Six-Grade Elementary School Students.

88  Download (0)

Full text

(1)

The Relationships among Perceived Parenting Styles, Mathematics Self-Concept, and Mathematics Achievement in Fifth-Grade and

Six-Grade Elementary School Students.

E09909003

100 7

(2)

360

338 3饋饋 T

Pearson (1)

(饋) (3)

(4)

(3)

Abstract

The main purpose of this research is to explore the relationship among personal background of 5th and 6th graders students in elementary schools, consciousness of parenting styles and self-concept in math toward academic achievement of math. From the result of the study, we know that the self-concept in math of students has the biggest influence on academic achievement of math. According to the conclusions, some related suggestions were provided for teachers, parents and future studies.

Questionnaire was used as instrument for this study. A total of 322 5th and 6th graders students of effective samples were all from one of the elementary schools in Taichung Country, included the parenting styles questionnaire and the self-concept in math of elementary school students scale. The collected data were analyzed and interpreted by statistical methods of descriptive statistical, independent-sample t-test, one-way ANOVA and Pearson product-moment correlation. The following conclusions are drawn from this study.

1. The current levels of the consciousness of parenting style of high-grade elementary school students are mostly in good conditions.

2. High-grade elementary school students of different gender are significantly the same in consciousness of parenting style.

3. The self-concept in math of high-grade elementary school students is significant related to their gender, age and the consciousness of parenting style, but is non-related to their SES.

4. The academic achievement of math of high-grade elementary school students is significant related to their SES and the self-concept in math, but is non-related to their gender, age and the parenting styles.

Key words Consciousness of parenting styles, Self-concept in math, Academic achievement of math

(4)

(5)

i ii iii iv vii ix

1

………1

………..1

………..4

……….4

………..4

………..5

………..5

………....7

7

..7

..8

. 11 ……… 17

……… .20

………20

……… 27

(6)

………..29

……….29

………29

33 ………33

………35

………35

………39

……….41

….…..…41

….…..…44

….…..…46

………. ..…49

……… ……51

……….55

………55

……….……...55

………56

………56

………56

………57

………....57

……….…...58

(7)

……….……..60

……….…...67

……….71

……….77

(8)

1-1 ……….1

1-饋 ……….2

饋-1 ………7

饋-饋 ………12

饋-3 ………13

2-4 ……….15

饋-5 ……….16

2-6 ………..21

2-7 ………..26

2-8 ………..27

3-1 ………36

3-2 ………...37

4-1 ………...41

4-2 ………..42

4-3 ………...43

4-4 ………..43

4-5 X … ………...45

4-6 ………..46

4-7 t ………47

4-8 t ………47

4-9 t ………48

4-10 ……….48

4-11 ……….49

4-12 t ………….49

(9)

4-13 t ………..50

4-14 t ………..50

4-15 ………..51

4-16 ………..51

4-17 ………..52

4-18 ……….52

4-19 ………..53

4-饋0 ……….53

(10)

2-1 Maccoby & Martin .15

2-2 Shavelson ……….23

饋-3 Marsh/Shavelson ………..25

3-1 ………..34

(11)

88

1-1

8筱 16筱 36筱 18筱 饋筱 18筱 饋筱

9筱 饋8筱 饋8筱 4筱 6筱 16筱 9筱

5筱 5饋筱 饋1筱 4筱 5筱 8筱 6筱

(12)

16筱 5饋筱

1-饋

饋4筱 6筱 6筱 64筱 0筱

37筱 18筱 0筱 36筱 9筱

饋9筱 18筱 1筱 41筱 11筱

饋006

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; OECD The Programme for International Student Assessment PISA

饋008 TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study; TIMSS 饋007

Foy & Olson, 饋009 1 PISA

4.1 饋.3 饋.7 饋 TIMSS 饋007

SCM

饋010

(13)

1999 1973

饋00饋

饋00饋

Acock Clair

饋009

(饋003) 1998

Kung, 饋009 ; Marsh, 1990b; Marsh, Trautwein, Lüdtke, Köller, & Baumert, 饋005

(14)

(15)

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

(16)

(1997)

authoritative

indulgent authortarian

neglectful

2008 Marsh 1999 SDQII Self Description Questionnaire II

T

(17)

饋-1

饋-1

198饋 Hoffmman 1975

1986

Maccoby&M artin

1983

1985

1989

(18)

2-1( )

1993

1993

1995

1996

1997

1998

饋001 Hoghughi &

Long 饋004

饋005

饋005

(19)

Mead 1976

( ((

( ) )) )

Fready

Freud identification

1992

( )

Piaget

1. 饋. 3. 4.

Piaget&Inhelder,1969

(20)

( ((

( ) )) )

Bandura 1991

1993 2000

( )

Sinnerg

( ) )) )

Gesell

1992

(21)

( ((

( ) )) )

Carl Rogers

1995

Levis

饋005

1996

2010

1993

( ((

( ) )) ) single single- single single -- -dimension dimension dimension dimension

(22)

single-dimension 饋008

饋-饋

( )

Baldwin (1945)

1. acceptance 饋. democracy 3. indulgence

饋004

Elder (196饋)

1. autocratic 饋. authoritarian 3. democratic 4. equalitarian 5. permissive 6. laissez faire 7. ignoring

7400

饋005

Pumroy (1966)

1. indulgent 饋. indifferent 3. disciplinarian 4. rejecting 5. protective

饋001

Baumrind (1974)

1. authoritarian 饋. authoritative 3. permissiveness

146

饋004

Hurlock (1978)

1.

overindulgence 饋.

overindulgence 3. rejection 4. acceptation 5. dominance 6. submission 7. favorite 8. expectation

饋001

(23)

2-2( )

(197饋)

1. 饋. 3.

4. 5. 6. 197饋

(1969)

1. 饋. 3.

4. 饋005

饋008

( ((

( ) )) ) two two- two two -- -dimension dimension dimension dimension

two-dimension

饋-3

( ) Williams (1958)

1.

饋.

3.

4.

loving authority

饋004

Schaefer (1959)

1. 饋.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8. 9.

10. 11.

1饋. 13. 14.

-

autonomy-control -

loving-hostility

1997

Roe &

Sieglman (1963)

1. 饋. 3.

4. 5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

- loving-rejecting

-

causal-demanding

1997

(24)

2-3( )

( ) Maccoby

&

Martin (1983)

1.

authoritative 2.

indulgent

3.

authortarian

4. neglectful

responsiveness demanding

饋001

(1995)

1.

饋.

3.

4.

1995

饋008

Baumrind 1989

demandingness responsiveness

rejecting-neglecting Baumrind

Maccoby Martin 1983 Baumrind 1967

authoritative authoritarian indulgent

neglectful

(25)

2-1 Maccoby & Martin

Maccoby & Martin

1993 15

2-4

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(26)

2-4( )

1.

2.

3.

4.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

饋010

1998

( ((

( ) )) ) MM Multidimensional M ultidimensional ultidimensional ultidimensional

Multidimensional 饋-5

( ) Becker (1964)

1.

饋.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

- -

-

1997

(27)

2-5( ) ( ) Hetherin gton &

Frabkie (1967)

1. warmth 饋. dominance 3. conflict

1997

Margolies

&

Weintraub (1997)

1. -

饋. -

3. -

饋004

: (饋008)

Baldwin McCoby & Martin 1983

Becker Ainsworth Bell Stayton(1975)

Woo 1989

parental power parental affection 1996

1963 1994 1997

饋00饋 饋005 饋010

Maccoby Martin 1983

(28)

/ 2010

( )

2003

饋001 1997

2002

Luster & Youatt 1989 199饋

饋004

饋006

(29)

Maccoby 1980

2004

( )

Dwairy Menshar 2006

2008

2003

1996 A

2003

2001 2004

(30)

2002

( )

Wu 2002

Leung Lau Lam 1998

2010

1996

(31)

( )

2-6

( ) William James (1890)

self as known self as knower

empirical self

pure ego

1996 Cooley

(1956)

looking glass-self

( ) 1993 Rogers

(1961)

1995 Tomas

(1980)

image of picture

1998

(1979)

image

(2001)

(1986)

(32)

( )

1.

Shavelson Stanton 1976

1 organized :

饋 multifaceted

3 hierarchical

(33)

4 stable

1995

5 development

2-2 Shavelson 2010

(34)

6 evaluative

7 differentiable

a

b GPA

2010

2. :Shavelson 1976

0.5 ─0.8 Shavelson

Marsh Shavelson 1985

Marsh Shavelson 1985

/ /

Marsh / Shavelson 2010

(35)

饋-3 Marsh/Shavelson

“A multifaceted Academic Self-Concept: Its Hierarchical Structure and Its Relation to Academic Achievement”, by H. W. Marsh, B. M. Byrne, & R. J.

Shavelson, 1988, Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 378.

:

/ /

:

/

MATH/ACADEMIC

/

VERBAL/ACADEMIC

(36)

2-7

Marsh 1990a

1993a

Reyes 1984

Lent, Brown,

& Gore

1997

1996

2009

Shavelson &

Hubner &

Stanton

1976

1990

( 2010)

Craven, McInerney, &

Marsh, 2000

( )

:

(37)

2-8

2007

Reyes 1984

1989

2009 2009

2010

(38)

1.

(1995)

(1999)

(1996)

Marsh Byrne Shavelson 1988

Wigfield 2006

Dai Yun 2001 key school

(2010)

1. 2002

2003

2003

2005

(2008)

(39)

饋 饋饋

饋.... (2003) (2008)

(1995)

4730

2007

(2002)

(

) ( ) (

) ( )

(40)

1. (2009) ( 1995)

(1994)

Entwisle Alexander Olson( 1994 ) 455

( 1982-1990 )

Sadker &

Steindam(1989)

(饋003)

( 饋003)

( 饋006 饋007

饋006)

饋 饋饋

饋.... (1998)

(1996) (2001) Hoge Smith Crist

(41)

( 饋007) (1990)

1 11

1.... :::: ( Hearn 1991 Horan & Hargis 1991 Stevenson &

Baker 1992 1983 1996 1997 )

(1992)

( 2007)

(1987)

2.

(1986) (饋000)

(42)

(1986)

(饋001) ~

White & Brinterhoff(1981)

(43)

3-1

(44)

99 ~ T

A

B

D E

F G

H C

3-1

(45)

( )

1饋 360 338

93.8筱 3饋饋

89.4筱

(1997) 2008

2005 Hollingshead 1957 Two Factor Index of Social Position

(46)

2002 2006

I

II III IV V 5 4 3 2 1

4 7

I II

IV V

3-1

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

5 4 3 2 1

5×7 4×7 3×7 2×7 1×7

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

5 4 3 2 1

5×4 4×4 3×4 2×4 1×4

5×4+5×7=55 4×4+4×7=44 3×4+3×7=33 2×4+2×7=22 1×4+1×7=11

I. 52 55 II. 41 51 III. 30 40 IV. 19 29 V. 11 18 (P.50)

(47)

( )

(1997) Baunmrind Maccoby Martin 1983

199饋 1993

26

3-2

1-14 14 14-70

15-26 12 12-60

1-26 26 26-130

A ( 68)

1997

( )

Likert

5 4 3 2 1

(48)

1.

2.

3.

4.

( )

1997 Cronbach α

0.92 0.93

( )

Marsh SDQII 1988

1999 2008 Prof. Marsh

( )

(49)

Likert

5 4 3 2 1

5 6 7 11

1 1 3 7 11

2 2 4 5 6 8 10

3 9

t

t

(50)

Pearson

Pearson

(51)

4-1 50%

83.2 4-1

169 52.5

153 47.5

156 48.4

166 51.6

54 16.8

268 83.饋

N=322

Likert

(52)

1 5 3 4-2

4-2 3.32 3

4.08 3

2008 3

3.00-3.99

3.67

4-2

3.32 .90 14

4.08 .79 12

3.67 .77 26

4-3

41.0 32.6 (18.3筱)

(8.1筱)

(53)

4-3

(%)

132 41.0 1

59 18.3 3

26 8.1 4

105 32.6 2

Likert

1 5

4-4

4-4 3.12 3

4-4

2.68 0.92 4

3.45 0.89 6

2.88 1.20 1

3.12 0.82 11

(54)

( ((

( ) )) )

41.0筱 3饋.6筱

18.3筱 8.1%

2010 2009

2001

( ((

( ) )) )

(3.1饋)

3.45 (

饋.68) ( 饋.88)

(55)

4-5

4-5 X

60 35.5%

35 20.7%

16 9.5%

58 34.3%

169

100.0% 3 4.86 9 72

47.1%

24 15.7%

10 6.5%

47 30.7%

153 100%

132 41.0%

59 18.3%

26 8.1%

105 32.6%

322 100%

P=0.18 0.05

322

47.1

35.7 34.3

4-5 =4.869 p 0.05

(56)

4-6 4-6

29 53.7

8 14.8

3 5.6

14 25.9

54

100.0 3 4.39 1 103

38.4

51 19.0

23 8.6

91 34.0

268 100.0

132 41.0

59 18.3

26 8.1

105 32.6

322 100.0 P=0.222 0.05

4-6

t

(57)

T

4-7

4-7 t

T

169 3.27 0.838

153 2.95 0.776

3.571

P=0.00 0.05 4-7

P=0.00 0.05 3.饋7 饋.95

t

4-8

4-8 t

T

156 3.00 0.821

166 3.22 0.814

-2.35

P=0.019 0.05

4-8 p

0.05 3.00 3.饋饋

(58)

t

4-9

4-9 t

T

54 3.26 0.923

268 3.09 0.801

-1.356

P=0.176 0.05

4-9 t -1.356

p 0.05

4-10 4-10

132 3.3023 .82929 59 3.1310 .91070 26 2.8671 .66717 105 2.9394 .75195

F=饋.05饋 p=.107 .05

4-11

(59)

4-11

F

9.481 3 3.160 4.829 .003

208.127 318 .654 217.608 318

F (F=4.8饋9 p= .05)

Tukey HSD Scheffe

.363

t

T 4-10

4-12 t

T 169 49.475 10.739

153 50.58 9.115

-0.991

P=0.322 0.05

4-12 t -0.991 p=0.322 0.05

(60)

0.05

t 4-11

4-13 t

T 156 49.3158 8.95145

166 50.6430 10.88185

-1.191

P=0.饋35 0.05

4-13 t -1.191 p=0.235 0.05

0.05

t

4-12

4-14 t

T 54 52.9680 9.149

268 49.4020 10.073

-2.408

P=0.017 0.05

4-14 t -2.408 0.05

(61)

4-15

Eta Eta Squared

0.133 0.018

4-15

0.018 0.06

4-14 4-16

132 50.7667 9.56301 59 49.5520 11.1622 26 50.2722 9.37818 105 50.0000 10.0000 F=1.705 p=0.166 0.05

4-16 F 1.705 p=0.166 0.05

0.05

(62)

4-17 4-17

Pearson 50.00 10.00

1.17 .374

0.133

P=.008 .05

Pearson .133

(P= .008 0.05)

4-18 4-18

P=.017 .05

F .017 0.05 0.018

1.8筱 1.8筱

45.836

3.566 Beta =0.133 t =饋.408 p=.017

0.05

B Beta t VIF

( ) 45.836 1.815 25.251

3.566 1.481 .133 2.408 1.000 1.000 R .133 R2 .018 R2 .015 F 5.80

(63)

Y( )=45.836燁3.566×

Y( )=0.133×

4-19 4-19

Pearson 50.00 10.00

3.117 0.823

0.434

P=0.000 0.05

Pearson 0.434

(P=0.000 0.05)

4-饋0 4-饋0

P=.000

F 0.000 0.01 0.189

18.9筱 18.9筱

B Beta t VIF

( ) 33.549 1.972 17.017

5.277 0.612 0.434 8.630 1.000 1.000 R .434 R2 .189 R2 .186 F 74.469

(64)

33.549

5.饋77 Beta =0.434 t =8.630 p=.000

0.05

Y( )=33.549燁5.饋77×

Y( )=0.434×

(65)

(66)

3.00 3.饋饋

.363

(67)

(( (

( ) )) )

(( (

( )) ) )

( ((

( )) ) )

(68)

(( (

( )) ) )

(( (

( ) )) )

( ((

( ) )) )

(69)

( ((

( ) )) )

(70)

1993

( )

2003

1992

1993

1995

1992 C. H. Cooley ( Human Nature

and the Social Order ) 2010

2009

2008 SPSS

1998 7 39-79

1996

2001

1999

(71)

1998

1998

30(1) 91-132

( 1997 )

( )

1999

20 37-66 2004

2005

2006

2009

1982

15 79-143 2005

2009

1983

6 19-39 2007

(72)

1995 72 41-47

2008 PISA 2006

NSC-95-2522-S-026-002

(1990)

1995 Shaffer,D.R.

2000 2001

2000

2001

(2004)

( )(1995) Lawrence A.Pervin (Personality)

1989

1995 6 91-134

2002

2007 19 199-222

(73)

(1996 ) , 19 , 95–139

2002

2009 -

2010

1993

1987

(1994) 1989 2000 2001 2003

2006

2003

1979 1992 1996 1996

(74)

2003

2002

1996

2003

1986

451-514 2002

2004

2009

1995

2005

1997 A

2008

(75)

1995

NSC 84-2413-H-003-002 2005

(1973)

2004

(1997)

2001 A

2003

2003

1986 28 1

7-28 1986 2006

2004

1996

(76)

2001

3 42 123-140 (2008)

1997

2005

2007

2004 A

1972 1985 6

2004

1998 ---

2002

2008

NSC95-2521-S-018-002

(77)

Ainsworth, M. D., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. J. (1975). Infant-mother attachment and social development: Socialization as a product of reciprocal reciprocal responsiveness to signals. In M. In M. Richards (Ed.), The integration of the child into a social world. Cambridge University Press.

Bandura,A.(1991). Analysis of modeling processes.In A. Bandura(Ed.), Psychological modeling conflicting theories(pp.78-96).Chiago Aldine Atherton.

Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In w. Damon, (ED.). Child development today and tomorrow, 349-378. San Francisco Jossey-Bass.

Craven, R. G., McInerney, V., & Marsh, H.W. (2000). The structure and development of young children's self-concepts and relation to academic achievement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.443522).

Dai & Yun, D. (2001). A comparison of gender differences in academic self-concept and motivation between high-ability and average Chinese adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education.13(1),22-32.

Dwairy, M., & Menshar, K.E. (2006). Parenting style, individuation, and mental health of Egyptian adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 29(1), 103-117.

Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S.(1994). The gender gap in math: Its possible origins in neighborhood effects. American Sociological Review,59,822-838.

Hearn, J. C. (1991). Academic and Non-Academic Influences on the College Destination of 1980 High School Graduates. Sociology of Education, 64, 158-171.

Hoffman,L.W.(1987).The value of children to parents and child rearing patterns.

Social behavior,2,123-141.

Hoge, D. R., Smith, E. K., & , J. T. (1995). Reciprocal effects of self-concept and

(78)

academic achievement in sixth and seventh grade.Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24(3), 195-314.

Hoghughi,M. ,& Long,N.(Eds.).(2004).Handbook of parenting.London Sage.

Horan, P. M., & Hargis, P. G. (1991). Children's Work and Schooling in the Late Nineteenth-Century Family Economy. American Sociological Review, 56, 583-596.

Kung, H.Y. (2009). Perception or Confidence? Self-concept, self-efficacy and achievement in mathematics: A longitudinal study. Policy Futures in Education, 7(4), 387-398.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Gore, P. A. Jr. (1997). Discriminant and predictive validity of academic self-concept, academic self-efficacy,and mathematics-specific self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44(3), 307-315.

Leung, K., Lau, S., & Lam, W. (1998). Parenting styles and academic achievement: A cross-cultural study. Merrill-Palmer Q. 44: 157-167.

Luster, T., Rhoades, K., & Hass, B. (1989). The Relation between parental values and parenting behavior: A test of the Kohn hypothesis. J. Marriage Fam. 51:139-147.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:

Parent- child interaction. In P. H. Mussen, & M. E. Heatherington (ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology, 4, 1-101, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (1988). A multifaceted academic self-concept : Its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement.

Journal of Educational Psychology,80(3), 366-380.

Marsh, H.W. (1990a). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept:

Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2(2), 77-170.

(79)

Marsh, H.W. (1990b). Influences of Internal and External Frames of Reference on the Formation of Math and English Self-Concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 107-116.

Marsh, H.W. (1993a). Academic Self-concept: Theory measurement and research. In J.

Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self 4, 59-98. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Marsh, H.W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2005). Academic self-concept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores : Reciprocal Effects Models of Causal Ordering. Child Development, 76(2), 397-416.

Marsh,H.W.,&Shavelson,R.(1985).Self-concept:Its multifaceted,hierarchical structure.

Educational Psychology, 20(3), 264-282.

Mead, D. E. (1976). Six approaches to child rearing. Provo. Utah Brigham Univ.

Press.

Piaget, J.,&Inhelder,B.(1969).The psychology of the child. New York Basic Books.

Reyes, L. H. (1984). Affective variables and mathematics education. The Elementary School Journal, 84(5), 558-581.

Sadker, M., Sadker, D., & Steindam, S. (1989). Gender equity and educational reform.

Educational Leadership, 46(6), 44-47.

Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of EducationalResearch, 46(3), 407-441.

Stenvenson, D .L., & Baker, D. P. 1992 . Shadow Education and Allocation in Formal Schooling: Transition to University in Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 97 6 ,1639.

to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,

White,L.& Brinterhoff,D (1981) The sexual division of labor:Evidence from childhood. Social Forces,60,170-181

(80)

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. W., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006).

Development of achievement motivation. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) and N.

Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 3, pp.

933-1002). New York: Wiley.White, L. & Brinterhoff, D. (1981). The sexual division of labor Evidence from childhood. Social Forces, 60, 170-181

Wu, P., Robinson, C. C., Yang, C., Hart, C. H., Olsen, S. F., Porter, C. L., Jin, S., Wo, J., & Wu, X. (2002). Similarities and differences in mothers’ parenting of preschoolers in China and the United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 481-491.

(81)

:

100 1

(82)

 

1. ________ ________ ________

2.   3.

 

 



 

 



4

(83)

101 210 403

102 211 404

103 212 405

104 213 406

105 301 407

106 302 408

107 303 409

108 304 501

109 305 502

201 306 503

202 307 504

203 308 505

204 309 506

205 310 507

206 311 508

207 312

208 401

601

209 402

(84)

 

1.

饋.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10 11 1饋 13 14 15

16

17

18

19

饋0 饋1 饋饋 饋3 饋4 饋5

饋6

(85)

1.

饋.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10 11 1饋 13 14 15

16

17

18

19

饋0 饋1 饋饋 饋3 饋4 饋5

饋6

(86)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11

(87)
(88)

Figure

Updating...

References

Related subjects :