Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 25

THE EFFECT OF GENDER

ON PARENTING STYLES,
LANGUAGE
DEVELOPMENT AND
SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS

Robert Barwick

Research Report
EPT125

The Correlation between Gender and Parenting


Styles influences the Language Development and
Self-efficacy beliefs of Primary School Children
Abstract
This report examines the correlations between gender and parenting styles an how these
influence the language development and self-efficacy beliefs of primary aged children.
This report was conducted in 2015 and 115 primary aged children were selected from
both public and private schools across NSW, Australia. This report concluded that
parenting styles had little to no effect on language development and self-efficacy, girls
tended to display greater academic self-efficacy than boys and that there was a high
correlation between Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL) and student
self-efficacy (p<0.5).

Introduction
The successful education of children as the future of our kind, has been an
integral part of society for many, many years. It was not until the
development of psychosocial theories such as those of Freud and Erikson,
did our understanding of how children actually interpret the information
they receive, begin to develop. This increase in the importance of psycho
development in childrens growth provided for measures to be used to
assess those factors that influenced childrens abilities and perceptions of
themselves. For the purpose of this report the variables of how Gender
and Parenting styles coincide and the role and influence they have on
childrens language development and on self-efficacy in children aged 512.
Prior studies have been conducted to assess the importance and the
effects of parenting styles and the outcomes that are seen in children.
Hibbard and Walton (2014, p.270) suggest that parenting styles are
crucial to childrens academic and social outcomes. Many educators are
interested in how students self-efficacy is influenced by different
parenting styles, along with gender. In a research report, its states that it
is due to students self-beliefs that high academic standards can be met
1 | Page

,that is, an intrinsic sense of drive (Pajares & Valiante, 1999, p.390).
Pajares and Valiante focused their report on how gender affected selfefficacy of children toward the task of writing.
In previous research to study the effect of gender on academic
performances, Skaalvik & Skaalvik (2004, p.242), focused not on writing
self-efficacy, but on self-efficacy towards mathematics. The report found
the boys generally had a higher self-efficacy and consequently better
performance in mathematical concepts, where girls outpaced boys in selfefficacy in literacy and language development. One reason to suggest that
boys outperform girls in mathematical problem solving is due to their
superior spatial abilities, and further expanded on the gender inequalities
across educational fields by stating that boys are twice as likely as girls to
suffer from a reading disorder. (Wei, Lu, Zhao, Chen, Dong & Zhou, 2012,
p. 230).
It is appropriate to point out that limitations into gender and educational
outcomes are present. The studies mentioned above made no attempts at
observations or correlations between how these children are raised i.e.
parenting styles and how these variables affect social and academic
development of children. In 2012, a study looked at the relationships
among parenting styles and social competence of preschool children.
Participants of this research were all mothers of children in preschool.
Whilst these children are of a young age it is interesting to see how early
parental engagement sets up future skills. Some information gathered
prior to this study argued that gender affected parenting style from the
beginning (Altay & Gure, 2012, p.2712). Aggressive behaviour in children
had the strongest connection to fathers with an authoritarian parenting
style. The report found that gender had a significant effect on positive
interactions with peers and teachers (p<0.5) and that children of
permissive parents showed less prosocial behaviours than children of
authoritarian and authoritative parents. (Atlay et al., 2012, p. 2714).
It is clear from all of these studies that it is possible for a variety of factors
to have an effect on childrens self-efficacy. Biological differences clearly
2 | Page

influence certain social behaviours of children; physical aggression in boys


and increased cooperation in girls (Atlay et al., 2012, p. 2717).

Hypothesis
It was hypothesised that;
1. Girls have a higher academic writing and reading self-efficacy than
boys.
2. Children that have permissive parents are more likely to have a
lower self-efficacy than children of authoritarian and authoritative
parents.
3. High TROLL scores given by teacher assessment for students, will
give a similar high result in student self-efficacy evaluation.

Method
Participants
This study gathered information from 115 students across the state of
NSW. The participants for the study were chosen by classroom teachers
across schools, and were chosen based upon the cooperativeness with the
study and for their reliability in completing the study. The participants in
this study were children, parents and teachers, from both the private and
public sectors of schooling, ranging from kindergarten to year 6.
Of the 115 students who participated 45.2% were boys and 54.8% were
girls. A breakdown of participant year groups can be seen in the following
table.
School Year
Frequency
Valid

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

kinder

24

20.9

20.9

20.9

Year 1

27

23.5

23.5

44.3

Year 2

20

17.4

17.4

61.7

Year 3

10

8.7

8.7

70.4

Year 4

10

8.7

8.7

79.1

Year 5

14

12.2

12.2

91.3

3 | Page

Year 6
Total

10

8.7

8.7

115

100.0

100.0

100.0

Materials
They were a number of materials used by pre-service teachers in the
conduction of this study, all of which were designed and remain the
property of Charles Sturt University.
Materials used include;
-

Parent Consent form.


Parental Authority Questionnaire- to determine parenting style.
Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL) form- to

determine teacher perceptions of student ability.


Student self-efficacy questionnaire- to determine the perceived
beliefs of childrens own abilities across reading, writing and
numeracy.
*Copies of all questionnaires and forms can be found in the appendix.

Procedure
As with most studies, ethical considerations must be taken into account to
ensure that no unnecessary distress is caused to participants. In this study
ethical approval was obtained by Charles Sturt University prior the
commencement of the study. Consent for the study was also sought by
the university from the individual school principals, the classroom
teachers involved, the parents of the selected children and also an
informal consent from the child prior to the self-efficacy assessment with
the child. It should be noted that consent from parents was in the form of
a written document to be kept on file.

4 | Page

With legal and ethical concerns addressed the study commenced by the
distribution of the Parental Authority Questionnaire to the parents of the
children taking part in the study. Parents were given a week to successful
complete this questionnaire and return it. Teacher TROLL assessment
forms were given to teachers during this time to complete, whilst preservice teachers conducted the Student self-efficacy questionnaire with
their particular child participant.
Once all completed forms were returned to pre-service teachers, the data
was handed back to Charles Sturt University from all campuses taking
place in the study, were it was compiled and entered into a data base.
This data was then represented in tables and graphs and made available
to university students involved with the study.

Results (300 Words)


Hypothesis 1- Girls have a higher academic writing and reading selfefficacy than boys.

Mean Self efficacy scores of both Males and Femals


21
20.9
20.8
Mean Score 20.7
20.6
20.5
20.4

male

female

Gender

The data graph Fig 1 represents


the self-efficacy beliefs of both boys and girls in terms of their academic
capabilities. Whilst there is no dramatic differences between the mean
5 | Page

self-efficacy scores, the data does show that girls have a marginally higher
self-efficacy than boys. This data supports hypothesis 1.
Fig 1: Self Efficacy Data

Hypothesis 2 - Children that have permissive parents are more likely to


have a lower self-efficacy than children of authoritarian and authoritative
parents.
The data from the study revealed no correlation between a child having
permissive parents and a lower self-efficacy. Permissive parenting made
up the smallest percentage of all parenting styles. Information regarding
this can be seen in figure 2.
The following statement was produced by the data coordinator There were
no statistically significant relationships between authoritative, authoritarian or permissive parenting
and students academic self-efficacy. This was true for both boys and girls.

With the expectation of children of permissive parents having a lower selfefficacy from the other parenting styles, the data does not support our

Parenting Styles
120
100
80

Mean

60
40
20
0

hypotheses.
Fig.2 Parenting Style Data

Hypotheses 3 - High TROLL scores given by teacher assessment for


students, will give a similar high result in student self-efficacy evaluation.

6 | Page

The study revealed data that highly supported this hypotheses (p<0.5).
There was a direct correlation between student self-efficacy and the
TROLL evaluation given by the teacher. It was found that higher TROLL
scores were matched by higher student self efficacy scores.

Fig. 3 TROLL Scores and


Self-Efficacy

Links between Tests


Self-efficacy and
Gender
From the results it was not clear to say that self-efficacy was affected by
gender. There was no strong correlation to say that this was the case.
TROLL Score and Student Self Efficacy Interview
There was a high correlation between the ratings given by teachers and
the responses received by pre-service teachers from students interviewed.
Students that received high TROLL scores had a higher self-efficacy to
match. Those students that received lower TROLL scores tended not to be
as confident and thus had lower self-efficacy ratings.
Discussion
Hypothesis 1 was discovered to be supported by the data found in the
study - girls tended to have marginally higher level of self-efficacy towards
academic material. This study found the difference as mentioned
previously to be marginal. Perhaps this is because it is the academic
domain which helps students to feel confident in their own abilities. In
other words academic self-efficacy is generally observed in stereotypical
7 | Page

ways, such as that of Wei et al., (2012), whose report showed that boys
had greater self-efficacy in the field of mathematics, but that girls
achieved higher scores in language development. That is, girls selfefficacy is higher in stereotypical girl domains and likewise for boys
(McDevitt, Ormrod, Cupit, Chandler & Aloa, 2012). Students will also tend
to show more self-efficacy towards an area that they feel likely to succeed
in (Pajares et al., 1999, p.390). The data that was collected during this
study asked both male and female student their self-efficacy towards
many different academic areas. As the data was compiled as a whole it is
difficult to evaluate the influence of gender created self-efficacy in specific
academic areas. This is a critical limitation to this hypotheses. The
information gathered from this provides good insight for teachers, to
construct balanced lesson plans which incorporate aspects that influence
self-efficacy in both boys and girls, to ensure that no particular group is at
risk of their self-efficacy being undermined and also and more importantly
to encourage self-efficacy and thus produce greater academic confidence.

Hypothesis 2 was found to be false. The data showed that there was no
correlation whatsoever between a child with permissive parents having a
lower self-efficacy. This was true for both boys and girls. The findings in
this report to dont resemble the data of prior studies. It is stated in Child
Development and Education that uninvolved or permissive parenting with
no or little expectations results in the child having a similar disposition to
meet expectations. Hibbard and Waltons study showed a similar position
that children of permissive parents were less persistent with tasks and
had lower school achievement (Hibbard et al,. 2014, p.270). These traits
are particularly problematic in the classroom where expectations are
encouraged to be met (McDevitt, et.al, 2012). The likelihood of
expectations not being met is also related to the childs ability over the
executive function; general cognitive abilities important for reasoning,
planning and problem-solving. In other studies a decline in executive
function correlated to permissive or neglectful parenting. This is mainly
8 | Page

due to absence of good parenting and child social behaviour development


(Blair, Raver & Berry, 2014, p.555). According to the data of this report
there would appear to be no consequences in terms of classroom
achievement. However, as the results of this report are at odds with other
literature, teachers should be consciously aware that within their
classroom demographic some students will have inequalities because of
permissive parenting, and may perhaps try to engage more creatively
with that student to begin to establish greater executive function and selfefficacy and consequently improved academic performance. It should be
noted that permissive parents in the results did constitute the smallest
interest group of all parenting styles, and is likely the result of bias from
participant selection methods.
Hypothesis 3- High TROLL scores given by teacher assessment for
students, will give a similar high result in student self-efficacy evaluation,
was found to be highly supported by the data from the study. This data
was correct for both boys and girls. The higher rate of self-efficacy is most
likely related to positive and conducive relationship between student and
teacher. Focusing on the different sexes, high self-efficacy may be
determined by the student from the praise from the teacher, coming from
competence in gender stereotypical academic areas (Skaalvik et al,. 2004,
p. 242). Limitations to this statement come from bias in participant
selection due to academic merit and reliability. This result should be used
as encouragement to teachers to garner motivation from their students in
the classroom.
Limitations to the Study
There are some limitations to the study that may cause effect on the
results that were obtained. One such limitation is that the data collection
method provided no long term analysis of parenting styles and the self
efficacy levels of individual children. One way to minimise this limitation
would be to design a longitudinal data analysis so to record if any changes
in data would alter the results, or make any findings more valid and
reliable by comparison to other literature on the subject. Another
9 | Page

limitation was the likely presence of bias. As teachers were given the job
of selecting a student, as mentioned previously in the report, most were
chosen because of their high level of academic competence and reliability
to complete task asked of them by pre-service teachers during the selfefficacy interviews. To minimise the effect of this limitation the selection of
participants could be determined by quota form, from varying levels of
academic competence as indicated by classroom teachers. The wide and
varying ages present within this study is also another limitation. Most data
appeared to show no correlations, when most common opinion, as seen
through other research indicated that that should not have been the
result. This was most likely due to the large range of ages 6-12.
Conducting research with select age brackets under consideration may
assist in creating data that is more concise and informative. Most of the
previous literature focussed with much smaller age brackets i.e.
preschool.

Overall it can be stated that gender may influence parenting style in


terms of societal expectations of boys and girls.
There is high correlation between student self-efficacy and teacher
appraisal which may be the result of student encouragement from positive
feedback from teachers for academic performance or tasks completed. It
may also result from a sense of being made to feel appreciated.

References
-

Altay, F. and Gure, A. "Relationship among the parenting styles and the
social competence and prosocial behaviors of the children who are

10 | P a g e

attending to state and private schools." Educational Sciences: Theory and


Practice 1 (2012): 2712-2718

Blair, C., Raver, C.C & Berry, D.J. Two Approaches to Estimating the Effect
of Parenting on the Development of Executive Function in Early Childhood
Developmental Psychology, 50/2 (2013): 554-565.

Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., & Sprague, K. (2003). Teacher rating of oral
language and literacy (TROLL): Individualizing early literacy instruction
with a standards-based rating tool. The Reading Teacher, 554-564.

Hibbard, D. R., and Walton, G.E. "Exploring the Development of


Perfectionism: The Influence of Parenting Style and Gender." Social
Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 42.2 (2014): 269-278.

McDevitt, T. M, Ormrod, J.E, Cupit, G., Chandler, M. & Aloa,V. Child


development and education. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.: Pearson Australia,
2012.

Pajares, F and Valiante, G. "Grade Level and Gender Differences in the


Writing Self-Beliefs of Middle School Students." Contemporary Educational
Psychology 24.4 (1999): 390-405

Skaalvik, S, and Skaalvik E.M "Gender Differences in Math and Verbal SelfConcept, Performance Expectations, and Motivation." Sex Roles 50.3/4
(2004): 241-252.

Wei, W., Lu, H., Zhao, H., Chen, C., Dong, Q and Zhou, X. Gender
Differences in Childrens Arithmetic Performance are Accounted for by
Gender Differences in Language Abilities. Psychological Science 23/3
(2012): 320-330.

Appendix A

11 | P a g e

Classroom Teacher and Parent/Guardian consent for CSU pre-service


teacher observation and data collection with a focus child
Name of Subject Convenor: Dr Graham Daniel (Lecturer) Charles Sturt University,
School of
Teacher Education, Allen House, Bathurst campus Tel: 02 633 84369 Email:
gdaniel@csu.edu.au

Dear Classroom Teacher and Parent/Guardian


Thank you for agreeing to participate in this data collection project. This project
is about learning in primary school and the differences between boys and girls in
behaviour, language development and beliefs. By better understanding these
factors we hope to improve pre-service teachers knowledge of how children
learn, and the differences in literacy outcomes for boys and girls. The data
collection has four parts:
1 Questions about your childs age, year
level and gender. 2 A questionnaire about
your parenting beliefs.

3 A teacher checklist that is used to screen your childs oral language use
4 Your child being asked to rate how good they are at performing literacy
and numeracy tasks.
Information you provide will be kept confidential and personal identifying details
are not required for this activity. If you consent to participate in this project and
give permission for your child to participate please sign the attached consent
form. In order to include your responses in the data analysis it is important that
you answer every question.
On the basis of these brief observations, it is not possible for pre-service
teachers to provide individual feedback on your or your childs results. Further,
the pre-service teacher collecting the data (insert name)
________________________________________ is in their first year of study and is
gaining valuable experience in interviewing families and children. If you have
concerns about your childs learning or development, we strongly encourage you
12 | P a g e

to make an appointment with your childs class teacher to discuss your concerns.
Once again thank you for your participation in this project.

Consent
I understand that I am free to withdraw my participation or my childs
participation in this project at any time, and that if I or my child does withdraw
that we will not be subjected to any penalty or discriminatory treatment. The
purpose of the data collection and potential risks of this research, have been
explained to me. I have been given the opportunity to ask questions about the
research and received satisfactory answers.

Classroom Teacher Signature ________________________

Date

Parent Guardian Consent


I _________________________________________consent and give permission for myself
and my child ___________________________________________ to participate in the
Charles Sturt University EPT125: Child Development and Learning: Foundation Year 6 data collection project. Further, I consent/do not consent to the
summary results of this research being combined with other students data for
the required assessment item that compares the learning of girls and boys.

Signature _________________________________________ Date

Please note that this research has been approved by the Charles Sturt University
Faculty of Education Human Ethics Committee (Approval
number 300/2015/20).
Permission for the conduct of this data gathering has been sought from
your School Principal by the PEU prior to the commencement of your
second semester placement, and should be confirmed youre your
Professional Associate prior to commencing data collection.
Where conducted within NSW Department of Education and
Communities Schools the data gathering falls within the
SERAP exemption category of
under the collection of
information by students for Higher School Certificate (HSC) courses, and
13 | P a g e

undergraduate and graduate assignments (, provided permission is


granted by the School Principal.

PARENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVISED (Reitman et al., 2002)


Ask the parent/guardian to complete the following questionnaire.
PAQ-R Instructions: For each statement below circle the number that best
describes your beliefs about parenting your child. There are no right or wrong
answers. We are looking for your overall impression regarding each statement.
In the right column, please CIRCLE you answer for each item:
SA=Strongly Agree; A=Agree; N=Neither Agree nor Disagree; D=Disagree;
SD=Strongly Disagree.
1.

In a well-run home, children should have their way as often


as parents do

SA

SD

2.

It is for my childrens own good to require them to do what I


think is right, even if they dont agree

SA

SD

3.

When I ask my children to do something, I expect it to be


done immediately without questions

SA

SD

4.

Once family rules have been made, I discuss the reasons for
the rules with my children

SA

SD

5.

I always encourage discussion when my children feel family


rules and restrictions are unfair

SA

SD

6.

Children need to be free to make their own decisions about


activities, even if this disagrees with what a parent might
want to do

SA

SD

7.

I do not allow my children to question the decisions that I


make

SA

SD

8.

I direct the activities and decisions of my children by talking


with them and using rewards and punishments

SA

SD

9.

Other parents should use more force to get their children to


behave

SA

SD

10.

My children do not need to obey rules simply because people


in authority have told them to

10

SA

SD

11.

My children know what I expect from them, but feel free to


talk with me if they feel my expectations are unfair

11

SA

SD

12.

Smart parents should teach their children early exactly who


is the boss in the family

12

SA

SD

13.

I usually dont set firm guidelines for my childrens behaviour

13

SA

SD

14 | P a g e

14.

Most of the time I do what my children want when making


family decisions

14

SA

SD

15.

I tell my children what they should do, but I explain why I


want them to do it

15

SA

SD

16.

I get very upset if my children try to disagree with me

16

SA

SD

17.

Most problems in society would be solved if parents would let


their children choose their activities, make their own
decisions, and follow their own desires when growing up

17

SA

SD

18.

I let my children know what behaviour is expected and if they


dont follow the rules they get punished

18

SA

SD

19.

I allow my children to decide most things for themselves


without a lot of help from me

19

SA

SD

20.

I listen to my children when making decisions, but I do not


decide something simply because my children want it

20

SA

SD

21.

I do not think of myself as responsible for telling my children


what to do

21

SA

SD

22.

I have clear standards of behaviour for my children, but I am


willing to change these standards to meet the needs of the
child

22

SA

SD

23.

I expect my children to follow my directions, but I am always


willing to listen to their concerns and discuss the rules with
them

23

SA

SD

24.

I allow my children to form their own opinions about family


matters and let them make their own decisions about those
matters

24

SA

SD

25.

Most problems in society could be solved if parents were


stricter when their children disobey

25

SA

SD

26.

I often tell my children exactly what I want them to do and


how I expect them to do it

26

SA

SD

27.

I set firm guidelines for my children but I am understanding


when they disagree with me

27

SA

SD

28.

I do not direct the behaviours, activities or desires of my


children

28

SA

SD

29.

My children know what I expect of them and do what is


asked simply out of respect for my authority

29

SA

SD

30.

If I make a decision that hurts my children, I am willing to


admit that I made a mistake

30

SA

SD

-END PARENT/GUARDIAN INTERVIEWSA =

A=4

N=3

D = 2 SD = 1
15 | P a g e

5
Scale
Ave
Aan
P

Items
4
5
2
3
1
6

SECTION TWO:

Total
8
7
10

11
9
13

15
12
14

20
16
17

22
18
19

23
25
21

27
26
24

30
29
28

Child observation and beliefs about learning

Childs Age:_____years____ months

Gender: Male / Female

Year level ______

Academic Self-Efficacy Beliefs (Liew et al. 2008) Total Score ______ / 24

Say to the child: I want you to tell me if you are..


Good at numbers?
Yes (a lot)

Yes( a little)

Know a lot in school?


Yes (a lot)
Yes( a little)

4
Can read alone?
Yes (a lot)
4

Yes( a little)
3

Good at writing words ?


Yes (a lot)
Yes( a little)
4
Good at spelling?
Yes (a lot)

Yes( a little)

No (not very good)

No (not much)

No (not very good)


2

No (not very good)


2

No (not very good)

No (dont like
numbers/cant do
numbers/hate
numbers)
1

No (dont know
things/dont like
school/Whats
know
a lot?)
1

No (dont like
reading/cant read)
1

No (dont like
writing/cant write)
1

No (dont like
spelling/cant spell/
whats spelling?)
1
16 | P a g e

Good at adding?
Yes (a lot)

Yes( a little)

No (not very good)

No (cant add up /
dont like numbers/
Whats adding?)
1

Teacher Rating of Oral Language and


Literacy

Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy


David K. Dickinson
Centre for Children & Families, EDC
Copyright 1997 Education Development Centre. All rights reserved.

LANGUAGE USE

1. How would you describe this childs willingness to start a conversation with
adults and peers and continue trying to communicate when he/she is not understood
on the first attempt? Select the statement that best describes how hard the child
works to be understood by others.
Child
almost
never
begins a conversation
with
peers
or
the
teacher and never keeps
trying if unsuccessful
at first.
1

Child
sometimes
begins conversation
with either peers or
the
teacher.
If
initial efforts fail
he/she often gives
up quickly.
2

Child
begins
conversations
with
both
peers
and
teachers on occasions.
If
initial
efforts
fail,
he/she
will
sometimes keep trying.
3

Child
begins
conversations with both
peers and
teachers. If initial
efforts fail, he/ she
will work hard to be
understood.
4

2. How well does the child communicate personal experiences in a clear and
logical way? Assign the score that best describes this child when he/she is
attempting to tell an adult about events that happened at home or some other place
where you were not present.
Child
is
very
tentative, only offers
a few words, requires
you to ask questions.
Has
difficulty
responding to questions
you ask.

Child
offers
some
information,
but
information needed to
really understand the
event is missing (e.g.,
where
or
when
it
happened,
who
was
present, the sequence
of what happened).
2

Child
offers
information
and
sometimes includes the
necessary
information
to really understand
the event.

Child
freely
offers
information and tells
experiences in a way
that is nearly always
complete,
well
sequenced,
and
comprehensible.

17 | P a g e

3. How would you describe this childs pattern of asking questions about topics
that interest him/her (e.g., why things happen, why people act the way they do)?
Assign the score that best describes the childs approach to displaying curiosity
by asking adults questions.
To your knowledge, the
child has never asked
an adult a question
reflecting
curiosity
about
why
things
happen or why people
do things.
1

On a few occasions the


child has asked adults
some
questions.
The
discussion
that
resulted was brief and
limited in depth.
2

On several occasions
the child has asked
interesting questions.
On occasion these have
lead to an interesting
conversation.
3

Child
often
asks
adults
questions
reflecting curiosity.
These often lead to
interesting, extended
conversations.
4

18 | P a g e

Robert Barwick

EPT125 Report

Student No: 11515035

4. How would you describe this childs use of talk while pretending? Consider the
childs use of talk with peers to start pretending and to carry it out. Assign
the score that best applies.
Child rarely or never
engages
in
pretend
play or else never
talks
while
pretending.

On occasion the child


engages in pretending
that
includes
some
talk. Talk is brief,
may only be used when
starting the play, and
is
of
limited
importance to the ongoing play activity.

Child
engages
in
pretending often and
conversations
are
sometimes important to
the play. On occasion
child engages in some
back-and- forth pretend
dialogue with another
child.

5. How would you describe the childs ability to


rhymes?
Child cannot ever say if
two words rhyme and
cannot
produce a rhyme when
given examples (e.g.,
rat, cat).
1

Child
occasionally
produces
or
identifies
rhymes
when given help.
2

Child often talks in


elaborate ways while
pretending.
Conversations that are
carried out in role
are common and are an
important part of the
play. Child some- times
steps out of pretend
play to give directions
to another.
4

recognise and produce

Child
spontaneously
produces rhymes and can
some- times tell when
word pairs rhyme.

Child
spontaneously
rhymes words of more
than one syllable and
always
identifies
whether words rhyme.

6. How often does (CHILD) use a varied vocabulary or try out new words (e.g. heard
in stories or from teacher?
NEVER
1

RARELY
2

SOMETIMES
3

OFTEN
4

7. When (CHILD) speaks to adults other than you or the teaching assistant is he/she
understandable?
NEVER
1

RARELY
2

SOMETIMES
3

OFTEN
4

8. How often does (CHILD) express curiosity about how and why things happen?
NEVER
1

RARELY
2

SOMETIMES
3

OFTEN
4

LANGUAGE SUBTOTAL:

19 | P a g e

Robert Barwick

EPT125 Report

Student No: 11515035

READING
9. How often does (CHILD) like to hear books read in the full group?
NEVER
1

RARELY
2

SOMETIMES
3

OFTEN
4

10. How often does (CHILD) attend to stories read in full or small groups and react in a way
that indicates comprehension?
NEVER
1

RARELY
2

SOMETIMES
3

OFTEN
4

11. Is (CHILD) able to read story books on his/her own?


Does not pretend to read
1

Pretends to
read 2

Pretends to read and reads some


words
3

Reads the written


words
4

12. How often does (CHILD) remember the story line or characters in books that he/she heard
before either at home or in class?
NEVER
1

RARELY
2

SOMETIMES
3

OFTEN
4

13. How often does (CHILD) look at or read books alone or with
friends?
NEVER
1

RARELY
2

SOMETIMES
3

OFTEN
4

14. Can (CHILD) recognise letters? (choose one answer)


None
of
the
letters
of
the
alphabet. ................................................................................
................................ 01
Some
of
them
(up
to
10). .....................................................................................
.......................................... 02

20 | P a g e

Robert Barwick

EPT125 Report

Student No: 11515035

Most
of
them
(up
to
20). .....................................................................................
........................................... 03
All
of
them. ....................................................................................
....................................................................... 04
15. Does (CHILD) recognise his/her own first name in print?
NO
1

YES
2

16. Does (CHILD) recognise other names?

No
1

One or two
2

A few (up to 4 or 5)
3

Several (6 or
more) 4

A few (up to 4 or 5)
3

Several (6 or
more) 4

Can (CHILD) read any other words?


No
1

One or two
2

17.

18. Does (CHILD) have a beginning understanding of the relationship between sounds
and letters (e.g. the letter B makes a Buh sound)?
No
1

One or two
2

A few (up to 4 or 5)
3

Several (6 or
more) 4

19. Can (CHILD) sound out words that he/she has not read before?
No
1

Once or twice
2

One syllable words


often
3

Many words
4

21 | P a g e

Robert Barwick

EPT125 Report

Student No: 11515035


READING SUBTOTAL:

WRITING

20. What does (CHILDs) writing look like?


Only draws or scribbles Some letter-like marks
1
2

Many conventional
letters
3

Conventionalletters and words


4

21. How often does (CHILD) like to write or pretend to write?


NEVER
1

RARELY
2

SOMETIMES
3

OFTEN 4

22. Can (CHILD) write his/her first name, even if some of the letters are
backwards?
NEVER
1

RARELY
2

SOMETIMES
3

OFTEN 4

23. Does (CHILD) write other names or real words?


No
1

One or two
2

A few (up to 4
or 5)
3

Several (6 or
more) 4

24. How often does (CHILD) write signs or labels?


NEVER
1

RARELY
2

SOMETIMES
3

OFTEN
4

SOMETIMES
3

OFTEN 4

25. Does (CHILD) write stories, songs, poems, or lists?


NEVER
1

RARELY
2

WRITING SUBTOTAL:

(out

of

22 | P a g e

Robert Barwick

EPT125 Report

Student No: 11515035


24)

ORAL LANGUAGE SUBTOTAL:


READING SUBTOTAL:
TOTAL TROLL SCORE:

(out
32)
(out
42)
(out
98)

of
of
of

Appendix B

Name of Online
Search
Key Words Used

Number of Hits
Citation

Primo
Search(CSU
Library)
Gender
differences in
writing selfefficacy
763

Primo Search
(CSU Library)

Google Scholar

Influence of
parenting style
and gender
120

Gender
differences
arithmetic
performance
105,500

Pajares, Frank ; Miller,


M. David ( 1999)

Hibbard, David
R. ; Walton, Gail E
( 2014)

Wei, W., Lu, H., Zhao,


H., Chen, C., Dong,
Q., & Zhou, X. (2012)

23 | P a g e

Robert Barwick

EPT125 Report

Student No: 11515035

24 | P a g e