Thesis Keep The Faith Chapter 4 Edited

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
1
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
Developmental psychologists have been interested on how parents influence the
development of children's social and instrumental competence since at least the 1920s.
One of the most robust approaches to this area is the study of what has been called
"parenting style." (Darling N., et. al. 1993). Parenting style is a psychological construct
representing standard strategies that parents use in their child rearing. It can also be
effective not only on raising a child from infancy to adulthood but also on motivating
them in their academic performance and improving their learning strategies. (Baumrind
D., 1991) Learning Strategies are used by students to help them understand
information and solve problems. It focuses on making them more active learners by
teaching them how to learn and how to use what they have learned to solve problems
and be successful. With the help of the parents, these particular learning strategies
could be improved.
There are four parenting styles parents used to raise and motivate their children,
especially in their learning strategies to improve their academic performance.
(Baumrind D., 1991). First is the Authoritarian. The authoritarian parenting style puts an
emphasis on a childs submission to parental demands. Parents using this style tend to
be strict, emotionally distant and demanding. Some believe that the authoritarian style
is the best for academic purposes, which is can be due to its ability to put pressure on
children to perform well in school. However, the constant demands and directions of
parents can lead children to overly rely on parents for guidance, which can hurt

2
creative endeavors or academic performance in classes that require high amounts of
creative energy, such as the arts.
Second is Authoritative. The authoritative style shares many similarities with the
authoritarian style in that it also puts demands on children and pressures them to
perform well in their academic endeavors. However, it differs in that authoritative
parents are emotionally close to their children, engaging their children in discussions of
feelings and personal issues. Authoritative style is often preferable to the authoritarian
style because it is less harmful to a childs self-esteem and ability to think
autonomously. The authoritative style brings the advantages of the authoritarian style
without the disadvantages. Compared to children raised in authoritarian styles, children
raised by authoritative parents are often focused on achievement for personal, internal
reasons, not to please their parents. For this reason, they are more willing to engage
themselves in studies and topics that interest them and fields that they feel confident in.
Third is the Permissive. The permissive style drops the strictness of the
authoritative style but keeps the emotional closeness. While this sounds like a good
style, it can be detrimental to a childs emotional performance because it lacks the
pressure that authoritative and authoritarian parents put on their kids. For this reason,
children have more free rein over their activities and will often neglect their studies in
favor of more immediate and entertaining achievements, such as playing and making
friends. While children raised in permissive families tend to be self-confident, they often

3
have trouble with self-control and understanding the importance of boundaries, two
concepts important in academic performance.
Last is the Uninvolved. The uninvolved parenting style is objectively the worst.
Uninvolved parents are neither demanding nor emotionally involved. They give their
children complete control over their school work and do not help their kids through
emotional or personal problems (Baumrind D., 1989). As moms likely already know, a
child without boundaries or emotional support is a child who will not study. These
children tend to perform poorly in school. Parents employing an uninvolved style will
need to make drastic changes if they hope to bring their childrens academic
performance up (Verial D., 2010).
Although a parents role in their childrens learning evolves as kids grow, one
thing remains constant: parents are the childrens learning models. Their attitudes
about education can inspire their child and show them how to take charge of their own
educational journey. In the early years, parents are their childrens first teachers
exploring nature, reading together, cooking together, and counting together. When a
young child begins formal school, the parents job is to show him how school can
extend the learning you began together at home, and how exciting and meaningful this
learning can be. Through guidance and reminders, parents help their kids organize
their time and support their desires to learn new things in and out of school (Osborne
E., 1939)
It is said that students with parents who are involved in their school tend to have
fewer behavioral problems and better academic performance, and are more likely to

4
complete high school than students whose parents are not involved in their school.
Positive effects of parental involvement have been demonstrated at both the
elementary and secondary levels across several studies, with the largest effects often
occurring at the elementary level. A recent meta-analysis showed that parental
involvement in school life was more strongly associated with high academic
performance for middle schoolers than helping with homework. Involvement allows
parents to monitor school and classroom activities, and to coordinate their efforts with
teachers to encourage acceptable classroom behavior and ensure that the child
completes schoolwork. Teachers of students with highly involved parents tend to give
greater attention to those students, and they are more likely to identify at earlier stages
problems that might inhibit student learning. (Noel A., et. al., 2013)
Background of the Study
In this study, the researchers would make a correlation study between the
Learning Strategies of Students from a Science High School with parents parenting
style. The researchers decided to focus on the topic to know if the parenting style of the
parents can affect the learning strategies of these students.
Parental involvement includes home-based activities (e.g., helping with
homework, discussing school events or courses) and school-based activities (e.g.,
volunteering at school, coming to school events). Some researchers argued that
parental involvement is a function of a parent's beliefs about parental roles and
responsibilities, a parent's sense that she can help her children succeed in school, and
the opportunities for involvement provided by the school or teacher. In this theory, when

5
parents get involved, children's schooling is affected through their acquisition of
knowledge, skills, and an increased sense of confidence that they can succeed in
school. When a student knows that he or she is receiving support both inside and
outside the school, the chances of that child becoming responsible for and active in
their education are more likely (Dempsey H., et. al., 1997).
The researchers thought that by identifying how the parenting style of the
parents on raising their child can help the students to be more attentive and motivated
to study and succeed.
Theoretical Framework
Learning theory suggests that the consequences of behavior strengthens or
weakens behavior in the future: behaviors that are rewarded continue in the childs
repertoire, while behaviors that are punished drop out (Eisenberg N., et. al. 2002).
Punishment is defined as the presentation of an aversive stimulus or the removal of a
positive stimulus. According to principles of learning, punishment following a specific
behavior is likely to lessen the likelihood of that behaviour being repeated. Punishment
can be an effective agent for behavioural change, but in order for punishment to
effectively suppress undesirable behaviour permanently, it must be immediately and
intensely administered after every transgression (Domjan, 2000). Thus, according to
learning principles, physical punishment must be administered severely enough to
ensure that it is a negative consequence for the child, in order for it to successfully
suppress behaviour. This, according to some, may become a recipe for physical
abuse and injury, rather than effective discipline (Holden, 2002).

6
In modern social learning theory, children learn through observation and
imitation of models in their environment (Bandura, 1986). Parents provide important
information to children about behaviour expectations and possible consequences for
various behaviours; parents model relevant behaviour, and reinforce and punish
children for different actions (Eisenberg et. al., 2002).
Hoffmans (2000) theory of moral internalization attempts to address how
societal norms and parental values, which are initially motivated by external forces
(e.g. fear of sanction), eventually come to acquire an internal motivational force. He
argues that disciplinary encounters with parents are central to this process of moral
internalization and what happens in a disciplinary encounter is likely to influence
whether or not children internalize norms and subsequently behave in a way that is
consistent with these norms. As children internalize norms of behavior, the need for
external control of behavior through mechanisms such as reward and punishment is
lessened (Smith et. al., 2005). According to Grusec (1994) that the use of punishment
or other power-assertive techniques is less effective than the processes of reasoning
or induction in promoting internalization. Hoffman (1970) argues that such other
oriented inductions promote internalization because they develop the childs empathic
capacities and induce negative feelings from which the child cannot escape even
when the parent is no longer present; also, inductions are unlikely to produce high
levels of anxiety or fear, and so the child is more available to attend to and process the
information embedded in the parents inductive statement.

7
Disciplinary strategies should promote a moderate level of arousal in the child
(Smith et al, 2005). Too much arousal may result in fear and anxiety, which will direct
attention away from the parents message to the consequence for the self.
In
contrast, too little arousal may result in the child not attending to the parental message
at all. According to Kochanska & Thompson (1997), Power-oriented, forceful
discipline elicits very high anxiety or arousal in the child and it interferes with the
effective processing of the parental message about behavioural standards and thus
undermines internalization. While some researchers, including Hoffman himself, do
argue that an appropriate combination of power-assertive and inductive disciplinary
techniques can be successful in promoting internalization, if the goal of discipline is to
promote childrens compliance and internalization of parental and societal values, then
effective instruction must be to the fore (Grusec, J., et. al., 1994).
Further work that has been influential in understanding effective discipline falls
within the parenting styles paradigm, exemplified by the work of Maccoby & Martin
(1983). In studies of parenting styles, two dimensions of parenting behavior have
emerged: whether parents are high or low in control or demands, and whether parents
are high or low in warmth or responsiveness. Depending on where parents lie along
these dimensions, they can be categorized as:
authoritative (high-control, high-responsive);

authoritarian (high-control, low-responsive);
permissive-indulgent (low-control, high-responsive);
permissive-neglectful (low-control, low-responsive).

8
Darling, N., et. al. (1993) argue that parenting styles (such as authoritative,
authoritarian) are best understood as a context that moderates the influence of
specific parenting practices on the child. For example, the effect of a harsh disciplinary
strategy may vary depending on whether it is delivered within the context of a warm or
a rejecting relationship between the parent and child.
Grusec & Goodnow (1994) suggest that successful internalization is a function
of the fit between parental inductions and childrens ability to take the parents
message on board. It is likely that childrens reactions to disciplinary strategies are
influenced by such characteristics as gender, age, temperament and the history of
transactions between the child and parent (Holden, 2002).
Conceptual Framework
Parents
Parenting
Independent
Variable
Style
Indifferen
ce
Abuse
Overcontr
ol
Students
Learning
and
Dependent
Variable
Study
Strategies
Anxiety
Attitude
Concentration
Information
Processing
Motivation
Selecting Main
Ideas
Self-Testing
Study Aids
Test Strategies
Time Management

9
Figure 1
Conceptual Paradigm
The above conceptual framework implies the relationship of parenting styles in a
students learning strategies. Parenting Styles is the independent variable while the
students learning strategies is the dependent variable.
Statement of the Problem
The main objective of the study is to determine the parents parenting style and
the high school students learning strategies as reported by the student themselves.
Furthermore, this study examined the correlation between the two variables
parenting style and learning strategies.
Specifically, this study sought answer to the following sub-problems:
1. What are the parenting styles of parents of the respondents as measured by
MOPS in terms of:
1.1 Indifference;
1.2 Abuse; and
1.3 Over-control
2. What are the learning and study strategies of the respondents measured by
LASSI in terms of:
2.1 Anxiety;
2.2 Attitude;
2.3 Concentration;
2.4 Information Processing;
2.5 Motivation;
2.6 Selecting Main Ideas;
2.7 Self-Testing;
2.8 Study Aids;
2.9 Test Strategies ; and
2.10 Time Management
3. Is there a significant relationship between the parents parenting style and the
learning strategies of respondents?

10
Hypothesis of the Study
Ho: There is no significant relationship between parents parenting style and
learning strategies of students.
\
Scope and Limitation

The study focused on the correlation between the parents parenting style and
the learning strategies of high school students from grade 7 to 10. The experiment
was conducted to the 200 students of a Science High School for the academic year
2015-2016 through random selection.
Significance of the Study
The findings reported in this study justify the importance of motivation to
academic performance. The findings have implications for the parents that they
should try as much as they could to motivate their children during the course of
instructions. The parents as well as the government should engage in programs that
can motivate these students to improve their learning strategies that will eventually
result to the improvement of their performance in school. It is therefore, hoped that
these findings will serve as resource materials for mother, father, guardian and
significant others who are concerned with the academic progress of the students.
It is worth emphasizing that research on spontaneous levels of parental
involvement in childrens education confirms the long held view that the impact is
large and the processes are well understood. What parents do with their children at
home through the age range is much more significant than any other factor open to
educational influence. Notwithstanding the poor quality of research and evaluations
in intervention studies a clear picture of need, want, commitment and readiness is

11
evident. What seems to be lacking is an effort to put these two bodies of knowledge
together in a development format likely to deliver the achievement bonus from
enhanced parenting.
The findings reported in this study justify that over controlling parents generally
want to protect their children from harm, from hurt and pain, from unhappiness, bad
experiences and rejection, from hurt feelings, failure and disappointments. But being
overly protective often prevent their children from trying new activities such as
discovering the joy of climbing and safe risk taking at adventurous play grounds.
Many sporting activities are discouraged, along with social activities which would
include opportunities for gaining social competence. It is therefore, hoped that these
findings will serve as resource materials for mother, father, guardian and significant
others who are concerned with the academic progress of the students. The study
also showed the importance of motivation, students test strategies and self-testing to
academic performance. The findings have implications for the parents that they
should try as much as they could to motivate their children, to give them their needs
and space in studying without overly controlling every step of their way. The parents
as well as the government should engage in programs that can motivate these
students to improve their learning strategies that will eventually result to the
improvement of their performance in school such as PTAs and family day even once
a month. It is worth emphasizing that research on spontaneous levels of parental
involvement in childrens education confirms the long held view that the impact is

12
large and the processes are well understood. What parents do with their children at
home through the age range is much more significant than any other factor open to
educational influence. Notwithstanding the poor quality of research and evaluations in
intervention studies a clear picture of need, want, commitment and readiness is
evident. What seems to be lacking is an effort to put these two bodies of knowledge
together in a development format likely to deliver the achievement bonus from
enhanced parenting.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are operationally defined fitting the needs of this research:
Anxiety Scale. This evaluates the degree to which students worry about school and
their academic performance.
Attitude Scale. This measures students' attitudes and interest in college and
academic success.
Concentration Scale. This assesses students' ability to direct and maintain attention
on academic tasks.
Information Processing Scale. This calculates how well students' can use imagery,
verbal elaboration, organization strategies, and reasoning skills as learning strategies
to help build bridges between what they already know and what they are trying to
learn and remember.
Motivation Scale. This computes students' diligence, self-discipline, and willingness
to exert the effort necessary to successfully complete academic requirements.

13
Parent Involvement is the participation of parents in school activities. It is the
commitment of time, energy, and good will to promote success for students.
Parenting or Child Rearing. This is the process of promoting and supporting the
physical, emotional, social, financial, and intellectual development of a child from
infancy to adulthood. Parenting refers to the aspects of raising a child aside from the
biological relationship.
Parenting Style. This is a psychological construct representing standard strategies
that parents use in their child rearing.
Selecting Main Ideas Scale. This determines students' skill at identifying important
information for further study from among less important information and supporting
details.
Self-Testing Scale. This analyzes students' use of reviewing and comprehension
monitoring techniques to determine their level of understanding of the information to
be learned.
Test Strategies Scale. This estimates students' use of test preparation and test
taking strategies.
Time Management Scale. This processes students' application of time management
principles to academic situations.

14
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter is a review of various readings, journals and researches on

Parenting Styles and Learning Styles. It contains citations, opinions and general
observations taken from the books and studies of foreign and local authors who
conducted researches or written about the concepts of parental involvement and
learning styles.
Foreign Literature

15
There is a sizable body of research literature supporting the involvement of
parents in educational settings and activities. Because the existing literature base on
parent involvement is large and growing, we have chosen to present only a summary
of selected research findings and relevant literature in order to establish a framework
underpinning the legitimacy of our parent involvement investigation. According to
Christensen & Cleary (1990) parents active involvement results in greater recognition
of teachers skills, better teacher evaluations from their principals, enhanced parental
understanding of the inner workings of the school, and higher school ratings in
effectiveness and program success. Additionally, in schools where student
achievement was reported, Loucks (1992) found that parent involvement was a
significant factor in both accelerated and sustained student academic performance.
Furthermore, while parent involvement may indirectly affect academic
achievement through its positive effects on factors such as student behavior and
students achievement ideology (McNeal, et. al. 1999), researchers are also
investigating if more direct links exist between parent involvement and academic
performance measures. Some research suggests that there is a significant, positive
relationship between parent involvement and students educational experiences,
including improved academic outcomes (Mapp, et. al. 2002). Other research,
however, suggests that parent involvement may not be the most influential factor in
improving academic outcomes. For instance, a study conducted in California found
that while parent involvement was positively correlated with academic achievement,

16
other factors such as teacher quality and the alignment of curriculum to state
academic standards had more of an impact on student performance.
Moreover, differences have also been reported in the effects of parent
involvement on student achievement across demographic groups (Horvat, et. al.,
2003). Taken together, these cases suggest that the impact of parent involvement on
academic performance can vary across contexts. Strengthening the relationships
between parents and schools must be a top priority in any parent involvement
initiative. One strategy for improving these relationships on the school level is to
abandon school-centered models of parent involvement, and to opt instead for equal
partnerships between parents and school staff. Parent involvement initiatives must
break away from the school-centered paradigm in which parents are supporters of
school-determined agendas, and embrace a new paradigm in which parents are
decision-makers and leaders. More importantly, there needs to be a shift from
focusing only on what parents do to engage in their childrens education to
considering how parents understand the hows and whys of their involvement, which
provides the space for parents to make their own decisions about the ways in which
they would like to be involved.
The research demonstrates that parent involvement in children's learning is
positively related to achievement. Further, the research shows that the more
intensively parents are involved in their children's learning, the more beneficial are
the achievement effects. This holds true for all types of parent involvement in

17
children's learning and for all types and ages of students. Looking more closely at the
research, there are strong indications that the most effective forms of parent
involvement are those which engage parents in working directly with their children on
learning activities in the home. Programs which involve parents in reading with their
children, supporting their work on homework assignments, or tutoring them using
materials and instructions provided by teachers, show particularly impressive results.
Along similar lines, researchers have found that the more active forms of parent
involvement produce greater achievement benefits than the more passive ones. That
is, if parents receive phone calls, read and sign written communications from the
school, and perhaps attend and listen during parent teacher conferences, greater
achievement benefits accrue than would be the case with no parent involvement at
all. However, considerably greater achievement benefits are noted when parent
involvement is active--when parents work with their children at home, certainly, but
also when they attend and actively support school activities and when they help out in
classrooms or on field trips, and so on. The research also shows that the earlier in a
child's educational process parent involvement begins, the more powerful the effects
will be. Educators frequently point out the critical role of the home and family
environment in determining children's school success, and it appears that the earlier
this influence is "harnessed," the greater the likelihood of higher student
achievement. Early childhood education programs with strong parent involvement

18
components have amply demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach (Boethel,
2003).
Moreover, some literature suggests that parent and community involvement
activities that are linked to student learning have a greater effect on academic
achievement than more general forms of involvement (Henderson, et. al. 2002).
Additionally, while some research suggests that parent involvement may positively
affect the academic performance of secondary students, other research indicates that
parent involvement has a greater impact on the academic achievement of
elementary-aged students than of secondary school students (Cooper, et. al., 2000).
Local Literature
Parental involvement can come in so many different ways like being active in
parent-teacher associations, establishing rules or schedules (when to view television
or visit Facebook) at home, assisting in their children's projects or homework, and
others. Thus, it is important to focus on a limited number of ways parents get involved
in their child's education to gain useful insights on what works and what does not
work. Doing so enables the above researchers to find what generally has a positive
impact on a child's motivation to learn. It is the parent's aspiration (Angel D., 2014).
In the article on Parental Involvement in Education Tips to Increase Parental
Involvement in Education, supported earlier contention stating that true school
reform will always begin with increased parental involvement in their childrens
education. It has been proven time and time again that parents who invest time and

19
place value on their childrens education will have children who are more successful
in school. There are always exceptions, but teaching a child to value education
brings a positive impact on their education. As a school administrator for almost a
couple of decades, the author firmly agrees with the thought that school
administrators and teachers are continuously frustrated in an age where parental
involvement increasingly seems to be on the decline despite the effort exerted by the
school heads and teachers, and the Department of Education (DepEd) through its
Orders and memoranda in the local counterparts (Meador, 2010).
In the same way, Morin (2013) states that the best tip for school success is to
make sure that parents and teachers are working together as allies. Sometimes,
though, it can seem that theres a chalk line drawn down the middle of your childs
life. At home, a parent knows best his own child from head to toe - his academic
potentials, social skills, innate attitude to mention a few, while a teacher may know
only a tip of an iceberg about who the child really is.
Academically, perhaps, a childs potential may surface, as well as her social
development with peers. Home and school environment combined may create a fuller
understanding of a student; thus, a teacher can identify where to tap to benchmark a
childs performance level. On academic achievement, Pinantoan (2013) pointed out
the influence of parental involvement on a students academic success should not be
underestimated. The article stressed the importance of support system that a student
gets from home is equally important as his brain power, work ethics and genetics

20
which all work in the accomplishment of his goal in life. Furthermore, students with
two parents operating in supportive roles are 52% more likely to enjoy school and get
straight As than students whose parents are disengaged with whats going on at
school. This is especially the case during the earliest years of schooling, in
Kindergarten through the 5th grade, when students with active parents are almost
twice as likely to succeed. Once students enter middle school, the effect diminishes
slightlypossibly because they are maturing during this time but there is still a
22% difference.
Fine, et. al. (1992) defines the benefits of parental involvement in education to
include higher academic achievement, more positive child behavior and more
effective schools. Contemporary education thinkers like Aquino, et. al. (1996)
identified parent involvement to include developing and maintaining a positive attitude
towards the school environment, projecting a positive image towards learning,
providing a variety of experiences or their children, and supporting the school and the
teachers. The family is a primary regulatory agency. It provides a model of the larger
society. It teaches children the habits and societys most basic educational institution.
Parents teach what they know. They pass on to their children their views of the world,
share what they have experienced and explain things as they understand them.
These primary impressions are lasting and very difficult to modify, a fact of immense
significance to education.
Foreign Studies

21
It is well established that parents matter greatly for their childrens
development and success both in and out of school. Yet there are no manuals or sure
strategies for raising happy, caring, confident, and successful children. Parents do
their best with the information that they have or receive to teach their infants to walk
and talk, help toddlers learn and play, and help young children get ready to succeed
in school. Teachers, too, work diligently to foster their students academic
achievement and social and emotional development. As they work with good
intentions to guide their children, parents and teachers experience many bumps in
the road.
Research has been accumulating for decades on the importance of highquality preschool education to prepare children for their journey through school
(Reynolds et. al, 2001). At the same time, for more than 30 years (Kagan, et. al,
1984), research on family and community involvement has shown that children are
more successful in school when their parents and teachers communicate well and
work together effectively
. Countless studies indicate that, at any grade level, including prekindergarten,
challenging
curriculum,
important
learning
goals,
effective
assessments, responsive feedback for students, and parental involvement are

important for increasing student achievement, attendance, behavior, and other
important school outcomes (Bryk, et. al, 2003).

22
A research study entitled Parenting Styles and Child Social Development by
Bornstein L. et. al. (2014) has generally linked authoritative parenting, where parents
balance demandingness and responsiveness, with higher social competencies in
children. Thus, children of authoritative parents possess greater competence in early
peer relationships, engage in low levels of drug use as adolescents, and have more
emotional well-being as young adults. Although authoritarian and permissive
parenting styles appear to represent opposite ends of the parenting spectrum, neither
style has been linked to positive outcomes, presumably because both minimize
opportunities for children to learn to cope with stress.
Too much control and
demandingness may limit childrens opportunities to make decisions for themselves

or to make their needs known to their parents, while children in permissive/indulgent
households may lack the direction and guidance necessary to develop appropriate
morals and goals. Research has also uncovered significant associations between
parenting styles across generations; bad parenting appears to be passed on as
much as good parenting. Although parenting quality inevitably adjusts, improves or
declines as children mature and parents face new and different challenges, some
level of stability in parenting style over long periods of time obtains.
A study entiled Parenting Attitude and Style and Its Effect on Childrens
School Achievements by Kordi, A. (2010)., the research findings revealed that
parents have a significant influence on the school achievement of their children.
Especially when they are involved in their childrens education and monitor their

23
childrens after school works. Although Asians use authoritarian parenting, Baumrind
(1971) argued that the style was harmful to childrens self-esteem and instead
favored the use of authoritative parenting style, which the scholars contended would
lead children to become autonomous, achievement-oriented, and self-controlled. In
addition, research findings also illustrated that authoritative parenting styles were
associated with higher levels of adolescent school achievement. Parenting attitude
and style leads to childrens school achievements. It was concluded that parents
attitude and style have powerful impacts on their children. Therefore, childrens
achievements could be reflected by their parents attitude and style. Therefore, the
imbalance among family members can create problems for them, particularly for
adolescents and children.
Local Studies
In the Philippines, central to the preschool curriculum is the child who is
envisioned to be prepared for life (SEAMEO-INNOTECH, 2012), that is, preparing
children spiritually, socially, emotionally, physically and intellectually while making
learning enjoyable. Since the integration of kindergarten to formal education,
preschool teachers have been encouraged to use the integrative approach in
developing skills relative to the content focus.

24
Researchers (Evans, et. al, 2012) supports the notion that the varied teaching
strategies employed to students make them learn and incidentally, prepare them for
the higher grade levels. Parents are involved in their childrens education and are
aware their involvement affects their childrens performances in school. Parental
involvement is important young childrens overall development, motivation and
success in learning to read. Early literacy experiences within natural settings
including the home provide motivating learning opportunities and encourage parents
and care givers to become even more active partners of early childhood educators in
their childs literacy development. Parents and caregivers must be aware of their
significant contribution they can to their childrens learning by providing a stimulating
environment around them, teaching them language, reading and writing as well as
supporting at home the schools literacy agenda both during the early years as well as
the primary and secondary schooling of the children. In addition, literacy development
begins in the very early stages of life with home and socio-cultural environment
pointed as the major influencing factors.
According to the study of Damianus Abun (2008), Parent Involvement in
Elementary Education, the effect of parents involvement in education varies.
Generally parents involvement in education has a positive outcome on childrens
academic performance but the outcome may vary to some degree from one student
to the other because of some factors. Factors such as social status/employment
status, educational background of parents, multiple children and income structure

25
may bring different outcome in students academic achievement. Working class
families and families in which mothers work full- time tend to be less involved in their
childrens education. Such situation affects the childrens academic performance.
Moreover, negligence of parent to involve in the education of their children will hinder
the academic performance of their children.
A study entitled Over-controlling of Parents by Holy S. et. al. (2013) showed
that Over-controlling parents can be doing more harm than good to their college-aged
children. The study claims students that had parents with controlling tendencies were
more likely to be depressed and less satisfied with their lives, while the number of
hyper-parents was increasing with the growing emphasis on secondary education in
the workforce. . They tend to pressure children to perform well in school. In terms of
students test taking strategies, over controlling parents will tell you everything you
need to do; how to study, when to study, what to study and where to study.
A research study entitled Parental Involvement in Childs Education:
Importance, Barriers and Benefits by Sapungan, S., et. al. (2014) explained the
importance, barriers and benefits of parental involvement in childs education. The
researchers exemplified the fact that parents involvement in their childs learning
process offers many opportunities for success- improvements on childs morale,
attitude, and academic achievement across all subject areas, behavior and social
adjustment. It further says that family involvement in education helps children to grow
up to be productive, responsible members of the society. This means that if we

26
involve the parents in educating their children, it is tantamount to saying that the
school is proactive in implementing changes or development among the students. As
parents involvement is increased, teachers and school administrators also raise the
chance to realize quality reform in education.
Synthesis
The literatures and studies cited in this research all talked about parenting style
and learning strategy. The articles defined parental involvement in different ways and
how it could affect their childs educationSome said that parental involvement can
come in so many different ways like being active in parent-teacher associations and
by means of this, children will be more successful in school when their parents and
teachers communicate well and work together effectively. Moreover, parent and
community involvement activities that are linked to student learning have also a
greater effect on academic.
Meanwhile, various studies tackled about learning strategies, foreign and
local researchers have been long interested in finding out the learning strategy that
the students use and how parental involvement can affect it. It seems like it will be a
big help in the academic field when the parents parenting style will be improved.

27
Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the methods and procedures applied in securing,
analyzing and interpreting the data needed in this study. This part discusses the
respondents of the study and instrument used to gather data.
Research Method
The researchers in this study decided to use the descriptive method and a
quantitative technique to measure the data obtained. It involves collection of data in
order to test hypothesis concerning the status of the study. This method will be
efficient in describing the correlation of parenting styles and learning and study
strategies of the students which can be used to be able to fulfill the main purpose of
the study.
Description of the Respondents
The researchers used 200 students from a science high school. The students
are from different year and level.
Population, Sample Size and Sampling Technique

28
The type of sampling technique used by the researchers is the random
sampling. Random sampling is a method considered as a fair way of selecting a
sample from a given population since every member is given equal opportunities of
being selected. The researchers randomly selected students from a Science High
School.
Research Instruments
The researchers used two questionnaires. The first questionnaire used to
determine the parenting style is the MOPS. The other questionnaire is the LASSI, to
know the learning strategies of the high school students.
The Measurement of Parental Styles (MOPS)
The Measure of Parental Style (MOPS) was developed to overcome
some shortcomings in the Parental Bond Instrument. It is a self-assessment
tool used to measure perceived parenting styles across the following three
measures: indifference, abuse and over-control.
Learning and Study Strategy Inventory (LASSI)
The LASSI (Learning and Study Strategies Inventory) is a 10-scale, 60item assessment of students' awareness about and use of learning and study
strategies related to skill, will and self-regulation components of strategic
learning. The focus is on both covert and overt thoughts, behaviours, attitudes
and beliefs that relate to successful learning and that can be altered through
educational interventions. It provides standardized scores (percentile score
equivalents) and national norms for ten different scales (there is no total score
since this is a diagnostic measure). It is both diagnostic and prescriptive.

29
For both instruments, retest reliability estimates range from .75-.92
(median=.84). Cronbach's alpha for the Measurement of Parenting Style is
equal to 0.76, while for the Learning Strategies for Students Inventory, =0.91.
Data Gathering Procedure
The randomly selected students from a Science High School were oriented
on the nature and purpose of the study. Each of the students was given two
questionnaires, LASSI for the learning style of the students and MOPS for the impact
of the parents to them. After answering the questions and observation, all the
necessary data were sorted and tabulated and were subjected to analysis and
interpretation.
Statistical Treatment of Data
The analysis used in this research was statistical analysis. The Pearson
Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient was applied to measure the relationship
between variables. The Pearson r was computed using IBM SPSS Statistics Data
Editor.
The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, also called Pearson
correlation coefficient for short, is a measure of the strength of a linear association
between two variables and is denoted by r. Basically, it attempts to draw a line of best
fit through the data of two variables, and the correlation coefficient, indicates how far
away all these data points are to this line of best fit.
The Pearson correlation coefficient, r, can take a range of values from +1 to -1.
A value of 0 indicates that there is no association between the two variables. A value
greater than 0 indicates a positive association; that is, as the value of one variable
increases, so does the value of the other variable. A value less than 0 indicates a

30
negative association; that is, as the value of one variable increases, the value of the
other variable decreases.
It could be obtained using the formula:
Where:
N = Number of pairs of scores
xy = Sum of the products of paired scores
x = Sum of x scores
y = Sum of y scores
x2 = Sum of squared x scores
y2 = Sum of squared y scores
Chapter 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter is devoted to the presentation and interpretation of data. The
findings of the study are discussed in accordance with the methods and procedure
described earlier in Chapter Three. Data are presented and interpreted in the light of
the stated problems in the first few chapters.
1. Parenting Styles
Table 1. Indifference
Items
Extremely
true
Moderately
true
Slightly
true
Not true at
all
Mean
Verbal
Description
Indiferrence
5. Ignore me.
3.0
10.9
22
9.9
20
76.2
152
0.49
Not true
8. Uncaring of
2.0
5.0
10
5.9
12
87.1
174
0.24
Not true

31
me.
10. Rejecting of
me.
11. Left me on
my own a lot.
12. Would forget
about me.
13. Was
uninterested in
me.
2.0
6.0
12
11.4
23
80.6
161
0.31
Not true
13.0
26
24.2
49
11.4
23
51.0
102
1.28
Slightly
2.0
8.4
17
5.0
10
84.6
169
0.3
Not true
1.5
7.9
16
4.0
86.5
173
0.27
Not true
OVERALL
0.49
2.26-3.0 Extremely true; 1.6-2.25 Moderately true; 0.76-1.5 Slightly true; 0-0.75 Not true at all
Table 1.1 presents that majority of the respondents or 76.2% are not true that
their parents ignored them; 10.9% are moderately true; 9.9% are slightly true; and 3%
are extremely true that their parents ignored them. 87.1 % of the respondents are not
true that their parents are uncaring; 5.9% are slightly true; 5% are moderately true;
and 2% are extremely true that their parents are uncaring. 80.6% of the respondents
are not true that their parents are rejecting them; 11.4% are slightly true; 6% are
moderately true; and 2% are extremely true that they rejected by their parents. 51% of
the respondents are not true that their parents left them on their own; 24.2% are
moderately true; 13% are extremely true; and 11.4% are slightly true that their parents
left them on their own. On the item 'Would forget about me', 84.6% of the respondents
answered not true; 8.4% are moderately true; 5% are slightly true; and 2% answered
extremely true. On item 'Was uninterested in me', 86.5% of the respondents answered
not true; 7.9% are moderately true; 4% are slightly true; and 1.5% answered extremely
true that their parents was uninterested on them.

32
Table 1.2 Abuse
Items
Abuse
2. Verbally
abusive of me.
7. Unpredictable
towards me.
9. Physically
violent or
abusive of me.
14. Made me
feel in danger.
15. Made me
feel unsafe
Extremely
true
Moderately
true
Slightly true
Not true at
all
Mean
Verbal
Descripti
on
5.5
11
28.6
57
13.9
28
52
104
1.01
Slighty
11.9
24
25.7
51
13.4
27
49
98
1.27
Slightly
1.5
10.4
21
9.9
20
78.2
156
0.37
Not true
1.5
6.9
14
88.6
177
0.23
Not true
2.5
1.5
95
190
0.1
Not true
OVERALL
0.6
Table 2 shows that most of the respondents or 52% answered not true that their
parents are verbally abusive; 28.6% are moderately true; 13.9% are slightly true; and
5.5% are extremely true that their parents are verbally abusive. 49% of the
respondents answered not true that their parents are unpredictable towards them;
25.7% are moderately true; 13.4% are slightly true; and 11.9% answered extremely
true that their parents are unpredictable towards them. 78.2% of the respondents
answered not true that their parents are physically violent; 10.4% are moderately true;
9.9% are slightly true; and 1.5% answered extremely true that their parents are
physically violent. On the item 'Made me feel in danger', 88.6% of the respondents
answered not true; 6.9% are moderately true; 3% are slightly true; and 1.5% of the
respondents answered extremely true that their parents made them feel in danger.
95% of the respondents answered not true on the item 'Made me feel unsafe'; 2.5%
are moderately true; 1.5% are slightly true; and 1% answered extremely true that their
parents made them feel unsafe.

33
Table1.3 Overcontrol
Items
Overcontro
l
1.
Overprotective
of me.
3.
Overcontrolling
of me.
4. Sought to
make me feel
guilty.
6. Critical of
me.
Extremely
true
Moderately
true
Slightly
true
Not true at
all
Mean
Verbal
Descripti
on
60.5
12
1
26.8
53
6.9
14
5.8
12
2.73
Extremely
17.9
36
39.6
79
14.9
30
27.6
55
1.85
Moderatel
y
17.3
33
54
32.2
64
19.3
39
31.2
62
1.73
Moderatel
y
8.5
17
29.6
59
11.4
23
50.5
10
0
1.17
Slightly
OVERALL
2.12
Table 1.3 demonstrates that majority of the respondents or 60.5% are extremely
overprotective by their parents; 26.8% moderately; 6.9% slightly; and 5.8% are not
overprotective by their parents. 39.6% of the respondents are moderately overcontrolled
by their parents; 27.6% not true; 17.9% extremely true; and 14.9% are slightly
overcontrolled by their parents. On the item, 'Sought to make me feel guilty', 32.2% of
the respondents answered moderately true; 31.2% not true; 19.3% slightly true; and
17.3% answered extremely true. 50.5% of the respondents answered not true that their
parents are critical to them; 29.6% moderately true; 11.4% slightly true; and 8.5% are
extremely true that their parents are critical to them.
Table 1.4 Overall Summary of Measurement of Parenting Style (MOPS)

34
Measurement of Parenting Style Scale
Mean
Verbal
Description
Indifference
0.49
Not true
Abuse
0.6
Not true
Overcontrol
2.12
Moderately true
Table 1.4 presents the summary of measurement of parenting styles (MOPS)

with their mean scores and corresponding description. The respondents described not
true for Indifference (mean= 0.49); and Abuse (mean= 0.5). Majority of them described
over control as moderately true (mean= 2.12).
2 Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI)

Table 2.1 Anxiety

35
Items
Very
typical of
me
Fairly
typical
of me
Somew
hat
typical
of me
Not
very
typical
of me
Not at
all
typical
of me
37
25.
3
18.
8
23.
8
26.
2
18.
3
16.
3
21.
8
22.
8
51
15.
8
17.
8
14.
4
15.
8
12.
9
15.
8
23.
3
22.
3
31
ANXIE
TY
29
14.9
30
25.7
51
35
13.9
29
43
19.3
39
46
22.8
46
61
26.7
53
69
16.8
34
72
9.9
20
78
9.9
20
18.
3
19.8 40 29.
7
20.8 42 21.
8
14.4 29 20.
8
21.3 43 20.
8
17.8 36 33.
2
20.8 42 24.
3
14.9 30 30.
2
OVERALL
59
44
42
42
66
49
60
37
47
52
36
32
43
45
35
29
31
26
31
46
44
Me
an
Verbal
Descrip
tion
2.9
9
2.9
3
3.0
7
3.0
2
3.3
1
3.0
4
2.7
2
2.6
7
2.9
7
Somewh
at
Somewh
at
Somewh
at
Somewh
at
Somewh
at
Somewh
at
Somewh
at
Somewh
at
Somewh
at
4.50-5.00 = Very typical; 3.50-4.49 = Fairly typical; 2.50-3.49 = Somewhat typical; 1.50-2.49 = Not
very typical; 1.00-1.49 = Not at all typical
Table 2.1 describes that majority of the respondents or 25.7% are fairly
discouraged of low grades; 25.2% are not very; 18.3% are somewhat; 15.8% are not;
and 14.9% are very discouraged of low grades. 29.7% of the respondents are
somewhat panicky when taking an important test; 19.8% are fairly; 18.8% are not
very; 17.8% are not at all; and 13.9% are very panicky when taking an important test.
On the item 'When I am taking a test, worrying about doing poorly interferes with my
concentration', 23.8% of the respondents answered not very; 21.8% are somewhat;

36
20.8% are fairly; 19.3% are very; and 14.4% answered not. 26.2% of the respondents
are not very worried that they will flunk out of school; 22.8% very; 20.8% somewhat;
15.8% are not; and 14.4% are fairly worried that they will flunk out of school. 26.7% of
the respondents are very anxious even when well prepared for a test; 21.3% fairly;
20.8% somewhat; 18.3% not very; and 12.9% are not anxious even when well
prepared for a test. On the item 'When I am studying, worrying about doing poorly in a
course interferes with my concentration, 33.2% of the respondents answered
somewhat typical; 17.8% fairly; 16.8% very; 16.3% not very; and 15.8% answered not
at all. 24.3% of the respondents are somewhat anxious in a certain subjects such as
math or science; 23.3% are not at all; 21.8% not very; 20.8% fairly; and 9.9% are very
anxious when in a certain subjects such as math or science. On the item 'I get so
nervous and confused when taking an examination that I fail to answer questions to
the best of my ability, 30.2% answered somewhat typical; 22.8% not very; 22.3% not;
14.9% fairly; and 9.9% answered very typical
Table 2.2 Attitude
Items
ATTITU
DE
6
Very
typical
of me
Fairly
typical
of me
Somewha
t typical
of me
Not
very
typical
of me
%
f
Not at
all
typical
of me
%
F
Mea
n
Verbal
Descriptio
n
18.8
3.02
Somewhat
2.24
Not very
3.17
Somewhat
2
8
7
17.8
25.2
50
27.7
19.
5
9
2
2
5
40
36
29.
7
10.
9
24.
19.8
17
13.
9
3.5
24.8
50
15.3
3
6
5
5
3
32.7
15.8
3
8
6
5
3

37
41
48
3
6.9
51
11.
9
5.9
70
76
9
1
4
2
4
1
2
1
0
6
8
7.9
9.9
6.9
13.
4
6.9
0
1 21.3
6
2 16.3
0
1 24.3
4
2 16.3
7
1 18.8
4
OVERALL
43
26.2
33
27.7
49
34.7
33
22.8
38
28.7
1
5
2
5
5
6
9
4
6
5
7
37.6
34.2
28.2
42.6
42.6
2
7
5
6
8
5
6
8
5
8
5
2.2
Not very
2.37
Not very
2.27
Not very
2.15
Not very
1.98
Not very
2.4
3
Somewha
t
Table 2.2 shows that most of the respondents or 29.7% are fairly able to study
subjects even they do not find it interesting; 19.8% somewhat; 18.8% not at all; 17.8%
not very; and 13.9% are very able to study subjects even they do not find interesting.
On the item 'I only study the subjects I like, 32.7% answered not at all; 27.7% not very;
25.2% somewhat; 10.9% fairly; and 3.5% answered very. Both 24.8% of the
respondents are fairly and somewhat have a positive attitude about attending classes;
19.3% very; 15.8% not at all; and 15.3% are not very have a positive attitude about
attending classes. On the item 'I would rather not be in school', 37.6% answered not at
all; 26.2% not very; 21.3% somewhat; 7.9% fairly; and 6.9% answered very typical. On
one item 'I do not care about getting a general education, I just want to get a good job',
34.2% of the respondents answered not at all; 27.7% not very; 16.3% somewhat;
11.9% very; and 9.9% answered fairly. 34.7% of the respondents are not very dislike
most of the work in classes; 28.2% not at all; 24.3% somewhat; 6.9% fairly; 5.9%

38
answered very typical. On the item 'I do not care if I finish college as long as I have a
good time, 42.6% of the respondents answered not at all; 22.8% not very; 16.3%
somewhat; 13.4% fairly; and 5% of the respondents answered very typical. On the last
item 'In my opinion, what is taught in my courses is not worth reading, 42.6% of the
respondents answered not at all; 28.7% not very; 18.8% somewhat; 6.9% fairly; and
only 3% answered very typical.
Table 2.3 Concentration

Items
CONCENTRA
TION
1
8
16
32
49
55
79
Very
typical
of me
Fairly
typical
of me
Somew
hat
typical
of me
Not
very
typical
of me
Not at
all
typical
of me
12.
9
6.4
2
6
1
3
2
5
4
5
2
8
2
1
2
39.
6
14.
9
31.
2
16.
8
14.
4
16.
8
29.
7
9
3
0
6
2
3
4
2
9
3
4
5
20.8
4
2
6
0
4
8
5
7
3
0
7
4
4
13.
9
33.
1
19.
3
21.
8
31.
2
25.
2
27.
2
8
6
6
3
9
4
4
6
2
5
0
5
12.
9
15.
4
13.
4
10.
4
25.
7
10.
9
10.
2
6
3
1
2
7
2
1
5
1
2
2
2
12.
4
22.
3
13.
9
10.
3
10.
30.2
23.8
28.7
14.9
37.1
21.8
Mea
n
Verbal
Descript
ion
3.26
Somewh
at
Somewh
at
Somewh
at
Somewh
at
Somewh
at
Somewh
at
Somewh
2.64
3.1
3.19
2.59
2.9
3.04

39
75
9
16.
3
2
3
3
7
9
21. 4 35.6
8
4
OVERALL
4
7
1
2
15.
3
4
3
1
4
10.
3
1
2
1
3.18
2.9
9
at
Somewh
at
Somew
hat
Table 2.3 demonstrates that majority of the respondents or 39.6% are fairly
concentrate when studying; 20.8% somewhat; 13.9% not very; and both 12.9% are not
at all and very concentrate when studying. On the item 'Because I don't listen carefully,
I don't understand some course material, 33.12% of the respondents answered not
very; 30.2% somewhat; 15.4% not at all; 14.9% fairly; and 6.4% answered very typical.
31.2% of the respondents are fairly maintain concentration while doing coursework;
23.8% somewhat; 19.3% not very; 13.4% not at all; and 12.4% are very maintain their
concentration while doing coursework. 28.7% of the respondents are somewhat
wanders a lot when they study; 22.3% very; 21.8% not very; 16.8% fairly; and 10.4%
are not wanders a lot when they study. 31.2% of the respondents are not very felt hard
to pay attention during lectures; 25.7% not at all; 14.9% somewhat; 14.4% fairly; and
only 13.9% are very felt it hard to pay attention during lectures. 37.1% of the
respondents are somewhat easily distracted from their studies; 25.2% not very; 16.8%
fairly; 10.9% not at all; and 10.3% are very easily distracted from their studies. On the
item 'I find that during lectures I think of other things and don't really listen to what is
being said', 29.7% of the respondents answered fairly; 27.2% not very; 21.8%

40
somewhat; 10.9% very; 10.4% not at all. 35.6% of the respondents are somewhat able
to refocus their attention when being distracted; 21.8% fairly; 16.3% very; 15.3% not
very; and only 10.3% not able to refocus their attention when being distracted.
Table 2.4 Information Processing

41
Table 2.4 describes that most of the respondents or 34.7% answered fairly on the
item 'I try to find relationships between what I am learning and what I already know';
19.8% very; 17.3% somewhat; 14.9% not at all; and 13.4% answered not very. 35.6%
of the respondents are somewhat applying their lectures to help them remember;
20.3% fairly; 16.8% not very; 14.4% very; and 12.9% not applying their lectures to help
them remember. 35.6% of the respondents are fairly make everything fit together
logically; 22.8% very; 21.3% somewhat; 13.4% not very; and 6.9% of the respondents
not make everything fit together logically. 26.7% of the respondents are fairly relate the
lectures to their own general knowledge; 23.8% somewhat; 19.8% not very; 18.8%
very; and 10.9% of the respondents are not relate the lecture to their own general
knowledge. 32.2% of the respondents answered very typical on the item 'I translate
what I am studying into my own words'; 21.3% fairly; 19.3% somewhat; 15.3% not at
all; and 11.9% answered not very. On the item 'I try to see how what I am studying
would apply to my everyday life', 36.6% of the respondent answered somewhat; Both
19.3% are very and not very typical; 15.8% fairly; and 8.9% answered not. 28.2% of
the respondents are fairly translate the study to their own experience; 22.8%
somewhat; 19.3% very; 16.8% not very; and 12.9% of the respondents are not
translating the study to their own experiences. 31.7% of the respondents are somewhat
completing practice problems on textbooks; 20.8% not very; 18.3% fairly; 17.8% very;
and 11.4% are not completing practice problems on textbooks.

42
Table 2.5 Motivation
Items
MOTIVATI
ON
14
22
30
39
42
56
65
80
Very
typica
l of
me
%
f
Fairly
typica
l of
me
%
f
21.
8
10.
4
25.
3
41.
6
37.
1
27.
2
24.
3
21.
3
34.
2
10.
9
30.
7
25.
7
21.
3
24.
3
36.
1
22.
3
4
4
2
1
5
1
8
3
7
4
5
4
4
9
4
3
Somew
hat
typical
of me
%
f
6
19.
8
8
2
28.
2
7
6
24.
1
8
5
15.
1
8
4
14.
3
9
4
29.
9
2
7
17.
2
3
4
31.
5
7
OVERALL
Not
very
typical
of me
%
f
40
12.9
57
26.7
50
10.9
32
8.9
30
15.3
58
12.9
35
12.9
63
13.4
2
6
5
3
2
2
1
8
3
1
2
6
2
6
2
7
Not at
all
typical
of me
%
f
11.4
23.3
8.4
7.9
11.4
6.4
9.4
11.4
2
3
4
7
1
7
1
6
2
3
1
3
1
9
2
3
Mea
n
Verbal
Descript
ion
3.43
Somewhat
2.58
Somewhat
3.54
Fairly
3.85
Fairly
3.58
Fairly
3.54
Fairly
3.54
Moderately
3.29
Somewhat
3.42
Somewhat
Table 2.5 presents that most of the respondents or 34.2% are fairly setting high
standards for themselves in school; 21.8% are very; 19.8% somewhat; 12.9% not very;
and 11.4% are not setting high standards for themselves in school. On the item 'When
work is difficult, I either give up or study only the easy parts', 28.7% of the respondents
answered somewhat; 26.7% not very; 23.3% not at all; 10.9% fairly; and 10.4%
answered very typical. 30.7% of the respondents are fairly motivate themselves to
complete the work; 25.3% very; 24.8% somewhat; 10.9% not very; and 8.4% of the

43
respondents are not motivate themselves to complete the work. 41.6% of the
respondents are very able to get themselves work on their assignment even if they do
not like it; 25.7% fairly; 15.8% somewhat; 8.9% not very; and 7.9% are not able to get
themselves work on their assignment. On the item 'I set goals for the grades I want to
get in my classes', 37.1% of the respondents answered very typical; 21.3% fairly;
15.3% not very; 14.9% somewhat; and 11.4% answered not typical. 29.2% of the
respondents are somewhat working hard to get good grades; 27.2% very; 24.3% fairly;
12.9% not very; and 6.4% are not working hard to get good grades. 36.1% of the
respondents are fairly up-to-date in their class assignments; 24.3% very; 17.3%
somewhat; 12.9% not very; and 9.4% are not up-to-date in their class assignments.
31.7% of the respondents are somewhat managing to keep working until they finish;
22.3% fairly; 21.3% very; 13.4% not very; and 11.4% are not managing to keep working
until they finish.
Table 2.6 Selecting Main Ideas
Items
Very
typical
of me
Fairly
typical
of me
Somew
hat
typical
of me
Not
very
typical
of me
Not at
all
typical
of me
Mea
n
Verbal
Descript
ion
SELECTIN
G MAIN
IDEAS
10
8.9
18
20.3
41
19.8
40
26.2
52
24.8
50
2.62
Somewhat
21
24
53
8.4
7.9
10.4
17
16
21
14.4
23.8
12.9
29
48
26
31.2
25.2
20.3
62
50
41
28.2
27.2
36.6
56
54
73
17.8
15.8
19.8
36
32
40
2.67
2.81
2.57
Somewhat
Somewhat
Somewhat
57
13.4
27
17.3
35
20.8
42
30.2
60
18.3
37
2.77
Somewhat

44
64
15.4
31
23.8
48
35.6
71
16.3
33
8.9
18
3.21
Somewhat
68
21.8
44
35.6
71
18.8
38
10.9
22
12.9
18
3.43
Somewhat
73
10
11.9
24
36.6
73
31.5
63
14.3
29
2.6
Somewhat
OVERALL
2.84
Somewhat
Table 2.6 describes that most of the respondents or 26.2% are not very typical
to have trouble figuring out important notes; 24.8% not at all; 20.3% fairly; 19.8%
somewhat; and 8.9% are very typical to have trouble figuring out important notes.
31.2% of the respondents are somewhat have difficulty in identifying important points
in reading; 28.2% not very; 17.8% not at all; 14.4% fairly; and 8.4% are very typical to
have difficulty in identifying important points in reading. 27.2% of the respondents
answered not very on the item 'There are so many details in my textbook that it is
difficult for me to find the main ideas'; 25.2% somewhat; 23.8% fairly; 15.8% not at all;
and 7.9% answered very typical. 36.6% of the respondents are not very typical to get
lost in the details and miss important information; 20.3; somewhat; 19.8% not at all;
12.9% fairly; and 10.4% are very typical to get lost in the details and miss the
important information. 30.2% of the respondents are not very typical to understand
what is important to underline in a text; 20.8% somewhat; 18.3% not at all; 17.3%
fairly; and 13.4% of the respondents are very typical to understand what is important
to underline in a text. 35.6% of the respondents are somewhat typical to identify
important information they need to remember; 23.8% fairly; 16.3% not very; 15.4%
very; and 8.9% of the respondents are not typical to identify important information they

45
need to remember. 35.6% of the respondents are fairly able to pick out important
information on class lectures; 21.8% very; 18.8% somewhat; 12.9% not at all; and
10.9% are not very able to pick out important information on class lectures. 36.6% of
the respondents are somewhat difficult to pick out important information; 31.5% not
very; 14.3% not at all; 11.9% fairly; and 5% of them are very difficult to pick out
important information.
Table 2.7 Self-Testing
Items
Very
typical
of me
Fairly
typical
of me
Somew
hat
typical
of me
Not
very
typical
of me
Not at
all
typical
of me
Mea
n
Verbal
Descript
ion
SELFTESTING
18.3
37
26.7
53
22.3
45
18.3
37
14.4
29
3.17
Somewhat
18
23.8
48
22.8
46
27.2
54
15.3
31
10.9
22
3.34
Somewhat
25
13.4
27
29.2
58
21.3
43
24.3
49
11.9
24
3.08
Somewhat
33
18.8
38
28.7
57
23.3
47
13.9
28
15.3
31
3.22
Somewhat
37
31.7
63
24.3
49
14.9
30
16.3
33
12.9
26
3.46
Somewhat
47
17.3
35
18.3
37
32.2
64
18.3
37
13.9
28
3.07
Somewhat
60
17.8
36
31.7
63
22.3
45
13.9
28
14.4
29
3.25
Somewhat
74
14.9
30
21.3
43
27.7
55
20.3
41
15.8
32
2.99
Somewhat
3.2
Somewhat
OVERALL

46
Table 2.7 shows majority of the respondents or 26.7% are fairly typical to identify
potential test questions when reviewing class materials; 22.3% somewhat; Both 18.3%
are very typical and not very typical; and 14.4% are not typical to identify potential test
questions when reviewing class materials. 27.2% of the respondents are somewhat
typical to create questions that might be included in the exam; 23.8% very typical;
22.8% fairly; 15.3% not very; and 10.9% of the respondents are not typical to create
questions that might be included in the exam. 29.2% of the respondents are fairly
reviewing their notes before next class; 24.3% not very; 21.3% somewhat; 13.4%
very; and 11.9% of the respondents are not reviewing notes before next class. 28.7%
of the respondents answered fairly typical on the item 'I stop periodically while reading
and mentally go over or review what was said'; 23.3% somewhat typical; 18.8% very
typical; 15,3% not at all; and 13.9% answered not very typical. 31.7% of the
respondents answered very typical on the item 'I test myself to see if I understand
what I am studying'; 24.3% fairly; 16.3% not very; 14.9% somewhat; and 12.9% of the
respondents answered not at all. 32.2% of the respondents are somewhat typical in
reviewing their notes before next class; Both 18.3% are fairly and not very typical;
17.3% very; and 13.9% of the respondents answered not at all. 31.7% of the
respondents are fairly in making up possible test questions and trying to answer it;
22.3% somewhat; 17.8% very; 14.4% not at all; and 13.9% not very. 27.7% of the
respondents are somewhat reviewing their notes to help understand the information
presented; 21.3% fairly; 20.3% not very; 15.8% not at all; and 14.9% of the

47
respondents answered very typical in reviewing notes to help them understand the
information presented.
Table 2.8 Study Aids
Items
Very
typical
of me
Fairly
typical
of me
Somew
hat
typical
of me
Not
very
typical
of me
Not at
all
typical
of me
Mea
n
Verbal
Descript
ion
STUDY
AIDS
12
24.8
50
13.9
28
20.3
41
17.3
35
23.8
48
2.99
Somewhat
20
15.4
31
26.7
53
28.2
56
13.4
27
16.3
33
3.12
Somewhat
34
5.5
11
18.8
38
17.3
35
26.2
52
32.2
64
2.39
Slightly
40
16.8
34
12.9
26
17.8
36
29.2
58
23.3
47
2.71
Somewhat
54
21.3
43
22.3
45
23.3
47
13.9
28
19.3
39
3.13
Somewhat
66
9.9
20
19.8
40
25.7
51
29.7
59
14.9
30
2.8
Somewhat
71
8.4
17
24.8
50
21.3
43
27.2
54
18.3
37
2.78
Somewhat
77
15.4
31
23.3
47
30.2
60
17.8
36
13.4
27
3.1
Somewhat
2.88
Somewhat
OVERALL
4.50-5.00 = Very typical; 3.50-4.49 = Fairly typical; 2.50-3.49 = Somewhat typical; 1.50-2.49 = Not very
typical; 1.00-1.49 = Not at all typical
Table 2.8 shows that most of the respondents or 24.8% answered very typical
on the item 'My underlining is helpful when I review text material'; 23.8% not at all;
20.3% somewhat; 17.3% not very; and 13.9% of them answered fairly typical. 28.2%
of the respondents are somewhat use information from the website to help them learn
the material; 26.7% fairly; 16.3% not at all; 15.4% very; and 13.4% of them are not

48
very typical to use information from the website to help them learn the material. On the
item 'I go to college learning center for help when I am having difficulty learning the
material in a course', 32.2% answered not true at all; 26.2% not very; 18.8% fairly;
17.3% somewhat; and 5% of them answered very typical. 29.2% of the respondents
are not very typical to attend review sessions for classes; 23.3% not at all; 17.8%
somewhat; 16.8% very; and 12.9% are fairly typical to attend review sessions for
classes.23.3% of the respondents are somewhat use study helps such as italics and
headings in textbook; 22.3% fairly; 21.3% very; 19.3% not at all; and 13.9% are not
very typical to use study helps such as italics and headings in textbook. 29.7% of the
respondents answered not very typical on the item 'When I am having trouble with my
coursework, I do not go to the instructor for help'; 25.7% somewhat; 19.8% fairly;
14.9% not very; and 9.9% answered very typical. 27.2% of the respondents not very
typical to find study partner or study group for each classes; 24.8% fairly; 21.3%
somewhat; 18.3% not at all; and 8.4% of them are very typical to find study partner or
study group for each classes. 30.2% of the respondents are somewhat typical to ask
another student or the instructor for help; 23.3% fairly; 17.8% not very; 15.4% very;
and 13.4% are not typically ask another student or instructor for help.
Table 2.9 Test Strategies
Items
TEST
Very
typica
l of
me
%
f
Fairly
typica
l of
me
%
f
Somew
hat
typical
of me
%
f
Not
very
typical
of me
%
f
Not at
all
typical
of me
%
f
Mea
n
Verbal
Descript
ion

49
STRATEGI
ES
3
21.
6
4
44
31.7
22.3
2.53
Somewhat
9
8
3
5
10.
3
36.
4
3
5
72
22.3
15.3
2.84
Somewhat
9
1
1
5
1
3
20.
6
4
19
8.4
41
32.7
20.3
2.62
Somewhat
7
3
5
1
3
29.
6
2
26
8.9
58
32.2
13.4
2.76
Somewhat
3
2
4
7
12.
2
29.
5
4
38
58
28.2
19.8
2.67
Somewhat
4
1
2
6
0
2
31.
6
3
45
5
63
30.7
19.3
2.54
Somewhat
7
7
1
9
20.
5
21.
3
2
52
43
17.3
11.9
3.3
Somewhat
8
7
3
5
4
2
37.
5
2
63
7.4
74
29.2
13.4
2.72
Somewhat
6
1
8
7
OVERALL
2.75
Somewhat
2
1
0
2
2
1
7
1
8
2
5
1
0
4
6
1
5
19.
3
15.
3
18.
3
16.
3
10.
4
13.
4
28.
7
12.
9
Table 2.9 demonstrates that most of the respondents or 31.7% answered not
very typical on the item 'I am unable to summarize what I have just heard in a lecture
or read in textbook; 22.3% not at all; 21.8% somewhat; 19.3% fairly; and 5% of them
answered very typical. 36.1% of the respondents are somewhat misunderstood what
was wanted in taking tests and lose points because of it; 22.3% not very; Both 15.3%
are fairly and not at all typical; and 10.9% answered very typical. 32.7% of the
respondents answered not very typical on the item 'When I take test, I realize I have
studied the wrong material; both 20.3% are somewhat and not at all; 18.3% are fairly;
and 8.4% of them answered very typical. 32.2% of the respondents are not very
typical to have difficulty in adapting their studying to different types of courses; 29.2%
somewhat; 16.3% fairly; 13.4% not at all; and 8.9% are very typical to have difficulty in

50
adapting studying to different types of courses. 29.2% of the respondents are
somewhat have trouble in figuring out just what to do to learn the material; 28.2% not
very; 19.8% not at all; 12.4% very; and 10.4% of the are fairly typical in having trouble
figuring out just what to do to learn the material. 31.7% of the respondents are
somewhat have trouble understanding exactly what a test question is asking; 30.7%
not very; 19.3% not at all; 13.4% fairly; and 5% of them are very typical in having
trouble understanding exactly what a test question is asking. 28.7% of the
respondents are fairly typical in reviewing their answers during essay tests; 21.3%
somewhat; 20.8% very; 17.3% not very; and 11.9% of them are not reviewing their
answers during essay tests. 37.1% of the respondents are somewhat typical to find it
hard in planning their work within a short period of time; 29.2% not very; 13.4% not at
all; 12.9% fairly; and 7.4% are very typical in finding hard to plan their work within a
short period of time.
Table 2.10 Time Management
Very
typica
l of
me
Fairly
typica
l of
me
Somew
hat
typical
of me
TIME
MANAGEM
ENT
11.4
2
3
3
8
3
4
3
24.
3
20.
3
26.
7
14.
4
9
4
1
5
3
3
25.
7
31.
7
23.
3
30.
Items
7
13
28
18.
8
16.
8
15.
Not
very
typical
of me
51
25.2
63
17.8
47
19.3
61
24.3
f
5
0
3
6
3
9
4
Not at
all
typical
of me
%
13.4
11.4
13.9
14.4
Mea
n
Verbal
Descrip
tion
2.95
Somewhat
3.18
Somewhat
3.14
Somewhat
2.94
Somewhat
f
2
7
2
3
2
8
2

51
8
31
12.
4
2
5
20.
3
59
3.5
11.9
62
26.
2
67
11.9
5
2
2
4
24.
3
20.
8
4
1
2
4
4
9
4
2
27.
2
33.
2
19.
8
28.
2
9
54
26.2
66
28.7
40
14.9
56
24.3
5
2
5
7
3
0
4
9
9
13.9
22.8
14.9
14.9
OVERALL
2
8
4
6
3
0
3
0
2.91
Somewhat
2.44
Not very
3.33
Somewhat
2.91
Somewhat
2.98
Somewhat
Table 2.10 describes that the majority of the respondents or 25.7% are
somewhat typical to stick in a study schedule; 25.2% not very; 24.3% fairly; 13.4% not
at all; and 11.4% are very typical to stick in a study schedule. 31.7% of the
respondents are somewhat typical to set aside a specific length of time and stick to it;
20.3% fairly; 18.8% very; 17.8% not very; and 11.4% are not typical to set aside
specific length of time and stick to it. 26.7% of the respondents are fairly typical in
procrastination; 23.3% somewhat; 19.3% not very; 16.8% very; and 13.9% of them are
not typical in procrastination. 30.7% of the respondents are somewhat typical in
putting off studying more than they should; 24.3% not very; 15.8% very; 14.9% fairly;
and 14.4% of the respondents are not typical in putting off studying more than they
should. 27.2% of the respondents are spreading out their study time so they do not
'cram' for a test; 26.2% not very; 20.3% fairly; 13.9% not at all; and 12.4% of them are
very typical in spreading out study time so they do not 'cram' for a test. 33.2% of the
respondents are somewhat typical in spending too much time with friends instead of

52
studying; 28.7% not very; 22.8% not at all; 11.9% fairly; and 3.5% of them are very
typical in spending too much time with friends instead of studying. 26.2% of the
respondents are very typical to set aside more time in studying difficult subjects;
24.3% fairly; 19.8% somewhat; Both 14.9% of them answered not very and not at all
typical in setting aside more time to studying difficult subject.
Table 2.11 Overall Summary of Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) of
Students
Measurement of Learning and
Study Strategies Inventory Scale
Anxiety
Attitude
Concentration
Information Processing
Motivation
Self-Testing
Selecting Main Ideas
Study Aids
Time Management
Test Strategies
Mean
Verbal Description
2.97
2.43
2.99
3.27
3.42
3.2
2.84
2.88
2.98
2.75
Somewhat typical
Somewhat typical
Somewhat typical
Somewhat typical
Somewhat typical
Somewhat typical
Somewhat typical
Somewhat typical
Somewhat typical
Somewhat typical
Table 2.11 shows the overall summary of Learning and Study Strategies
Inventory (LASSI) with their mean scores and corresponding description. The
respondents described all the scales on LASSI questionnaire as somewhat typical
such as: anxiety (mean= 2.97); attitude (mean= 2.43); concentration (mean= 2.99);
information processing (mean= 3.27); motivation (mean= 3.42); self-testing (mean=
3.2); selecting main ideas (mean= 2.84); study aids (mean= 2.88); time management
(mean= 2.98); and test strategies (mean= 2.75)

53
Table 3. Correlation of Indifference, Abuse and Overcontrol to the Scales of Learning

and Study Strategy Inventory of Students from a Science High School
INDI
FFE
REN
CE
ANXI
ETY
ATTI
TUDE
CONCE
NTRATI
ON
INFORMAT
ION
PROCESSI
NG
MOTIVAT
ION
SELFTESTING
SELEC
TING
MAIN
IDEAS
STU
DY
AID
S
TIME
MANA
GEME
NT
TEST
STRAT
EGIES
0.03
8
0.06
7
0.021
0.006
-0.002
-0.089
-0.107
0.0
19
.141*
-0.08
0.59
4
0.34
7
0.772
0.933
0.973
0.212
0.13
0.7
89
0.04
7
0.259
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
0.016
.
184**
0.077
0.028
-0.064
0.029
-0.02
0.051
0.823
0.009
0.282
0.693
0.368
0.684
0.776
0.99
6
0.997
0.47
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Pearson
Correlati
on
Sig. (2tailed)
0.03
6
0.09
1
0.036
0.049
-0.01
0.044
-0.005
0.0
07
0.04
3
0.129*
0.61
0.2
0.616
0.493
0.885
0.533
0.939
0.9
18
0.54
9
0.038
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Pearson
Correlati
on
Sig. (2tailed)
N
ABU
SE
OVE
RCO
NTR
OL
Pearson
Correlati
on
Sig. (2tailed)
Table 3 shows the correlation of indifference to the scales of Learning and Study
Strategy Inventory of the Students from a Science High School. Based on the data, the
r value of .141 means that there is a correlation between indifference and time

54
management. Loucks (1992) states that parent involvement was a significant factor in
both accelerated and sustained student academic performance. A child without
boundaries or emotional support is a child who will not study. These children tend to
perform poorly in school. If the parents are uninvolved, they wont be able to monitor the
childs study schedules in school even at home. Children might use their time unwisely,
spending it with unnecessary things or not related to school activities. It also shows the
correlation of abuse to the scales of Learning and Study Strategy Inventory of the
Students from a Science High School. Based on the data, the r value of .184 means
that there is a correlation between abuse and attitude. According to Eisenberg &
Valiente (2002), the consequences of behaviour strengthens or weakens behaviour in
the future: behaviours that are rewarded continue in the childs repertoire, while
behaviours that are punished drop out If the parents used abusive type of parenting
style to form the childs willingness and interest to study, to build a positive attitude of
the child in terms of learning-, it should be well explained to weaken the negative
attitude and strengthen the positive one. It also shows the correlation of over-control to
the scales of Learning and Study Strategy Inventory of the Students from a Science
High School. Based on the data, the r value of .129 means that there is a correlation
between over-control and test strategy. Similar to the study of Holy S. et. al. (2013, the
study claims students that had parents with controlling tendencies were more likely to
be depressed and less satisfied with their lives. They tend to pressure children to
perform well in school. In terms of students test taking strategies, over controlling

55
parents will tell you everything you need to do; how to study, when to study, what to
study and where to study.
Chapter 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This
chapter
presents
the
summary
of
findings,
conclusions,
and
recommendations made by the researchers as they interpreted the data gathered from
the respondents in this study.
Summary of Findings
The data gathered were tallied, tabulated, analyzed and interpreted using Pearson
correlation coefficient as statistical tool. The analysis of data revealed the following
results:
1. The respondents described not true on all items in indifference measure of
parenting style. Majority of them answered not true that their parents ignored them
(76.2 %, mean= 0.49) and uncaring (87. 1%, mean= 0.24); being rejected (80.6%,
mean= 0.31); being left (51%, mean= 1.28); being forgotten (84.6% mean= 0.27);
uninterested (86.5% mean= 0.27). The other items in abused measure described
as not true such as: being verbally abusive of their parents (52% mean= 1.015);

56
being unpredictable towards them (49% mean= 1.265); being physically violent of
their parents (78.2% mean= 0.365); being felt in danger (88.6% mean= 0.225);
being felt unsafe (95% mean= 0.1). In over control measure, one item described as
moderately true which is being overprotective of their parents (60.5% mean= 3.73);
two items described as slightly true including, being over controlled of their parents
(39.6% mean= 1.85); bring sought to felt guilty (32.2% mean= 1.725). The other
item showed not true which is being critical of their parents (50.5% mean= 1.165)
2. The respondents described all items on anxiety scale as somewhat typical
including being discouraged of having low grades (25.7% mean= 2.985); panicky
when taking an important test (29.7% mean= 2.93); being worried about doing
poorly interferes with concentration (23.8% mean= 3.07); being worried about flunk
out of school (26.2% mean= 3.02); being anxious when preparing for a test (26.7%
mean= 3.31); being worried about doing poorly in a course interferes with
concentration (33.2% mean= 3.035); being anxious on certain subjects (24.3%
mean= 2.72); being nervous when taking an examination (30.2% mean= 2.67). On
attitude scale, majority of the respondents described the items as not very typical
including, studying the subjects they only like (32.7% mean= 2.24); preferred not to
be in school (37.6% mean= 2.195); wanted to get a good job instead of good
education (34.2% mean= 2.37); dislike most of the work in school (34.7% mean=
2.27); finishing college don't matter to him/her (42.6% mean= 2.145); taught in
courses is not worth learning in his/her opinion (42.6% mean= 1.98). On

57
concentration scale, the respondents described all items as somewhat typical
including fully concentrate when studying (39.6% mean= 3.26); poorly understand
some course material (33.12% mean= 2.635); having difficulty to maintain their
concentration while doing coursework (31.2% mean= 3.1); wanders their mind
when studying (28.7% mean= 3.19); unable to pay attention during lectures (31.2%
mean= 2.59); easily distracted from studies (37.1% mean= 2.895); thinking of other
things during lecture (29.7% mean= 3.035); able to refocus attention (35.6%
mean= 3.175). On information processing scale, most of the respondents
described the items as somewhat typical includes trying to find relationship
between what they learn and already know (34.7% mean= 3.315); applying
principle they learn (35.6% mean= 3.065); relating own general knowledge (26.7%
mean= 3.23); translating the study into their own words (32.2% mean= 3.435);
trying to apply their lesson in everyday life (36.6% mean= 3.175); relating their
lesson to own experiences (28.2% mean= 3.245); completing some practice
problems on textbooks (31.7% mean= 3.105). One item described by the
respondents as fairly typical which is trying to make everything fit together logically
(35.6%mean=3.545). On motivation scale, the respondents described the four
items as fairly typical which includes having difficulty in a course but motivated to
complete the work (30.7% mean= 3.54); being able to work on an assignment
(41.6% mean= 3.85); working hard to get good grades (29.2% mean= 3.535);
setting goals for their grades (37.1% mean= 3.58) The other three items described

58
as somewhat typical such as: setting high standards in school (34.2% mean=
3.425); studying only the easy parts (28.7% mean= 2.58); manage to keep working
until finish (31.7% mean= 3.29). One item described by the respondents as
moderately typical which is up-to-date in class assignment (36.1% mean= 3.535).
On self-testing scale, respondents demonstrated somewhat typical on all items,
includes identifying potential test questions (26.7% mean= 3.165); creating
questions that might be included (27.2% mean= 3.335); reviewing notes before
class (29.2% mean= 3.08); mentally review what was said (28.7% mean=3.22);
testing themselves on what they are studying (31.7% mean= 3.46); reviewing
notes before class (32.2% mean= 3.07); checking understanding of the material in
a course and make up possible questions to try answer them (31.7% mean= 3.25);
reviewing notes after class to see if they understand the information presented
(27.7% mean= 2.99) On selecting main ideas, respondents described all items as
somewhat typical including trouble figuring out important notes (26.2% mean=
2.62); difficulty in identifying important points in reading (31.2% mean= 2.67);
difficulty in finding ideas in textbooks (27.2% mean= 2.805); difficulty in finding
main ideas (27.2% mean= 2.805); getting lost in the details (36.6% mean= 2.57);
hard to understand what is important to underline in a text (30.2% mean= 2.77);
identify important information (35.6% mean= 3.205); able to pick out important
information (35.6% mean= 3.43); difficulty in picking out important information
(36.6% mean= 2.6). On study aids scale, respondents described most of the items

59
as somewhat typical including, underlining is helpful when reviewing text material
(24.8% mean= 2.985); using website for textbook (28.2% mean= 3.115); attending
review sessions for classes (29.2% mean= 2.705). One item described as slightly
typical which is going to learning center for help (32.2% mean= 2.385). On time
management scale, respondents described most of the items as somewhat typical
including finding hard to stick to a study schedule (25.7% mean= 2.95); setting
aside a specific length of time and stick to it (31.7% mean= 3.175); procrastination
(26.7% mean= 3.135); putting off studying more than they should (30.7% mean=
2.935); spreading out study time to be not "cram" for a test (27.2% mean= 2.91);
setting more time to study the difficult subject (26.2.% mean= 3.325); end up
"cramming for every test (28.2% mean=2.905). One item described as not very
typical which is spending too much time with friends instead of studying (33.2%
mean= 2.44). On test strategies scale, the respondents described somewhat
typical on all items such as: unable to summarize what they read in textbook
(31.7% mean= 2.53); misunderstood in taking tests (36.1%% mean= 2.84); they
realized that they studied the wrong material (32.7% mean= 2.62); difficulty
adapting their studying to different types of courses (32.2% mean= 2.76); troubled
figuring out what to do to learn the material (29.2% mean= 2.67); reviewing
answers during essay (28.7% mean= 3.30); troubled understanding exactly what a
test question asking (31.7% mean=2.54); hard to plan their work within a short
period of time (37.1% mean= 2.72).

60
3. The correlation revealed that the three categories in the Measurement of
Parenting Style were found to be significantly correlated with the scales of
Learning and Study Strategy Inventory of the Students. These were: indifference
and time management (r = .141, p < .047); abuse and attitude (r = .184, p < .009);
and overcontrol and test strategy (r = .129, p < .038).
Conclusion
1. The findings of the study shows that it is not true at all the parents of the
respondents of the study are indifferent and abusive of them but most of the
respondents answered that their parents are over-controlling of them. The findings
revealed that Over-control is mostly used by the parents of the respondents.
2. Majority of the respondents answered it is somewhat typical of them in the
following items: Anxiety, Concentration, Information Processing, Self-testing,
Selecting Main Ideas, Study Aids, Time Management, and Test Strategies. In all
items describing the attitude, respondents answered that it is not very typical of
them. In most of the items in motivation, the respondents answered fairly typical of
them. Findings revealed that Motivation is the most preferred among the ten
Learning Strategies.
3. This present study shows that significant correlation between the following:
indifference was found to be significantly correlated with time management; abuse
was significantly correlated with attitude; and over-control was significantly
correlated with test strategies.

61
Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are
presented:
1. In order for the respondents develop a more meaningful communication with their
parents, the researchers would like to recommend to the School Administration to
organized a program about workshop sessions on parental support. It enables to
promote and support parenting skills.
2. In order for the respondents to lessen their pressure in studying, the researchers
would like to recommend some effective ways to make study time fun like using
music while reviewing notes, joining study groups and take bets who can get the
most right answers on the activity and rewarding oneself when achieving a high score
on exam. It is more enjoyable that can help students learn at the same time.
3. In order to build a better relationship between parents and children, the
researchers would like to recommend to the School Guidance to encourage the
parents to attend activities like team building, symposium or seminar. These
programs are to encourage parent's participation in school activities and to support
their child's academic achievements as well as it will enable the students to do better
in their study strategies, discover new skills and to develop confidence in themselves.
4. For future researchers:

62
a. It may be more useful to conduct further research, instead of getting students as
respondents try to conduct research from the parents. In that way researchers can
get insights from the parents.
b. It is more suitable to decrease the number of items so that the the respondents
wont get bored answering the questions.
References
Angel,
D.
(2014).
Philippine
Basic
Education.
Retrieved
from
http://www.philippinesbasiceducation.us/2014/01/parents-and-education.html
Aquino., et. al. (1996). Parents' Involvement in the Academic Performance of BEED
Students. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/5922925
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive

Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current Patterns of Parental Authority. Developmental

Psychology Monographs, Vol. 4, No. 1, Part 2.
Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing Competent Children. In W. Damon (Ed.). Child

Development Today and Tomorrow, pp.349-378. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

63
Baumrind, D. (1991). The Influence of Parenting Style on Adolescent. Journal of
Adolecsence, 11(1), 56-95.
Boethel (2003). Relationships are the Foundation of Parent Involvement in Schools.

Retrieved from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijps/article0/
Bormstein, L., et. al. (2014). Parenting Styles and Child Social. . National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development. December 2014, 3rd ed. Development
University of Pennsylvania. USA.
Bryk., et. al. (2003). The Impact Of Family Involvement On The Education Of Children.
Doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-282. Retrieved from http://www.mdrc.org/sites/
The_Impact_of_Family_Involvement_FR.pdf
Christensen & Cleary. (1990). Parental Involvement: Key to Improved Academic

Achievement. Retrieved from http://www.adi.org/journal/fw98/Hara
Cooper., et al. (2000). Emerging Issues in School, Family and Community Connections.
Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/emergingissues.pdf
Damianus, A., et. al. (2008). Parent Involvement in Elementary Education. Divine Word
College of Vigan, Philippine.
Darling, N., et. al. (1993). Parenting Style as Context: An Integration Model.
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 113, pp. 487-96.

64
Dempsey H., et. al. (1997). Parental Involvement in Education. Research on Parental
Involvement, Effects on Parental Involvement, Obstacles
to
Parental
Involvement, Controversies, Current Issues.
Domjan, M. (2000). The Essentials of Conditioning and Learning. (2nd edition).

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Eisenberg, N., et. al. (2002). Parenting and Childrens Prosocial and Moral
Development. In: M.H. Bornstein (ed.), Handbook of Parenting. Volume 5:
Practical Issues in Parenting (2nd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, pp. 111-42.
Evans., et. al. (2012). Exploring Parental Involvement and Teachers Activities In Early
Literacy
Development.
Retrieved
from
http://www.consortiacademia.org/article/viewFile/696/323.pdf
Fine., et. al. (1992) Parent Involvement in Children's Education: A Critical Assessment
of the Knowledge Base. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/ED407.pdf
Grusec, J., et. al. (1994). Impact of Parental Discipline Methods on the Childs
Internalisation of Values: A Reconceptualisation of Current Points of View.
Developmental Psychology, Vol. 30, pp. 4-19.
Henderson, A., et. al. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence, The Impact of School,
Family, and Community Connections on Student Achievement.
Hoffman, M. (1970). Moral Development. In: P.H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichaels

Manual of Child Psychology, Volume 2. New York: Wiley, pp. 261-360.

65
Hoffman, M. (2000) Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and
Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holden, G. (2002). Perspectives on the effects of corporal punishment: Comment on

Gershoff. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 128, no. 4, pp. 590-95.
Holy,
S., et. al. (2013). Overcontrolling Parents. Daily Career. Doi:

10.1080/10852352.2011.606399.
Retrieved
from
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/14/ over-controlling-parents-make-college-agedchildren-depressed-study- shows/#ixzz40YXtjj9Y
Horvat., et. al. (1999). From Social Ties to Social Capital: Class Differences in the
Relations between Schools and Parent Networks.
Retrieved
from
http://www.pbs.org/parents/education/going-to-school/supporting-yourlearner/role-of-parents/
Kagan., et. al. (1984). Parents and Teachers Beliefs About Parental Involvement In
Schooling. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/view content.cgi?
article=1011&context=cehis
Kochanska, G. & Thompson, R.A. (1997). The Emergence and Development of

Conscience in Toddlerhood and Early Childhood. In: J.E. Grusec and L.
Kordi, A. (2010). Parenting Attitude and Style and Its Effect on Childrens School
Achievements. Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Faculty of
Human Ecology University Putra Malaysia, 43400 Selangor, Malaysia Vol. 2, No.
2.

66
Loucks. (1992). Education and Parental Involvement in Secondary Schools: Problems,
Solutions, and Effects. Retrieved from http: www.edpsyinteractive.org/files.html
Maccoby, E.E. & Martin, J.A. (1983). Socialization in the Context of the Family:
ParentChild Interaction. In: P.H. Mussen (Series Ed.) and E.M.
Mapp., et. al. (2002). Family and Community Involvement: Achievement

Retrieved from http://www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/pdf/NICHD%20
%20Report%20Summary%2007.pdf
Effects.
Progress
McNeal., et. al. (1999). From Social Ties to Social

Capital: Class Differences in the
Relations between Schools and Parent Networks.
Retrieved
from
http://pcit.tungwahhcsd.org/file/pcit_report_2001.pdf
Meador. (2010). Tips to Increase Parental Involvement in Education. Retrieved from

http://www.aerassociation.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op
=view_page&PAGE_id=40
Morin. (2013). Working Together, Parent - Teacher Partnerships. A Handbook of

Contemporary Theory. New York: Wiley, pp. 53-77.
Noel A., et. al. (2013). Parent and Family Involvementin Education. National Household
Education Surveys Program of 2012. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=parental-involvement-inschools#sthash.L18HbbJw.dpuf
Obsorne, E. (1939). The Role of Parents. Education Digest. Vol. 5, issue 3, p. 48.

67
Pinantoan., et. al. (2013). Parental
Barriers
and
Benefits.
luna.co.jp/AJMSEPD
Involvement in Childs Education: Importance,

Retrieved
from
http://www.ajmse.leena-
Reynolds., et. al. (2001). Paths of Effects of

Early Childhood Intervention on
Educational Attainment and Delinquency: A Confirmatory Analysis of the
Chicago
Child-Parent
Centers.
Retrieved
from
http://www.cehd.umn.edu/icd/research/CLS/docs/pathway.pdf
Sapungan, G., et. al. (2014). Parental Involvement in Childs Education: Importance,
Barriers and Benefits. Calapan South District Division of Calapan City,
Philippines.
Smith, A., et. al. ( 2005). The Discipline and

Guidance of Children: A Summary of
Research. Dunedin and Wellington, NZ: Childrens Issues Centre and
Office of
the Childrens Commissioner.
Verial, D. (2101). Relationship between Parenting Styles & Academic Achievement.

Retrieved from http://everydaylife.globalpost.com
WEBLINKS:
http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/05/04/underestimating-parental-
involvement Underestimating the Parental Involvement Rey 2012 /

http://math.arizona.edu/~cemela/english/content/workingpapers/Bquintos-
AERA08[1].pdf
http://www.aerassociation.com/index.php?
module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=40

68
http://www.ajmse.leena-luna.co.jp/AJMSEPDFs/Vol.3(2)/AJMSE2014(3.2-
05).pdf
http://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/docs/MeasureofParentalStyle.pdf
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijps/article/viewFile/6158/6380/
http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/parenting-skills/according-
experts/parenting-styles-and-child-social-development
http://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/publications/Parents_Perspectives_on_pare
nting_styles.pdf
http://www.everydaylife.globalpost.com/relationship-between-parenting-styles-
academic-achievement-14131.html
http://www.hhpublishing.com/_assessments/lassi/
http://www.kucrl.org/sim/strategies.shtml
http://www.pbs.org/parents/education/going-to-school/supporting-your-
learner/role-of-parents/
http://www.philippinesbasiceducation.us/2014/01/parents-and-education.html
Philippine Basic Education Angel D. 2014

http://www.theoryfundamentals.com/motivation.htm
https://sociology.sas.upenn.edu/sites/sociology.sas.upenn.edu/files/Lareau200
3_Social_Ties.pdf

69
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Measurement of Parenting Style
Rate each statement either as:
STATEMENTS
1. Overprotective of me
2. Verbally abusive of me
3. Over controlling of me
4. Sought to make me feel guilty
5. Ignored me
6. Critical of me
7. Unpredictable towards me
8. Uncaring of me
9. Physically violent or abusive of me
10. Rejecting of me
11. Left me on my own a lot
12. Would forget about me
13. Was uninterested in me
14. Made me feel in danger
15. Made me feel unsafe
MOTHER
FATHER
0 - not true
at all
1 - slightly
true
2moderately
true
3extremely
true

70
Scoring instructions:
Items 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 relate to the Indifference measure
Items 2, 7, 9, 14, 15 relate to the Abuse measure
Items 1, 3, 4, 6 relate to the Over control measure.
Sum the scores of the responses to items in each of the three categories to produce a
total score for each category. There is no cut-off score; the total score for each category
provides a dimensional measure showing the degree to which that parental style was
experienced by an individual.

71
Appendix 2
LEARNING AND STUDY STRATEGIES QUESTIONNAIRE
These are the sample questions in each scale from the LASSI Questionnaire:
Items
ANXIETY
29. I get discourage because of low
grades.
35. I feel very panicky when I take an
important test.
ATTITUDE
6. I am able to study subjects I do not
find interesting.
17. I only study the subjects I like.
CONCENTRATION
1. I concentrate fully when studying.

8. Because I don't listen carefully, I
don't understand some course
material.
INFORMATION PROCESSING
3. I try to find relationships between
what I am learning and what I
already know.
11. To help me remember new
principles we are learning in class, I
practice applying them.
MOTIVATION
14.i set high standards for myself in
school.
22. When work is difficult, I either
give up or study only the easy parts.
SELF TESTING
9. I try to identify potential test
Very
typical of
me
Fairly
typical
of me
Somewha
t typical of
me
Not
very
typical
of me
Not at all
typical of
me

72
questions when reviewing class
materials.
18. When preparing for an exam, I
create questions that I think might be
included.
SELECTING MAIN IDEAS
10. During class discussions, I have
trouble figuring out what is important
enough to put in my notes.
STUDY AIDS
12. My underlining is helpful when I
review text material.
20. If there is a website for my
textbook, I use the information
provided there to help me learn the
material.
TIME MANAGEMENT
4. I find it hard to stick to a study
schedule.
7. When I decide to study, I set aside
a specific length of time and stick to
it.
TEST STRATEGIES
2. I am unable to summarize what I
have just heard in a lecture or read in
a textbook.
5. In taking tests, writing papers,
etc., I find I have misunderstood what
was wanted and lose points because
of it.

73
Appendix 3
Republic of the Philippines

Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs
College of Social Sciences and

Development
Ms. Maria Eva S. Nacion
Principal
Padre Faura St, Paco,
Manila, Metro Manila
REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO CONDUCT SURVEY IN SCHOOL
Dear Ms. Nacion:
Warmest Greetings!
The undersigned are 4th year students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Sta. Mesa,
Manila taking up Bachelor of Science in Psychology and presently conducting a research

74
entitled The Impact of Parental Involvement in the Learning Strategies of Students from
Selected Science High Schools in Metro Manila in partial fulfillment of the requirements of
the course PSYC 4063 Research 2.
The researchers intend to conduct the survey to a sample of high school students, and your
school was identified as one of the research locale. The primary aim of the study is to
preferably gather information about those students who excels academically and how their
parents affect their learning strategies.
In view of this, we hope that the school administration will allow us to conduct the survey in
your school. Classes who will participate in this survey will be coming from the highest section
in every year level. They will be administering the attached questionnaire, and strict
confidentiality shall be observed to ensure that no one of the participant will be identified.
Rest assured that any information to be gathered shall be used only for the purpose of this
research. Should you wish, the researcher would be very much willing to share with you the
findings of the study, which could be useful for your student development program, particularly
in guidance and counseling.
Your approval of this request will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.
Respectfully yours,
AGUILAR, ROSELYN P.
BILUGAN, AYEZA CAMILLE L.
DELLAMAS, ROSEAN U.
OROGO, CAMILLE T.
DANAO, JANINA CAMILLE M.
PILE, ARAH CHARISSE D.
Noted by:
ELMER G. DE JOSE, PhD, RPm, RP
Research Adviser
JOHN MARK S. DISTOR, MA

PhD, RPm
Chairperson
NICOLAS
Dean
T.
MALLARI,

75
Appendix 4
AGUILAR , ROSELYN PORBOLAN

1051 Miguelin Street Sampaloc, Manila
09364890514
chiyo.rpa28@ymail.com
PERSONAL INFORMATION:
Birthdate
Age
Gender
Civil Status
Father
Mother
:
:
:
:
:
:
July 28, 1995

20
FEMALE
SINGLE
Vicente M. Aguilar
Dolores P. Aguilar
==================================================

76
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT:
Primary
Legarda Elementary School
Secondary
Ramon Magsaysay High School
Tertiary
Bachelor of Science Major in Psychology

Polytechnic University of the Philippines
BILUGAN , AYEZA CAMILLE LAVARIAS

#4 Saging Street Signal Village Brgy. Katuparan, Taguig City
09165539897
acbilugan@gmail.com
Birthdate
Age
Gender
Civil Status
Father
Mother
:
:
:
:
:
:
January 21, 1996

20
FEMALE
SINGLE
Dolor R. Blilugan
Racquel L. Bilugan
==================================================

77
Primary
Athens Academy
Secondary
Senator Renato Compaero Cayetano

Memorial Science and Technology
High School
Tertiary

DANAO , JANINA CAMILLE MARTINEZ

11-C Robert Street Tandang Sora , Quezon City
09069300931
ninjanineako@gmail.com
Birthdate
Age
Gender
Civil Status
Father
Mother
:
:
:
:
:
:
August 10, 1996

19
FEMALE
SINGLE
Filomeno R. Danao Jr.
Josephine M. Danao
==================================================

78
Primary
Milagros West Central School
Secondary
Masbate National Comprehensive

High School
Tertiary

DELLAMAS , ROSEAN UMALI

Malayan , Balayan , Batangas
09263710625
rosean.dellamas@yahoo.com
Birthdate
Age
Gender
Civil Status
Father
Mother
:
:
:
:
:
:
June 25, 1995

20
FEMALE
SINGLE
Agaton S. Dellamas
Rizalina S. Dellamas
==================================================

79
Primary
Cepriana Ascue Memorial

Elementary School
Secondary
Balayan National High School
Tertiary

OROGO , CAMILLE TRAPAGO

936 Palawan Street Sampaloc , Manila
09168944408
orogocamille@gmail.com
Birthdate
Age
Gender
Civil Status
Father
Mother
:
:
:
:
:
:
September 26, 1994

21
FEMALE
SINGLE
Angeles Orogo
Amelita Orogo
==================================================

80
Primary
Padre Burgos Elementary School
Secondary
Victorino Mapa High School
Tertiary

Polytechnic University of The Philippines
PILE , ARAH CHARISSE DE LEON

Anonas Street Sta. Mesa Manila
09278392124
arahcharissepile@gmail.com
Birthdate
Age
Gender
Civil Status
Father
Mother
:
:
:
:
:
:
January 21, 1996

20
FEMALE
SINGLE
Chito Pile
Cecilia De Leon

81
==================================================
Primary
Kng. Kabayo Elementary School
Secondary
Carlos F. Gonzales High School
Tertiary


Thesis Keep The Faith Chapter 4 Edited

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Thesis Keep The Faith Chapter 4 Edited

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

authoritative (high-control, high-responsive);

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

Scope and Limitation

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

This chapter is a review of various readings, journals and researches on

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

assessments, responsive feedback for students, and parental involvement are

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

Too much control and

demandingness may limit childrens opportunities to make decisions for themselves

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

Measurement of Parenting Style Scale

Table 1.4 presents the summary of measurement of parenting styles (MOPS)

2 Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI)

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

Table 2.3 Concentration

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

Table 2.7 Self-Testing

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

Table 2.8 Study Aids

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES