term paper

Running Head: PARENTAL ROLE CONSTRUCTION

Parental Role Construction for Involvement: Interactions Among

Theoretical, Measurement, and Pragmatic Issues in Instrument Development

Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey

Andrew S. Wilkins

Howard M. Sandler

Kathleen P. Jones O’Connor

Vanderbilt University

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in San Diego, CA, April 2004.

We extend many thanks to the many parents who participated in this research, to members of the Peabody Family-School Partnership Lab at Vanderbilt University, and to Institute for Education Sciences for funding that supported a portion of this research (OERI/IES #R305TO10673-03). Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey may be contacted at the Department of Psychology and Human Development, 230 Appleton Place, Peabody Box 512, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203; 615-322-8141; fax: 615-343-9494; [email protected]; http://www.vanderbilt..edu/Peabody/family-school.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Parental Role Construction

Abstract

Drawing on theoretical and empirical literature in psychology, sociology and education, Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 1997) proposed that parents’ decisions to become involved in students’ education are a function in part of parental role construction for involvement. We describe the process of developing a theoretically sound and practical measure of this construct. Beginning with content analyses of interviews with parents about their involvement, the process continued through development of a theoretically grounded, reliable survey measure capturing critical elements of this dynamic construct. Using data from varied stages in this process, we describe a continuous cycle of interactions among theoretical, measurement, and pragmatic issues often associated with efforts to understand parents’ role in students’ education and their contributions to children’s educational success.

2


Parent Role Construction for Involvement: Interactions AmongTheoretical, Measurement, and Pragmatic Issues in Instrument Development

Positive links between parental involvement and student achievement as well as student attributes associated with achievement, such as stronger self-regulatory skills, stronger work orientation, higher educational aspirations, stronger perceptions of academic competence, and improved school attendance and behaviors have been noted for some time (e.g., Epstein, 1992; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Sanders, 1998; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989; Sui-Chu & Willms, 1996; Xu & Corno, 1998), but variables that influence parents’ decisions about becoming involved have been less well examined. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 1997) offered a model of the parental involvement process that included attention to parents’ motivations for involvement, parents’ choice of involvement forms, the mechanisms that parents enact during involvement activities, the student attributes influenced by mechanisms engaged during involvement, and students’ school learning and achievement (see also Hoover-Dempsey, Battiato, Walker, Reed, & Jones, 2001; Walker, Wilkins, Dallaire, Sandler, & Hoover-Dempsey, in press). In this paper, we focus on one of the constructs critical to parents’ decisions about involvement in their children’s education: parental role construction.

Working from a base in role theory, we describe our process of developing and refining a measure of parental role construction. We highlight the qualitative and quantitative approaches to instrument development used in this process, describe theoretical and methodological problems encountered, and discuss steps taken to address the issues. We conclude with consideration of the continuous cycle of interactions among theoretical, measurement, and pragmatic issues often associated with efforts to understand parents’ role in students’ education and their contributions to children’s educational success.

Role Construction

Theorists, researchers, and practitioners have suggested for some time that parents' ideas about their roles in children's education are important to understanding their thinking and decisions about involvement (e.g., Chavkin & Williams, 1993; Clark, l983; Eccles & Harold, l993; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995, 1997; Lareau, 1989; Ritter, Mont-Reynaud, & Dornbusch, 1993). Chavkin and Williams (1993), for example, included parents' role ideas in their examination of parental involvement (e.g., "I should make sure that my children do their homework" [p. 75]), as did Ritter and his colleagues (e.g., "[I] believe teaching is best left up to teachers" [1993, p. 115]). Eccles and Harold (1993) identified parents' role ideas as a part of their model of contextual variables influencing parent and teacher practices of involvement. Clark’s (1983) classic study of high- and low-achieving low income African American adolescents suggested that one key to understanding the high-achieving students’ success was to be found in their parents’ beliefs that they should assume a strong, personal role in their children’s schooling and the behaviors that followed from these beliefs. Despite these brief theoretical and empirical

3


suggestions, however, little inquiry to date has focused directly on parents' role construction or its functions in guiding parents' involvement in their children's schooling.

Psychological and sociological literature suggests that individuals’ understanding of their roles is essential to the productive functioning of the groups to which they belong (Babad, Birnbaum, & Beene, 1983; Biddle, 1979, 1986; Forsyth, 1990; Wheelan, 1994). These principles hold true for a widely varied set of social groupings, including families, schools, workplaces, religious organizations and community groups; they also pertain to less formal groups such as friendship networks. Our particular focus is the social group involved in children’s formal education. In the U.S., these groups are usually centered around schools. Their members generally include the school’s teachers, administrators, and staff members; the students who attend the school; the parents and families of these children; and, often, varied members of the community related to the school by virtue of proximity or interest (e.g., neighbors, policy makers). All members of this school community (whether central or more peripheral to its on-going functioning and success) make up the social group charged with, engaged in, and responsible for students’ learning (see also Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1992).

Theoretical work on roles suggest that they include expectations held by groups for the behavior of members, individuals’ beliefs and expectations regarding their own behavior as a group member, and behaviors that come to characterize various members’ participation in the group. Roles include beliefs about one’s own and other group members’ responsibilities, rights, and obligations; they also include social expectations and scripts that guide group members’ behavior in various situations (Biddle, 1979, 1986; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Eagley, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995; Forsyth, 1990; Juhasz, 1989; Maccoby, 1980). This literature suggests overall that parents’ ideas about the roles they should assume in their children’s education are developed through their experience as members of groups relevant to children’s development and education (e.g., family, school, community, culture). It also suggests that parental role beliefs and behaviors are influenced by personal ideas and those of important others about the goals of children’s education. They are also influenced by personal observations of, and interactions with, others who also hold responsibilities related to children’s educational outcomes.

In general, this work suggests that roles are constructed of specific elements that include personal understanding of important others’ expectations for oneself in the role as parent of a school child; one’s personal expectations for one’s own behavior in the role; and one’s characteristic role behaviors (Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Gilbert, Holahan, & Manning, 1981; Harrison & Minor, 1978). Roles are also characterized by their focus on goals held by the group and its individual members (e.g., socialization of the child, instilling of appropriate behavior, learning specific subject matter, development of children’s unique talents and interests; Hoover-Dempsey & Jones, 1997). These goals serve as motivators of action (Bandura, 1989); as individuals define their goals (implicitly or explicitly), they represent those goals cognitive as future events. These cognized future events, in turn, become motivators and regulators of behaviors (Bandura, 1989). This motivational connection between goals and behavior is consistent with the theoretical assertion that roles include goals and values related to desired outcomes as well as

4


behaviors that become characteristic of the person as she or he works to achieve these goals (Hoover-Dempsey & Jones, l997).

So developed, parental role construction for involvement may best be defined as parental beliefs about what one is supposed to do, as a parent, in relation to the child’s education and the behaviors characteristically enacted in service of these beliefs. We have suggested that role construction functions as a motivator of parental involvement because it enables the parent to imagine, anticipate, plan, and behave in relation to a host of activities potentially relevant to the child’s educational success. It is important to student educational outcomes because it defines the range of activities that parents construe as important, necessary, and permissible for their own engagement in their children's schooling. (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997).

Purpose

Grounded in this work, we began some years ago to develop a measure of parental role construction for involvement. We first employed qualitative methods to test the theoretical formulation against parents’ expressed beliefs, expectations, ideas and behaviors related involvement in their children’s education. Drawing from these results, we developed a survey measure of the construct. As we entered a cycle of testing and revising various versions of the survey instrument, we developed an increasingly coherent articulation among theoretical foundations, principles of sound instrument development, and pragmatic concerns that emerged in testing the instrument with varied goals and varied groups of parents. We describe major stages and results of this process below.

Initial Qualitative Work

Following theoretical work described briefly above, we drew a sample of 69 parents of public elementary school students (grades 2 and 4) from a larger set of interviews developed in earlier work (Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler & Burow, 1995). These interviews (see Appendix A) focused on parents’ beliefs, ideas and behaviors regarding their involvement responsibilities and activities in children’s education. Specific stimulus questions focused on role-relevant issues including personal expectations of oneself as parent of a school child, perceptions of important others’ expectations, descriptions of typical involvement behaviors, perceptions of problems encountered in the child’s education and responses thereto, goals for the child’s development and education, goals and behaviors related to involvement activities. These interviews were relatively wide-ranging; they allowed parents to introduce a variety of ideas and explore many in some depth. They also allowed for interviewer probes yielding increasingly specific information about the ideas that parents introduced. Individual interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim for coding and analysis.

Content analyses were performed on transcripts with reference to theoretically suggested indicators of role construction. These analyses employed qualitative methods similar to those recommended by Constas (l992), as used in conjunction with selected quantitative methods by Hoover-Dempsey, et al. (l995). Based on initial results of content

5


analyses, we developed a broad organizational framework describing role construction for involvement (see Appendix B).

Guided by theory and data, this framework included three major components. The beliefs and values component had two major categories. The first included parents’ expression of beliefs and values suggesting that child is the passive recipient of knowledge and teaching by adults; it included parental beliefs that the child should ‘fit’ academic and behavioral norms (e.g., “I’d make her sit down and do her work as soon as she got home;” “Ms. X has him under control and I like that”). The second category included expression of beliefs and values suggesting that the child’s uniqueness and individuality should be developed and respected (e.g., “I think helping them to recognize their talents . . . is also real important;” “She wants to read it to herself and by herself, and that will make her catch it.”) A second major component focused on parents’ actions and behaviors in the child’s day-to-day education. This component included three categories of parental actions and behaviors: those reflecting beliefs that the child’s day-to-day education is primarily the parent’s responsibility (e.g., “I try to stay up with what’s going on with [her] because I don’t want to be surprised”); those reflecting beliefs that the child’s day-to-day education is primarily the school’s responsibility (e.g., “They haven’t called us in for a meeting or anything”); and those reflecting beliefs that the child’s day-to-day education is the responsibility of a parent-school partnership (e.g., “Me and her swap notes with each other if anything is going on with his schooling or anything like that”). The third component focused on parents’ actions and behaviors in relation to common crises in children’s education. It, too, included three categories of expressed ideas and behaviors reflecting the belief that resolution of such issues is: primarily the parent’s responsibility (e.g., “I called her and came in and asked about the reading program . . . to see about getting into that Chapter I [program]”); primarily the school’s responsibility (e.g., “There was no holding him back, because they said that the teacher had the last say-so on that”); or primarily the responsibility of a parent-teacher partnership (e.g., “She did not want to go to school, feeling sick all the time, and so I requested a conference and we just tried to get to the bottom of it”).

Using this framework as a coding scheme, we applied it to a new sample of interviews with 74 parents of K-6 public school students (Hoover-Dempsey & Jones, 1997). Coding of over 9,000 statements in the interview set (inter-rater agreement across categories = .83) suggested support for the three major patterns of parental role construction (parent-focused, school-focused, and partnership-focused). Correlational analyses suggested that child-conformity values were linked to all three patterns of parent behavior: parent-focused (r = .51, p<.001), school-focused (r = .60, p<.001) and partnership-focused (r = .33, p<.01). Child-uniqueness values were related to parent-focused (r = .48, p<.001) and partnership-focused (r = .33, p<.01). The data also suggested that the two broad situations in which parental role beliefs and behaviors are manifested—day-to-day education and common crises in education—were only minimally related (of nine possible bivariate relationships, only two were statistically significant). This finding supported a suggestion that emerged during interviews and coding discussions: parents’ thinking and actions related to day-to-day and common-crisis situations represent relatively distinct domains of parental role construction. In part for this reason, our subsequent work

6


in developing an objective measure of role construction focused exclusively on parent’s beliefs and behaviors related to the child’s day-to-day education.

At this point, we had developed a coding scheme that ‘worked’ in content analyses of in-depth interviews focused on public school elementary (K-6) parents’ beliefs, thinking, and reported behaviors related to involvement in their children’s education. Limitations imposed by the nature of the data undergoing analysis and the coding scheme itself, of course, included the reality that these data collection and analysis procedures are very time-consuming. This fact, in turn, limited our research and development goals in some important ways (e.g., assessing role construction in larger and more varied groups of parents, partnering with participating schools and parent groups to offer timely information on patterns of findings useful for planning initiatives intended to increase the incidence and effectiveness of parental involvement). Thus, our next step in measuring role construction focused on use of these qualitative data and results to develop an objective measure of the construct.

Developing an Objective Measure of Parental Role Construction

We went through several stages in this process. First, we drafted a survey questionnaire designed to assess parental role construction with larger samples of parents. Making extensive use of the interview data and coded examples in all categories of role construction, we initially identified a set of 72 items (24 for each of three scales: parent-focused, school-focused, partnership-focused role construction) that tapped the belief and behavioral components of these three role construction orientations. We then worked to balance theoretical and conceptual integrity with pragmatic issues related to scale length. These emerged particularly in relation to varied anticipated uses of the scale. We trimmed the full measure to 25 items, retaining singularly important ideas or examples of beliefs and behaviors within each of the three role construction orientations (see Appendix C). The resulting 25-item measure included 9 parent-focused items (e.g., “I make sure my child’s homework gets done;” “I keep an eye on my child’s progress”, 7 school-focused items (e.g., “My child does his or her homework at school;” “If my child has a problem, I tell him or her to go to the teacher”), and 9 partnership-focused items (e.g., “I contact the teacher if I have questions about schoolwork;” “I find it helpful to talk with the teacher”). Administered to a pilot sample of 50 parents of elementary students, the subscales achieved satisfactory reliabilities (parent-focused: .88; school-focused: .70; partnership-focused: .83).

As we planned to use this measure as one of several constructs assessed in the first of four studies in a multi-year research project (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 2000), we reduced its length. By eliminated some items from the scales reported in Appendix C. We included items referring to role construction beliefs and behaviors that could be answered within the context a ‘disagree very strongly’ to ‘agree very strongly’ 6-point Likert-type response scale (these items included all statements regarding role beliefs) or a ‘never’ to ‘daily’ 6-point Likert-type response scale (these items included all statements regarding role behaviors). Administered to a sample of 887 parents of public school children in grades 1-6, the scales achieved acceptable reliabilities: parent-focused role construction (8

7


items) = .62; school-focused role construction (8 items) = .63; partnership-focused role construction (7 items) = .72.

Integrating Conceptual and MethodologicalIssues

Following these results, we summarized a small set of theoretical and methodological issues that had emerged in assessing this dynamic social construct in survey form. One set of issues focused on growing conceptual and pragmatic concerns about the school-focused role orientation subscale. Another focused on broader theoretical and pragmatic concerns about the categorical approach to role construction. Still another focused on the emerging confound between a) theoretical suggestions that roles are constructed of beliefs and behaviors and b) our long-term wish to examine role construction as a predictor of parents’ involvement decision and involvement behaviors.

The concern about school-focused role construction emerged relatively early in the measure development process. In analyzing interview data we had noted the broadly passive character of school-focused role beliefs and behaviors. That is, believing that student outcomes are the primary responsibility of the school appears to lead to a lot of parental waiting for school action or inquiry; it also appears fairly often to involve acquiescence (albeit sometimes reluctant) to teacher or school decisions about the child. As we worked to identify strong behavioral items for this subscale, it became increasingly apparent that they were few and far between; school-focused beliefs offered a reasonable pool of potential items, but school-focused behaviors (waiting for the school’s initiation) were relatively few and often difficult to reduce into a clear and brief objective item. Thus, we were concerned about our ability to measure this well, given relatively consistent low reliability figures for this subscale and our growing awareness of the essentially passive basis of this role construction orientation.

We also became concerned that relying on a categorical approach to understanding role construction posed serious limitations to understanding role construction’s dynamic functioning (i.e., roles evolve in response to individual action, observation, beliefs, and engagement with others). While we continued to observe that parents ‘bring’ role orientation with them into any new school year or school situation, role theory and continued consideration of our qualitative data suggested strongly that role orientation is subject to evolution and change in response to changes in context. Thus, full reliance on a categorical approach to measuring and understanding this construct seemed a) logically contrary to theoretical assertions that roles are socially constructed and b) inconsistent with the intervention implications of the fact that they are socially constructed (i.e., individuals’ ideas and behaviors related to appropriate roles in any given group or context are subject to change as groups and their members experience change [e.g., in membership, group or individual expectations, group or individual goals]).

A final critical concern emerged as we moved from a primary focus on role as a construct in itself (our initial emphasis as we began developing the idea and the measure) to role as a predictor of parents’ involvement decisions and behaviors. While the theoretical literature clearly identified beliefs and role behaviors as integral components of

8


role, we were also clearly uncertain ground as we confronted the reality that it’s neither logical nor reasonable to use characteristic role behaviors (even when integrated with role beliefs) to predict parents’ involvement behaviors. After a largely unsuccessful effort to replace ‘characteristic behaviors’ with ‘hypothetical behaviors’ in a revision administered to 495 parents of public elementary students (changing the item stem from “How often have you engaged in the following behaviors so far this year?” to “How likely would you be to engage in each of the following behaviors if your child’s teacher asked you to . . .?”), we worked to find an alternative, conceptually sound approach to operationalizing and assessing role construction as a predictor of parental involvement.

Reconceptualizing Role Construction

Role Beliefs. A first step in responding to the concerns included subjecting previously gathered survey data to a principal components factor analysis to confirm patterns of role construction observed in the qualitative data. Consistent with on-going conceptual discussions, results suggested that parent- and partnership-focused survey items fell on one factor, while school-focused items fell into a second factor (Factor 1 eigenvalue = 2.38, 21.6% of the cumulative factor; Factor 2 eigenvalue = 2.07, 18.8% of the cumulative factor). This finding, as well as reference again to interview data, confirmed an emerging conviction that parent- and partnership-focused role patterns are grounded in the same set of role beliefs, best described as beliefs that a parent should be active in approaching involvement in children’s education.1 Examination of items in the school-focused factor reflected a relatively passive stance toward involvement. 2 Reliability analyses on the two factors yielded an α = .67 for the active role beliefs factor, α = .65 for the passive role beliefs factor. However, because assigning conceptual meaning to a ‘passivity score’ continued to be difficult, we adopted a Role Activity Beliefs Scale, reflecting a decision that one continuous scale could be used to assess the beliefs component of role construction (high scores indicating more active role beliefs, low scores less active beliefs).

Re-construing Role Behaviors. A second step in responding to the concerns involved replacing the ‘characteristic behaviors’ component of role construction with an alternative that would offer meaningful information related to behavior and an understanding of role construction but unlikely to be confounded with involvement behaviors as an outcome variable. We returned to the interview data again, specifically to an idea observed earlier in many interviews: frequent referencing of personal school experience as a source of current involvement attitudes and ideas. These ideas seemed to center on parents’ ‘attraction’ to school in general (i.e., their history with and affective responses to school). Assuming that this concept might logically influence the behaviors one is likely to anticipate enacting in relation to school we labeled the concept Valence Toward School, and defined it as the extent to which a parent, based on personal prior experience with schooling, is generally attracted to or repelled from school (i.e., general disposition toward engaging with or behaving in relation to school). We expected that this concept might contribute, in combination with role activity beliefs, to parental role construction for involvement.

A Revised Measure of Role Construction

9


Pilot work yielded acceptable reliability figures for the Role Activity Beliefs scale (α = .80) and Valence Toward School scale (α = .85). The Role Activity Beliefs scale employed the stem, “I believe that . . .” and included 10 items (e.g., “It is my responsibility to communicate with my child’s teacher,” “It is my responsibility to talk with my child about the school day”). The Valence Toward School scale asked respondents to circle the number on a 6-point scale “that best describes your feelings about your school experiences when you were a student” (sample items: “My school,” with points of response from “liked” to “disliked;” “My teachers,” with points of response from “ignored me” to “cared about me”). Pilot work suggested also suggested that arraying the two subscales in matrix format (Figure 2, below) might allow treating role construction as a categorical variable when useful for varied analytic or intervention purposes.

Activity Beliefs

Passive Active

Val

enc

e

Aw

ay Disengaged Parent-Focused

Tow

ard

s

School-Focused

Partnership-Focused

Figure 2: Hypothesized role construction categories for involvement in the child’seducation grounded in parents’ role activity beliefs and valence towards school

Cluster analyses on pilot data suggested that a three-cluster solution best explained the hypothesized role categories (The ‘disengaged’ cluster noted in the matrix is conceptually sensible, but likely to remain an empty cell because disengaged parents are very unlikely to respond to research relying on voluntary participation).

Subsequent administration of the two role construction scales (see Appendix D) to a sample of 358 parents of public school students in grades 4-6 yielded acceptable reliabilities (Valence Toward School α. = .90; Role Activity Beliefs α = .83.). The mean score for each scale was relatively high (Role Activity Beliefs, 4.84/6.0; Valence Toward School, 4.91/6.0), suggesting that parents who responded were among those holding more active role beliefs and more positive valence toward school. The bivariate correlation between the two scales, r = .25, p < .01, suggested that the two components are related but not synonymous. The correlations between each component and indicators of parental involvement behaviors indicated relatively strong relationships between Role Activity Beliefs and home-based (r = .24, p < .01) as well as school-based (r = .35, p < .01) involvement, but and lesser relationships between Valence Toward School and

10


involvement (for both, r = .11, p < .05). Application of the matrix to this sample revealed that most parents clustered in the partnership quadrant. Given earlier findings of parent-, school- and partnership-focused orientations in varied parent samples, it may be that this strong clustering in the partnership quadrant was related to a unique sample (e.g., more active, positive and involved parents); this possibility is supported, for example, by the relatively high mean scores on both role indicators.

Observations and Next Steps

According to Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 1997), parental role construction for involvement in children’s education is an important contributor to parents’ decisions to become involved in their children’s education. Thus, strong theoretical understanding of the construct’s components and strong measurement properties in an instrument designed to assess the construct are critical to understanding its contributions to parents’ involvement decisions.

Through a series of modifications and replications, we have worked to develop a scale for assessing role construction that has a strong theoretical base, empirical support, is relatively easy and practical to use, and allows tests of relationships of primary interest. At each step in the process, we have learned anew the importance of attending to the multiple interactions among theoretical, measurement, and pragmatic issues that attend instrument development. For example, our strong commitment to maintaining the theoretical integrity of role as composed of both beliefs and characteristic behaviors had to be negotiated in regard to the conceptual priority Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model gives to role construction as a predictor of involvement. Our initial effort to address the confound between ‘characteristic behaviors’ as an element of role construction and ‘reported involvement behaviors’ as a dependent variable of major interest involved asked parents to think about hypothetical rather than actual behaviors as indicators of role behavior. However, the difficulty of maintaining clarity about the hypothetical nature of the behavioral report (i.e., keep in mind that this question asks about ‘what I would do’ rather than ‘what I usually do’) was quickly apparent in parent responses and comments. These observations underscored the pragmatic importance of keeping objective survey instruments (where there are no opportunities for clarification and discussion) clear, direct, and relatively straightforward.

The current operational definition of role construction for measurement purposes—composed of two elements, role activity beliefs and valence toward school (the latter as an indicator of predisposition toward school-related behaviors)—is promising for two reasons. First, it offers the prospect of assessing role construction as a continuous variable, one that is theoretically and actually subject to modification and change with changes in social context. Second, in keeping with the matrix noted in Figure 2, it offers the possibility of understanding role construction as categorical clusters of belief and behavior characterizing groups of parents. Access to such information may be quite useful to the extent that the patterns of belief and behavior typically attached to categories a) promote understanding of individuals and groups, and b) stimulate interventions or change in the service of increased and increasingly effective parental involvement.

11


Next steps in this process include developing a stronger understanding of ‘valence toward school’ as a substitute for ‘characteristic behaviors’ in our operational definition of role construction. It may be, for example, that the Role Activity Beliefs scale is useful in itself as an indicator of role construction in predicting parent outcomes related to parental behavior. Sheldon (2002), for example, successfully used a singular scale of focused on role beliefs to examine related beliefs and social networks as predictors of parental involvement. To further develop understanding role construction as a categorical variable, we will test the two-indicator conceptualization of role in replication studies that promise a more varied group of respondents in terms of current and historic involvement behaviors. In doing so, we will combine survey methodology with interviews and offer modest but direct for time and effort as a means of assessing a more varied group of parents.

What are the implications for teachers, schools, and communities in this work? These are likely found in the theoretical foundations of role construction and the potential of explicit work with role construction to increase the incidence and effectiveness of parental involvement in students’ education. The fact that roles are socially constructed means that all members of the social group (school, families, school-family interactions) influence the roles that parents adopt regarding involvement in their children’s schooling. We suspect that most parents enter any given school year with predisposition to a particular role construction, based on their own experiences of schooling and their experiences with their children’s schooling. Roles, however, are subject to constant change and development. On-going studies in our lab and work by other investigators (e.g., Balli, Demo, & Wedman, 1998; Epstein, 1986; Griffith, 1996; Shumow,1998) consistently point to the importance of a welcoming school environment, specific invitations and suggestions from teachers, and invitations to involvement from students as important contributors to active, partnership-focused role construction. Thus, schools and teachers are major contributors to parents’ ideas about what they can and should be doing in relation to their children’s schooling. As members of the social context within which children’s education is set, schools, teachers, and community groups have the power to influence parents’ role construction toward active and positive engagement in children’s schooling, in activities at home and at school. Enhanced school, family and community understanding of the variables that enable productive parental involvement, especially in relation to the on-going construction of active parental roles and parent-school partnerships, promise increasingly effective interventions to enhance productive family-school relationships and, in turn, improved learning outcomes for students.

12


References

Babad, E.Y., Birnbaum, M., & Beene, K.D. (1983). The social self: Group influences on personal identity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Balli, S.J., Demo, D.H., & Wedman, J.F. (1998). Family involvement with children’s homework: An intervention in the middle grades. Family Relations, 47(2), 142-146.

Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectations, identities, and behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review Sociology, 12, 67-92

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development; Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 187-249). London: Jessica Kingsley.

Chavkin, N.F., and Williams, C. (1993). Minority parents in the elementary school: Attitudes and practices. In N.F. Chavkin (Eds.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 73-83). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Clark, R. (l983). Family life and school achievement: Why poor Black children succeed or fail. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Constas, M.A. (l992). Qualitative analysis as a public event: The documentation of category development procedures. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 253-266.

Eagley, A.H., Karau, S.J. & Makhijani, M.G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 125-145.

Eccles, J.S., & Harold, R.D., (l993). Parent-school involvement during the early adolescent years. Teachers College Record, 94, 568-587.

Epstein, J.L. (l986). Parent's reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. Elementary School Journal, 86, 277-294.

Epstein, J.L. (1992). School and family partnerships. In M. Aikin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th edition, pp. 1139-1151). New York: McMillan.

Fisher, C.D., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 320-333.

Forsyth, D.R. (1990). Group dynamics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole.Gilbert, L.A., Holahan, C.K., & Manning, L. (l981). Coping with conflict between

Professional and maternal roles. Family Relations, 30, 419-426. Griffith, J. (1996). Relation of parental involvement, empowerment, and school traits to

student academic performance. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 33-41. Grolnick. W.S., & Slowiaczek, M.L. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling:

A multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65, 237-252.

Harrison, A.O., & Minor, J.H. (1978). Interrole conflict, coping strategies, and satisfaction among Black working wives. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 40, 799-805.

Henderson, A.T., & Mapp, K.L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,

13


family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Bassler, O.C., & Burow, R. (1995). Parents’ reported involvement in students’ homework: Strategies and practices. Elementary School Journal, 95, 435-450.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Battiato, A.C., Walker, J.M., Reed, R.P., & Jones, K.P. (2001).Parental involvement in homework Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 195-209.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Jones, K. (1996, April). Parental perceptions of appropriate roles and role activities in children’s education. Paper presented at International Roundtable on Families, Schools, Communities, and Children’s Learning. New York, NY.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Jones, K. (1997, March). Parental role construction and parental involvement in children’s education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97, (2), 310-331.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3-42.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Sandler, H. (2000). The Social Context of Parental Involvement: A path to enhanced achievement. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Institute of Educational Sciences Grant # R305T010673-02, 2001-2004.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Walker, J.M.T., Jones, K.P., & Reed, R.P. (2002). Teachers Involving Parents (TIP): An in-service teacher education program for enhancing parental involvement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18 (7), 843-467.

Juhasz, A.M.(1989). A role-based approach to adult development: The triple-helix model. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 29(4), 301-315.

Lareau, A. (l989). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education. NY: Falmer Press.

Maccoby, E.E. (1980). Sex roles. In Social development: Psychological growth and the parent-child relationship (pp.232-233). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

O’Connor, K.P.J. (2003). A small-scale examination of the variables surrounding parental role construction for involvement in education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University.

Reed, R.P., Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Flynn, C. (2001, April). Parents’ involvement in children’s education: Testing a mediational model. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN.

Ritter, P.L., Mont-Reynaud, R., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1993). Minority parents and their youth: Concern, encouragement, and support for school achievement. In N.F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 107-120). Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Sanders, M.G. (1998). The effects of school, family, and community support on the academic achievement of African American adolescents. Urban Education, 33, 385-409.

Sheldon, S. (2002). Parents’ social networks and beliefs as predictors of parent involvement. Elementary School Journal, 102(4), 301-317.

Shumow, L. (1998).Promoting parental attunement to children’s mathematical reasoning

14


through parent education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19(1), 109-127.

Steinberg, L., Elmen, J.E., & Mounts, N.S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424-1436.

Sui-chu, E.H., & Willms, J.D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69(2), 126-141.

Walker, J.M.T., Wilkins, A.S., Dallaire, J.R., Sandler, H.M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K.V. (in press). Parental involvement: Model revision through scale development. Elementary School Journal.

Wheelan, S.A.(1994). Group processes: A developmental perspective. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Xu, J. & Corno, L. (1998). Case studies of families doing third-grade homework. Teachers College Record, 100, 402-436.

15


Notes

1. Further consideration of these results, earlier interview data, and a recent qualitative investigation of parental role construction in our lab (O’Connor, 2003) suggested that a major difference between the two active role orientations may be found in level of parental trust of the school. O’Connor’s data suggested that partnership-focused role construction reflects not only active role beliefs, but reasonably strong, positive valence toward the school, including belief that the school and teacher can be trusted to do what is in the student’s best interests. Parent-focused orientation, on the other hand, appears to reflect active role beliefs combined with moderate or negative valence toward school, including concerns that the school cannot be trusted to do what is in the student’s best interest. In considering these results, we also observed that while some literature on parental involvement suggests that an active parental approach to involvement is ‘best,’ cultural variables are quite likely involved parents’ development of active/passive role beliefs. The observation cautions strongly against value judgments about ‘best’ parental roles in children’s education.

2. O’Connor’s findings also suggested that a more passive, school-focused role construction may reflect high levels of trust in the school. This may be true, for example, when parents a) select an independent school that matches family standards and goals and b) therefore assume that consistent monitoring (parent-focused role construction) or consistently active engagement with the school (partnership-focused role construction) is not necessary for the child’s educational well-being. A more school-focused role construction may also occur in family or family-school contexts characterized by cultural assumptions that the school and teachers possess expertise that is a) authoritative and b) to be respected as offering unique and critically important contributions to children’s educational success.

16


Appendix AInterview Format

This Parent Interview Format was reported in: Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Bassler, O.C., & Brissie, J.S. (l995). Parents' reported involvement in student's homework: Strategies and practices. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 435-450.

1. Could you give us an estimate of the amount of time in a week that you spend helping your child with homework? What kind of help do you give generally? Does your spouse help at all with your child's homework? How effective do you feel when you help with homework? Have you tried homework strategies that didn't work? What were they? Why do you think they didn't work?

2. Do you think your involvement makes a difference for your child? Can you give me an example of a time when there was a problem and your involvement made a difference?

a. What was the problem? Define as specifically as possible.b. What do you think was at the bottom of the problem? Why was the problem 'there'?c. Think about the steps you took in solving the problem; what were they?d. What did you do about the problem? What did you tell yourself as you worked to solve it?e. What else did you think about doing to solve the problem?f. Do you think the problem was really solved? Why or why not?g. How hard did you work to try and solve the problem? Was it easy/hard to solve?h. What did you feel when you realized the problem was there? How did you feel as you tried to work it out?i. If you had a similar problem again, what would you do about it?

3. How do scheduled parent-teacher conferences go for you? What kinds of information do you get from conferences? Do conferences generally center around problems? In general, how do you feel in conferences and after you've been to conferences?

4. How would you describe the very best parent-teacher relationship?

5. If you have a conflict with someone at school, how do/would you handle it (give the same specific questions as used in item #2 [a-i])?

6. Can you give me an example of a time when you were able to influence what went on for your child at school? (Ask for a different problem than described in item #2; give the same questions as used in item #2[a-i].)

7. I'm going to give you an example of a problem that some parents have had. I'm going to describe the problem and then I'm going to ask you a few questions about how you might think about solving this problem. Here is the problem: Your child's teacher commented to you in November that your child seems to be having some difficulties with school work. Then in January, you receive a note at home from the teacher saying that your child will need to be held back next year.

17


a. What would you want to happen in this situation? What would your goal be?b. What do you think is happening at school with your child that's causing the teacher to feel that he or she needs to be held back?c. What would you need to know to solve this problem? (probe: what else?)d. Describe the steps you would take from the time you became aware of the problem to the time you achieve your goal (remind parent of his/her goal [part a], if necessary). What would you do first? Then what? What else? If that didn't work, then what would you do?e. Has this situation ever really happened to you? Do you know anyone to whom this has happened?

18


19


Results

The subjects sampled for this study included students and employees in the greater Los Angeles area during the spring of 2008. Sixty-seven copies of the survey were distributed and sixty-seven were used in this study. The data collected from the sample are discussed below beginning with the demographical data.

The survey indicated that 25.37 percent of those surveyed were between the ages of 13-17 years old, 38.81 percent were between the ages of 18-25 years old, 34.33 percent were 26 years old or older, and 1.49 percent did not respond. It was also indicated that 31.34 percent of those surveyed were male and 68.66 percent were female. The demographical data also indicated that 83.58 percent of those surveyed personally knew divorcees, 11.94 percent did not, and 4.47 percent had no response. Finally, the demographical data indicated that 37.31 percent of those surveyed were children of divorced parents or were divorcees, 61.19 percent were not, and 1.49 percent had no response.

Table 1 Summary of Responses to Survey Questions

SURVEY QUESTION SCALE NUMBER TOTAL

RESPONSES

COMPUTED CHI-SQUARE

VALUE

TABLED CHI-

SQUARE VALUE

1 2 3 4 No Response

1 0 2 19 46 0 67 44.0896 5.991

2 0 4 3 60 0 67 95.3134 5.991

3 0 17 27 22 1 67 02.2727 5.991

4 3 16 29 18 1 67 20.6667 7.815

5 3 21 32 10 1 67 29.3939 7.815

6 3 14 27 23 0 67 20.3433 7.815

7 0 7 16 43 1 67 31.9091 5.991

Research Question One

What changes occur in a child’s life when parents divorce? Questions 2, 3, and 4 of the survey instrument located in Appendix A addressed this research question.

20


Because the computed Chi-square value (95.3134) was greater than the tabled value (5.991) at the .05 level of significance for survey question 2, it can be concluded that a stable relationship with both parents is important. This finding is congruent with former research conducted by Meyerhoff, regarding the tensions that arise between parents and children in the event of a divorce. Meyerhoff noted that “putting a child in the middle of disputes and forcing him to ‘choose sides’ is unconscionable, as is poisoning the child's relationship with the other parent as an act of aggression or revenge” (Meyerhoff, 2006, ¶7).

For survey question 3, because the computed Chi-square value (02.2727) was less than the tabled Chi-square value (5.991) at the .05 level of significance, it can be concluded that single parents do not struggle to provide physically for their children. This finding contradicts the findings of Stohschein, who concluded that negative consequences are often a result of divorce due to “parental socioeconomic resources, which reflect [the] parents’ ability to access financial and human capital to enhance child outcomes, and psychosocial resources” failing to “provide a harmonious and emotionally nurturing environment for their children” (2005,¶ 4).

For survey question 4, the computed Chi-square value (20.6667) was greater than the tabled value (7.815) at the .05 level of significance; thus, it can be concluded that parents undergoing divorce are less likely to be emotionally stable. This finding aligns with Price, who writes “more than [in] intact families, divorced and post-divorce families are likely to experience a roller-coaster pattern with peaks of emotional tension at transition points through the life course of the family” (Price, 2000, p. 11).

Research Question Two

How does divorce affect a child’s maturation? Questions 1, 5, 6, and 7 of the survey instrument located in Appendix A addressed this research question.

Because the computed Chi-square value (44.0896) was greater than the tabled value (5.991) at the .05 level of significance for survey question 1, it can be concluded that a parent’s emotions have an effect on the child’s emotions. This finding is in alignment with both Price and Bigner, who write, “A parent who is struggling with the emotional ramifications of divorce may not be able to discipline and supervise the child as well as before the divorce” (Price, 2000, p. 27). This can often lead to a parent “increasingly [relying] on this child for emotional support” (Bigner, 2005, p. 231).

For survey question 5, because the computed Chi-square value (29.3939) was greater than the tabled value (7.815) at the .05 level of significance, it can be concluded that children with divorced parents are more likely to be independent. This finding is congruent with Bigner, who wrote that single parents can often force the child “into interaction patterns calling for developmental maturity” (Bigner, 2005, p. 231) resulting in more independent lifestyles.

For survey question 6, the computed Chi-square value (20.3433) was greater than the tabled value (7.815) at the .05 level of significance; thus, it can be concluded that a child’s academic performance is impacted by divorce. This finding supports Bigner’s findings: “The effects of parental divorce on the children may be either short- or long-term and positive or detrimental. Short-term effects, for example, include behavior difficulties at home and at school that occur in association with the initial reactions to parental separation. Long-term effects may not appear

21


until adolescence or adulthood when individuals become involved in intimate relationships and experience difficulties in establishing them” and “school-age children may manifest feelings of being abandoned or rejected by their absent parent, a drop in school performance” (Bigner, 2005, p. 223, 225).

For survey question 7, the computed Chi-square value (31.9091) was greater than the tabled value (5.991) at the .05 level of significance; thus, it can be concluded that a child’s emotional well-being is affected by divorce. This finding aligns with Bigner, who stated that children “experience the effects of parental divorce in ways that are more disruptive and stressful than those experienced by parents” including “regressive behaviors, such as temporary loss of toilet training as well as increased aggressiveness” (Bigner, 2005, p. 225).

Findings

The results of the One-Dimensional Chi-square statistical analysis suggest there are many effects of divorce on the maturation of the child. According to the data gathered from this sample, it can be concluded that a parent’s emotions have an effect on the child’s; a stable relationship with both parents is important; single parents do not struggle to provide physically for their children; parents undergoing divorce are less likely to be emotionally stable; children with divorced parents are more likely to be independent; a child’s academic performance is impacted by divorce; and a child’s emotional well-being is affected by divorce.

Discussion

Within the stated purpose and findings of this study, the following conclusions appear warranted:

1. Many changes do occur in the life of a child after parents divorce.

2. A child’s maturation is influenced by divorce.

The trend of divorce, although tapering off, has been in steady increase over the years. The effects of divorce on the individuals involved are known to be far reaching, but are specifically inconclusive due to the variety of effects divorce has on specific individuals. Divorce will have an impact on every person involved and especially on the development of children involved.

It has been observed that the level of parental involvement in the life of the child will influence the rate of development emotionally, relationally, and practically. Children in post-divorce living conditions are often subject to more stress, both from the situation itself and from transferred stress from the parents. This stress can influence the child’s academic performance, making it more difficult for the child to focus in school or on specific tasks. This stress can also influence the way a child reacts to outside relationships. If the child has experienced the trauma of losing a relationship with one parent, they may revert to relying on themselves and becoming more independent, they may exhibit an inability to share or work well with others, or they may develop the tendency to overcompensate for their flaws and seek the approval of others to gain nurture they may be lacking at home.

Limitations of the Study

22


Several limitations were recognized for the study. The sample for this study consisted only of those currently studying or living in the greater Los Angeles area during the spring of 2008. Also, the sample included those who were not divorced, children of divorcees, and those who had not known individuals involved in divorce.

Recommendations for Further Study

This study provides some information regarding the perceptions of living conditions in post-divorce families and the effects on the child’s maturation. Additional questions pertaining to the living conditions in post-divorce families and the effect on the child’s maturation warrant further investigation; thus, the following recommendations for further research and study of divorced parents are offered:

1. This study should be replicated, using a population to determine the living conditions in post-divorce families and the effects on the child’s maturation.

2. This study can be narrowed to determine what specific effects the living conditions in post-divorce families have on the academic performance of the child.

3. This study can be narrowed to determine what specific effects divorce has on the parents’ ability to provide physically for the children.

4. This study can be narrowed to determine what specific effects the lack of a stable relationship with both parents has on the maturation of the child.

23


Appendix BRole Construction Coding Scheme

This is the coding scheme developed for use in analyzing parents’ interview transcripts for information about parental role construction for involvement. The scheme includes three major categories and several subcategories, as summarized on this page. The full coding scheme, including examples of statements coded within each category, are included in the following pages of Appendix B.

Overview of Role Construction Coding Scheme

Parental role construction component: Parent’s child-rearing values, goals, and expectationsCategory 1: Parent believes child is passive recipient of knowledge, teaching, and information from adults.

1a. Parent focuses on child fitting academic norms1b. Parent focuses on child fitting behavioral norms

Category 2: Parent believes child's uniqueness and individuality are to be nurtured and developed.

2a. Parent focuses on child's self-esteem, confidence, interests2b. Parent focuses on child's unique and special learning needs, individual learning style2c. Parent seeks child opinion, listens child's ideas or account

Parental role construction component: Parent's reported actions and behaviors in child's day-to-day education.

Category 3: Parent reports actions and behavior reflecting parental belief that the child's day to-day education is the parent's responsibility.

3a. Parent teaches, works with, explains, helps the child understand school assignments3b. Parent actively monitors child's overall progress, specific problems or strengths at home or at school3c. Parent or parent's behavior and interest is important as a model for the child

Category 4: Parent reports actions and behaviors reflecting parental belief that child's day-to-day education is the school's responsibility.

4a. Parent waits for school or teacher to initiate communication, conveys belief that school should let the parent know if there is a problem4b. Parent mentions that she/he accepts, reinforces, has confidence in what the teacher says, does, expects; parent 'follows' the teacher or school lead

Category 5. Parent reports actions and behaviors reflecting parent belief that child's day-to-day education is served by parent-school partnership.

5a. Parent mentions that teacher consults, works with the parent; consistent communication; parent values teacher or school suggestions5b. Parent mentions being supported by teacher or school; parent supports, 'knows' the school or teacher; parent seeks the school's 'side,' works to understand school perspective 5c. Parent mentions volunteering, working at, contributing to the school

24


Parental role construction component: Parent's reported actions and behaviors related to major educational decisions or ‘common crises’ in the child’s education

Category 6: Parent reports actions focused on parent's ultimate responsibility for problem identification, decision-making, service identification, evaluation of outcomes; wants to have control over such decisionsCategory 7: Parent reports actions focused on school's ultimate responsibility for problem identification, decision-making, service identification, evaluation of services; parent follows school lead in these issuesCategory 8: Parent reports actions focused on the joint responsibility of parent and school or teacher for problem identification, decision-making, service identification, and evaluation of outcomes; having joint control of such decisions

Role Construction Coding Scheme

Parental role construction component: Parent's child-rearing values, goals, expectationsCategory 1: Parent believes child is passive recipient of knowledge, teaching, and information from adults.

1a. Parent focuses on child 'fitting' academic norms, e.g., acceptable grades, acceptable achievement, working hard, learning the basics, paying attention; parent pushes child tolearn, values conformity in relation to learning, homework; parent focuses on child's personal responsibility for academic work; includes rewards given to promote child fitting academic norms; includes descriptive comments about child in relation academic norms.

Examples: I'd make her sit down and do her work as soon as she got home.I place a lot of emphasis on grades.I say, "Get that diploma, because you'll never make it without it."

1b. Parent focuses on child 'fitting' behavioral norms, e.g., respecting teacher, obeying parent, behaving well, conforming to behavioral expectations; descriptive comments related to the child respecting, obeying, staying our of trouble; includes rewards given to promote child fitting behavioral norms; includes descriptive comments about child in relation to behavioral norms.

Examples: Once we got him into his normal class, we realized that he was going to have to relearn what is proper behavior.Ms. X has him under control, and I like that.He cannot be interrupting other kids.

Category 2: Parent believes child's uniqueness and individuality are to be nurtured and developed.

2a. Parent focuses on child's self-esteem, confidence, interest, pride in work, enjoyment, potential; comprehensive understanding (i.e., general understanding beyond understanding one problem, a direction, one assignment); includes parental encouragement, parent not wanting undue pressure on child, parent telling child to 'do the best you can;’ parental response to the child's immaturity, maturity, or maturing may be noted.

Examples: I think helping them to recognize their talents and levels . . is also real important.I have some smart children . . . and eager to learn.

25


We have explained stuff since then, what to expect and what's going on.

2b. Parent focuses on his/her opinion that the child's unique and special learning needs should be attended to and met by the parent, teacher, and school (e.g., 'build a program,' create a response appropriate for the child); parent focuses on the need for appropriate parent, teacher, school responses to the child's unique qualities and interests, needs that are part of the child's personality and individual learning style.

Examples: She wants to read it to herself and by herself. And that will make her catch it. I don't want to keep him fully involved in school [during the summer] because I know he gets burnt out real easy.They gave A. a reading workbook. Well, . . A. finished the entire workbook and [then] got in trouble for not following directions. To me, this would be a sign that the child had too much time on her hands, and to do something else for her.

2c. Parent seeks child opinion (usually, about a matter related to the child as information for the parent's own thinking about the child or situation); may include statements strongly suggesting that parent is really listening to the child's ideas or account of events.

Examples: T. will tell you, if you just sit down with her, why she did it, or why she don't want to do it.First, I get my son's opinion.I would ask my child first.

Parental role construction component: Parent's reported actions and behaviors in child's day-to-day education. Category 3: Parent reports actions and behavior reflecting parental belief that the child's dayto-day education is the parent's responsibility.

3a. Parent teaches, works with, explains, helps the child understand school assignments; includes parent's inquiries about current homework assignments (to be done), parent help in getting the work done.

Examples: I quiz her on whatever it is that she is supposed to be knowing.We have a spelling test on like five words every night.I try to show him how to use the dictionary to break down his words to help him a little bit more.

3b. Parent actively monitors child's overall progress, specific problems or strengths, at home or at school; includes observing child, wishing to observe child at school, checking on or reviewing completed work, keeping 'an eye on' school work or progress.

Examples: I try to stay up with what's going on with [her], because I don't want to be surprised. I'll ask her, "How's S doing in his classwork?

3c. Parent or parent's behavior is important as a model for the child; parent interest and behaviors convey parent values to child; parent involvement activities convey to child parent's interest and valuing of the child’s school work, success, progress.

Examples: I think the way I handled the situation influenced her to pick what was more important.I said to myself, too, "I can't be thinking negative about Chapter I, because he will sense it."

26


You've got to care about what they bring home.Category 4: Parent reports actions and behaviors reflecting parental belief that child's day-to-day education is the school's responsibility.

4a. Parent waits for school or teacher to initiate communication, invite the parent to communicate; parent conveys the belief that there is little or no need for communication unless there's a problem; parent conveys a belief that the school or teacher should let the parent know if there is a problem.

Examples: If the child's having a problem, at least notify the parents.They haven't called us in for a meeting or anything.If . . . the teacher is not noticing anything that she needs to inform me of, I would not feel slighted not to hear from her.

4b. Parent mentions that she/he (often passively) accepts, reinforces, has confidence in what the teacher says, does, expects; parent 'follows' the teacher or school lead; parent presents a 'united front,' supports the school's primary role; includes simple mention of report cards as an accepted primary means of knowing about child's learning.

Examples: I asked her [the teacher] to please take care of it.[I said to my child,] "So don't never think that just because you got in trouble, you're going to call Mama and Daddy and they're going to come down here and help get you out of trouble. Because if you did it, no."Just send me a report card every six weeks.

4c. Parent mentions that child's progress and school work are primarily for the child and teacher or school to deal with; parent 'gets child ready' for school (supplies, etc.).

Examples: I can take no credit for their success this year. No, I've been sending them out the door, basically.Make sure they get here, I guess.

Category 5. Parent reports actions and behaviors reflecting parent belief that child's day-to-day education is served by parent-school partnership.

5a. Parent mentions that teacher consults, works with the parent, or the parent works, consults with the teacher or school on day-to-day issues; consistent communication; parent values teacher or school suggestions and communications; includes parent-teacher conferences, unless conference was called by teacher for a specific problem about which the parent (apparently) had no prior knowledge.

Examples: Me and her swap notes with each other if anything is going on with his schooling or anything like that.Ms. X, she knows if she needs anything or if she has any questions that she can call me and ask me.They told me little things that I could do as far as helping him with math, with beans and things like that.

5b. Parent mentions being supported (or wanting to be supported) by teacher or school; parent supports, likes, enjoys, 'knows' the school or teacher; parent approaches the school in a non-confrontational manner, seeks the school's 'side,' (works to) understand(s) school's perspective; includes mention of participation in open house, PTA meetings, lunch with child, attending field day, carnival; driving or going on field trip, etc.

Examples: I really like this school.

27


I try not to step over the line, because I know teachers have a lot that they have to deal with.His teacher was real great.

5c. Parent mentions volunteering, working at, contributing to the school (e.g., contributes supplies, volunteer teaching, major fundraising responsibilities, major work with the PTA).

Examples: I help the PE teacher a lot.I would say last year I was here three or four times a week, and you know, anywhere from 30 minutes or longer a day. I just went to whatever class they sent me to and helped the kids with their work or projects.

Parental role construction component: Parent's reported actions and behaviors related to major educational decisions or ‘common crises’ in the child’s educationCategory 6. Parent reports actions, real or hypothetical, focused on parent's ultimate responsibility for problem identification, decision-making, service identification, evaluation of outcomes; parent mentions that parent gets services, identifies problems, has (or wants to have) control over such decisions; may include mention of 'going over the teacher's head' as the first step in solving a problem that includes the teacher, or 'going over the teacher's head' if not satisfied with 'first-level' results may include specific, personal evaluation of services or outcomes or mention of parent's personal investment in outcomes (6a: real or actual situation; 6b: hypothetical situation)

Examples: I called her and came in and asked about the reading program . . . to see about getting in that Chapter I [program].I told her also that if Ms. X persisted, that I would become an irate parent--and I would.If [talking to the teacher] didn't work, I would just go higher up over her head.

Category 7. Parent reports actions, real or hypothetical, focused on school's ultimate responsibility for problem identification, decision-making, service identification, evaluation of outcomes; parent mentions the school getting services, identifying problems, initiating decision-making, the school having (or wanting the school to have) control of such decisions, responsibility for evaluating such services; assumption conveyed here is that the parent follows the school lead in these issues, that the school is in control (7a: real or actual situation; 7b: hypothetical situation).

Examples: [Interviewer question: Will C. be in that special program all year?] Yeah, and from what Ms. X was telling me, T. will be, too.There was no holding him back, because they said that the teacher had the last say-so on that.She said that she would find out for me what was going on and that she would put a stop to it.

Category 8. Parent reports actions, real or hypothetical, focused on the joint responsibility of both parent and school or teacher for problem identification, decision-making, service identification, and evaluation of outcomes; parent mentions that both the teacher or school and the parent are or should be involved together in identifying problems, initiating decision-making, implementing solutions, having joint control of such decisions; may include general positive evaluation of outcomes; may include parent valuing a non-confrontational approach to solving

28


the problem, a willingness to see the school's or teacher's 'side' of the situation; includes mention of working together, asking for a conference to discuss the issue, talking with the teacher as the first step in solving the (or most) problems; a sense of 'we-ness' and partnership in solving the problem is conveyed (8a: real or actual situation; 8b: hypothetical situation.

Examples: I came in a talked with Ms. X and the principal.She did not want to go to school, feeling sick all the time, and so I requested a conference and we just tried to get to the bottom of it. I said, "Don't get me wrong, because anything that helps my children, I'm all for it. And you have my support. Just explain to me why M. has been placed in this Chapter I class."

29


Appendix CParental Role Construction

(Beliefs and Behaviors within Parent-focused, School-focused, and Partnership-Focused Categories)

The role construction items below were included in a longer questionnaire assessing several aspects of parents’ involvement. Items related to the three major role construction orientations for day-to-day involvement in the child’s education were included (9 parent-focused items, 7 school-focused items, 9 partnership-focused items). Specific items are noted below.

The questionnaire employed three different response scales, each using a Likert-type scale of 1 – 6, with 6 representing strongest standing, 1 representing weakest standing on the role construction category assessed. The three response scales included:

1. never to 1+ times each week (1 = never, 2 = once this year, 3 = once each semester, 4 = once a month, 5 = once every 1-2 weeks, 6 = 1+ times each week); Instructions: Please indicate how often you have done the following in the current school year.

2. never to always (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = seldom, 4 = sometimes, 5 = frequently, 6 = always); Instructions: Please indicate how often you have done the following during the current year.

3. disagree very strongly to agree very strongly (1 = disagree very strongly, 2 = disagree, 3 = disagree just a little, 4 = agree just a little, 5 = agree, 6 = agree very strongly); Instructions: Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

Parent-focused role orientation (9 items)

Items and response scales(Response scale: never to 1+ times each week)Helped my child study for tests or quizzes.(Response scale: never to always)I make sure my child’s homework gets done.I sit down with my child when he or she does homeworkI check over my child’s homework.(Response scale: disagree very strongly to agree very strongly)It’s my job to explain tough assignments to my child.I make it my business to stay on top of things at school.I keep an eye on my child’s progress.It’s my job to make sure my child understands his or her assignments.

Total score possible ranges from 9 – 54; higher scores indicate stronger parent-focused role orientation; lower scores indicate weaker parent-focused role orientation.

30


School-focused role orientation (7 items)

Items and response scales: (Response scale: never to always)My child does his or her homework at school.(Response scale: disagree very strongly to agree very strongly)I assume my child is doing all right when I don’t hear anything from the school.If my child has a problem, I tell him or her to go to the teacher.I get most of my information about my child’s progress from report cards.There are limits to what I can do to help my child.The teacher has to let me know about a problem before I can do something about it.My child’s learning is up the teacher and my child.

Total score possible ranges from 7 – 42; higher scores indicate stronger school-focused role orientation; lower scores indicate weaker school-focused role orientation.

Partnership-focused role orientation (9 items)

Items and response scales:(Response scale: never to 1+ times each week)Exchanged notes with my child’s teacher. Contacted the teacher if I had questions about schoolwork.(Response scale: never to always)I get advice from the teacher.(Response scale: disagree very strongly to agree very strongly)It’s important that I let the teacher know about things that concern my child.Conferences with the teacher are helpful to me.I know what’s going on at school.I like to spend time at my child’s school when I can.I find it helpful to talk with the teacher.My child’s teacher knows me.

Total score possible ranges from 9 – 54; higher scores indicate stronger partnership-focused role orientation; lower scores indicate weaker partnership-focused role orientation.

31


Appendix DParental Role Construction (Parental Role Beliefs and Role Valence)

Role Beliefs Subscale (10 items). Participants respond to the following prompt: “Parents have many different beliefs about

their level of responsibility for their children’s education. Please respond to the following statements by indicating the degree to which you believe you are responsible for the following.”

The scale employs a 6-point Likert-type response format: 1 = Disagree very strongly, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Disagree a little bit, 4 = Agree a little bit, 5 = Agree, 6 = Agree very strongly. Total scale scores range from 10 to 60. Higher scores indicate that the parent believes he or she hold a more active role in his or her child’s education; lower scores indicate a less active set of beliefs about personal responsibility for involvement in the child’s education. Items include the following:

I believe it is my responsibility . . .

1. . . . to volunteer at the school.2. . . . to communicate with my child’s teacher regularly.3. . . . to help my child with homework.4. . . . make sure the school has what it needs.5. . . . support decisions made by the teacher.6. . . . stay on top of things at school.7. . . . explain tough assignments to my child.8. . . . talk with other parents from my child’s school.9. . . . make the school better.10. . . . talk with my child about the school day.

Role Valence Subscale (6 items).Participants respond to the following prompt: “People have different feelings about

school. Please mark the number on each line below that best describes your feelings about your school experiences when you were a student.”

The scale employs a 6-point Likert-type response format (see below). Total scale scores range from 6 to 36. Higher scores indicate a higher parental attraction to (valence toward) school; lower scores indicate a lower attraction (valence toward) school. Items include the following:

1. My school: disliked 1 2 3 4 5 6 liked2. My teachers: were mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 were nice3. My teachers: ignored me 1 2 3 4 5 6 cared about me4. My school experience: bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 good5. I felt like: an outsider 1 2 3 4 5 6 I belonged6. My overall experience: failure 1 2 3 4 5 6 success

hdawhmskjocroleAERApaperrev042204.aera

32


URJHS Volume 8

Post-Divorce Living Conditions and Child Maturation

Jessica Crabb The Master's College

AbstractResearch suggests that the impacts of divorce are far reaching because the nature of divorce changes the family unit and creates new transition points in the life course of the individuals involved. A review of the literature indicated that many changes occur in the lives of parents and children after divorce, including negative changes such as high levels of stress for parents and children, emotional peaks and plummets, regressive behaviors in children, and alteration/strain in the relationships between parents and children. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the living conditions in post-divorce families affect the child’s maturation. Pursuant to the treatment, data were collected through a seven-question survey instrument that employed a Likert-type scale to measure the responses of participants from the Santa Clarita and San Fernando Valleys. The survey instrument was designed to measure what changes were perceived to occur in the lives of children and parents after

divorce. The results of the study indicated that the changCognitive developmentPhysical growth is generally related to growth in mentalabilities (e.g. Ref. [292]), with increases in most cognitiveabilities occurring during adolescence in humans and otheranimals (e.g. Refs. [211,320]). Although detailed discussionof this topic is beyond the scope of this presentation and isavailable in other reviews (e.g. Refs. [211,276]), severalpertinent points will be briefly mentioned here.es in the life of the parent do impact the development of the child. Those surveyed believed that the living conditions in post-divorce families will influence the

33

http://www.kon.org/urc/urc_research_journal8.html

http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php


maturation of a child.

Introduction

Divorce is a common occurrence in the United States. Not only is it common, but “virtually every American’s life is touched by divorce” (Johnson & Rosenfeld, 1990, p. 15). The process impacts more than the two individuals involved in the divorce. Oftentimes children experience the tensions caused by divorce, as children are most shaped and influenced in their home environment, with parents as the primary influence for the earliest years. In all ages, but particularly in younger children, divorce can be seen to “play a dominant role in how he or she copes with the emotions and conflicts of the present” (Vigeveno & Claire, 1979, p. 11). Many researchers suggest “the process of divorce brings about many changes in children's lives, such as changes in contact with each parent and changes in parental emotions and behavior” (Leon, 2003, ¶ 3). Researchers also suggest that a “parent’s emotional adjustment and parenting behavior [are] likely mediators of the effects of divorce on children” (Wood, 2005, p. 122). Children living in post-divorce families are likely to have many changes in their development based on these factors. However, the effects and the living conditions in post-divorce families were unknown.

Parental Roles and Transitions for Parents during and after Divorce

The level of parental involvement in the life of the child influences the rate of development, as well as the skills developed. “Parenting style will be congruent, or synchronized, with children’s developmental level” (Bigner, 2005, p. 15). Parents are ascribed the roles of encouraging the development through structure, such as recognizing the child’s need for regular behavior, discipline, and interpersonal relationships, and through nurture, including noticing, understanding, and responding to the emotional needs of the child. “Divorce may be one of the few major family crisis events in which adults become more focused on their needs than on those of their children” (Bigner, 2005, p. 223). A parent’s role in the life of a child is to foster development, whether it is through providing for their basic needs, such as food and clothing, or for their more complex needs, such as creating an environment that is encouraging to emotional development through the relationship shared with the child. Divorce limits the amount of attention and care a parent can afford to devote to the developing child.

Unlike the traditional family model, the divorce model fosters many significant changes in the family unit, bringing collective family units to a place of individual family units. Instead of following traditional family models, the divorced family model adds to the process of the life course. “Specifically, the divorce models suggest that divorced families must go through additional phases and accompanying tasks, including acceptance of one’s role in the failure of the marriage; working cooperatively with the former spouse in areas related to custody, visitation, and finances; mourning the loss of one’s intact family; and remaining connected with extended families in order to re-stabilize and developmentally proceed” (Price, 2000, p. 10). Each of these transitions will have various emotional and physical effects on

34


each person involved. “Divorce has a variety of effects on adults. Most involve dealing with emotional adjustments as individuals make the transition from being a couple to being single people” (Bigner, 2005, p. 222). Within this, it has been observed that “more than [in] intact families, divorced and post-divorce families are likely to experience a roller-coaster pattern with peaks of emotional tension at transition points through the life course of the family” (Price, 2000, p. 11). These emotional roller coasters experienced by the parents influence and impact the children.

In the event of divorce the family unit is no longer one unit. Instead, it is broken up into smaller components, resulting in joint-custody, sole-, and primary-custody. Each of these creates different environments for the children and parents involved. Recent studies have shown the negative impacts involving each of these. In the case of joint-custody, many children can become lost in the shuffle and constant transitions from house to house and the “kids typically [end] up in the middle of a bitter tug of war and/or [are] forced to pursue a double life in which they [are] bounced back and forth between two worlds that were at odds with each other” (Meyerhoff, 2006, ¶5). Not only have two separate units formed but communication has changed between the units.

Where there would have been a partnership between the parents, there is now a division and a discord and often competition spurred from bitterness. Tension is often raised in joint-custody families; the living arrangements of the primary-custody family unit are often affected by the secondary parent who vies for the child’s favor. This can result in lessening the rules of the house as a means to appease a child or even in attempting to discredit the other parent through venting frustrations and disagreements in front of the children. “Putting a child in the middle of disputes and forcing him to ‘choose sides’ is unconscionable, as is poisoning the child's relationship with the other parent as an act of aggression or revenge” (Meyerhoff, 2006, ¶7). Although these feelings may or may not have been as present prior to divorce, they are often a product of the divorce.

In the case of single-parent families, a product of sole-custody, “it is not unusual for single-parent mothers to institute changes in the boundaries, patterns and rules that define the usual adult and child role behaviors. A mother may transform the definition of her role, particularly in relation to the oldest child, to that of a peer/partner” (Bigner, 2005, p. 231). This can, and often does, lead to a change in the role of the child—who moves to being a confidante instead of a child. “The mother increasingly relies on this child for emotional support and assigns him or her much of the missing adult partner’s responsibilities” (Bigner, 2005, p. 231). In single-parent houses, the emotional changes, especially in mothers, can also cause developmental changes, particularly for the older child. This role change can force the child “into interaction patterns calling for developmental maturity that he or she does not have or is not prepared to provide for the mother” (Bigner, 2005, p. 231).

Developmental Transitions for Children during and after Divorce

35


A “child’s reaction to parental divorce involves a process of adjusting to change rather than a single, simple reaction” (Bigner, 2005, p. 223). This should be noted because not every divorce case is the same; just as every parent is not the same nor is every child. However, seen as a constant among children of divorced parents, “the effects of parental divorce on the children may be either short- or long-term and positive or detrimental. Short-term effects, for example, include behavior difficulties at home and at school that occur in association with the initial reactions to parental separation. Long-term effects may not appear until adolescence or adulthood when individuals become involved in intimate relationships and experience difficulties in establishing them” (Bigner, 2005, p. 223).

The immediate tensions caused by divorce contribute to changes in a child’s emotions, just as they do with the parents. In the same way as mentioned earlier with parental neglect, “children from divorced families also face the risk of longer term erosion or loss of important relationships with close friends, extended and new family members, and, particularly, nonresident parents” (Kelly, 2003, ¶14).

Children also “experience the effects of parental divorce in ways that are more disruptive and stressful than those experienced by parents” (Bigner, 2005, p. 225). Effects include “regressive behaviors, such as temporary loss of toilet training as well as increased aggressiveness, fretfulness, and negative attention-getting behaviors such as whining or destroying toys [which] may be observed among preschoolers whose parents are divorcing or have divorced. School-age children may manifest feelings of being abandoned or rejected by their absent parent, a drop in school performance, adverse interactions with peers, or boundary shifts with their mother during or following parental divorce” (Bigner, 2005, p. 223).

In addition, “the experiences we have as children provide a blue-print for a number of interactional patterns manifested when we grow up and become parents ourselves” (Bigner, 2005, p. 16). Thus it is safe to say that the changes that occur during the years a child is maturing greatly influence the parenting decisions made later in life, as well greatly influencing relationships fostered with others. Children lacking certain interactions with either parent can be more likely to suffer developmentally.

Method

The purpose of this study was to determine perceptions of whether the living conditions in post-divorce families affect the child’s maturation. To focus the study the following research questions were developed:

What changes occur in a child’s life when parents divorce?

How does divorce affect a child’s maturation?

Method of Data Collection

The survey instrument used in this study was designed to determine whether the living conditions in post-divorce families have an effect on the child’s maturation. A

36


personal data sheet requested demographic data in addition to the responses to the seven question Likert-type survey questions. The survey instrument was distributed to students enrolled at Peirce Community College, in Woodland Hills, CA, students enrolled at Reseda Senior High School, in Reseda, CA, students enrolled at The Master’s College, in Santa Clarita, CA, and employees of AI Tech Space Systems, in Northridge, CA during the spring of 2008. The survey instrument was personally returned to the researcher immediately after completion.

Statistical Procedures

STATPAK was employed to examine the data; the desired scale of measurement was ordinal. An ordinal scale is “a scale of measurement in which the measurement categories form a rank order along a continuum” (Brown, Cozby, Kee, & Worden, 1999, p. 372). The One-Dimensional Chi-square statistical test was used because it analyzes any discrepancy between the frequencies actually observed as well as frequencies that were expected according the hypothesis. A .05 level of significance was used to test the results of the study. Data retrieved from the demographic portion of the survey instrument were reported in percentages, tables, and figures.

Results

The subjects sampled for this study included students and employees in the greater Los Angeles area during the spring of 2008. Sixty-seven copies of the survey were distributed and sixty-seven were used in this study. The data collected from the sample are discussed below beginning with the demographical data.

The survey indicated that 25.37 percent of those surveyed were between the ages of 13-17 years old, 38.81 percent were between the ages of 18-25 years old, 34.33 percent were 26 years old or older, and 1.49 percent did not respond. It was also indicated that 31.34 percent of those surveyed were male and 68.66 percent were female. The demographical data also indicated that 83.58 percent of those surveyed personally knew divorcees, 11.94 percent did not, and 4.47 percent had no response. Finally, the demographical data indicated that 37.31 percent of those surveyed were children of divorced parents or were divorcees, 61.19 percent were not, and 1.49 percent had no response.

Table 1 Summary of Responses to Survey Questions

SURVEY QUESTION SCALE NUMBER TOTAL

RESPONSES

COMPUTED CHI-

SQUARE VALUE

TABLED CHI-

SQUARE VALUE

1 2 3 4 No Response

37


1 0 2 19 46 0 67 44.0896 5.991

2 0 4 3 60 0 67 95.3134 5.991

3 0 17 27 22 1 67 02.2727 5.991

4 3 16 29 18 1 67 20.6667 7.815

5 3 21 32 10 1 67 29.3939 7.815

6 3 14 27 23 0 67 20.3433 7.815

7 0 7 16 43 1 67 31.9091 5.991

Research Question One

What changes occur in a child’s life when parents divorce? Questions 2, 3, and 4 of the survey instrument located in Appendix A addressed this research question.

Because the computed Chi-square value (95.3134) was greater than the tabled value (5.991) at the .05 level of significance for survey question 2, it can be concluded that a stable relationship with both parents is important. This finding is congruent with former research conducted by Meyerhoff, regarding the tensions that arise between parents and children in the event of a divorce. Meyerhoff noted that “putting a child in the middle of disputes and forcing him to ‘choose sides’ is unconscionable, as is poisoning the child's relationship with the other parent as an act of aggression or revenge” (Meyerhoff, 2006, ¶7).

For survey question 3, because the computed Chi-square value (02.2727) was less than the tabled Chi-square value (5.991) at the .05 level of significance, it can be concluded that single parents do not struggle to provide physically for their children. This finding contradicts the findings of Stohschein, who concluded that negative consequences are often a result of divorce due to “parental socioeconomic resources, which reflect [the] parents’ ability to access financial and human capital to enhance child outcomes, and psychosocial resources” failing to “provide a harmonious and emotionally nurturing environment for their children” (2005,¶ 4).

For survey question 4, the computed Chi-square value (20.6667) was greater than the tabled value (7.815) at the .05 level of significance; thus, it can be concluded that parents undergoing divorce are less likely to be emotionally stable. This finding aligns with Price, who writes “more than [in] intact families, divorced and post-divorce families are likely to experience a roller-coaster pattern with peaks of emotional tension at transition points through the life course of the family” (Price, 2000, p. 11).

38


Research Question Two

How does divorce affect a child’s maturation? Questions 1, 5, 6, and 7 of the survey instrument located in Appendix A addressed this research question.

Because the computed Chi-square value (44.0896) was greater than the tabled value (5.991) at the .05 level of significance for survey question 1, it can be concluded that a parent’s emotions have an effect on the child’s emotions. This finding is in alignment with both Price and Bigner, who write, “A parent who is struggling with the emotional ramifications of divorce may not be able to discipline and supervise the child as well as before the divorce” (Price, 2000, p. 27). This can often lead to a parent “increasingly [relying] on this child for emotional support” (Bigner, 2005, p. 231).

For survey question 5, because the computed Chi-square value (29.3939) was greater than the tabled value (7.815) at the .05 level of significance, it can be concluded that children with divorced parents are more likely to be independent. This finding is congruent with Bigner, who wrote that single parents can often force the child “into interaction patterns calling for developmental maturity” (Bigner, 2005, p. 231) resulting in more independent lifestyles.

For survey question 6, the computed Chi-square value (20.3433) was greater than the tabled value (7.815) at the .05 level of significance; thus, it can be concluded that a child’s academic performance is impacted by divorce. This finding supports Bigner’s findings: “The effects of parental divorce on the children may be either short- or long-term and positive or detrimental. Short-term effects, for example, include behavior difficulties at home and at school that occur in association with the initial reactions to parental separation. Long-term effects may not appear until adolescence or adulthood when individuals become involved in intimate relationships and experience difficulties in establishing them” and “school-age children may manifest feelings of being abandoned or rejected by their absent parent, a drop in school performance” (Bigner, 2005, p. 223, 225).

For survey question 7, the computed Chi-square value (31.9091) was greater than the tabled value (5.991) at the .05 level of significance; thus, it can be concluded that a child’s emotional well-being is affected by divorce. This finding aligns with Bigner, who stated that children “experience the effects of parental divorce in ways that are more disruptive and stressful than those experienced by parents” including “regressive behaviors, such as temporary loss of toilet training as well as increased aggressiveness” (Bigner, 2005, p. 225).

Findings

The results of the One-Dimensional Chi-square statistical analysis suggest there are many effects of divorce on the maturation of the child. According to the data gathered from this sample, it can be concluded that a parent’s emotions have an effect on the child’s; a stable relationship with both parents is important; single parents do not struggle to provide physically for their children; parents undergoing divorce are less

39


likely to be emotionally stable; children with divorced parents are more likely to be independent; a child’s academic performance is impacted by divorce; and a child’s emotional well-being is affected by divorce.

Discussion

Within the stated purpose and findings of this study, the following conclusions appear warranted:

1. Many changes do occur in the life of a child after parents divorce.

2. A child’s maturation is influenced by divorce.

The trend of divorce, although tapering off, has been in steady increase over the years. The effects of divorce on the individuals involved are known to be far reaching, but are specifically inconclusive due to the variety of effects divorce has on specific individuals. Divorce will have an impact on every person involved and especially on the development of children involved.

It has been observed that the level of parental involvement in the life of the child will influence the rate of development emotionally, relationally, and practically. Children in post-divorce living conditions are often subject to more stress, both from the situation itself and from transferred stress from the parents. This stress can influence the child’s academic performance, making it more difficult for the child to focus in school or on specific tasks. This stress can also influence the way a child reacts to outside relationships. If the child has experienced the trauma of losing a relationship with one parent, they may revert to relying on themselves and becoming more independent, they may exhibit an inability to share or work well with others, or they may develop the tendency to overcompensate for their flaws and seek the approval of others to gain nurture they may be lacking at home.

Limitations of the Study

Several limitations were recognized for the study. The sample for this study consisted only of those currently studying or living in the greater Los Angeles area during the spring of 2008. Also, the sample included those who were not divorced, children of divorcees, and those who had not known individuals involved in divorce.

Recommendations for Further Study

This study provides some information regarding the perceptions of living conditions in post-divorce families and the effects on the child’s maturation. Additional questions pertaining to the living conditions in post-divorce families and the effect on the child’s maturation warrant further investigation; thus, the following recommendations for further research and study of divorced parents are offered:

1. This study should be replicated, using a population to determine the living conditions in post-divorce families and the effects on the child’s maturation.

40


2. This study can be narrowed to determine what specific effects the living conditions in post-divorce families have on the academic performance of the child.

3. This study can be narrowed to determine what specific effects divorce has on the parents’ ability to provide physically for the children.

4. This study can be narrowed to determine what specific effects the lack of a stable relationship with both parents has on the maturation of the child.

References

Bigner, J. (2005). Parent-Child relations: An introduction to parenting. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Brown, Kathleen W., Cozby, Paul C., Daniel W., & Worden, Patricia E. (1999). Research methods in human development. Mountain View: Mayfield.

Johnson, L., & Rosenfeld, G. (1990). Divorced kids. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Kelly, J. B., & Emery, R. E. (2003). Family Relations. Children's adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives. 52(4).

Leon, K. (2003). Family Relations. Risk and protective factors in young children’s adjustment to parental divorce: A review of the research. 52(3).

Meyerhoff, M. K. (2006). Pediatrics for Parents. Separate parenting. 22(6).

Price, S., Mckenry, P., & J., M. (2000). Families across time. City: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Stohschein, L. (2005). Journal of Marriage and Family. Parental divorce and child mental health trajectories. 67(5).

Vigeveno, H., & Claire, A. (1979). Divorce and the children. Glendale: GL Regal Books.

Wood, J. (2004). Child Psychiatry and Human Development. Divorce and children's adjustment problems at home and school: The role of depressive withdrawn parenting. 35(2).

APPENDIX A

Survey Instrument

The Effects of Post-Divorce Parental Relationships on Children

41


Survey Instrument

Hi, my name is Jessica Crabb and I’m a college student enrolled at The Master’s College. Thank you for your willingness to participate in this survey. The answers you provide will be used to provide data for my undergraduate thesis researching the effects divorce has on the children involved. Please answer the questions to the best of your ability. :)

Please state appropriate age: _ 13-17 _ 18-25 _ 26+

Please state gender: male _ female _

Please state hometown: ________________________

I personally know divorcees: Yes _ No _

I or my parents are divorced: Yes _ No _

Please answer the following questions rating each answer on a scale of 1-4

(1=never, 4=often). Please circle your answer.

1. A parent’s emotions have an effect on the child’s emotions

1 2 3 4

2. A stable relationship with both parents is important.

1 2 3 4

3. Single parents struggle to provide physically for their children.

1 2 3 4

4. Parents undergoing divorce are less likely to be emotionally stable.

1 2 3 4

5. Children with divorced parents are more likely to be independent.

1 2 3 4

6. A child’s academic performance is impacted by divorce.

42


1 2 3 4

7. A child’s emotional well-being is affected by divorce.

1 2 3 4

RESOURCES:

©2002-2014 All rights reserved by the Undergraduate Research Community.

Research Journal: Vol. 1 Vol. 2 Vol. 3 Vol. 4 Vol. 5 Vol. 6 Vol. 7 Vol. 8 Vol. 9 Vol. 10 Vol. 11 Vol. 12 Vol. 13

High School Edition

Call for Papers 1 ¦ Call for Papers 2 ¦ Inventory ¦ NewsPlanning Conference ¦ Priorities ¦ Faculty Development ¦ Priority

Issues ¦ Institutional Plan ¦ URC Home K O N

43

http://www.kon.org/index.html

http://www.kon.org/urc/undergrad_research.html

http://www.kon.org/urc/insti_plan.html

http://www.kon.org/urc/pri_issues.html

http://www.kon.org/urc/pri_issues.html

http://www.kon.org/urc/fac_dev.html

http://www.kon.org/urc/urc_priorities.html

http://www.kon.org/urc/urc_pc.html

http://www.kon.org/urc/urc_news.html

http://www.kon.org/urc/urc_inventory.html

http://www.kon.org/CFP/cfp_urc.html

http://www.kon.org/CFP/cfp_urjhs.html

http://www.kon.org/urc/urc_research_journal_highschool.html













http://www.kon.org/urc/urc_research_journal.html

http://www.kon.org/urc/index.html


44

term paper

Documents

Transcript of term paper