Chapter II. Literature Review
2.2. The quality of home-based parental involvement from the perspective of
In the present study, the operationalization of the quality of home-based parental involvement was strongly inspired by self-determination theory (SDT), an approach to human motivation and well-being developed by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. SDT suggests that when people are self-determined (intrinsically motivated), they become involved in such activities as parental involvement because they feel that they are interesting, challenging, and satisfying. However, people who are extrinsically motivated to do such things (e.g. expecting to get rewards, avoiding feeling guilty) can also become self-determined through the processes of internalization and integration (see Deci &
Ryan, 2000; Deci, Ryan, & Williams, 1996, for an overview). Internalization is a proactive process through which an individual transforms regulation by external contingencies into regulation by internal processes (Schafer, 1968, as cited in Deci, Ryan, & Williams, 1996). When external contingencies are internalized and,
in turn, assimilated to individual’s self, then the integration is completed (Ryan, 1993, as cited in Deci, Ryan, & Williams, 1996).
In line with SDT, it is proposed that individuals have three basic needs, namely: need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Niemiec and his colleagues defined the three needs as follows:
“The need for autonomy is conceptualized in terms of experiencing a sense of choice, endorsement, and volition with respect to initiating, maintaining, and terminating behavioural engagement. The need for competence concerns the feeling of effectiveness in interacting with the social or physical world. The need for relatedness refers to the warmth and caring received from interactions with others, resulting in a general sense of belonging”. (Niemiec et al., 2006, p. 763)
The central hypothesis of SDT highlights the role of social contexts, (e.g.
socializing agents such as parents and teachers) in satisfying individual’s basic needs. This is critical for the facilitation of individuals’ intrinsic motivation and the internalization of extrinsically motivated (uninteresting) behaviours. In other words, when basic needs are satisfied, individuals may internalize uninteresting but socially prescribed activities (e.g. children need to complete homework assignments) into personally important behaviours. This internalization process, in turn, nurtures an individual’s performance, psychological health, and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
To dig deeper into human motivation (see Deci, Ryan, & Williams, 1996, for greater detail), SDT differentiates between human behaviours that are guided by intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Behaviours guided by intrinsic motivation (intrinsic regulation) represent the prototype of self-determination or autonomy. That is, when people are intrinsically motivated, they are fully autonomous and experience a sense of volition in their behaviour. In contrast, extrinsically motivated behaviour is more controlled (less autonomous). In SDT, extrinsic motivation can be distinguished by the following four types of extrinsically behavioural regulation:
External regulation, the very low degree of self-regulation, represents a behaviour that is controlled by demands or external contingencies of
the person (e.g. doing such things to receive a reward or avoid punishment).
Introjected regulation, the moderately low degree of self-regulation, represents a behaviour that is controlled by demands or contingencies inside the person such as guilt or threats to self-esteem (e.g. doing such things to avoid feeling guilty or to feel proud of oneself).
Identified regulation, the moderately high degree of self-regulation, represents a behaviour that is chosen because the person identifies with the importance of the activity.
Integrated regulation, the very high degree of self-regulation, represents a behaviour that is experienced as “fully free” because the regulation has been integrated into the person’s sense of self.
Intrinsic regulation and four types of extrinsically behavioural regulation are located along a continuum (see Figure 2.2) on which an individual’s behavioural regulation is less (on the left-hand side) or more fully internalized (how much the value has been taken in) to the sense of self. This means, the more an individual internalizes a behavioural regulation, the more that individual experiences a sense of self-determination (autonomy); in other words, the more a behavioural regulation is placed (or integrated) closer to the self. Ultimately, an individual may experience a true sense of volition and willingness (Deci, Ryan, & Williams, 1996; Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985).
Figure 2.2.
The Self-Determination Continuum (adapted from Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 237).
Very Low
Moderately Low
Moderately High
Very High
Self-Determined THE SELF-DETERMINATION CONTINUMM
Levels of Individual’s Self-Determination in Behaviour al Regulation
Behaviour al regulation is more autonomous.
Behaviour al regulation is more controlled External
Regulation
Introjected Regulation
Identified Regulation
Integrated Regulation
Intrinsic Regulation EXTRINSIC
MOTIVATION
INTRINSIC MOTIVATION Type of
Motivation
Type of Regulation
Level of Self-Determination
2.2.1. Multidimensional Conceptions of Parental Instruction
When applying SDT to educational settings, the concern is how to foster children’s interest in learning, in the value of education, and in the development of their own competencies (Deci et al., 1991). Therefore, when it comes to parental involvement in the child’s education, the basic concern is with the role of support from parents as important socializing agents in fostering self-determination in the learning and school success of their children. In the literature, it has been assumed that the quality of parental support in relation to school-related activities (e.g. how parents help their children with homework) may be functional (i.e. be able to enhance school motivation) to the extent that the three basic needs of their children for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are fulfilled (Grolnick, 2006).
From the perspective of SDT, the quality of home-based parental involvement can be characterized operationally by four dimensions of parental instruction, that is, autonomy-support, responsiveness, structure, and control (see Grolnick, 2009; Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994;
Gurland & Grolnick, 2005; Lorenz & Wild, 2007, for reviews). Synthesizing the above-mentioned reviews, four parents’ dimensions can be defined as follows:
The first dimension, autonomy-support, refers to parents’ encouragement of the child’s self-initiated expression and action, provision of opportunities to make choices, and acknowledgement of the child’s feelings and ideas.
The second dimension, responsiveness (or involvement), refers to parents’
readiness to take the child’s perspectives, acknowledgement of the child’s feelings, dedication of resources and time, interest in the child’s behaviours, provision of consolation, and encouragement of continuous self-regulation in failure situations.
The third dimension, structure, refers to how parents guide their child’s life by providing clear and consistent guidelines as well as expectations and rules.
The fourth dimension, control, refers to parents’ attempts to change the child by pressuring him/her to do, think, feel, or behave in particular ways.
From a theoretical point of view, the context of home-based parental involvement in which parents provide support to the child in the form of self-initiated task solving, give the child an opportunity to make choices, and take into
account the child’s perspective should therefore help to satisfy the child’s need for autonomy. The context of home-based parental involvement in which parents provide the child with warmth, emotional support, and resources, should therefore help to satisfy the child’s need for relatedness. The context of home-based parental involvement in which parents provide clear expectations and rules, should help to satisfy the child’s need for competence, because expectations and rules would enable the child to understand how to perform better in school. As an opposite of autonomy-support, the context of home-based parental involvement in which parents pressure their child’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviour would rather undermine the child’s feeling of autonomous well-being and also produce non-optimal forms of internalization and poorer performance (Deci et al., 1991;
Grolnick, 2009; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Ryan, Deci, Grolnick, & La Guardia, 2006).
The most frequently discussed dimension of parental instruction is the role of parents’ provision of structure in the child’s learning situations. In the literature, it has been noted that children’s self-regulation is not necessarily fostered by parents providing structure, even though a high level of structure might either encourage or diminish children’s autonomy (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). In addition, children may occasionally perceive the high level of parental provision of structure as parental control, for instance, when children do not agree with their parents’
expectations and rules. Nevertheless, this depends on the child’s ability to distinguish the difference between these two dimensions (Lorenz & Wild, 2007).
Up to this point, it can be assumed that parents’ use of the structure strategy may enhance children’s experience of competence only when it is provided to older children and at an optimal level (e.g. not too much or not too little). Children in higher grade levels appear to perceive a high degree of parents’ structure as controlling due to their increasing need for autonomy. This means that older children may acquire abilities to make more appropriate choices in their learning by themselves over time (Sheldon, Houser-Marko, & Kasser, 2006). Therefore, older children may not always agree with the expectations and rules imposed by their parents in line with their home-based parental involvement (Lorenz & Wild, 2007).
2.2.2. Measuring Multidimensional Conceptions of Parental Instruction An early product of work on the measurement of the SDT-based parental support dimensions is the Children’s Perceptions of Parents Scale (POPS) developed by Grolnick, Ryan, and Deci (1991). This scale was designed for use with primary school pupils. It assesses the extent to which pupils perceive their parents (both mothers and fathers) as being autonomy-supportive and responsive in general domains. To complete the POPS, pupils are first asked to think about their mothers as well as their fathers. Afterwards, they should compare their mothers (or fathers) with descriptions of four types of parents of other people. Then, they have to select the one out of four choices that fits their parents best. Sample items include: autonomy-support (12 items; e.g. “Some mothers/fathers always explain to their children about the way they should behave”, “Some mothers/fathers sometimes make their children behave because they’re the boss”); involvement (10 items; e.g. “Some mothers never have enough time to talk to their children”,
“Some mothers/fathers always have enough time to talk to their children”). The internal consistencies (alpha) of the subscales were .53 on mothers’ autonomy-support; .56 on mother’s involvement; .67 on father’s autonomy-autonomy-support; and .64 on fathers’ involvement (see Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991, for more detail on the scale development).
To focus on pupils’ perceptions of their parents in home-based involvement in particular, the current research applied the German Parental Help in Home Learning Questionnaire (Fragebogen zur elterlichen Hilfe beim häuslichen Lernen) developed by Wild (1999). This questionnaire was designed for use with primary school and lower secondary school pupils. Although partially based on the POPS, the questionnaire also included two further parental help dimensions (control and structure). Moreover, the questionnaire focuses on parental involvement in the specific domain of mathematics as one of the major school subjects.
Lorenz and Wild (2007)2 revised this scale and employed it in a longitudinal analysis that tested the internal consistencies (alpha) of four subscales over time.
A total of 200 parent–child dyads from Germany participated annually over 4 years at five measurement times. The analyses of internal consistencies over time was based on three measurement times—the second (4th grade), the third (5th grade), and the fifth (7th grade). Sample items included:
Autonomy-support (5 items; e.g. “When I get a bad grade in math, my parents ask how they can help me”, “When I get a bad grade in math, my parents try to find out the reason together with me”; alpha ranged from .63 to .78).
Responsiveness (3 items; e.g. “My parents ask how things were at school”, “My parents are interested in what I learn at school”; alpha ranged from .77 to .85).
Control (6 items; e.g. “When I get a bad grade in maths, my parents scold me and request that I study more”, “When I get a bad grade in math, my parents give me a hard time”; alpha ranged from .73 to .78).
Structure (5 items; e.g. “When I study for a test in math, I know exactly how much effort my parents expect”, “When I take a test result home, I know in advance, whether my parents will be disappointed”; alpha ranged from .57 to .56 ).