefully excluded athletically-based and ethnically-driven scholarships, because such
scholarships are awarded based upon non-academic factors which were outside the scope of this
study. Details of how the study was conducted are provided in Chapter 3.
The following hypotheses are the foundations for the study:
H10: Research-supported parenting strategies have no correlation to merit-based
scholarships received by students at the time of graduation.
H11: Research-supported parenting strategies have correlation to merit-based scholarships
received by students at the time of graduation.
H20: Research-supported parenting strategies have no correlation to the number of
H21: Research-supported parenting strategies have correlation to the number of
H30: Research-supported strategies have no correlation to the amount of scholarships
received by students at the time of graduation.
H31: Research-supported parenting strategies have correlation to the amount of
Theoretical Framework
Social Cognitive Learning Theory
Pedagogical praxis rests its foundations on the theoretical framework of psychology, religion,
and politics (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004; Dewey, 1938; Fowler, 2009). The germane
influences of psychological behaviorists such as Bandura (2009) and Maslow (1954), and
educators such as Dewey (1938), have impacted the history and evolution of education and

17
learning. The theoretical framework for learning, psychology, cognition, and brain science
provides validity to the education profession and is infused throughout teacher preparation
programs, early childhood development programming and the K-12 content standards for
learning and achievement (Fischer & Immordino-Yang, 2008). The education community pays
homage, in some capacity, to learning theories such as social cognitive learning theory because
of the possible explanations to understanding student motivations for learning.
Social cognitive learning theory is defined by the following: (a) people can learn by observing
the behaviors of others, as well as by observing the outcomes of those behaviors, (b) learning can
occur without a change in behavior, (c) the consequences of behavior play a role in learning, (d)
cognition also plays a role in learning, and (e) people can have considerable control over their
actions and environments (Ormrod, 2008). Bandura (2009) expressed an urgent message to a
global audience to consider the ramifications of psychosocial issues affecting social cognitive
behavior theory. Learners are affected by a large potpourri of social, emotional, cultural and
psychological issues which then affects learning. The level of perceived parenting a student
receives while in the K-12 continuum may impact learning ability and achievement according to
the social cognitive learning theory. Parents and other adult interactions serve as models for
children and may create levels of expectation regarding learning and achievement.
Choice Theory
Glasser’s choice theory is unique when compared to other theories of motivation because it
alone identifies human motives for achievement based solely on a system of decision, or choice,
where the individual decides what is motivational in any given moment based on meeting a need
or desire. The needs are identified apart from Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs as survival,
love/belonging, power, freedom and fun (Glasser, 1998; Louis, 2009; Maslow, 1954). Maslow’s

18
Hierarchy of Needs describes the range of human motivation from a fundamental physiological
need to the process of creating a state of self-actualization (Martinez, 2010). All students are not
motivated, or inspired, by the possibility of a nominal reward. Martinez includes in the section
regarding motivation “…available data tell us that intrinsic motivation is not commonly
developed as a product of educational experience. Susan Harter (1982) found that intrinsic
motivation trended strongly downward as students progressed through the school years”
(Martinez, 2010, p.158). Choice theory would support that parenting strategies would have little
or no correlation on the number and amount of scholarships received because the student is
following internal choices based upon their own perception of needs.
Human motivation is complicated and has a range of values and possibility. Students
intrinsically motivated by achievement will continue to be motivated by achievement (Fan &
Williams, 2010). Students are experiencing critical situations during critical developmental
periods of their middle to late adolescence and “[r]esearch has shown that some experiences have
the most powerful effects during specific sensitive periods, while others can affect the brain over
a much longer time span” (Fischer & Immordino-Yang, 2008, p.102). Parenting strategies have
been the core of conjecture and study because children are most impacted by the environment
they are raised within during develop into adulthood, and the impact that environment has on
achievement, motivation, and self-actualization. Maslow (2011) posited that humans have
psychological needs as well as physiological ones, and the gratified person is a healthy person
who also makes choices that are to their benefit and health. The psychological needs of a child
met by parents or guardians during physical, emotional and social development will have the
greatest impact on the overall health and productivity of that child as they enter adulthood.

19
Self-Actualization
According to Maslow (2011), humans intrinsically strive for self-actualization; the state of
being all that is possible to achieve and become. The state of self-actualization and motivation
will be a subjective idea based upon individual values and culture. The theory of a state of self-
actualization may describe the relationship of expectations projected from parents to their
children through parenting strategies, may describe the motivation behind choice theory that
propels students to work for and earn scholarships to post-secondary education, or describe the
desire to achieve that seems innately present in some people. Self-actualization theory does not
facilitate an understanding of students who did not apply for scholarship award. The possibility
exists that students did apply for, but were not awarded, scholarships. Question logic within
SPSS accounted for addressing the scenario that scholarships were applied for but not awarded
and ensured the independent variable questions were answered for all respondents regardless of
scholarship award status.
Authoritative Parenting
Authoritative parenting is defined as parenting with a balance of expectations, interaction and
communication, or characterized by being physical and emotionally engaged with appropriately
healthy parenting behavior while maintaining a degree of boundaries and supervision. According
to Boon (2007), authoritative parenting was found to be a predictor of student academic
achievement and motivation. The research-supported parenting strategies that are represented in
the survey instrument asked students to measure their perception of the parenting strategy on a
Likert-type scale of one to five; never to always or least to most. The strength of the perceived
measurement aligns with the authoritative parenting theory of keeping expectations and
communication with students during development.

20
Parenting theory with regard to authoritative parenting can be further broken down into
nuances. Parents may be authoritarian in the sense of having expectations and being engaged
with their children, but how those expectations and engagement are delivered may be perceived
differently. For example, one parent may impulsively physically discipline a child for a
subjectively inappropriate behavior, while another parent may discipline the child with a
discussion of why the behavior is inappropriate, possible outcomes and a time-out or grounded.
Each of these two scenarios of authoritative parenting may produce a difference in intelligence
quotient (IQ); a higher IQ for the latter scenario (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994).
According to Darolia and Wydick (2011), an altruistic parent cares for the academic
achievement and welfare of a child. The altruistic intentions are not the focus of the study by
Darolia and Wydick but are a finding; the manifestations of the intentions become predictors of
levels of student achievement and motivation. A parent who chooses to provide the child with
physical objects such as purchasing a car or paying a weekly allowance results in lower effort
and motivation to achieve when the student is in college. Conversely, an altruistic parenting style
that encouraged the child to be independently resourceful, problem solve and provide measurable
effort toward earning a desired state of being predicted a college student with a higher level of
academic motivation and effort.
Definition of Terms
The primary terms for which this study is based on are: (a)global variable, (b) indicated high
school, (c) merit-based scholarship, (d) research-supported parenting strategies,(e) scholarship
student, and (f) subsample.

21
Global variable is an independent variable occurring in the general population, not specific to
the sample, and considered by the population as common knowledge and consistently defined.
This study uses the high school grade point average and ACT cumulative score.
Indicated high school referred to the high school in western rural region of the United States
from which the sample was derived.
Merit-based scholarship includes and is limited to: (a) Military service such as Reserve
Officer Training Corps scholarships, enlistment in the National Guard or Reserve or full time
enlistment with monetary college benefits such as the GI Bill, (b) non-athletic merit-based
scholarships, and (c) other activities-based scholarships such as 4H, Lions, Rotary, Kiwanis,
music or Future Business Leaders of America.
Research-supported parenting strategies are defined by the meta-analysis of Fan and Chen
(2001): (a) television rules, (b) communication, (c) contact with school, parent–teacher
association, (d) volunteering, (e) supervision and (f) education aspiration. The work of Fan and
Chen (2001) compiled 25 empirically-based studies on parenting strategies and academic
achievement and statistically produced the most relevant parent strategies to student achievement
Scholarship student is defined as any matriculating high school senior or college student
ranging in age from 18 to 23 years awarded merit-based scholarships for the purpose of post-
secondary education institutions or training or certifying institutions (Roth, Harkins, & Eng,
2014;. Sigurdsson, Sigvaldason, Gudmundsdottir, Sigurdsson, & Briem, 2009; Whitney, &
Froiland, 2015). These students are receiving or have received a nominal award or scholarship
for any category of college expenses, excluding athletic scholarships.
Federal student aid, grant monies, and other non-scholarship financial assistance was not
included due to the lack of meritorious rigor and disconnect from intentional student behaviors

22
and parenting strategies toward the attainment of such assistance. For example, the eligibility for
Federal Student Aid includes: (a) demonstration of financial need, (b) be an eligible citizen of the
United States, or an eligible non-citizen, (c) have a valid social security number, (d) be accepted
as a regular, enrolled student at a certificating or degree-conferring institution, (e) maintain
satisfactory academic progress, and (f) have attained a high school diploma, GED, or completed
homeschooling equivalent (U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, 2014).
Subsample is defined as the splitting of a sample due to disaggregation of the data, when parts
of the sample are analyzed for correlations or regression analysis apart from the cumulative
sample because of a characteristic This study disaggregates by scholarship award for data
analysis.
Assumptions
The assumptions include: (a) students responded to the survey with honesty and
understanding of the vocabulary, (b) parents, friends, nor friends of the family did not physically
engage in the efforts to earn scholarship award on behalf of the student, (c) the secondary
institution of the student did not engage in any physical efforts to earn scholarships on behalf of
the student and (d) scholarship award was not random and was an intentional process requiring
time and effort on behalf of both the student and the awarding agency.
The data collection objective was a sample of 18 to 23 year old students graduating or
recently graduated from the indicated high school. The sample was disaggregated during data
analysis into sub-samples and one disaggregation was awarded merit-based scholarships and not
awarded merit-based scholarships. Data analysis of non-scholarship graduates provided the
opportunity to discover correlations between parenting strategies perceptions and scholarship
application. The analysis of the perceptions of the non-scholarships students and scholarship

23
application added to the validity and reliability to the parenting questions survey and resulting
correlations, or lack thereof. The socioeconomic status of the family or the student may or may
not be the reason a student applies for and earns scholarships and that motivation was not
relevant to the scope of the study. The student will earn or not earn a scholarship based on
reasons of motivation and merit. The correlation between the parenting strategies may have
affected student motivation and the resulting motivation for scholarship application and
consequently award.
Scope and Limitations
The scope of the study was specific to age, education, time and geographical location. The
sample included students graduating from a high school in a low-density population state ranging
in age 18 to 23 years (Roth, Harkins, & Eng, 2014;. Sigurdsson, Sigvaldason, Gudmundsdottir,
Sigurdsson, & Briem, 2009; Whitney, & Froiland, 2015). The study excluded students who: (a)
earned scholarships in the time beyond high school graduation, (b) earned athletic scholarships,
(c) are randomly discriminated out of the sample based on a sample collection goal size of 120,
and (d) are under 18 years of age or older than 23 years of age. The quantifiable marker is
scholarship offers and amount (Keith, 1982; Fehrman, Keith & Reimers, 1987). The study did
not distinctly measure and account for scholarships with no fiscal cap or having a qualifying
requirement such as a scholarship described as being all-inclusive for four years to any school of
eligibility. In such a scenario, the highest dollar amount allowed by the scholarship is the dollar
amount awarded and counted as only one scholarship. Scholarships in a vague fiscal definition
are reported in terms of maximum possible award to the student.
Time constraints, fiscal limitations, geography and feasibility prevent data collection from
multiple high schools. The study was consequently limited to represent a more specific

24
demographic, culture and socioeconomic status representative of the rural, low-density western
states (Fan & Williams, 2010). A potentially significant outlier in scholarship monies awarded
may occur because of the relative costs in the following post-secondary expense considerations:
(a) the fluctuating cost of college from year to year, (b) differences in cost between private and
public institutions, (c) discrepancies between tuition, fees, room and board, and (d) vocational,
technical, junior college, community college and four-year institution costs. The survey queried
respondents for scholarship caps on scholarships described as “unlimited.”
The perceptions students have regarding factors attributed to scholarship award may have
become diluted since the time of high school graduation. The potential converse effect of time
lapse since graduation is a mature clarity given the time for reflection and personal growth that
provides for sincere and honest answers to the survey. The socioeconomic status, marital status
or other life changes of the sample may be different than the status at the time of high school
graduation and the disparity may have influenced the responses to the survey (Ormrod & Leedy,
2010).
Delimitations
The inclusion of age specificity of students 18 to 23 years may be generalized to the broader
population of matriculating students with goals of attending a post-secondary institution in the
same age range. The results of the study may provide information to the broad educational
community and organizations focused on parenting. The narrow age requirement focused on a
late-adolescent, developmentally similar population. Senior students who are 17 years old do not
necessarily add additional, unique and beneficial information that cannot be otherwise obtained
by interviewing four years of age-eligible students (Roth, Harkins, & Eng, 2014;. Sigurdsson,
Sigvaldason, Gudmundsdottir, Sigurdsson, & Briem, 2009; Whitney, & Froiland, 2015).

25
Students who have already graduated from college and moved into the adult working world may
have diversely matured through interactions in the professional world and lost the authentic
memories of motivation for seeking scholarship award and coinciding academic achievement as
well as perceptions of parenting strategies. The omission of measuring student perception of self-
motivation is intentional and the survey instrument captured demographic information shown to
impact student motivation; combined household income and parent or guardian level of
education (Fehrman, Keith & Reimers, 1987; Keith, 1982; Kremer, Miguel & Thornton, 2009;
Mbuva, 2012; Okpala, Okpala, & Smith, 2010).
Summary
A correlation between student motivation and student academic achievement is evident
through research-supported study. The strength of the correlation between specific parenting
strategies and student academic achievement at the time of high school matriculation is
unknown. The data quantifiers of student academic success beyond GPA and ACT include
scholarship award at the time of high school graduation. The rising cost of college has a direct
relationship with the financial health of the nation’s economy and vice versa. The goals of the
American education system are to manifest young adult learners who are college and career
ready. An extension of post-secondary education are societal members who are instrumental in
the creation of jobs, are hired into job positions and are a subsequently vital element of the
national economy by the theory of human capital as social capital.

26
Chapter 2
Review of the Literature
The impact of parenting strategies and parenting behaviors are empirically proven to correlate
to student achievement and student motivation (Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003; Domina, 2005;
Fan & Williams, 2010). The standards of accountability for education in the United States are
included in national education policy, but are generalized and limited with regard to parent
involvement and parental accountability for education. Systems of accountability for student
learning, academic achievement, and student motivation for learning and achievement, are
placed on the school systems, administrators and teachers; not parents or guardians. The review
of the literature was performed using University of Phoenix online library, specifically
EBSCOhost resources, and a collaboration of materials from content courses throughout the
doctoral program such as course texts and purchased journals from Association of Supervision
and Curriculum Development and Kappa Delta Pi Record. Key words used during the search
are: (a) parenting strategies, (b) parenting method, (c) student motivation and achievement, (d)
parent involvement and student achievement, (e) parent participation and education, (f) parent
participation and academic achievement, (g) student accountability, (h) teacher accountability, (i)
student scholarships, (j) social capital, (k) college costs, (l) human capital and (m) variations of
issues in education. The literature review develops a historical account of education policy,
accountability, industrial and government effects as well as economics and politics on education,
education reform and the elusive description and effects of parental involvement and academic
achievement.

27
Education and Human Capital
Human Capital
The health and prospective longevity of a society is measured by the economy of that society
(Castillo-Climent, 2010). One measure of the economics of a society is the social capital value
created by the people of the society; human capital. Every society has economics whether tribal
or world power and the role of education directly and indirectly impacts the economy of any
society through the human capital value of the citizen (Castillo-Climent, 2010; Grootaert, 1999).
Socioeconomic status of families and human capital value of individuals in a society shows
correlation to the level of education obtained by parents (Castillo-Climent, 2010). The United
States population is considered only moderately educated by global standards yet has a higher
standard of living by measures of income (OECD, 2013). The average 25 to 34 year old, male
high school graduate earned $32,800 in 2010 while females in the same category earned a
median income of $25,000. The same category of males with a bachelor’s degree earned a
median income of $49,800 and females earned $40,000 in 2010 (US Department of Education,
NCES, 2012). These discrepancies in possible futures and future income earnings are
demonstrative of the possible effects education, or lack of it, on an individual living in the United
States. Young adults with a bachelor's degree earned more than twice as much as those without a
high school diploma or its equivalent in 2010, 50% more than young adult high school
completers, and 22% more than young adults with an associate's degree (US Department of
Education, 2012).
Empirical evidence supports the importance and relevance of education to the value of human
capital and the subsequent relationship to economic health (Becker & Chiswick, 1966; Becker,

28
1992; Becker, Hubbard & Murphy, 2010; Castillo-Climent, 2010). The results of Becker, et al
and Castillo-Climent’s work assisted in the hypothesis that the human capital value of the citizen
of the United States is shaped by primary influences: (a) parenting and (b) the system of
education (Figure 1). Secondary influences stem from the primary influences of culture and
socio-economics throughout the life of the individual. Research indicates education improves the
quality of labor as a factor of production and allows for technological development. Human
capital produces higher productivity and a stronger economy as a result of more educated
workers (Becker & Chiswick, 1966; Becker, 1992; Becker, Hubbard & Murphy, 2010; Castillo-
Climent, 2010).
Education
The proposed model of human accountability was created to quantify and connect this study
while projecting the education continuum spanning the life of the citizen. The largest percentage
of formative, adolescent years is spent in the system of education for a citizen of the United
States. The continuum begins with birth and the influences of the parents or guardians in the
home environment and moves into the kindergarten through twelfth (K-12) grades; usually ages
five through eighteen. Secondary school graduation marks the end of the public and parental
legal responsibility for educating the student, although the public system of education in the
United States is legally bound to educate the population until the age of 21 (NCLB, 2001). The
student should be prepared for the accountability of being part of the human capital value of the
society which is reinforced by the goals of Common Core State Standards (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).

29
Figure 1
The relevance of a study related to post-secondary scholarship earnings and parenting
influences, behavior and strategies reflects the K-12 continuum end-state goals as purported by
Common Core State Standards; college and career readiness (Council of Chief State School
Officers and National Governors Association, 2012). A discussion on student achievement,
theories on student motivation and successful student award of scholarship monies may be
considered remiss without the inclusion of the hidden variables affecting achievement, learning
and education (Conley, 2011; Fan & Williams, 2010). Accountability evolves into the theme of
the study because accountability has been broadly researched, defined and applied since the
implementation of No Child Left Behind and the associated calendar year 2014 deadlines for
100% annual yearly progression. Annual Yearly Progression, known widely in the education
profession by the acronym AYP, is the calendar year goals expected by No Child Left Behind for
every public school under the umbrella of supervision of the United States Department of
Education (NCLB, 2001).

30
Education Policy
Education policy and laws were in existence preceding the reauthorization of The Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left Behind. There exists a successor education policy
implemented by the Obama Administration called Race to the Top. The Obama administration
policy, Race to the Top, advocates the use of common state standards. The inclusion of a
historical account surrounding Common Core State Standards as a program becomes relevant to
the discussion of this study because of the program’s goals of college and career readiness
(National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers, 2010).
The program availability for Common Core State Standards debuted in 2009 and is discussed
in detail under the topic of Education in the United States further in the literature review.
Students enter school governed by the recently developed Common Core State Standards in 43
of the 50 states. The Common Core State Standards were designed to guide the education and
learning of the student until the time of high school graduation and prepare all students for
college and career readiness (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council
of Chief State School Officers, 2010).
The hypothetical challenges with college or career ready goals are found in defining college
and career ready. Miscellaneous variables such as geographical and cultural values and regional
industry needs do affect local education and learning. The extraneous variables affect attitudes
and opportunities for entering college and careers and are not considered by the national
standards (Tienken, 2012). The questions related to the variables are likely to be innumerable
while the focus of going to college, a goal of the Common Core State Standards, can become

31
measurable if the scope narrows to parenting strategies and behaviors and their relationship to
student academic achievement.
Scholarship
The correlation between parenting strategies and college scholarships for graduating high
school seniors is unknown. The possibility of correlation exists because college scholarship
awards are typically linked to academic achievement (McGaha & Fitzpatrick, 2010). Academic
achievement has been empirically shown to be impacted by parenting strategies and parenting
behaviors. Scholarship award impacts both attendance and retention at colleges and universities
and is therefore relevant to the discussion regarding human capital (Baker & Finn, 2008). A
merit-based scholarship is more likely to improve student retention than a scholarship based on
athletic achievement or financial need, although there are exceptions (Singell, 2001; Singell &
Stater, 2006). According to Singell and Stater, (2006), the type of university chosen based on a
merit scholarship is more likely to be known for academic achievement while scholarship award
based on other character attributes are more likely to choose post-secondary education with a
strong social culture (Min & Sambonsugi, 2010).
Education and Accountability
Issues in education such as merit pay, assessment, standards and curriculum, stem from the
question of who is to be held accountable for student learning while the United States seems to
be losing footing economically and academically on the world stage (Hooge, Burns, &
Wilkoszewski, 2012; OECD, 2013; Tienken, 2010). Education policies have held school districts
and teachers accountable for student learning. Fehrman, Keith and Reimers (1987) suggested, “It
would seem that efforts should focus on identifying those variables that can be controlled by
teachers, parents and students” (p. 330). According to Catsambis (2001), “Little is known,

32
however, about the possible connections between parental involvement and educational
outcomes other than test scores” (p. 4). The purpose of studying the relationship between
measurable education outcomes such as scholarship earnings for college, and parenting strategies
is ultimately about the discussion of the omnipresent entity accountable for student learning,
student academic achievement, and student motivation. A connection between student academic
achievement, motivation, parenting strategies and parenting behavior is an evolving concept as
educational leaders in the United States and other countries work for fluid reform of educational
systems and the subsequent added human capital to the society.
Delineation in the literature on the topic of parental involvement and impact on student
achievement is clear; the age of the student and the type of parental involvement sway the
outcomes of academic achievement and student motivation. The review of the literature specific
to parent involvement, parenting strategies and student outcomes has limitations when
generalizing a study. The limitations surround the immense number of variables in each study
relating to age of the student, definition of parenting involvement and parenting strategies and
the measured outcomes; consequently generalizability for a study related to parenting strategies
and student achievement is compromised (Fan & Chen, 2001; Fan & Williams, 2010; Fehrmann,
Keith & Reimers, 1987).
Germinal Research
Educational policy has suggested the inclusion of parents through school programming
(Domina, 2005; Fishel & Ramirez, 2005). The historical attempts by schools to engage parents
through targeted programming have not provided the desired results in assessment scores and
student motivation for learning. Parents and guardians remain excluded from mandated
accountability in education policy reform in the United States; perhaps because of the inability to

33
measure accountability and consistently define parental involvement (Desforges & Abouchaar,
2003). The exact definition of parenting strategies and parent involvement remains elusive
throughout the research of these influences on academic achievement (Epstein, 1986; Fan &
Chen, 2001). Germinal research in the theoretical framework on parenting and the connection to
academic achievement include Bloom (1980), Epstein (1986), Marjoribanks (1983) and Walberg
(1986). Despite the myriad of studies defining parent strategies and involvement differently, it
was the germinal work of Epstein (1986) that produced and defined four parenting strategies
with a subsequent expansion to six.
The four parts of parent involvement and the impact on student achievement described by
Epstein (1986) reflect the changes in society and attitudes toward the parenting archetype. The
description by Epstein included: (a) an increase of mothers having college education and
bachelor’s degrees, (b) the availability of baby and child care, (c) the expansion of federal
programs for early childhood education specifically for certain socioeconomic groups, and (d)
the dissolution of the nuclear family as the only family model. The work of Epstein provided a
foundation for further studies regarding the impact of parenting as a variable of academic
achievement (Epstein, 2002; Fan & Chen, 2001). The six types of expanded parental
involvement are: (a) parenting, (b) communicating, (c) volunteering, (d) learning at home, (e)
decision making, and (f) collaborating with the community (Epstein, 2002).
The six types of parent involvement serve as a foundational model for educational
programming that engages the parent as a stakeholder (National Network of Partnership Schools,
2011). The intentional use of parenting refers to the overall parenting strategies in the home that
support and develop the child as a student and a learner in any situation. Examples of these
parenting strategies became the focus and results of the Fan and Chen (2001) meta-analysis.

34
Communication refers to the dialogue between the school and the home and vice versa. The
variable of communication between the school and the home is considered parent involvement
by studies such as Domina (2005) and Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler (1995). Epstein (2002)
further expanded parental involvement to volunteerism in the schools and creating a culture of
parents engaged in student achievement relative to supportive relationships with the schools. The
aspect of learning at home was studied earlier by Majoribanks (1983) and Walberg (1984) who
considered parent-directed learning in the home and the impact on student achievement at
school. Decision making and community collaboration is a reference to parents and community
members as stakeholders in the education process.
Parenting strategies impact students differently with regard to motivation and academic
achievement. The correlation exists between parenting strategies and student achievement but the
reasons are unclear as to why home rules, such as limiting television, may improve student
motivation and feelings of competence. The contrary is true when parents overly engage
communication and involvement with school functions for students in the tenth grade (Fan &
Williams, 2010). Secondary students who are consistently encouraged to plan for a post-
secondary academic career and have parents or guardians engaging students with parental
expectations during the secondary school years have higher levels of confidence in academics,
specifically in math and English (Catsambis, 2001; Fan & Williams, 2010). The research
supports predictions regarding student efficacy regarding academic achievement and motivation.
Predications regarding parent accountability with specific parenting strategies and the
relationship to grooming human capital value through academic success are not able to be made
due to lack of research.

35
Parental Involvement and Parenting Strategies
Parental Involvement
The defining of parental involvement and parenting strategies is difficult because of the
innumerable possibilities and lack of measurement. Parent involvement may describe the
activities the parents are engaged in relative to school functions. These functions may be
volunteer reading in the classroom, volunteering to coordinate school functions, chaperoning
class trips, or the amount of contact and communication the parent has with the school and
teacher (Epstein, 2002; Fan & Chen, 2001; Fan & Williams, 2010). Parent involvement may be
defined as the activities the parents engage in at home with the student with regard to school and
discussed as parental supervision instead of parent involvement (Fan & Chen, 2001).
Parent involvement in the child’s school runs a fine line between being adequate and
overbearing (Régner, Loose, & Dumas, 2009). The type of parent involvement diminishing
student achievement includes extensive communication with the teachers regarding behavior and
grades and an omnipresence at the school (Domina, 2005; Fan & Williams, 2001; Fehrman,
Keith & Reimers, 1987). The age and developmental stage of the child at the time of parent
involvement with the school is also relevant. Younger students appreciate parent involvement
more than older students. The type of parent involvement does impact the attitude of the student
and ultimately student academic achievement and motivation (Deforges & Abouchaar, 2003).
For example, parent involvement within the school is less effective on student academic
achievement and motivation than parent involvement at home; resulting in an operational
definition shift from parent involvement to parenting strategies (Weihua, & Williams, 2010).
Students not wanting parents or guardians to engage at their schools are equally as persuasive at

36
deflecting parent involvement in the school which cyclically further diminishes the effects of
parent involvement with the school (Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003; Domina, 2005).
Parenting Strategies
Parenting strategies became the term necessary for future study because parental involvement
has been proven as too vague and left to subjectivity. The exact definition of parenting strategies
is elusive as acknowledged by more than one author of previous studies related to the topic;
therefore parenting strategies may or may not have a connection to school interaction or the
home depending upon which study is referenced. Readers should give notice to the operational
definition of parenting strategies, parenting behaviors, parent involvement or other rhetoric
related to parenting and student academic achievement when reviewing literature.
Parent strategies, for the purpose of this future study, refer to a range of activities such as
regular conversations to help the student reflect on the day, consistent family sit-down dinners,
or helping students with homework. The similarity, regardless of the use of parent involvement
or parenting strategy, is the influence of the parent on the student and analyzing the short term
and long term effects on academic achievement. Existence of a parent strategy is related to
parenting behaviors. The occurrence of a parenting behavior may then imply an intentional
strategy and the manifested effects of the parenting strategies may be measured differently. The
parenting strategy may affect student motivation academically or socially and the academic and
social effects lead to second order effects and beyond (Fan & Williams, 2010).
Research on the subject of connecting parenting strategies and academic achievement is well
supported through qualitative research methods (Fan & Chen, 2001). The disparity in research on
the correlation of parenting strategies and academic achievement is that a lack of existing
empirical research; specifically a lack of quantitative studies (Fan & Chen, 2001; Fan &

37
Williams, 2010). Research topics have been specific when looking at age groups, socioeconomic
status, ethnicity and culture, learning disabilities and gender (Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003).
The topic of parenting strategies and academic achievement has been broadly researched because
of the possible definitions. The meta-analysis by Fan and Chen (2001) includes the research of
25 empirical studies and proposes a common definition of parenting strategies as variables
related to academic achievement.
Parenting strategies deemed to support producing or affecting successful student achievement
as ascertained by a meta-analysis are: (a) television rules, (b) communication, (c) contact with
school, parent–teacher association, (d) volunteering, (e) supervision and (f) education aspiration
(Fan & Chen, 2001). Fan & Williams (2010) used similar variables framed around family rules
and parental participation to look at the effects on students’ attitudes towards engagement in
specific academic pursuits and motivation levels. The results of the study indicated the strongest
correlation between student achievement and motivation were parent expectations and
aspirations for student achievement (Fan & Williams, 2010). An inverse relationship occurs
when parents are overly connected with a student’s school life and in frequent contact with the
schools. Student motivation to achieve regresses when parents appear too controlling, appear to
hover over homework and are in frequent communication with the school (Domina, 2005).
Bias in Parenting Strategies
Bias in research studies on parenting strategies may be difficult to control (Desforges &
Abouchaar, 2003). The bias may become exaggerated as the study on parenting strategies and
student achievement narrows to the specific process of method, design and data collection. The
bias in the study by Fan & Williams (2010) was addressed by recognizing the limitation of the
study to address socioeconomic status on parental strategies and the limited inclusivity of all

38
studies on parenting strategies due to lack of empirical nature. A suggestion for further study of
parenting strategies and student academic achievement included use of a global indicator such as
grade point average or content-area specific grades (Keith, 1982; Fehrman, Keith & Reimers,
1987). The repeated suggestion within the context of the review of the literature of use of a
global indicator lent itself to the idea for this study and the use of post-secondary scholarship
award as a measurable variable.
Parent Involvement, Strategies and Student Motivation
The strict cause and definition of student motivation is a bias in study variables and difficult
to measure. The subjective nature of defining the intention of a variable and how the variable is
defined at the moment of data collection may change the results of the study. Skewed data may
result from the inverted relationship of the dependent variable having a feedback loop to the
independent variable and creating a self-fulfilling cycle. Fan & Williams (2010) suggested the
impact of a parent motivating a student who in turn motivates the parent. The bias and
subsequently skewed data cannot be forecasted nor is able to be ascertained as to the impact to
the study. The study performed by Coleman & McNeese (2009) supported only the facet of
student motivation as having a statistical significance to student achievement and may be due to
the bias in the variables such as culture, socioeconomic status or due to the developmental stage
of the students in the study.
Coleman & McNeese (2009) sampled fifth grade students with a hypothesis that a positive
correlation would exist between parenting involvement, student motivation and student
achievement in all tested situations. However, in certain situations a negative correlation, or at
least statistically insignificant relationship, existed. The statistically significant relationship was
supported only between student motivation and student achievement; if students are motivated to

PORTER CYNTHIA FINAL

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to PORTER CYNTHIA FINAL

Similar to PORTER CYNTHIA FINAL (20)

PORTER CYNTHIA FINAL