1
An Examination of the Effects of Parental Involvement/Intervention on Student Development at the College/University Level
A doctoral thesis presented by Timothy M. Touchette
to The School of Education
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education
In the field of Higher Education Administration
Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts June 2013
2
Abstract
This doctoral thesis contributes to the literature on helicopter parents, and their relation to student development theory. A secondary examination of approximately 1800 randomized results from the 2007 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) was tested using the following statistical tests: Mann-Whitney Test, Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, Friedman’s Chi
Square Test, and Frequency Test. The 2007 NSSE was selected due to its experimental questions focusing on parent/guardian interactions. The findings confirm the significant effect that parent involvement/intervention has on student as they develop and mature into adulthood.
In this study the results show that of all groups tested (Mother, Father, Guardian, Siblings and
Friends), mother was the number one preferred method of communication, and had the highest quality of relationship. The results also point to implications for administrators within higher education, specifically in the areas of Student Affairs, and Parent and Family Programs.
3
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………... 5 Chapter I: Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………. 7 A. Attachment Theory……………………………………………………………....7 B. Six Stages of Parent Development……………………………………………… 10 C. Seven Vectors of Student Identity Development……………………………….. 13 Chapter II: Literature Review……………………………………………………………….16 A. Helicopter Parent Phenomenon…………………………………………………. 17 B. Defining Helicopter Parents…………………………………………………….. 21 C. Attachment Theory……………………………………………………………… 22 D. Expanding on Chickering’s Seven Vectors…………………………………….. 23 E. When are Parents Stepping In…………………………………………………... 25 F. Negative and Positive Perceptions……………………………………………….26 G. Motivation & Legal Restrictions………………………………………………...29 H. Established Factors of Parental Involvement…………………………………… 33 I. Summation………………………………………………………………………. 36 Chapter III: Research Design…………………………….………………………………… 37 A. Research Questions……………………………………………………………... 37 1. Hypotheses………………………………………………………………. 37 B. Methodology……………………………………………………………………. 39 1. Sample Selection………………………………………………………... 40 2. Methods of Data Collection……………………………………………...41 3. Methods of Data Analysis………………………………………………..42 C. Validity and Credibility…………………………………………………………. 44 D. Protection of Human Subjects…………………………………………………...46 Chapter IV: Results………………………………………………………………………… 47 4
Section 1: Response Rate and Survey Demographics……………………………... 48 Section 2: Statistical Testing of the Hypothesis…………………………………… 51 Chapter IV: Discussion of Research Findings……………………………………………... 76 A. Introduction……………………………………………………………………... 76 B. Interpretation of the Findings Based on the Literature Review………………… 76 C. Interpretation of the Findings Based on the Theoretical Frameworks………….. 77 D. Implications for Practice………………………………………………………... 79 E. Future Research and Conclusion………………………………………………... 80 References………………………………………………………………………………….. 83 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………. 94 Appendix A. NSSE Data Sharing Agreement……………………………………... 94 Appendix B. NSSE: 2007 Experimental items Codebook…………………………. 98
5
An Examination of the Effects of Parental Involvement/Intervention on Student Development at
the College/University Level
The term “helicopter parents” is a widely known term within higher education (Lum,
2006, Strauss, 2003, Weeks, 2001). The term itself is a label, for parents who seemingly hover over their students throughout their college careers, and now for some even post-graduation.
Based on the population increase of the “baby boomers generation,” the parents in this age group have been more involved in their children's educations, their decision making, and their lives in general, than any preceding generation of parents, university observers say (Lum, 2006). These parents see no reason why that hands-on approach should change just because their children have moved out of the house and onto campus (Wolf, 2009).
The term helicopter parent refers to the manner in which parents interact with the different institutions their students attend. Strauss (2003) classifies these parents as hovering, and ultra-protective. This type of hovering and parental interjection into everyday student issues can have either positive or negative effects. The trend is not a recent one; Horowitz (1987), for example, noted that starting in the early 1980s parents got involved their children in each new set of decisions. Mother and father not only monitor grades; they help choose majors and even courses. In addition, students began to assume their parents’ cost-accounting perspective and demand of courses a return on the financial investment (Simmons, 2008).
This style of parenting has been identified as a problem of practice within higher education administration. One of the main reasons this style is an issue, is because of the amount of resources and time that are taken away from students and refocused to deal with the multitude of issues presented by helicopter parents (Simmons, 2008). For the purposes of this research I 6 will be focusing on this topic in relation to higher education and higher education administration specifically.
The main research question in this study is: How is a college student’s developmental process affected by parental intervention? This intervention not only affects administrators and faculty members in higher education, but it also has been reported on within the primary and secondary educational system of the United States (Wallin, 2005; Whitt, 1988). The parents themselves have a tendency to hover over their children e-mailing teachers/professors, and administrators alike with messages is often excessive and abusive or both. Some school systems have even created policies to deal with parents who insist on contacting school employees directly about student related issues (Green, 2003).
There are certain key factors that play into the reasoning behind how involved parents get in their son or daughter’s educational life. The cost of education seems to be a very important link between how involved the parents actually are, but that is not always the case. Parents tend to be more involved when they are spending a great deal of money on the education that is being provided to their student (Serra, 2005). In addition to finances, another issue some parents face is the transition of their students from high school to college (Hattar-Pollara, 2010).
My research is built on the theories of three key researchers in the field: Bowlby (1969) and his theory on attachment, Galinsky (1987) and her theory on the Six Stages of Parent
Development, and finally Chickering (1969) and this theory on the Seven Vectors of Student
Identity Development.
An examination of the literature on the subject shows eight distinct areas of focus: (a) the phenomenon of the helicopter parent (Simmons, 2008), (b) defining what a helicopter is
(Coburn, 2006), (c) the links to Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1969), (d) expanding on 7
Chickering’s work in student identity development (Taub, 2008), (e) information on when parents are stepping in (Lum, 2006), (f) the negative and positive perceptions of working with parents (Wolf et al., 2009), (g) some of the motivation behind why parents act, and the legal restrictions that follow (Carney-Hall, 2008), (h) and finally the established factors of parental involvement (Rowan, 2008).
The research design allows me to extract data from the National Survey for Student
Engagement in 2007, and test it for significance in reporting trends in the level and method of communication between students and their family members and or friends. My main research goal is to discover a link between method and frequency in communication and how that impacts the level of interaction and intervention a parent initiates. By linking these variables through a statistical analysis, it becomes clearer to researchers where the next steps are in discovering the inception of this style of parenting. This framework will give administrators the insight needed to redesign information and programs that foster an environment where students are empowered to make their own informed decisions, and to not rely on their parents for every challenging decision (Kuh, 2001).
Chapter I: Theoretical Framework
Attachment Theory
There are three theories that provide a foundation for my research. First is attachment theory, a term originally suggested by John Bowlby (1969) and revisited by Ainsworth, Blehar,
Walters, & Wall (1978). It is defined as an enduring relationship between a child and the parent
(Ainsworth et al., 1978). The historical origins of attachment theory are different depending in what context the theory is being used. Historically, attachment theory was developed as an alternative to psychoanalytic theories of object relations (Bowlby, 1982a) in order to explain (1) 8 why mere separation should cause anxiety; (2) the similarities between adult and childhood mourning; and (3) defensive processes (selective exclusion of signals from within and without that would normally be implicated in the activation of attachment behavior). "Attachment," as conceptualized by Bowlby, (1969) was not meant to be taken as a simple synonym for the term
"social bond," nor was it meant to apply to all aspects of child-parent relationships. It is often overlooked that Bowlby believed that the roles of attachment figure and playmate were conceptually distinct (Bowlby, 1969/1982b, p. 307). A child is said to seek the attachment figure when under stress but to seek a playmate when in good spirits. Because the two roles are not incompatible, it is possible for one person (e.g., the caregiver) to fill both.
This theory presumes that the securely attached child will separate readily from the parent when stress is low; however, when stress levels rise or when the child feels ill equipped to handle a situation, parental assistance and comfort are sought. Psychological research on attachment theory has been directed toward the nature of the parent-child relationship in late adolescence and therefore forms an important theoretical pillar for defining and understanding parental involvement with undergraduates (Simmons, 2008). Attachment theory also tells us that a child who trusts their parents to give needed emotional support with also learn the complementary role and be able to enact it later in life (Bretherton, 1985). This concept is mirrored in most of the outcomes of attachment theory, where the child is actively learning life skills to be used later on in life. This becomes especially poignant in the “Interdependent and
Departure” stages, which will be discussed in the second theory. During these stages, children are more likely to emulate the actions of a parent in challenging situations such as but not limited to: confrontation, physical threats, emotional threats, and day to day challenges. Since we learn to repeat patterns as a means of coping with social situations, a question arises in whether or not 9 parents are repeating or reenacting experienced patterns from their youth in relational situations that occur later in life (Bretherton, 1985). This is even more important as a child develops through the “Departure” stage as they are naturally faced with life changing situations more frequently. If they are not equipped with the skills to cope effectively due to negative modeling by one or more parental units this could have especially negative outcomes (Hoover, 2008).
Several studies have shown that a parent’s internal model of childhood attachments in turn governs how the parent behaves as an attachment figure vis-à-vis his or her own child
(Bretherton, 1985). More often than not this means negative parenting attributes can be passed down generation to generation as related to attachment theory.
Lapsley, Rice, and Fitzgerald (1990), found that attachment is closely related to identity development in both first-year college students and those in their final year of study. They further found a link between adjustment to college and attachment to parents. Cutrona, Cole,
Colangelo, Assouline, and Russell (1994) concluded in their study that attachment to parents is a significant predictor of college grade point average. Recent bodies of scholarly work based on attachment theory have also looked closely at the differences between college men and women in their quality and intensity of attachment to parents (Berman & Sperling, 1991; Kenny &
Donaldson, 1992; Samuolis, Layburn, & Schiaffino, 2001; Sorokou & Weissbrod, 2005; Valery
& O’Connor, 1997). Kenny and Perez (1996) noted that attachment theory is just as applicable in the case of minority college-student adjustment as it is for White college students. This is particularly important as it removes the variable of race as there is not enough evidence to prove a variance in attachment based on race in this context.
Six Stages of Parent Development 10
The second theory concerns the “six stages of parent development.” Ellen Galinsky
(1987) defined the six stages of parent development after researching families from diverse backgrounds with differing parenting styles. In her developmental theory of parents, Galinsky described how adults change through interactions with their children. She urges parents to instill in their children a grasp of different kinds of knowledge to best tap inborn "sense" and foster self-motivation. The big message is simple: teaching children to think may be the most important thing a parent can do. She based her theory on observed trends noted from interviews with approximately 200 participants. The six stages in the theory are: (1) Image Making Stage
(pre-birth), (2) Nurturing Stage (18-24 months), (3) Authority Stage (2-4 years), (4) Interpretive
Stage (5-12 years), (5) Independent Stage (13-19 years), and (6) the Departure Stage (leaving home/adulthood stage).
The first stage is the Image-Making Stage (1987). This stage occurs during pregnancy.
It is a time when parents think and form images about their new child. They begin to form questions like: What they will be like as parents? How the baby is going to affect their lives and the changes they will have to make?
The second stage is the Nurturing Stage (1987). This stage starts at birth and lasts until the baby is 18 months to 2 years. This is the age when “No” is your baby’s most important word. At this stage, parents compare their images of birth, of their child, and of themselves as parents with their actual experience.
The third stage is the Authority Stage (1987). It starts right around the baby’s 2nd birthday and goes until the child is 4 or 5. In this stage, parents have to decide how strict or 11 permissive to be. Parents will decide what kind of rules the child needs and how to set them.
They also decide what to do when the rules are broken.
The fourth stage, the Interpretive Stage (1987) begins around the time the child enters preschool or school and ends with the start of adolescence. This takes place approximately by age 11 or 12. In this stage, parents are concerned with how realistic they have been as parents and how they are helping their child develop positive self-concepts. They may worry about how to answer their child’s questions. They may also begin to worry about what kind of values, knowledge and skills they want their child to have.
The fifth stage, the Independent Stage (1987) is very similar to the Authority Stage but covers the child’s teenage years. Parents have the same questions about rules, strictness and permissiveness, but now need different answers. As their child grows to adulthood, parents also need to start forming a different kind of relationship with their child. This is especially important as it leads directly into the final stage of “departure.”
The sixth and final stage is the Departure Stage (1987). This stage is the time when the child leaves home. This is a stage of evaluation of pervious stages. It also serves as a time of loss for the parents. They judge how well they have done and how their image of their child fits the reality. In addition, parents have to change their lives to let go of their child, to let their child become another adult.
A recent adaptation and expansion of Attachment Theory and Galinsky’s six stages of parent development was introduced by Hattar-Pollara (2010). She is currently in the process of expanding the original concepts of attachment theory and the stages of parental development, to 12 encompass modern day issues surrounding undergraduate and graduate students and their relation to their parents. Hattar-Pollara links the six stages of development (Galinsky, 1987) to the challenges of the modern day student. During the “Image Making Stage” parents are said to develop their image of themselves as parents. Father and or Mother usually have a desire to be perfect, but often experience heavy demands that are unexpected (Hattar-Pollara, 2010). During the “Nurturing Stage” attachment begins. Relationships are established and challenged during this stage. During the “Authority Stage” parents face questions of their effectiveness. The child begins to develop a sense of independence and more demands are made on the parent’s time.
Many times an additional child is born during this stage adding a new stress component to the family unit. During the “Interpretive/Integrative Stage” children develop autonomy and social skills outside the home. Parents are required to set realistic goals to motivate their children and to develop effective communication skills while continuing to establish authority.
“Independent/Teenage Stage” is a time where adolescents wrestle with identification, responsibility and maturity. Parents must provide support while maintaining authority and responsibility. Finally “Departure Stage” occurs when the adolescent leaves the home. This is the stage that most college students are at when they enter college. This stage requires parents to evaluate past performance and prepare for the future relationship with their offspring. The importance of Gilinsky’s original theory is echoed in Hattar-Pollara’s modern adaptation.
“Parenthood develops as the children grow and that the adult’s self-concepts are shaped through interactions with their children at each stage” (Hattar-Pollara, 2010, p.90).
The Seven Vectors of Student Development
The third theory with relevance to this project is called “the seven vectors of student identity development.” In 1969, Arthur Chickering developed a student identity theory that was 13 based on the work of Eric Erikson (1956) concerning identity vs. identity confusion stage of student development. Linda Reisser (1993) teamed up with Chickering to revisit, adapt and expand the original concepts of Chickering. Chickering and Reisser (1993) characterized the progression of traditional-aged college student development in seven vectors. The term vectors was used to describe the developmental stages because each seems to have direction and magnitude even though the direction may be expressed more appropriately by a spiral or by steps than by a straight line. The seven vectors are as follows:
(1) Achieving or developing competence: intellectual, physical and interpersonal growth
(2) Managing emotions: Ability to recognize and accept emotions
(3) Moving through autonomy toward interdependence: Freedom from the constant approval of others toward emotional independence
(4) Developing mature interpersonal relationships: Increased acceptance of others and a respect an appreciation for their differences
(5) Establishing identity: Comprehension of previous vectors, as well as deeper understanding of one’s gender, ethnic background and sexual orientation
(6) Developing purpose: Establishing clear goals and strategically following through with them even when challenges arise.
(7) Developing integrity: Three sequential stages of humanizing values, personalizing values and developing congruence (Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
This first vector deals with the level of competency using one’s mind to build skill using analytical and comprehensive thought to develop or create different points of view for dealing 14 with differing life experiences. The physicality of stage one deals mainly with athletic or artistic achievement and expression. This is also tied to self-discipline, strength, fitness, competition and creation (Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
The second vector speaks to the emotional elements of life and how each of us deals with these issues. The object of this stage is to build a solid base of emotional “capacity” so that feelings of anxiety, anger, depression, desire, guilt, shame, and embarrassment do not overwhelm an individual to the point of interference with daily activities, especially coursework. Knowing and becoming aware of these emotions at their minimum and maximum levels and finding ways to cope with them are essential to moving through this vector (Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
The third vector of this theory addresses the dependence on others. The transition from autonomy toward interdependence requires a significant amount of emotional independence.
This can only occur if there is separation from a support group, in this case specifically parents and the family unit. The subject must voluntarily accept the separation and aim to live and express their own opinions (Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
The fourth vector has two separate parts; first tolerance/acceptance of others and second the respect for differences. There is also an additional concept that deals with a capacity for intimacy, but for the purposes of this research it is irrelevant. The tolerance and acceptance of others deals with accepting a person based on the qualities they possess instead of using socially constructed stereotypes. The respect for differences comes through accepting those around you who are different from how you believe you portray your identity (Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
The fifth vector talks about “establishing identity.” This is a very important step in the process as it marks a developmental milestone and a combination of the first four vectors. It 15 marks progress by achieving a comfort level with one’s self in some of the following areas: body and appearance, gender identity and or sexual orientation, sense of social contexts, development of self-image through lifestyle roles, sense of self-esteem based on feedback of others, and the ability of one’s self to socially integrate (Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
As we pass into the sixth vector we being to develop purpose. Generally students tend to attend college based on several things from career goals to commitments to one’s family. The sixth vector addresses the ability to have time management skills that allow you to juggle several different functional areas of life, while still achieving an earlier set goal (Chickering & Reisser,
1993).
The last and final seventh vector is an integration and immersion of all of the previous six vectors. Each of the prior vectors culminates here in the last stage where integrity is created to round out the holistic formula for student development. This allows for students to have an open exchange of differing ideas and concepts while maintaining a respectful learning environment.
This willingness to participate is a catalyst for learning in our system of higher education
(Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
The seven vectors of development have been further described by Martin (1998) as having an order of precedence: achieving competence, managing emotions and becoming autonomous often occur simultaneously. This leads to identity development. In order to enter into a freestanding interpersonal relationship, identity development must be seen as a prerequisite for freeing interpersonal relationships (Martin, 1998).
Throughout the process of student development, it is possible for students to be transitioning through one area of development while they are deficient in another area. In fact 16 initially (1969) Chickering purposely did not call each phase a stage as he believed people could experience each phase or vector simultaneously. Thought the use of the seven vectors we are able to see how students are developing with or without parental involvement or intervention.
Each vector can be affected by the level of involvement that a parent takes, especially at the college level. I am hypothesizing that the vectors that are most specifically affected by parent involvement or intervention will be vector two: managing emotions, vector four: developing mature interpersonal relationships, vector five: establishing identity, and vector six: developing purpose. These areas are critical to the development of self that culminates, according to
Chickering and others, at the last vector when our students finally develop their own sense of integrity.
Chapter II: Literature Review
This literature review addresses the concepts that contribute to understanding the different methods of interaction between parents and students, or between parents and the institution of higher learning. The literature is broken down into eight distinct themes: the helicopter parent phenomenon, defining helicopter parents, Attachment Theory, Arthur
Chickering’s Seven Vectors of Student Development, when parents step in to assist, the negative and positive perceptions of parental involvement, the motivation and legal restrictions of dealing with parents, and the established factors of parental involvement.
The literature highlights the importance of the impact parents can have on the student developmental process. The research establishes a foundation for discussion routed and based in existing theories. The literature expands and further explains two of the three main theories this research project is based on. (Attachment Theory and Chickering’s Seven Vectors of Student
Development) The literature addresses the concept of the helicopter parent through a study 17 conducted locally at Brown University in Providence. The study investigates the role of the parent and the effect the role has on the student. In further expanding on the concept of parental involvement itself, the literature establishes a clear discrepancy between how students and parents perceive parental interaction and intervention. Helicopter parents have been researched since the turn of the century in the early 2000s. The literature tells us that this concept existed in research as well as popular/mass media. There is a large amount of material on both Attachment
Theory and Chickering’s Seven Vectors as they are both foundation theories for most functional areas within modern higher education. The literature puts a contemporary focus on both theories as recent scholarly works have contributed to a better understanding of the practical application of these theories. The literature also focuses in on key ideas that help us understand why parents get involved when they do. The research also highlights the importance to note that are legal ramifications in some cases that each institution must be aware of prior to entertaining certain types of interactions. Finally the literature also points us towards several established factors that directly contribute to why parents get involved. This is a relatively new area of research that focuses in on variables like socioeconomic status, race, cultural identity, and even language.
Each variable can impact the overall level of interaction each parent choses to utilize.
Helicopter Parent Phenomenon
In the fall of 2008 Andrew Simmons of Brown University published a study dealing with
“Parent Involvement in Student’s Academic and Career Decision Making.” He performed a small qualitative study to try and develop an understanding of how students rely on their parents in their decision making process at college. Simmons asks two important questions in his work.
The first question is: “What role do parents play in their student’s academic decision making?” 18
The second question he asks is: “How do parents influence their children’s thinking about the connection between college academic work and career goals?” (Simmons, 2008 p. 33).
These two questions directly address the role of advising that parents often take in their child’s career as a student. The overwhelming response from the study was that the students rely on their parents for general support, but a majority also reported that they actively involve their parents in their decision making processes relating to career goals and academic course selections. There is also evidence that in this study and others that based on the socioeconomic status of the family, and the impact financing the education has on the family unity, the level of interaction changes significantly (Sharon, 2007, Simmons, 2008, Rowan-Kenyon, 2008).
Two interesting results come from the study at Brown University: (1) The Office of
Institutional Research at Brown University found that 77.9% of students sought advice about academic goals from a parent, and (2) 73% reported relying on a parent, guardian, or other family member for course selection (Simmons, 2008). This speaks to the current state of parental involvement in higher education. Parents have more of a say in what their students are studying, and in many cases even what career they are picking. It is important to note that students also reported that they knew they would face initial backlash from their parents if they deviated from the original career or academic focus.
Over time however, and with the success to support the transition or change to another field, students would not stop engaging their parents for support throughout the academic process. As a direct result of this study the orientation and family programs at Brown University have been modified to stress the importance of support with limitations as far as parents are concerned. Parents need to be made aware that limits apply to the amount of involvement they have with their children while they are in college (Simmons, 2008). The new approach is to 19 make parents “partners” in the educational process, in the form of an ally to the administration and staff vs. an enemy or a combative force. Simmons tells us that this new approach can have excellent benefits in the end as these new strategies can be aimed at parents by aligning them with the university’s mission throughout the process of moving their students into adulthood as the authors of their own lives.
Additionally the literature tells us there may be an outright discrepancy between how students and how parents think in terms of parent involvement. Alsop reports (2008) that although some millennial students would like to establish more independence, they may find it rather difficult to separate themselves from the safety net provided by their parents. King reports
(2007) that there are different results between parent and student respondents when asked about the parents’ involvement during the college years. Students perceived their parents’ involvement as higher than the parent’s perceptions in terms of involvement with the college experience and with the college or university. It appears that even though parents saw college as a “time to pull away from their students” (King, 2007, p.105); they were not following through by lessening their involvement, at least as seen by their students. Experience, Inc., a Boston-based career services firm, surveyed college students and recent graduates in 2006 and found that a quarter of the respondents felt that parents were overly involved to the point that it was annoying or embarrassing. More than a third said parents had called into or attended meetings with academic advisors; 31 % said parents had contacted a professor to complain about a grade (Alsop, 2008).
Alsop, King and the results from Experience, Inc., tell us that it is unclear whether students want their parents to be involved, or if the students themselves are simply not confident enough in their ability to deal with issues effectively. Students therefore feel they require parent intervention and support to help them make important decisions. 20
In the summer of 2009 another researcher on the subject, Joel Lampert, submitted research on “Testing the Helicopter Parent Phenomenon.” Lampert focuses on several key topics within his work that mirror many of my fundamental theoretical frameworks. The first is the
“Attachment and Academic Adjustment in College.” In 2000 a set of researchers, Wintre and
Yaffe, noted that students whose parents had an authoritative parenting style adapted more successfully to college than other students. They reported that institutions of higher education ensure that students are aware of the mental health services offered, and also recommended that parents maintain involvement in their children’s lives because the transition to college can be a confounding experience and open communication with parents can be very helpful. However,
Lampert, Wintre, and Yaffe honed in on an important revelation. Based on the recent research of educational theorists, this type of open communication with parents can later lead to student adjustment issues after the initial shock of the transition into college (Wintre, 2000).
This can work against the traditional steps of student development and can have serious attachment related effects between student and parent that can later lead to acting out behaviorally (Yaffe, 2000). Lampert also points out that the concept of parental “over- involvement” is not a new concept. He states “What is new in today’s society is the lack of adult roles and behaviors being assumed by those people who might once have been defined as a
‘young adult’ but are not defined as adolescent and/or youth (Lampert, 2009, p. 4). It is apparent that many in their under 24 age bracket either lack the basic skills and abilities to take care of themselves or simply expect their parents to continue to do it for them as has been the case so far
(Lampert, 2009).
Defining Helicopter Parents 21
There are many new developments and interpretations around the concept of “Helicopter
Parents.” These members of the baby boomer generation who hover over their children are a frequent topic among college administrators, and are often cited in popular media (Coburn,
2006). In 2008 helicopter parents were cited in O, The Oprah Magazine . The author details parental over-involvement in the lives of college students (Robb, 2008). She cites examples of the lengths parents are willing to go for their children. The article even makes mention of the trends that may contribute to this concept of parental over-involvement. The concept is routed in the amount of involvement parents have and what role they play in the development of their students. The University of Texas has been working on a four plus year study involving several groups of students tracking them from admission to graduation, all the while tracking the level of parental involvement (King, 2009). Randal (2007) informs us that parents are decidedly more involved than the actual applicants in the college admissions process, and references a survey by the College Board and the Art & Science Group which found that “about 95% of 1,700 students surveyed, said their parents are ‘involved’ or ‘very involved’ in college planning activities”
(Randall, 2007 p.4). In another article featured in the Wall Street Journal Classroom Edition,
Noris (2005) offers suggestions to help students ease the transition to college and also shows us that parents may actually be hurting their students by being so involved. “While helicopter parents mean well, they might not realize that they are actually undermining the student’s chance of success, both during and after college” (Norris, 2005 p.5). As of October, 2007 the term
“Helicopter Parents” had already received 2 million hits on Google (Taub, 2008). What helicopter parents are doing is not just being “involved,” they are being “directive” and
“invasive” and taking away the chance for decision-making skills as well as stunting the 22 processes of student development. Today’s parents remain intimately involved with their millennial generation children “from cradle to the workplace” (Alsop, 2008, p.73).
Attachment Theory
As addressed previously in the theoretical framework section, attachment theory can also be used to explain the separation anxiety that can develop as the child/student transitions out of the house and into his/her college life. In the higher education context, researchers find that a secure attachment to parents in addition to having parental acceptance and support can actually foster a student’s adjustment and success in college (Wartman & Savage, 2008). When students enter college they separate from their childhood environment and are expected to learn how to be more self-sufficient (Kalsner & Pistole, 2003). Attachment theory has also been the foundation for other concepts such as “Millennial Students.” Millennial students are defined in many ways, but most commonly they are described in the literature and referred to using Howe and Strauss’ definition (2003) special, sheltered, confident, team-oriented, conventional, pressured, and achieving. Howe and Strauss who have been crucial in developing and understanding of how the millennial generation thinks, learns, and copes with everyday life, also point out that
“Millennials bask in the sense of being loved by parents” (Howe and Strauss, 2003, p.58).
Others have expanded on this concept citing millennials and their parents as “co-purchasing” education, (Martin, 2002); therefore, colleges and universities have adapted their recruitment and retention policies to include communication flow with parents in addition to the standard communications already taking place with the applicant/student (Brownstein, 2000). This set of students also tends to have high aspirations for academic achievement being “the most educationally ambitious generation ever” (Coomes & Debard, 2004, p.12). Concurrently millennial students also demand that every step be laid out ahead of time and that “every detail 23 be explicitly spelled out for them” (Brownstein, 2000, p.5). This often times leads to students later having trouble developing their own deductive reasoning skills and simple problem solving skills.
Expanding on Chickering’s Seven Vectors
Parental involvement continues to find its place throughout the modern literature on
Higher Education and Student Development. Chickering’s seven vectors (1969), in combination with Attachment Theory (1969) and the Galinsky’s Six Stages of Parent Development (1987), can be used to partially explain the behavior of parents on modern day college campuses. Many authors refer to a concept called “mutual clinging,” this means that students and parents want to be equally involved in the process from start to finish (Brownstein, 2000; Coburn, 2006;
Cutright, 2008; Hoover & Supiano, 2008). Recent trends in the literature acknowledges that most of the prior research on the topic of “parental involvement” in general, tends to be based on anecdotal stories with a lack of clear definition of that is means for parents to be involved at the tertiary level. (Wolf, et al., 2009). Just within the last few years studies are now beginning to expand their examination into parental involvement, looking not only at how frequent parents get involved, but more importantly who gets involved and why. The “who” relates to demographic data like race, ethnicity, and educational background. The “why” is related to social and environmental reasons? A new lens of examination is what ways parents get involved, are they actively involved, passively involved, or do they serve a purely supportive role (Wartman &
Savage, 2008).
Taub (2008) expanded on Chickering’s earlier work on the vectors focusing solely on the developing competence vector, which is the foundation and the first step in Chickering’s seven vectors. Students are faced with a number of challenges daily including but not limited to 24 academic, personal, social and even physical. If parents step in to solve each issue on their student’s behalf, the student may never develop competencies at the fundamental level. This would seriously inhibit their growth in the first vector of student development (Taub, 2008). In addition the literature tells us that students can also feel their parents do not trust their ability to cope and manage their own problems. Most of the research available tells us that healthy relationships between parents and students support a child’s development of competence,
“excessive support from parents can inhibit development of competence” (Taub, 2008, p.18).
Taub also goes on to examine how the effects of parent involvement/intervention can affect the transition to the third vector moving through autonomy toward interdependence , as it is thought that “parents could inhibit students’ development of autonomy by being overly domineering” or by providing excessive emotional support (Taub, 2008, p.18). This type of interference can also lead to issues related to the students’’ ability to develop purpose. Students may actually end up fulfilling their parents’ expectations for life, rather than setting out to fulfill their own. Taub explains that, “It is in activities such as these that parental involvement moves beyond support of student’s development to a force that interferes with that development” (Taub, 2008. p.21). The line that is drawn to delineate a healthy and un-healthy parent-student relationship is usually when the student’s sense of self is questioned and they come to the realization that the parents may be living vicariously through the student. Many times if this actualization takes place the student deviates from the relationship and can shut down or attempt to change paths academically to cause a stir at home. Taub’s developments on the vectors give us a new perspective on Chickering’s tested theories on student development.
When are Parents Stepping in? 25
First year students face a multitude of transitional issues as this is in many cases the first time students are leaving home (Lum, 2006). Concerns can be very specific and may often start small, and later grow into larger issues. Merriman (2009) tell us that as students gain greater competence in managing adult tasks, they will begin to discuss challenges commonly associated with first year acclimation and anxiety. These issues address things like, finding a job, time and money management, major or academic course selection, and social issues. Parents who participated in a longitudinal study of “The Impact of Parental Involvement on College Student
Development” (NASPA, 2009) in 2009 reported that some students expressed the challenging aspect of finding balance between their home life and their new life at college/university. One mother pointed out that her daughter had no respect for her when she returned home for spring break, “Sad to say but she is not the same child she was when she left home” (Merriman, 2009, p.2).
Other situations may involve administrators who “fail” to initially respond to a student’s request. Students may turn to their parents for support or in many cases relief (Daddona, 2002).
This can generally be the case whenever a students’ general expectations of a service or a program at the institution are not met. Examples can include: lack of available campus housing, dislike of university staff and administration, inadequate response time to issues, and lack of available classes. Students actively express their discontent in these unmet expectations and in some cases this is a springboard for parents to step in and communicate with the institution.
Parent responses to the study included a common theme. They indicated that their students
“expect leadership from the faculty, staff and administration, and are disappointed when these expectations are not met. It is our obligation as their parents and often the bill-payers to step in and voice our concerns” (Merriman, 2009, p.3). 26
Millennial college students have not sought to individuate as previous generations have
(e.g., Howe & Strauss, 2000). In fact, this group of college students appears to welcome and depend on guidance from their parents (Coomes & DeBard, 2004; Howe & Strauss, 2000;
Murray, 1997; Pizzolato & Hicklen, 2011). Pizzolato and Hicklen expand on this concept stating in the findings from their recent (2011) study. Their results show that although the majority of the time college students do not involve their parents in their decision making, a large portion of them (44.3%) do. Upon closer examination, however, it becomes clear that even for students involving their parents in important decision making, parents were not involved in every decision or even the majority of the important decisions students described. Of the 259 participants who completed all three narrative descriptions of self-nominated important decisions, only 9 (3.5%) included their parents on all three occasions and only 30 (11.6%) included their parents in two of the decisions. Although across participants parents were involved in decision making in almost half of the important decisions students made, repeated participation in important decision making for each participant was extremely low (13.7%) (Pizzolato & Hicklen, 2011). The involvement of parents is theoretically unsurprising, as research suggests that when college students face new situations or highly emotional situations, they may revert to comfortable reasoning patterns they have successfully used in problem solving in the past (Caspi & Elder,
1988).
Negative and Positive Perceptions
Based on the literature available, parental involvement in higher education acknowledges the fact that parents do have an impact on their student’s experiences in college – whether developmentally, academically, or socially (Carney-Hall, 2008, Rowan-Kenyon et al., 2008).
The major question still at hand is whether the involvement of a parent is beneficial or 27 detrimental to a student’s progress into adulthood. It is important for both administrators and researchers to remember that the helicopter parent image only represents an extreme group, and parents and their individual relationships with their students are as varied as the students themselves (Wartman & Savage, 2008). Wolf et al. (2009) conducted a study on student’s perspectives of their parents’ involvement. This study focused on two specific indicators: involvement in academic aspects and parent student communication. The study found that students recognize their parents taking an interest in their academic progress, but students did not find this behavior as detrimental to their experience (Wolf et al., 2009). Overall, students view their parents’ involvement as the “right amount” (Wartman & Savage, 2008, p.7). These findings are in alignment with the above mentioned concepts of attachment theory where students adjust successfully if they have a relationship with their parents that is supportive in nature (Hattar-Pollara, 2010).
In almost every case in the literature, negative perceptions on parents and parental involvement or intervention surface when a parent steps in on their student’s behalf. This is by definition a “helicopter parent” (Coburn, 2006, Cutright, 2008, Dart, 2006, Enkoji, 2008, Lum,
2006, Shellenbarger, 2007, Shoup, 2009.) In most cases the negative experience is directly related to a situation that has surfaced where an administrator believes a student should be handling the matter on their own (Lum, 2006). This educational and developmental approach has been at the heart of higher education since its inception (Brownstein, 2000). These negative views tend to appear in mass media, professional publications, journals of higher education, and through anecdotal stories shared between colleagues. Administrators truly see these actions as
“disruptive events” (Merriman, 2006, p.5). These “disruptions” do not let the students learn from their own mistakes, sometimes even contrary to the student’s wishes (Kennedy, 2009). 28
Parents who are labeled as “helicopter parents” assume they can take their issues “straight to the top” and call a president, or a dean if there is even the slightest problem. Some have even called the president to make sure their students are making it to class on time (Cutright, 2008, p.45).
Many administrators would outright discourage this type of behavior, however it is increasingly more important as communication becomes easier to access, that parents understand the roles of different administrators at the institution and where the appropriate lines of communication lie in today’s university. Advances in technology have made it much easier for parents to remain in very close contact with their students. This allows parents to track development in their students’ lives (Lipka, 2005). In most college settings landlines have been removed from residence hall rooms as almost everyone has a cell phone or a preference to communicate via e- mail, text messaging, and or other networking technology. A survey by the College Parents of
America (2006) found that 74% of parents communicate with their college student at least two to three times weekly, with fully a third of the results claiming they communicate daily. They further found that 90% frequently used a cell phone to stay in touch compared with 26% using a landline or 7% using standard postal mail (Jason, 2010). As communication and technology continues to evolve institutions must come up with new and cutting edge ways to communicate with both family members and students. Through the use of said technology parents should not be removed from the equation all together as they can serve as an overall motivating force. In
2008 researchers Bell, Perna, and Rowan-Kenyon pointed out several negative and positive perceptions of parental involvement, but highlighted the fact that institutions of higher learning do need parents to some extent. The results of their study reflect a shift from "fixing" parents to ensuring that policies and programs empower parents to be involved to shape their children's educational futures. If structures and systems are created that meet parents where they are 29 geographically, culturally, and in terms of their unique needs, parents of all walks of life will be partners in the college -going process (Bell et al., 2008).
Motivation & Legal Restrictions
No matter what the intentions of the parent most of the newly released research and academic literature on the topic examines the motivations behind why parents get involved
(Hoover & Supiano, 2008, Wartman & Savage, 2008). It is clear that most of the available research does not show that helicopter parents are the “norm” for all parents within this generation of students. Instead most of the authors focus on the ways in which parents get involved, but no one seems to infer that the involvement is negative in any way. In fact many support the involvement citing it as a means of support for the student. Many articles cite references to a Carney-Hall article (2008), “Parents often get involved in choosing their college, financial support, academic decisions and personal adjustment support, they can also impact alcohol-related decisions, retention/persistence to graduation issues, and finally general cognitive development” (Carney-Hall, 2008, p.5).
The literature also reveals another reason for heightened involvement. The rising tuition costs all across higher education are causing more parents to be “invested” in their students’ lives
(Merriman, 2006, Kennedy, 2009). Since costs continue to rise the level of dependency on the family unit maintains a steady constant. This has caused a relatively new concept to develop within higher education called “consumer entitlement.” Consumer entitlement tells us that parents are invested both emotionally and financially in their student’s education (Carney-Hall,
2008, p.70). Taking this consumerist perspective, parents want to make sure their investment in education is secure. Parents as of recent have really adapted a modified approach. One researcher calls it “from helicopter parent to consumer advocate” (Shellenbarger, 2007, p.1). 30
Parents see themselves as entitled to all the same information and access to said information that their students have. They also feel they should have full access to the services that the university offers. This high level of expectations concerns most administrators. Many are worried that the mutual failure of parents and students to “let go” of one another will hinder the student’s ability to handle problems (simple or complex) on their own (Carney-Hall, 2008). In many cases parents don’t understand the change in approach from K-12, where they were often chastised for not taking an active role in their student’s lives… to college where they are asked to “let go” and hope all goes well (Kennedy, 2009). Parents reject the notion that they should not be involved despite the efforts of many colleges and universities to create distance between parents and the institution. Many parents realize that their children need to learn to make their own choices and learn from mistakes, they still “argue that since preschool they have been encouraged to be partners with their children’s teachers and coaches. Now everyone suddenly wants them to vanish” (Alsop, 2008, p.68).
Another dynamic that changes from K-12 to college is the right to information privacy.
In the K-12 sector, it is understood that good school/parent relationships are able to withstand questions, conflicts, debates, and disagreements, and provide adequate structures to solve problems (Epstein, 1995). In the higher education sector however, in response to the popular media’s characterization of “helicopter parents” and concern about a potential negative impact on students’ development, some writers emphasize the notion of community-building, managing partnerships, communication, and programming with parents and families (Carney-Hall, 2008;
Wartman & Savage, 2008). Confusion with legalese and complicated FERPA regulations begin to emerge at the college level as high school parents had legal rights to access all student information, as they were minors. Once they turn 18, they are “adults” in the legal sense and 31 they have the right to privacy as detailed in FERPA. This confusion leads to one of the biggest hurdles many institutions have to face in being parent friendly is the struggle over the restrictions contained within the Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), also known as the Buckley Amendment. This amendment established parameters for access to educational records, which continue to challenge the relationships between the institution and students and between the institution and parents (Weeks, 2001). The two primary purposes of FERPA are to
“assure parents of students and students themselves if they are over the age of eighteen or attending an institution of post-secondary education, access to their educational records,” and “to protect such individuals rights to privacy by limiting the transferability of their records without consent” (Weeks, 2001. p. 15).
The FERPA requirements permit institutions to disclose some information to parents about dependent students and to disclose health and safety information (Weeks, 2001). Each institution may interpret FERPA in its own way and, as a direct result, must provide parents and students with information pertaining to their rights. Students may choose to allow their parents access to their educational records by signing a letter of consent to that effect. These letters of consent must provide specification as to those records that may be disclosed to parents, outline the purpose of the disclosure, and identify the individual(s) to whom disclosure may be made
(NASPA, 2005). Under FERPA regulations, parents must establish that students are dependents, as specified on their federal tax income return, in order to access the students’ records (Lowery,
2005).
Parents may become familiar with the FERPA requirements when they request information regarding their students and the institution denies them access to that information
(Weeks, 2001). FERPA allows parents five rights that include access, consent, challenge, 32 notification, and confidentiality of financial information. Parents may gain access to some of their students’ records; they are entitled to health and safety information and evidence regarding disciplinary actions, and often are informed of violations of drug and alcohol policies. Students have the right to sign a letter of consent provided by educational institutions that allows parents to be privy to more detailed information that otherwise is not shared (Weeks, 2001). As the primary financial supporters in most instances, parents become distressed by the stipulations associated with the FERPA requirements. Parents for the most part are not provided detailed information about the law by many institutions and, therefore, may not clearly understand the rights that pertain to both them and the students (Daniel et al., 2001; Lowery, 2005; Weeks,
2001). Parents expect to be updated by the institution on the academic success and overall wellbeing of their students; but, FERPA regulations may block their access to this information.
The relationship between the institution and the parent has always existed in some form.
With the nuances of the heightened levels of parental involvement, institutions have had to modify their approach to a once hands off approach by many parents. Universities and colleges all over the United States now hold parent and family weekends and specialized parent orientation sessions (Woodward, 2001). Administrators increasingly use in-person opportunities to education and inform parents and students of the proper communication procedures.
Additionally the focus appears to have a very customer service centered focus now, with an underlying educational element, which is a new “customer centered” approach in higher education (Coburn, 2006). This customer service centered approach aspires to increase communication with parents in a more personal fashion that will in turn allow administrators to reach out to parents when they feel there are situations that warrant the involvement of a parent.
FERPA regulations often leave this type of communication at the discretion of the institution. 33
Some choose to follow the strict “no contact” protocol; others communicate with parents based on the severity of the situation (Coburn, 2006). Helping parents but setting clear boundaries is a critical aspect of any type of parent programming/communication. Approaching this model by motivating parents to serve in a coaching role can create and foster a collaborative approach that will increase the students’ investment in their education. Common designations for parents include coach, supporter, and partner. These terms emphasize the point that parents still have a valid role in their child’s college experience, but it is not a secondary role not the primary authoritative, and directive role (Cutright, 2008). In 2005, NASPA, and Student Affairs
Administrators in Higher Education (Mullendore, 2005), released a guide titled Partnering with the Parents of Today’s College Students. This guide details how the relationships between the institution and parents/families have changed. NASPA’s guide (2005) focuses on setting very explicit goals and a clear set of expectations for parents and families. For colleges and universities to achieve these goals, they need to understand why parents get involved in the first place. “By fostering an environment of mutual understanding, all stakeholders can work together to help the students’’ development, instead of fighting against one another” (NASPA,
2005, p.23). This approach will set the foundation for a successful and productive parent –> institution relationship.
Established Factors of Parental Involvement
Socioeconomic status and parents’ level of education have long been thought to influence parents’ level of involvement at the college level. It is important to first understand that socioeconomic status impacts the access to higher education in general. Cabrera and LaNasa
(2001) found that, after controlling for relevant variables, college application rates were 26 percentage points lower for students with low socioeconomic status than for those with high 34 socioeconomic status (Cabrera et al., 2001). There are several characteristics that present themselves in the literature, based specifically on socioeconomic status that may indicate why some parents are more involved than others. Previously researches thought that only middle to upper-class white parents got involved, new research over the last 5 years tells us that there are other types of parents getting involved (Carney-Hall, 2008; Coburn, 2006; Wartman & Savage,
2009; Wolf et al., 2009). Socioeconomic status and parent’s previous education are the two differentiating factors that can link back to level of involvement. Parents with a higher socioeconomic status and more education are more likely to know how to interact with administrators at universities and colleges (Rowan, 2008; Price, 2009). Parents with a higher socioeconomic status and no college education are often unsure of how to navigate the hierarchy of higher education. In these two groups the second is less likely to get involved based on a lack of experience at the college level (Rowan, 2008; Price, 2009). Parents with a lower socioeconomic status may offer support to attend college, but not take an active role as they are unsure of how to interact with the system. In many cases parents with a lower socioeconomic status also have no previous college education (Wartman, 2008). Senge (2006) explained the ability of parents with previous educational knowledge to navigate higher education systems through the use of “mental models.” These models are “deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action” (Senge, 2006, p.8).
Ethnicity is the second established factor related to parental involvement as defined in the literature. According to Wolf (2009) the level of involvement varies depending on racial and ethnic background. Immigrant parents are far less likely to become involved, but more likely to communicate directly with their students. Wolf does not directly clarify why this exists, he does 35 however cite this as a future means for research. In regards to ethnic groups overall, differences were present in regards to parents and students keeping in contact versus parental involvement.
For example, “above-average contact between Mexican American, Latino/Other Spanish,
Japanese/Japanese American and American Indian/Alaska Native students were paired with below average ratings of parental involvement in their academic lives” (Wolf et al 2009, p.348).
Based on Latin American culture female students in particular may experience stronger connections to the family while away at college as they are fully expected to help with responsibilities at home no matter what their location (Sy & Romero, 2009). African American parents with students in predominately White institutions may have more concerns over things like personal safety and social development/interactions (Price, 2008). Aside from Latin
American culture and African American culture, the other ethnic groups listed generally all had similar results as far as high levels of contact, but low levels of actual parent involvement at the institutional level. Language is also a barrier for those first generation college students who might have one or more parents who do not speak English. Price (2008) points out that often times first generation Hispanic students have parents who are unable to communicate with the university due to language issues and this naturally their level of involvement is drastically reduced. This is an important note because the literature merely skims this topic, but in other references every group with a primary language other than English can be affected by this issue.
In turn this would directly affect the amount of involvement a non-English speaking parent could have with the student’s institution. Unless interpreters were present or made available through
“Cultural Center” contacts or other campus resources. Cole (1991) tells us that no matter what the ethnic or racial background, underrepresented students’ parents have the same concerns any 36 other parent has; they just approach the concerns with a different context that may or may not align with a traditional college/university experience.
Summation
The literature generates a multi-layered set of responses to the main research question:
“How is a college student’s developmental process affected by parental intervention?” The
Simmons (2008) study as well as the work of Sharon, (2007) Rowan-Kenyon, (2008) Alsop,
(2007 & 2008), and Lampert, (2009) show us that there is an increase in the level of parent involvement when it comes to traditional college age students and their basic decision making process in relation to their academics and student development. The concept of “Helicopter
Parents” is widely understood and supported through the explanations of researchers all across the field of education. (Alsop, 2008; Coburn, 2006; King, 2009; Norris, 2005; Randal, 2007;
Robb, 2008)
Further research on the basic theoretical frameworks reveals a greater understanding of how parental involvement starts, via Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1969; Kalsner & Pistole,
2003; Wartman & Savage, 2003). Chickering’s research (1969) helps to explain how students develop throughout their careers in higher education. Taub, (2008) expands on Chickering’s original work by investigating the “developing competence vector” (Taub, 2008). This inquiry provides insight into how parent involvement affects students in their developmental process.
Finally Galinsky’s work with the “Six Stages of Parent Development,” (1987) helps us understand how parents transition through their different milestones in their lives as parents.
Each foundation area of research contributes to a theme that surfaces throughout the material, parent involvement does have an effect on students, some negative and at times, when managed, some positive. 37
Built on the foundation of the available literature, the study conducted will focus on the level of interaction between students and parents and how that can be linked to the overall developmental process of the student. Based on all available research three hypotheses in relation to the study have been created.
Chapter III: Research Design
Research Questions
Based on the research reviewed (Sharon, 2007, Simmons, 2008, Rowan-Kenyon, 2008), an area of interest has been identified based specifically on the actions of a person or persons acting in a parental role. The specific research question developed is “How is a college student’s developmental process affected by parental intervention?”
Through a review of the literature (Alsop, 2008; King, 2007; Lampert, 2009; Wintre &
Yaffe, 2000), two hypotheses have been developed.
1. Hypotheses
H1. Based on quality of the relationship between student and parent/guardian there will be an increase or decrease in the level of involvement in basic decision making in relation to schoolwork/school-life. (Carney-Hall, 2008; Lum, 2006; Taub, 2008).
H2. Based on the frequency of contact between student and parent/guardian regarding specific issues taking place at school there will be an increase in the amount of contact a parent/guardian has with the institution on their student’s behalf. (Merriman, 2009, NASPA, 2009, Pizzolato &
Kicklen, 2011). 38
Based on the hypotheses stated above, the research will show a link between the stages of student development and how they are affected when a parent/guardian steps in to solve a perceived problem. There is a link between the amount of parental interaction/intervention and the overall developmental process of the student. By analyzing available data form the NSSE survey on parental interaction, the above stated hypotheses will be supported or unsupported.
The following situations explain whether there is the presence or absence of parental intervention.
Situation 1: When a student is left to make his or her own decisions with no parental intervention, there is no interruption to the traditional developmental process as defined by
Chickering’s (1969, 1993) seven vectors of student development. Throughout the process of student development, it is possible for students to be transitioning through one area of development while they are deficient in another area. In fact initially (1969) Chickering purposely did not call each phase a stage as he believed people could experience each phase or vector simultaneously.
Situation 2: When there is parental intervention the developmental process is slowed or interrupted, which can prolong the stages of development and affect the student’s success moving in and out of each developmental stage/vector. The vectors that are most specifically affected by parent involvement or intervention will be vector two: managing emotions, vector four: developing mature interpersonal relationships, vector five: establishing identity, and vector six: developing purpose (Chickering, 1969,1993).
Methodology 39
A quantitative analysis as defined by Creswell (2012) is research where the investigator identified a research problem based on trends in the field or on the need to explain why something occurs. Such an analysis will be conducted of the experimental questions from the
2007 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) will yield the results needed to examine the research questions and hypotheses identified.
The National Survey of Student Engagement, NSSE is designed to provide information that meaningfully informs researchers and students alike, about the quality or perceived quality an institution offers (Kuh, 2001). The NSSE survey instrument is formally called the College
Student Report. Many of the questions on the survey are aimed at collecting information about student engagement as its subsequent outcome. NSSE had its first official run as a pilot project in 1999. The support for the project came from the Pew Charitable Trusts. The College Student
Report was created in 1998 by a design team made up of Alexander Astin, Gary Barnes, Arthur
Chickering, Peter Ewell, John Gardner, George Kuh, Righard Light, and Ted Marchese (Kuh,
2001). Most of the survey points are based on the College Student Experiences Questionnaire
(CSEQ) which is a survey instrument that is intended to measure educational practices in higher education that affect student outcomes.
In 2007 The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE, 2007) added a new component to their survey material. A section entitled “Family and Friends Support” was created as an experimental question base to gather important relational information between family, friends, and students. The information collected was broken into five representative areas including relationship and communication styles with: Mother, Father, Guardian, Siblings and Friends. 40
1. Sample selection
The National Survey of Student Engagement is administered on-line and in paper form by Indiana University’s Center for Postsecondary Research. In 2007 there were 610 member institutions from all over the United States that participated in the research survey. A 20% random sampling of data was obtained from within section FFX, (NSSE, 2007) the experimental questions on “Family and Friends Support.” The random sampling of respondents was based on
Creswell’s (2012) definition of random sampling; the researcher selects participants or units such as schools, for the sample so that any individual has an equal probability of being selected from the population. The random sample will be comprised of responses from the 24 member institutions that used the experimental questions. The main dataset houses more than 9,000 responses, so for the purposes of this study the randomization will capture roughly 1,800 responses. The college/university identifying information has been removed from all response sets leaving only the raw data.
The Experimental Items Codebook for 2007 contains the following questions from which the dataset used in this study will be taken. (See Appendix B.)
1. During the current school year, how often have you talked in person (i.e., face
to face) with each of the following: Mother, Father, Guardian, Sibling(s),
Friends from high school enrolled at this college, Friends from high school not
enrolled at this college. [Response 1-4 & 9 Not applicable]
2. During the current school year, how often have you communicated via phone,
e-mail, text messaging, or another electronic medium with each of the
following: Mother, Father, Guardian, Sibling(s), Friends from high school 41
enrolled at this college, Friends from high school not enrolled at this college.
[Response 1-4 & 9 Not applicable]
3-6. Thinking about contacts during the current school year with your (father,
mother, guardian, sibling(s), friends at this college, friends not attending this
college), how often have you talked about each of the following? [Response 1-
4 & Other]
7. Select the circle that best represents the quality of your relationships with the
following: (Mother, Father, Guardian, Sibling(s)) [Response 1-7 & 9 Not
applicable]
8. How often do you follow the advice of the following members of your family?
(Mother, Father, Guardian, Sibling(s)) [Response 1-4 & 9 Not applicable]
9. How often do you follow the advice of your friends from high school attending
this college? [Response 1-4 & 9 Not applicable]
10. How often do you follow the advice of your friends from high school not
attending this college? [Response 1-4 & 9 Not applicable]
11. How often do your parents/guardians contact college officials to help solve
problems you may be having at this college? [Response 1-4 & 9 Not
applicable]
2. Methods of Data Collection
Through a data sharing agreement (See Appendix A.) signed with the Indiana University
Center for Postsecondary Research. This agreement will facilitate the electronic delivery of the
20% random sampling of results from the thirteen questions. Once the source material is received it will be imported into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). With the 42 help of a research assistant the results will be processed and compared using a variety of tests to determine the relation to the hypotheses and or the research question.
NSSE in its original form is administered in the following three ways:
1. Paper: Students receive a paper invitation package that includes a hard copy of the
survey, and the option to complete the survey on-line if the student wishes to participate
via the web.
2. Web +: Students receive three distinct e-mails and are invited to participate in the web
version of the survey. If they have not completed the survey there is a fourth and follow
up contact via paper, where each non-respondent is sent a paper copy of the survey. The
web+ version is traditionally recommended for institutions that have adequate records of
student e-mail addresses but are unsure as to their response rate when directing students
to the web version.
3. Web Only: Students receive all information via e-mail. They are invited to participate
on-line and there is no paper based follow up.
3. Methods of Data Analysis
Based on the research of data analysis non-parametric testing will be used on the data set.
Fraenkel, Wallen and Hyun (2012) define non-parametric testing as a type of testing where researchers make few (if any) assumptions about the nature of the population from which the samples are taken. Additionally an advantage of non-parametric testing in this case is that the
NSSE data has been subjected to non-parametric testing since its inception in the late 1990s
(Shoup, 2009) 43
The four tests will be used as follows: Mann-Whitney Test: The Mann-Whitney Test is an alternative to the t-test used when a researcher wishes to analyze ranked data. The researcher intermingles the scores of the two groups and then ranks them as if they were all from just one group. The test produces a value (U), whose probability of occurrence is then checked by the researcher in the appropriate statistical table (Fraenkel, 2012). Data entry and analysis will be done using the SPSS Statistical Software program.
Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test: The Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test is a non-parametric test that compares two paired groups. The test essentially calculates the difference between each set of pairs and analyzes these differences (Hollander & Wolfe, 1973). The Signed Rank Test assumes that there is information in the magnitudes and signs of the differences between paired observations. This test is the non-parametric alternative to the t-test and is generally used when population data does not follow a normal distribution.
The Friedman’s Chi Square test compares related samples to see if they are connected in some way and is a non-parametric alternative to an ANOVA test (Green, 2008). The Friedman test allows for the analysis of repeated-measures data if participants are assessed on two or more occasions or conditions or to matched-subjects data if participants are matched in pairs, triplets, or in some greater number (Green, 2008). In this version of the test the different levels of communication based on the questions between the groups will be examined. For example, how communication, for example “personal issues,” varies between the respondents: Mother, Father,
Guardian, Sibling(s), friends from high school enrolled at this college, and or friends from high school not enrolled at this college, (NSSE, 2007) to discover any trends. 44
A frequency test will be run to collect a percentage of frequency of contact with the institution by a students’ parent/guardian. Frequency tables will then be cross tabulated with other results to show any trends that exist.
Validity and Credibility
For the purposes of this study a secondary review of the information collected by NSSE in the 2007 version of their national survey instrument will be conducted. The National Study of
Student Engagement (NSSE) is based solely on the self-reporting of undergraduate student participants. The concept of using self-reporting is a practice that is commonly used within higher education. Kuh, (2004) one of the original designers of the NSSE instrument, states that indicators of educational practice are often difficult to measure. Subjective concepts such as student attitudes, experiences, and values are hard to quantify through standardized measures.
Self-reported measures of student’s own growth and their growth measured by other, more objective means were highly correlated because self-reported measures are only moderately reliable for an individual student; but they are highly reliable for groups of students (Pace, 1984).
Self-reports are considered to be valid under five conditions: (Kuh & Hu, 2001), (1)
Respondents know the information requested, (2) if the questions are phrased unambiguously,
(3) if the respondents think the questions merit a serious and thoughtful response, (4) the questions refer to a recent activity, (5) answering the questions does not threaten, embarrass, or violate the privacy of the respondents or encourage them to respond in a socially desirable way.
Each of the five areas expressed where satisfied as this was the intention of the NSSE design in
1998 (Kuh, 2004). 45
Within the research community there are three potential threats to the validity of self- reported findings: (Baradburn et al. 1979; Day, 1998; Deming, 1950), (1) Aspects of the mode of inquiry; factors in the questioning situation that influence the response. (2) Inability to provide correct information; respondent never knew or has forgotten the answer and thus cannot provide valid data. (3) Unwillingness to provide the information; respondents’ answers are designed to present them in a socially favorable way and/or to promote their personal interests (Cahalan,
1968). In this case the respondent is unwilling to provide the information requested. Kuh (2004) suggested several design and implementation strategies to help alleviate these possible threats.
He included these strategies in the design of the NSSE instrument. They include but are not limited to: asking respondents about recent events, with a preference for the instrument to be implemented within six months of the activities the inquiry is based on. When this is not possible, the questions can be framed in a manner that evokes the appropriate memory by setting distinct timeframes.
The reliability of the NSSE instrument in general has been, and continues to be tested by
Indiana University in two ways. “Research analysts at NSSE examined the reliability of student responses through student-level test-retest analysis and intuition-level stability analysis” (NSSE,
2006, p.1).
Test-Retest Analysis: The test-retest method is when items are asked at two points in
time, and the correlation or similar statistic for the two sets of answers is calculated
(Porter, 2011). If responses have not changed significantly over the designated time
period then the expected correlation is 1.0. Test-retest has been done on NSSE data in
2002, 2005 (Griffith, 2011), and in 2009 (Porter, 2011). 46
Institution-Level Stability Analysis: NSSE compiled averages from consecutive years
to find correlations of .78 and .92 between two time periods (Porter, 2011). NSSE
continuously benchmarks 200 institutions every year to test for stability. The analysis
from year to year, for example 2002-2003 and then 2004-2005 were very similar and
remained stable (Griffith, 2011).
Protection of Human Subjects
The protection of human subjects for the purposes of this research is very limited. The basis of this study is a secondary examination of research completed in 2007 by Indiana
University. The protection of human subjects was addressed by Indiana University’s
Institutional Research Board (IRB). Indiana University’s IRB mirrors the protection of the IRB at Northeastern University. The IRB protections at both institutions satisfy the NIH/Department of Health and Human Services Part 46 requirements for protection of human subjects.
According to the Belmont Report reviewed in the National Institute of Health Office of
Extramural Research, (NIH, 2011) certification process, there are three basic principles of clinical research. (1) Respect for persons; individuals should be treated as autonomous agents.
Persons with diminished autonomy are entitles to additional protections. (2) Beneficence; do no harm, maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms. (3) Justice; requires that individuals and groups be treated fairly and equitably in terms of bearing the burdens and receiving the benefits of research. All of the above listed principles were met in the NSSE research conducted by Indiana University in the following ways: Principles (1) and (2) are addressed by the method of which the survey was conducted. As indicated in section b. paragraph ii. of this document, the methods of data collection (paper, web+, and web only) 47 offered complete anonymity and thus protects the identity of the participants. The simplicity of the instrument also allows each participant to function on their own without assistance creating autonomy. Principle (3) is addressed by the collection and distribution of the results that offer each participating institution the ability to request random samples of the data to perform comparison based research or proprietary research if needed. Any data sample requested has all identifying information removed from it to maintain the required anonymity.
Chapter IV: Results
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss and illustrate the analysis of the results of survey responses from the 2007 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) participants (n=1,800) from 610 member institutions. The NSSE 2007 participants are representative of the national averages in all demographic categories including type of institution, and sector of institution
(public v. private) although regionally the “Far West” region is slightly underrepresented while
“New England, the Great Lakes, and Southeast” regions are slightly overrepresented.
A statistical analysis of the data indicated that there is increased parental involvement in basic decision-making when the quality of relationship between student and parent is high.
There is also increased involvement between the parent and the institution when the quality of relationship between student and parent is high. Analysis indicated students have a higher quality of relationship with their mother, and when they choose who to speak to, they choose their mother over their father, in all cases. In addition, analysis indicated that few students identify a guardian as primary caregiver., However based on the results, more students who do relate to a guardian as a parent figure have a higher quality of relationship with that person This 48
chapter is organized into two sections, Section 1, response rate and survey demographics, and
Section 2, the statistical testing of the hypotheses.
Section 1: Response Rate and Survey Demographics
The institutions that participate in NSSE cover approximately 1,200 baccalaureate degree granting colleges in the United States and Canada. In 2007, 610 institutions in the United States and Canada were incited to participate in the NSSE administration. The following table (Table 1) shows the profile of NSSE 2007 institutions in the United States. Note in the “National” average column, the percentages are representative of the higher education demographics in the United
States.
Table 1
United States NSSE 2007 Participants
Carnegie Classification – (Basic 2005 Scale) 2007 National DRU-VH (Research University - Very High Research Activity) 6% 6% DRU-H (Research Universities - High Research Activity) 9% 7% DRU (Doctoral/Research Universities) 5% 5% Master’s-L (Master's Colleges & Universities - Large Programs) 26% 22% Master’s-M (Master's Colleges & Universities - Medium Programs) 11% 12% Master’s-S (Master's Colleges & Universities - Small Programs) 6% 8% Bac-AS (Baccalaureate Colleges - Arts & Sciences) 21% 18% Bac-DIV (Baccalaureate Colleges - Diverse Fields) 15% 23% Sector Public 4-year 41% 35% Private 4-year 59% 65% Region New England 10% 8% Mid East 17% 18% Great Lakes 16% 15% Plains 12% 11% Southeast 26% 24% Southwest 8% 8% Rocky Mountains 2% 3% Far West 8% 10% Outlying Areas 1% 2% 49
Location City 47% 46% Suburban 21% 23% Town 24% 22% Rural 8% 8%
While 2007 participants are representative of the distribution of institutional types in the
2005 Basic Carnegie Classification, which this categorization is based on, “Baccalaureate
Colleges-Arts and Sciences and Master’s Large” institutions were somewhat overrepresented.
“Baccalaureate Colleges-Diverse Fields” were slightly underrepresented. The 2007 participants reflect a broad array of institutions, and overall the profile of the 2007 participant institutions closely resembles that of all institutions of higher learning in the United States in terms of sector, region, and location.
The following table (Table 2) displays the characteristics of the NSSE 2007 respondents at all NSSE 2007 institutions in the United States. Note in the “National” average column, the percentages are representative of the higher education demographics in the United States.
Table 2
Characteristics of the NSSE 2007 Respondents at All NSSE 2007 Institutions in the United States. Gender 2007 National Male 35% 44% Female 65% 56% Race/Ethnicity African American/Black 7% 12% American Indian/Alaska Native 1% 1% Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander 5% 6% Caucasian/White 74% 68% Hispanic 6% 10% Other 1% n/a Multiracial/Ethnic <1% n/a 50
International Students Attending US Schools Only 5% 3% Enrollment Status Full-time 91% 84% Part-time 9% 16%
The 2007 cohort of participants is 298,083 respondents made up of 99,542 students sampled under standard sampling and an additional 198,541 students randomly sampled through standard over sampling protocols at the request of participating intuitions. As such the 2007
NSSE cohort of 298,083 is the basis for all information reporting.
Next in table 3 we can see the methods used when responding to the surveys as defined within the Methodology of this research.
Table 3 NSSE 2007 Survey Administration Mode Report Number of Survey Administration Mode Institutions Average Response Rate All 610 36% Paper 81 33% Web-only 320 37% Web + 209 35%
Many intuitions are moving toward the Web-based administrations of NSSE. 320 institutions (53%) of 2007 participants opted for the Web-only administration mode in which students received all contacts electronically and completed the survey online. The Web+ survey option was used by 209 institutions (34%). This mode includes multiple electronic contacts and the one paper questionnaire sent to a portion of the non-respondents. The remaining 81 institutions (13%) chose the paper questionnaire mode. 51
Section 2: Statistical Testing of the Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1: Based on quality of the relationship between student and parent/guardian there will be an increase or decrease in the level of involvement in basic decision making in relation to schoolwork/school-life (Carney-Hall, 2008; Lum, 2006; Taub, 2008).
A Mann-Whitney (Section a.) test was conducted to test the dataset for the quality of the relationship between parent/guardian as operationalized by interactions. The questions tested the independent variables of: father, mother, guardian, siblings, friends at this college and friends not at this college against the following questions:
1. How often talked with X about personal issues
2. How often talked with X about academic performance
3. How often talked with X about academic advice
4. How often talked with X about social issues
5. How often talked with X about career plans
6. How often talked with X about finances
7. How often talked with X about family matters
8. How often talked with X about other (this question is excluded from this study)
For the purposes of this study the final three variables (siblings, friends at this college and friends not at this college) were not examined in most of the statistical tests.
All variable groups (mother, father, guardian) reported high quality of relationships. In all groups less than 6% of the total survey respondents resulted in a low quality of relationship.
Of all categories students selected mother more often, followed by father and then guardian. 52
A Wilcoxon Signed Rank (Section b.) test was conducted to test the dataset for preferences in choosing one parent or guardian over another based on the X/Y pairings for each set. The X/Y pairings were as follows: mother v. father, guardian v. father. sibling v. father, guardian v. mother, sibling v. mother, and sibling v. guardian.
In all variable pairings where mother is present, that category slightly outranks father or overwhelmingly outranks all other variables. Mother, as supported by both the Mann-Whitney test as well as the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test is the preferred variable/method of communication with students, no matter what the category/question.
Based on the first hypothesis, there is a correlation between the quality of relationship and the level of interaction on school specific decision making. Since the variables of mother, father, guardian, had high quality of relationships, the questions asked relating to academic advice, academic performance, social issues, and career plans, all indicate an involvement in the basic decision making process. No matter the details of the conversations, the consultation would not take place if the quality of relationship and the preference to talk to one over the other did not exist.
Hypothesis 2: Based on the frequency of contact between student and parent/guardian regarding specific issues taking place at school there will be an increase in the amount of contact a parent/guardian has with the institution on their student’s behalf (Merriman, 2009, NASPA,
2009, Pizzolato & Kicklen, 2011).
The following tests were conducted to determine whether the frequency of contact between student and parent/guardian regarding specific issues taking place at school had an influence on the amount of contact a parent or guardian had with the institution. First the 53
Friedman’s Chi Square (Section c.) test was conducted to test the dataset for differences in medians of frequency in communication between father, mother, guardian, and siblings in relation to personal issues, academic performance, academic advice, social issues, career plans, and finances.
The Friedman’s Chi Square results tell us that there is preference within each variable set based on the subject matter of the questions asked. For example in many of the question groups there is a slight preference to talk to the mother vs. any other variable, usually followed by father, then guardian. Specific to hypothesis 2 the questions relating to academic advice, academic performance, social issues, and career plans all have a high frequency of contact with mother, father, and guardian in that order respectively.
Then, a simple Frequency (Section d.) test was conducted to test the dataset for frequency of contact with the student’s home institution by a parent or guardian to help them solve a problem. Slightly fewer than half of the total survey population report a time when they were aware their parent/guardian contacted the institution on their behalf. Additionally upon a cross tabulation of the results for the above mentioned question and quality of relationship within the response set it is clear that higher quality relationships result in more contact with the institution.
The question however, does not mark the variable of whom, i.e. mother, father, guardian, contacted the institution on the student’s behalf.
Mann-Whitney Test. The following tables (Tables 4-7) display the results of the Mann-
Whitney Test results. Frequency testing was performed where N=frequency. This test was used to judge the quality of relationship in relation to the responses to each question. A “low quality of relationship” is a response of a 1-4. A “high quality of relationship” is a response of 5-7. The 54 following table (Table 4) shows the responses based on the variable x=father. In Table 4 we can see that students generally have a high quality relationship with their father. Out of 1719 total responses 1518 were marked as high quality. Therefore 99.8% were a high quality of relationship with their father and .2% would be classified as low quality of relationship.
Table 4 Mann Whitney Test results (Variable = Father) Quality of Question Relationship N
How often talked with father about Low (1-4) 201 personal issues High (5-7) 1518
How often talked with father about Low (1-4) 201 academic performance High (5-7) 1517
How often talked with father about Low (1-4) 201 academic advice High (5-7) 1518
How often talked with father about Low (1-4) 201 social issues High (5-7) 1518
How often talked with father about Low (1-4) 201 career plans High (5-7) 1515 How often talked with father about Low (1-4) 199 finances High (5-7) 1512
How often talked with father about Low (1-4) 201 family matters High (5-7) 1515 How often talked with father about Low (1-4) 37 other High (5-7) 191
Table 5 shows the responses based on the variable x=mother. Students have a higher quality of relationship with their mother based on these results. For example in the question
“How often talked with mother about personal issues” students 1722 answered with a 5 or higher 55 on the survey, where out of the same set of students only 1518 replied with a 5 or higher when asked the same question based on father. More students identified a mother in the surveys as their preferred person of contact, yielding a 94.15% in high quality relationships and 5.85% in low quality.
Table 5 Mann Whitney Test results (Variable = Mother) Quality of Question Relationship N
How often talked with mother about Low (1-4) 106 personal issues High (5-7) 1722
How often talked with mother about Low (1-4) 106 academic performance High (5-7) 1718
How often talked with mother about Low (1-4) 105 academic advice High (5-7) 1723
How often talked with mother about Low (1-4) 104 social issues High (5-7) 1718
How often talked with mother about Low (1-4) 105 career plans High (5-7) 1719 How often talked with mother about Low (1-4) 105 finances High (5-7) 1714
How often talked with mother about Low (1-4) 106 family matters High (5-7) 1715 How often talked with mother about Low (1-4) 28 other High (5-7) 196
In table 6 the responses are displayed based on the variable x=guardian. Based on the significant drop in responses there is a clear gap in the number of students who identify their primary care giver/parent as a guardian versus a mother or a father. However based on the 56 results, more students who do relate to a guardian as a parent figure have a higher quality of relationship with that parent than not. With 273 total surveys flagged as “guardian” approximately 84.16% have a high quality of relationship with their guardian, while the remaining 5.86 % would be classified as a low quality of relationship.
Table 6 Mann Whitney Test results (Variable = Guardian) Quality of Question Relationship N
How often talked with guardian about personal Low (1-4) 17 issues High (5-7) 256
How often talked with guardian about academic Low (1-4) 17 performance High (5-7) 255
How often talked with guardian about academic Low (1-4) 17 advice High (5-7) 255
How often talked with guardian about social Low (1-4) 17 issues High (5-7) 256
How often talked with guardian about career Low (1-4) 17 plans High (5-7) 256 Low (1-4) 17 How often talked with guardian about finances High (5-7) 255
How often talked with guardian about family Low (1-4) 17 matters High (5-7) 254 Low (1-4) 9 How often talked with guardian about other High (5-7) 51
The following table (Table 7) shows the responses based on the variable x=siblings. The results show us that students talk to siblings nearly the same amount as they talk to their parents.
This information shows us that of the 1476 flagged as “sibling” approximately 99.7% have a 57 high quality of relationship with their siblings, while the remaining .3% would be classified as a low quality of relationship.
Table 7 Mann Whitney Test results (Variable = Siblings) Quality of Question Relationship N
How often talked with siblings about Low (1-4) 240 personal issues High (5-7) 1474
How often talked with siblings about Low (1-4) 241 academic performance High (5-7) 1476
How often talked with siblings about Low (1-4) 241 academic advice High (5-7) 1473
How often talked with siblings about Low (1-4) 240 social issues High (5-7) 1474
How often talked with siblings about Low (1-4) 238 career plans High (5-7) 1465 How often talked with siblings about Low (1-4) 238 finances High (5-7) 1470
How often talked with siblings about Low (1-4) 240 family matters High (5-7) 1473 How often talked with siblings about Low (1-4) 45 other High (5-7) 162
In summary, the Mann-Whitney tests reveal that high quality relationships exist with all variables, however the top three are: mother, father, and siblings in that order respectively. The tests also show that low quality relationships exist with all variables, however the top three are: siblings, father, and mother in that order respectively. 58
Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test. For the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test the results compare responses to questions against each other to test for significance. In the following tables (Tables
8-13) there are 6 sets of these comparisons containing the following: “How often talked with X about personal issues versus how often talked with Y about personal issues.” The X/Y variables include mother, father, guardian, and siblings. These variables are used interchangeably in the same order for each table. Within each set of comparisons every time a student selected the first over the second a score was placed in the “positive differences” column. If a student selected the second over the first a score was placed in the “negative differences” column. If there was a tie, no difference was noted, but a score was placed in the “ties” column. The Z column reports the
Z score, which can sometimes be referred to in Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test as the T. The
Asymp. Sig. is reported as the P value for this test. If the P value is over .05 then there is no significant difference in the method of communication between the two compared groups.
The first table (Table 8) deals with questions surrounding “social issues.” In this table there is no significance in all response sets except the final response. This statement is true if the
P value used is the standard 0.05 or the 0.01 value that we used to determine significance. The final question asks “How often talked with your siblings about personal issues versus how often talked with guardian about personal issues shows,” a P value of .0756. This shows that there is no significant difference here, but I believe the explanation is related to the lack of students who identify their primary care giver as a “guardian” as mentioned previously in this research. It is interesting to note in question 2 and 3 that there is a slight variance in the P value. In question 2
(guardian vs. father) the P value is .015 and in question 3 (siblings vs. father) the value is .004.
This shows a slight difference, but not quite enough to make a call either way. Question 2 infers that students prefer to communicate with their guardian more than a sibling when it comes to 59
“personal issues.” Question 2 also states that students prefer to communicate with their father more than a sibling when it comes to “personal issues.”
Table 8 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (Frequencies) Questions N Z P Negative Differences 94 Positive Differences 818 How often talked with mother about personal issues Ties 807 vs. How often talked with father about personal issues Total 1719 -23.941 0.000 Negative Differences 128 Positive How often talked with Differences 91 guardian about personal issues vs. How often talked Ties 175 with father about personal issues Total 394 -2.433 0.015 Negative Differences 525 Positive Differences 434 How often talked with your siblings about personal issues Ties 636 vs. how often talked with father about personal issues Total 1595 -2.906 0.004 Negative Differences 180 Positive How often talked with Differences 16 guardian about personal issues vs. how often talked Ties 213 with mother about personal issues Total 409 -11.643 0.000 Negative Differences 886 How often talked with your Positive siblings about personal issues Differences 162 vs. how often talked with mother about personal issues Ties 650 60
Total 1698 -22.334 0.000 Negative Differences 127 Positive How often talked with your Differences 133 siblings about personal issues vs. how often talked with Ties 139 guardian about personal issues Total 399 -0.310 0.756
It is important to note that tables 8-13 all dictate the communication preferences of the respondents which show us similarities throughout the different topical areas. The easiest way to read these tables is to look at the “Ties” number as well as the “Positive Difference” numbers.
Set aside the “Tie” number and look at the “Positive Difference” number; if the “Positive
Difference” number is higher than the “Negative Difference” number that means the respondents preferred to communicate more with the first variable listed. Therefore, if the numbers are reversed and negative is higher, they prefer to communicate more with the second listed variable.
If the highest number is close to the “Ties” number than there really is no preference either way.
The second table (Table 9) in this series deals with questions surrounding “academic performance.” As with other tables in the series the first question addresses a trend that you will see in later tables as well. No matter how many students reply that they would speak with both their mother and their father, when students do choose they choose, their mother over their father in all response sets. The only area where the responses were similar was finance (Table 13) which will be addressed later in this section.
Table 9 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (Frequencies) Questions N Z P 61
Negative Differences 225 How often talked with Positive mother about academic Differences 525 performance vs. How often talked with father Ties 963 about academic performance Total 1716 -11.282 0.000 Negative Differences 151 How often talked with Positive guardian about academic Differences 70 performance vs. How often talked with father Ties 173 about academic performance Total 394 -6.515 0.000 Negative Differences 881 How often talked with Positive your siblings about Differences 175 academic performance vs. how often talked with Ties 541 father about academic performance Total 1597 -20.882 0.000 Negative Differences 175 Positive How often talked with Differences 19 guardian about academic performance vs. how often Ties 212 talked with mother about academic performance Total 406 -10.959 0.000 Negative Differences 1089 How often talked with Positive your siblings about Differences 109 academic performance vs. how often talked with Ties 498 mother about academic performance Total 1696 -26.702 0.000 How often talked with Negative your siblings about Differences 153 academic performance vs. Positive how often talked with Differences 109 62
guardian about academic performance Ties 136 Total 398 -2.290 0.022
The third table (Table 10) in this series deals with questions surrounding “academic advice.” As with other tables in this series, mother and father when compared to other variables come out on top as the preferred variable to communicate with. The second most preferred variable in this table as with others is siblings. However, it should be noted that in this context
“academic advice” the sibling numbers are closer here than in many of the other tables.
Table 10 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (Frequencies) Questions N Z P Negative Differences 180 How often talked with Positive mother about Differences 651 academic advice vs. How often talked with Ties 888 father about academic advice Total 1719 -16.304 0.000 Negative Differences 123 How often talked with Positive guardian about Differences 90 academic advice vs. How often talked with Ties 179 father about academic advice Total 392 -2.193 0.028 Negative Differences 657 How often talked with Positive your siblings about Differences 311 academic advice vs. how often talked with Ties 629 father about academic advice Total 1597 -11.089 0.000 How often talked with Negative guardian about Differences 158 63
academic advice vs. Positive how often talked with Differences 22 mother about academic advice Ties 227 Total 407 -10.068 0.000 Negative Differences 915 How often talked with Positive your siblings about Differences 179 academic advice vs. Ties 604 how often talked with mother about academic advice Total 1698 -22.222 0.000 Negative Differences 145 How often talked with Positive your siblings about Differences 110 academic advice vs. Ties 144 how often talked with guardian about academic advice Total 399 -2.129 0.033
The fourth table (Table 11) in this series deals with questions surrounding “social issues.”
Table 11 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (Frequencies) Questions N Z P Negative Differences 92 How often talked Positive with mother about Differences 802 social issues vs. How often talked Ties 820 with father about social issues Total 1714 -22.021 0.000 Negative Differences 120 How often talked Positive with guardian about Differences 95 social issues vs. How often talked Ties 176 with father about social issues Total 391 -2.067 0.039 64
Negative Differences 371 How often talked Positive with your siblings Differences 553 about social issues vs. how often talked Ties 671 with father about social issues Total 1595 -6.244 0.000 Negative Differences 170 How often talked Positive with guardian about Differences 25 social issues vs. how often talked with Ties 240 mother about social issues Total 405 -10.504 0.000 Negative Differences 731 How often talked Positive with your siblings Differences 246 about social issues vs. how often talked Ties 714 with mother about social issues Total 1691 -15.425 0.000 Negative Differences 109 How often talked Positive with your siblings Differences 146 about social issues vs. how often talked Ties 142 with guardian about social issues Total 397 -3.346 0.001
This table explains in the first question that the survey reports students speak to their mother far more than their father, however it also shows that there are more students who talk to both and thus the ties almost cancel out the number of students who actually chose to speak to their mother over their father. Since the P value is 0.000 it supports the finding that there is significance within these two communication types. 65
The next table (Table 12) deals with the questions surrounding “career plans.” The results are quite similar to the results in the previous table (Table 11). Students report speaking to their mother far more than their father, it does however show that there are more students who talk to both and thus the ties almost cancel out the number of students who actually chose to speak to their mother over their father. This also leads to a similar reporting of the P value being
0.000 showing no significant difference.
Table 12 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (Frequencies) Questions N Z P Negative Differences 246 How often talked Positive with mother about Differences 501 career plans vs. How often talked Ties 965 with father about career plans Total 1712 -9.293 0.000 Negative Differences 145 How often talked Positive with guardian Differences 73 about career plans vs. How often Ties 173 talked with father about career plans Total 391 -4.809 0.000 Negative Differences 804 How often talked Positive with your siblings Differences 200 about career plans vs. how often Ties 579 talked with father about career plans Total 1583 -19.031 0.000 Negative Differences 155 How often talked Positive with guardian Differences 28 about career plans vs. how often Ties 223 talked with mother about career plans Total 406 -9.314 0.000 66
Negative Differences 965 How often talked Positive with your siblings Differences 130 about career plans vs. how often Ties 588 talked with mother about career plans Total 1683 -25.203 0.000 Negative How often talked Differences 153 with your siblings Positive about career plans Differences 102 vs. how often talked with Ties 143 guardian about career plans Total 398 -3.131 0.002
The sixth and final table (Table 13) in this series deals with questions surrounding
“finances.”
Table 13 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (Frequencies) Questions N Z P Negative Differences 355 How often talked Positive with mother about Differences 472 finances vs. How often talked with Ties 879 father about finances Total 1703 -4.034 0.000 Negative Differences 150 How often talked Positive with guardian Differences 73 about finances vs. How often talked Ties 166 with father about finances Total 389 -5.089 0.015 How often talked Negative with your siblings Differences 989 about finances vs. Positive how often talked Differences 120 67
with father about finances Ties 475 Total 1584 -26.065 0.004 Negative Differences 157 How often talked Positive with guardian Differences 29 about finances vs. how often talked Ties 215 with mother about finances Total 401 -9.312 0.000 Negative Differences 1099 How often talked Positive with your siblings Differences 94 about finances vs. how often talked Ties 491 with mother about finances Total 1684 -29.068 0.000 Negative Differences 170 How often talked Positive with your siblings Differences 85 about finances vs. how often talked Ties 142 with guardian about finances Total 397 -5.260 0.756
There is a unique finding in this table as it is the only one where participants chose to talk with their fathers more than in other areas of question. We can see this in the “Ties” and
“Negative Difference” numbers of question one as well as question three in this series. This is simply showing that when it comes to finance there is more of a push to talk to the father than other groups.
In summary the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests show us that students prefer to talk to their mothers over all other variables. The preferred order of communication is as follows: mother, father, and siblings. 68
Friedman’s Chi Square Test. A Friedman Chi Square test was conducted to evaluate the differences in medians among the frequency in communication based on topics between father, mother, guardian, and siblings in relation to personal issues, academic performance, academic advice, social issues, career plans, and finances. The following table (Table 14) addresses “personal issues.”
Table 14 Freidman Test Descriptive Statistics Std. Questions N Mean Deviation Minimum Maximum How often talked with father about personal issues 1766 2.680 0.979 1 4 How often talked with mother about personal issues 1882 3.280 0.854 1 4 How often talked with guardian about personal issues 428 2.560 1.226 1 4 How often talked with your personal sibling(s) about personal issues 1749 2.580 1.034 1 4
This table shows us that based on this test there is more of a frequency in communication with the mother when it comes to personal issues. The second groups are very close in results putting father just slightly ahead of siblings by just 17 points.
Table 15 tells us that yet again the preferred communication type is the mother when dealing with issues of academic performance. Although it should be noted that the difference between mother and father is only 112 points, making the father the second most frequent form 69 of communication. As with the previous table there is little separating the father and sibling scores, in this instance only 13 points separate the two.
Table 15 Freidman Test Descriptive Statistics Std. Questions N Mean Deviation Minimum Maximum How often talked with father about academic performance 1765 2.920 0.924 1 4 How often talked with mother about academic performance 1877 3.140 0.863 1 4 How often talked with guardian about academic performance 428 2.560 1.222 1 4 How often talked with your personal sibling(s) about academic performance 1752 2.210 0.982 1 4
Table 16 shows us that the numbers are yet again close when it comes to academic advice. Mother edges out father and sibling again by a small margin of frequency. In this instance father ranks second by only 116 points, falling to the second spot followed by siblings which only falls 17 points under father.
Table 16 Freidman Test Descriptive Statistics Std. Questions N Mean Deviation Minimum Maximum How often talked with father about academic advice 1766 2.440 1.067 1 4 How often talked with 1882 2.820 1.060 1 4 70
mother about academic advice How often talked with guardian about academic advice 426 2.460 1.219 1 4 How often talked with your personal sibling(s) about academic advice 1749 2.070 1.026 1 4
Table 17 shows us very similar data in that mother scores highest here in relation to social issues. Father is second only 110 points under mother, followed by siblings which is 18 points lower than father.
Table 17 Freidman Test Descriptive Statistics Std. Questions N Mean Deviation Minimum Maximum How often talked with father about social issues 1766 2.460 0.998 1 4 How often talked with mother about social issues 1876 3.060 0.976 1 4 How often talked with guardian about social issues 425 2.490 1.213 1 4 How often talked with your personal sibling(s) about social issues 1748 2.610 1.030 1 4
Table 18 shows us that there is a slight change in the data. Mother still takes the top spot in frequency when it comes to career plans. However, father has a higher frequency rate in this category vs. mother than in all prior categories. Father out ranks siblings by 28 points in the 71 second spot, which is higher than all other categories. The rankings are still the same as far as frequency; the separation between groups is a little wider in this example.
Table 18 Freidman Test Descriptive Statistics Std. Questions N Mean Deviation Minimum Maximum How often talked with father about career plans 1763 2.740 0.969 1 4 How often talked with mother about career plans 1878 2.960 0.972 1 4 How often talked with guardian about career plans 427 2.500 1.209 1 4 How often talked with your personal sibling(s) about career plans 1738 2.180 0.996 1 4
Table 19 shows us more specifically that mother scored higher than the father response in the area of finance. Mother outranks father by 114 points in this category, followed by father and then sibling. There is only a 15 point separation between father and sibling in this category.
Table 19 Freidman Test Descriptive Statistics Std. Questions N Mean Deviation Minimum Maximum How often talked with father about finances 1758 2.750 1.010 1 4 How often talked with mother about finances 1872 2.870 1.013 1 4 72
How often talked with guardian about finances 426 2.430 1.243 1 4 How often talked with your personal sibling(s) about finances 1743 1.820 0.981 1 4
In summary, based on all the results from the Friedman Chi Square test on frequency of communication, the data indicates that respondents talk the most with their mothers over all other variable, followed by fathers, and then siblings. In many cases there is little separation between the groups, but there is clear separation between mother and all other variables.
Frequency Test. In reference to the second component in hypothesis 2, “there will be an increase in the amount of contact a parent/guardian has with the institution on their student’s behalf.” Question FFX0713 “How often do your parents/guardians contact college officials to help solve problems you may be having at this college?” was analyzed based on frequency with the following results featured in Table 20.
Table 20 Frequency of contact with institution Frequency Valid % Never 694 34.7% Sometimes 431 21.6% Often 124 6.2% Very Often 75 3.8% Total 1324 69.5%
This table tells us that the amount of students who identify a time when their parent/guardian has contacted the school (Sometimes + Often + Very Often) results in 1206 individual points of contact. In relation to the total number of surveys these results represent 73
67% of the total population surveyed. The remaining 33% claim their parents have never contacted the officials at their home institution for assistance.
In comparison, table 21 cross tabulates the frequency of contact with the institution and the quality of relationships. This table shows high quality relationships do communicate more frequently than low quality in all responses.
Table 21 Crosstab of Quality of Relationship vs. Contact with Institution Very Quality of relationship with Parent/Guardian Sometimes Often Often Low Quality 1-4 98 22 7 High Quality 5-7 705 213 161
It does seem that in all response sets that the highest quality relationships communicate more with the institution “sometimes” vs. the other response sets. It is important to note that question FFX0713 does not mark the variable of whom, i.e. mother, father, guardian, contacted the institution.
For students who replied that their parent/guardian “never” contacts the institution, a cross tabulation was performed to review the quality of relationships between each variable.
Table 22 Crosstab of Quality of Relationship vs. Never Contacted Institution Quality of relationship with Parent/Guardian Never Low Quality 1-4 77 High Quality 5-7 117
The results of this cross tabulation show that even when students report their parent/guardian does not contact the institution, they still have a high quality of relationship with 74 their parent/guardian. However, the percentage of low quality relationships is higher in this comparative dataset.
Summation
Analysis of the data indicated that; in hypothesis one, when the quality of relationship between student and parent/guardian is high, there will be an increase in the level of involvement in basic decision making in relation to schoolwork/school-life. The data also indicated that; in hypothesis two, when the frequency of contact between student and parent/guardian regarding issues taking place at the school is high there will be an increase in the amount of contact a parent/guardian has with the institution on their student’s behalf.
In addition to the general summary (above) of the results in this section, the following themes emerged as mentioned in the introduction to this chapter. The following tables explain how these themes are supported.
1. Students have a higher quality of relationship with their mother.
Table 23 Quality of Relationship for Mother & Father High Avg. Low Avg. Mother 1528.13 95.265 Percentage 83.55% 5.20% Father 1350.5 180.25 Percentage 78.56% 10.50%
Table 23 shows us that based on student ranking of “quality level” in comparison between mother and father, there is still a higher quality of relationship relating to mother vs. all other variables. 75
Based on the significant drop in responses there is a clear gap in the number of students who identify their primary care giver/parent as a guardian versus a mother or a father.
Table 24 Guardian vs. Mother and Father Question Responses Guardian 1966 Mother 12990 Father 12246
2. However based on the results (Table 25, more students who do relate to a
guardian as a parent figure have a higher quality of relationship with that parent
than not.
Table 25 Quality of Relationship for Guardian High Low Avg. Avg. Guardian 229.75 16 Percentage 84.16% 5.86%
3. No matter how many students reply that they would speak with both their mother
and their father, when students do choose one specifically, they choose their
mother over their father in all response sets.
Table 26 Preference in Communication Question Mother Father Ties Personal Issues 818 94 807 Academic Performance 525 225 963 Academic Advice 651 180 888 Social Issues 802 92 820 Career Plans 501 246 965 Finances 472 355 879 76
Based on the comparative results in the above table (Table 26) that even when taking the
“Ties” into consideration, students chose to talk to their mothers far more than their fathers and therefore in the context of this research have a higher quality of relationship.
The results of the data point to mothers, more than fathers as students’ primary contact.
The implication of these findings in relation to the literature and to the theoretical framework for this thesis will be addressed in the following chapter.
Chapter IV: Discussion of Research Findings
The results of this research reveal that students who regularly communicate with their parents and or guardians in a self-defined high quality relationship are more likely to have their parents and or guardians contact their institution on their behalf. Further, the research points out that the higher the stress level of the student, the more the student reaches out to their parents/guardian. Lastly, this research showed that parent with the most involvement, based on the relationship and frequency of contact with the child, is the mother.
These findings- the quality of the relationship, levels of student stress, and connection to the mother – have significant implications for college and university administrators, student affairs personnel, and society in general.
The literature extensively covers the definition of a type of parenting commonly referred to as helicopter parenting (Rowan-Kenyon, 2008; Sharon, 2007; Simmons, 2008). The term helicopter parent refers to the manner in which parents interact with the institution their students attend. Strauss (2003) classifies these parents as hovering, and ultra-protective. The 77 implications of a helicopter parent are rooted in the amount of involvement parents have in their student’s academic life, as well as what role they play in their developmental process (Howe &
Strauss, 2003). Parents with the ability to swoop in like a helicopter and “save the day” causes a serious challenge to administrators who have been tasked with developing a successful, independent, and contributing member of society (Enkoji, 2008). The literature cites several examples of parents stepping in to assist with failed tests, poor grades, job interviews and even college discipline cases (Horowitz, 1987; Lum, 2006; Simmons, 2008).
As referenced in the Six Stages of Parent Development theory, parenthood develops as the children grow and that the adult’s self-concepts are shaped through interactions with their children at each stage (Hattar-Pollara, 2010). Students develop their method of interpersonal communication as a model based on the methods of their parents and or guardians (Darling &
Steinberg, 1993). This concept is evident in how students interact with administrators, giving administrators a foreshadowing of how the interaction may go with the parent or guardian if escalated to that level. If, for instance, students consider that their parents provide a safety net
(Alsop, 2008). Within the Six Stages of Parent Development (Hattar-Pollara, 2010) stage six the departure stage or the stage when children leave home, (also known as the adulthood stage) is the stage where relationships are redefined between parent and child. This is the transitional stage where the creation of the new or modified relationship establishes the method for communication and interactions in the future. In many ways this also mirrors the concept of “readily separating” previously discovered in Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1969). If the parent/guardian and child do not readily separate they cannot move forward developmentally. This applies to both the student as a developing adult, as well as the parents/guardians who are advancing into the next stages of parenting. 78
This safety net approach often results in students finding it difficult to separate from the established parental support system, as noted in this research primarily the mother, as they transition into their own identity away from their parents and or guardians (Lampert, 2009). If the relationship between child/student and mother has not been established in a way that empowers the child/student to make his or her own informed and educated decisions, the child/student will continue to rely on the support system of a mother to make all of his or her decisions (Hattar-Pollara, 2010). This type of dependent relationship can be disruptive and does not afford students the opportunity to learn from their own mistakes and at times can even be contrary to the student’s wishes (Kennedy, 2009).
We learn from scholars like Chickering (1969), and Reisser (1993), that students also must progressively make their way through the developmental phases of being a student.
Throughout each vector or stage there will be life tests that ultimately move them to the next phase, or cause them to repeat a previous stage until the student is able to make an informed decision to proceed (Reisser, 1993). When a parent steps in (in this case the student’s mother), this thwarts the developmental process (King, 2007; Perna & Titus, 2005). The student learns nothing for themselves, and in fact a lesson is reinforced. The lesson is, that each time they encounter something they do not have answer to, do not understand, or do not wish to deal with, they rely on their mother to step in and take over. This reinforces Attachment Theory (Bowlby,
1969) which discuss a child/student’s ability to readily separate from their parents. Continuously stepping in prevents this part of the process from happening and ultimately places the student into a developmental circle until the pattern is broken.
Implications for Practice 79
The results of this study confirm that the traditional age student does rely on a parent/guardian especially during times of stress. Movement to college from the relatively safe haven of home is considered in the literature to be a time of stress for the adolescent (Kelly et al.,
2007). The study further revealed that it is the mother, especially in high-quality relationships, that is the primary connection to the student.
What does this mean for practice? The implications point to the need for reinvention, in most cases, of college and university parent and family program offices. Today, most parent and family offices serve as a communication routing point and do nothing more than provide an occasional newsletter or message board update (Daddona, 2002). However, many parents, the so-called ‘helicopter’ parents, believe they should have access to every service and amenity their student has access to (Shellenbarger, 2007). This, as this literature review and theoretical framework show, may hinder the student’s ability to handle problems (simple or complex) on their own (Carney-Hall, 2008).
Therefore, structures and systems where parents, students and the institution become partners in the college-going process ( Bell et al., 2008) may be needed at this juncture presuming, as the literature indicates (Curtight, 2008; Lum, 2006; Rutheford, 1995), that parents are not going to stop contacting institutions on their child’s behalf.
One such example of a new and innovative program that captures the audience of parents and refocuses them into partners with the institution was started at Northeastern University in
Boston. Parents of students who are in or past their second year, and even graduates, are part of a network for parents. Throughout the summer parents are contacted based on their location, and asked to attend events called “Summer Send Offs.” These events are held all over the United 80
States and are specifically for newly accepted students who will be joining the University in the fall. The parents of current students and/or alumni attend and offer insight to the new parents on how to best deal with certain issues while Northeastern staff members address the students and discuss with them transitional issues. Staff members from Financial Services, Housing &
Residential Life, and Admissions make up the panel for the students, while the parents and a representative from Admissions or Parent and Family Programs works as a moderator for the parent group. This program is run out of the office of Parent and Family Programs. The goal of the program is to not only educate incoming students and to get them excited about attending, but also to engage and empower past parents. In this program, parents who have already moved on through their own developmental process (Hattar-Pollara, 2010) offer advice and counsel to the parents who are at the early part of Stage Six (Merriman & Rissmeyer, 2009) Students have an informal opportunity ask questions thus reducing some of the stress that is inherent in going away to college (Kelly et al., 2007).
The implications for practice include the impact of both the involvement of the parent/guardian/ mother on not only student decision-making within Student Life but also within the connection between Student Life and Academic Affairs. In addition to programs such as noted above, administrators may need to create programs that involve faculty.
Future Research and Conclusion
There are several areas for future research. Since the findings for this research project were based on a set of experimental questions from the National Survey of Student Engagement
(NSSE) in 2007, this study points to the need for making these questions standard. The ability to capture student responses over time and retest information of this nature year to year would 81 allow researchers to create links to either the successes or failure of new programs and initiatives specifically relating to parent/guardian involvement at the higher education level. A mixed method study, using the quantitative findings in conjunction with qualitative data gleaned from interviews with either administrators or mothers or both would present greater depth to the findings in this study. This could be conducted as a cohort model of observation. The concept is basic, but has the ability to yield some highly useful results. The researcher would need to identify a cohort of students that represents the national demographics of higher education within the United States. Many top 100 universities should provide the student body that exemplifies these criteria. Once identified students would be surveyed prior to arrival on campus for questions relating specifically to their relationship with their parents/guardians.
As many institutions have programs that encourage students to study abroad, study in developmental issues of both students and parents when the student is in a foreign country may be beneficial to administrators both in this country and in foreign locations. Within the international realm, a study of whether the Six Stages (Hattar-Pollara, 2010) and Attachment
Theory (Bowlby, 1969) have cultural biases would inform international study programs.
This study offers avenues for future research in whether children of ‘helicopter parents’ continue their close association with parents, and primarily the mother, after graduation and whether intervention into the student’s job search or life choices continues.
While this study used the theoretical frameworks of Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1969)
Six Stages of Development Hattar-Pollara, 2010 and Chickering’s model (Chickering, 1969), the study could be expanded by considering the literature of decision-making. It is in the area of 82 decision-making where the developmental process of both parent and student may have the most impact on society in general.
83
References
Aggarwal, Anil. (2000). Web-based Learning and Teaching Technologies: Opportunities and
Challenges. Information Management Journal, 15 (1).
Alsop, R. (2008). The trophy kids grown up: How the millennial generation is shaking up the
workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barnett, William P., & Carroll, Glenn R. (1995). Modeling Internal Organizational Change.
Annual Review of Sociology, 21 (1), 217-236. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.001245
Bedard, Kelly. (2001). Human Capital versus Signaling Models: University Access and High
School Dropouts. Journal of Political Economy, 109 (4), 749-775. doi:10.1086/322089
Bell, A. D., L. W. Perna, et al. (2008). "Contextual influences on parental involvement in college
going: variations by socioeconomic class." Journal of Higher Education 79(5): 564+.
Berge, Zane L. (Summer 1998). Barriers To Online Teaching In Post-Secondary Institutions:
Can Policy Changes Fix It? Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1 (Number 2).
Birnbaum, Robert. (2004). The End of Shared Governance: Looking Ahead or Looking Back.
New Directions for Higher Education, 127 .
Board, The College. (2010). College Planning Guide (Vol. 2010). New York, NY: The College
Board.
Borjas, George. (2002). An Evaluation of the Foreign Student Program. In National Bureau of
Economic Research (Ed.): Harvard University.
Bowden, Randall. (2007). Evolution of responsibility: from in loco parentis to ad meliora
vertamur. Education, 127 (4), 480(410).
Boydston, Jo Ann. (1980). The Middles Works of John Dewey: Democracy and Education (Vol.
9): Southern Illinois University Press. 84
Bradburn, N.M., & Sudman, S. (1979). Improving Interview Methods and Questionnaire Design .
Washington, D.C.: Jossey-Bass.
Bretherton, Inge. (1985). Attachment Theory: Retrospect and Prospect. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (1/2), 3-35.
Brownstein, A. (2000). The next great generation? Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (7), A71.
Burke & Litwin, W.G. (1992). A Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change .
Journal of Management, 18 (3), 523-545.
Cabrera, A. F., & LaNasa, S. M. (2001). "On the path to college: Three critical tasks facing
America's disadvantaged." Research in Higher Education 42(42): 119-149.
Caison, Amy. (2007). Analysis of Institutionally Specific Retention Research: A Comparison
Between Survey and Institutional Database Methods. Research in Higher Education,
48 (4), 435-451.
Cahalan, C.F. (1968). Correlates of respondent accuracy in the Denver validity survey. Public
Opinion O, 32 (32), 607-621.
Caspi, A., & Jr., G. E. (1988). Economic Stress in Lives: Developmental Perspectives. Journal of
Social Issues, 44 (4), 25-45.
Cheater, FM, Hearnshaw, H, Baker, R, & Keane, M. (2005). Can a facilitated program to
promote effective multidisciplinary audit in secondary care teams? An exploratory trial.
International Journal Nursing Studies, 42 (7), 779 - 791.
Coburn, Karen Levin (Writer). (2006). Organizing a ground crew for today's helicopter parents
[Article], About Campus : John Wiley & Sons, Inc. / Education.
Commons, Creative. (2009). International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance
Learning, 2009, from http://itdl.org/index.htm 85
Coomes, M. (2004). Understanding the historical and cultural influences that shape generations.
New directions for student services, 106 , 17-32.
Cutright, M. (2008). From helicopter parent to valued partner: Shaping the parental relationship
for student success. New Directions for Higher Education (144), 39-48.
Daddona, Mark , Cooper, Diane. (2002). Comparison of Freshmen Perceived Needs Prior To and
After Participation in an Orientation Program. NASPA Journal (National Association of
Student Personnel Administrators, Inc.); , 39 (4), 300-318.
Daggett, Lynn. (2009). FERPA in the Twenty-First Century: Failure to Effectively Regulate
Privacy for All Students . Paper presented at the 58 Cath. U.L. Rev. 83.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/cathu58&div=6&g_sent=1#85
Darling, Nancy, & Steinberg, Laurence. (1993). Parenting Style as Context: An Integrative
Model. Psychological Bulletin, 113 (3), 487-496.
Dart, Guy. (2006). Hovering `helicopter parents' should be grounded Boston Herald , 021.
Del Giudice, M., & Belsky, J. (2010). Evolving Attachment Theory: Beyond Bowlby and Back
to Darwin. Child Development Perspectives, 4 (2), 112-113. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-
8606.2010.00128.x
Deming, W.E. (1950). Some Theory of Sampling . New York: Wiley.
Desimone, L. (1999). "Linking Parent Involvement With Student Achievement: Do Race and
Income Matter?" The Journal of Educational Research 93(1): 11-30.
Dewey, John. (1980). The school and society (2 ed.). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press. 86
Dolinsky, Beverly, Matthews, Roberta S., Greenfield, Gerald M., Curtis-Tweed, Phyllis, &
Evenbeck, Scott E. (2007). Assessment Is Essential for Implementing Successful First-
Year Experience Programs. Assessment Update, 19 (6).
Donovan, Jody, & McKelfresh, David. (2008). In Community with Students' Parents and
Families. NASPA Journal, 45 (3), 384-405.
Education, The U.S. Department of. (2009). FERPA (Family Education Rights and Privacy Act)
Retrieved October 2009, 2009, from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html
Enkoji, M. S. (2008). Overprotective 'helicopter parents' hover over college students Sacramento
Bee, The (CA) : Sacramento Bee, The (CA).
Estabrooks, CA. (2003). Translating research into practice: implications for organizations and
administrators. Canadian Journal Nursing Research, 35 (3), 53 - 68.
Fraenkel, J., N. Wallen, et al. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education . New
York, McGraw Hill.
Fullan, Michael. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change (4 ed. Vol. 4). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Galinsky, Ellen. (1987). The Six Stages of Parenthood : Da Capo Press.
Giroux, Henry. (2001). Theory and Resistance in Education (Critical Studies in Education and
Culture Series) : Praeger.
Green, S.B., & Salkind, N.J. (2008). Using SPSS for Window and Macintosh: Analyzing and
understanding data (5 ed. Vol. 5th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Hall. 87
Griffith, Sunday. (2011). Using the National Survey of Student Engagement as a Tool to
Determine Influences of Overall Student Satisfaction with the College Experience and
Help Define Student-Centeredness. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of
Toledo, Toledo. (UMI: 3498464)
Harvey, G, Loftus-Hills, A, Rycroft-Malone, J, Titchen, A, Kitson, A, McCormack, B, & Seers,
K. (2002). Getting evidence into practice: the role and function of facilitation. Journal
Advanced Nursing, 37 (6), 577 - 588.
Hattar-Pollara, Marianne. (2010). Transitions Theory: Middle-Rage and Situation Specific
Theories . New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, LLC.
Hersh, Richard H., & Merrow, John (Writers) & John Merrow Richard H. Hersh (Director).
(2005). Declining by Degrees: Higher Education at Risk. USA: PBS Home Video.
Higbee, Jeanne, Lundell, Dana, & Arendale, David. (2005). The General College Vision -
Integrating Intellectual Growth, Multicultural Perspectives, and Student Development .
Minneapolis: Regents of the University of Minnesota by its General College.
Hollander, M., & Wolfe, D. (1973). Nonparametric Statistical Methods . New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Hoover, Eric. (2008). Surveys of Students Challenge 'Helicopter Parent' Stereotype. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 54 (21), A22.
Howe, Neil, & Strauss, William. (2003). Millennials Go to College: Strategies for a New
Generation on Campus : American Association of Collegiate Registrars.
Huitt, W. (2004). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Educational Psychology Interactive . Valdosta,
GA: Valdosta State University. 88
Jacobs, Jeff, & Archie, Tim. (2007). Investigating Sense of Community in First-Year College
Students. Journal of Experiential Education, 30 (3), 282-285.
James, Bernard. (2002). May a Student Enforce FERPA by Suing a Private University under
Section 1983. 407 (2001-2002) .
Jason, Greer. (2010). Millennial Parents on Campus: Reflecting on how to Discover Confluence
with this Constituency . Paper presented at the JASPA 2010 Summer Institute, St. Louis,
Missouri.
Johnson, Helen E. (2004). Educating Parents About College Life. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50 (18), B11.
Kelly, John T.; Kendrick, Marla M.; Newgent, Rebecca A.; Lucas, Christopher J. (2007).
Strategies for Student Transition to College: A Proactive Approach. College Student
Journal, 41 (4), 1021-1035.
Kennedy, K. (2009). The politics and policies of parental involvement. About Campus
(September-October), 16-25.
King, S. (2007). Expected and actual parental involvement during the college years: Perceptions
of parents and students. Education. University of Georgia. Atlanta.
King, S. (2009). The impact of parental involvement on college student development: A
longitudinal study: Part II. NASPA Journal (February 12), 16-69.
Kuh, G. (2004). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual framework and
overview of psychometric properties. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary
Research and Planning .
Kuh, G. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The Review of Higher
Education, 24 (3), 309-332. 89
Lake, Peter. (2010). Beyond Discipline - Reducing Legalisms to Improve Our Educational
Environments . Paper presented at the ASCA "A New Day", St. Petersburg Beach,
Florida.
Lake, R.D. Bickel and P.F. (1999). The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University .
Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.
Lama, Dalai. (1999). Ethics For The New Millennium . New York: Riverhead Books.
Lampert, Joel. (2009). Parental Attachment Styles and Traditional Undergraduates' Adjustment
to College: Testing the "Helicopter Parent" Phenomenon. Doctorate of Psychology,
Pacific University, Hillsboro, Oregon.
Lipka, S. (2007). Helicopter parents held students, survey finds. The Chronicle of Higher
Education (November 9), A1.
Lipka, S. (2008). Education Department Gives Colleges New Flexibility on Student-Privacy
Law. [Journal]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55 (17), 1-3.
Lum, Lydia. (2006). Handling "Helicopter Parents". Diverse: Issues in Higher Education,
23 (20), 40-43.
Luneman, Roger B. (2009). Student Affairs and Student Services in Higher Education: Global
Foundations, Issues, and Best Practices.
Martin, Linda Messer. (1998). Development change in college students: A study based on
Chickering's model of student development. Ph.D., Syracuse University, New York.
McKnight, Oscar, Paugh, Ronald, McKnight, Aaron, & Parker, Heidi. (2009). Re-examining The
Helicopter Parent: What Every Marketing Professional in Higher Education Should
Know. Paper presented at the Marketing Management Association 2009 Proceedings. 90
Mealer, K.B. (2003). From In Loco Parentis to Consumerism : A Legal Analysis of the
Contractual Relationship Between and Institution and Student. NASPA Journal, 40 (4),
124-148.
Merriman, Lynette S. (2007). It's Your Child's Education, Not Yours. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 54 (13), B20.
Merriman, Lynette, & Rissmeyer, Patricia. (2009). The Impact of Parental Involvement on
College Student Development: A Longitudinal Study: Part III NASPA Journal (February),
1-35.
Milstone, David. (2007). Helicopter Parents Not the Whole Story. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 54 (14), A35.
Moneta, Larry. (1997). Integration of Technology With Management of Student Services. New
Directions for Student Services, 1997 (78), 5-16.
Mullendore, R. (2005). Developing a partnership with today's college parents . Washington,
D.C.: NASPA Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.
O'Donnell, Karen D. (2006). The General College Vision: Integrating Intellectual Growth,
Multicultural Perspectives, and Student Development. Research & Teaching in
Developmental Education, 23 (1), 86-88.
Pizzolato, J. E. and S. Hicklen (2011). "Parent Involvement: Investigating the Parent-Child
Relationship in Millennial College Students." Journal of College Student Development
52(6): 671-686.
Price, J. (2008). Using purposeful messages to educate and reassure parents. New directions for
student services, 122 , 29-41. 91
Perna, L. W. and M. A. Titus (2005). "The relationship between parental involvement as social
capital and college enrollment: An examination of racial/ethnic group differences."
Journal of Higher Education 76(5): 485-518.
Porter, Stephen. (2011). Do College Student Surveys Have Any Validity. The Review of Higher
Education, 35 (1), 45-76.
Robb, A. (2008). Look! Up in the ski! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Supermom! O, The Oprah
Magazine, July 2008 .
Rowan-Kenyon, H. (2008). Contextual influences on parental involvement in college going:
Variations by socioeconomic class. The Journal of Higher Education, 79 (5), 564-586.
Rouse, Beatrice, Kozel, Nicholas, & Richards, Louise. (1985). Meeting Current Challenges to
Validity (Vol. 57). Rockville, Maryland: Department of Health and Human Services.
Royston, Greenwood, & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding Radical Organizational Change:
Bringing together the Old and the New Institutionalism. The Academy of Management
Review, 21 (4), 1022-1054.
Rutheford, Barry. (1995). Parent and Community Involvement in Education. In RMC
Corporation (Ed.), Studies of Education Reform: Washington, D.C.
Ruvolo, Catherine M., & Bullis, R. Craig. (2003). Essentials of Culture Change Lessons Learned
the Hard Way. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55 (3), 155-168.
Sanoff, Alvin P. (2006). Bribery Attempts, the Unbearable Pushiness of Parents, and Other
Admissions Tales. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52 (44), B3.
Schultheiss, Donna E. Palladino, & Blustein, David L. (1994). Role of adolescent-parent
relationships in college student development and adjustment. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 41 (2), 248-255. 92
Sharon, Jayson. (2007). 'Helicopter' parents appear to defy socioeconomic pegging USA Today .
Shellenbarger, S. (2007). Helicopter Parenting: A breakdown. Wall Street Journal - Eastern
Edition, 250, D1-1.
Shoup, Rick, Gonyea, Robert, & Kuh, George. (2009). Helicopter Parents: Examining the
Impact of Highly Involved Parents on Student Engagement and Educational Outcomes .
Paper presented at the 49th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research,
Atlanta, Georgia.
Simmons, Andrew N. (Fall 2008). A Reliable Sounding Board: Parent Involvement in Students'
Academic and Career Decision Making. NACADA (National Academic Advising
Association), 28 (2), 33-43.
Simpson, Douglas J., John, Michael, Jachson, Brierley, & Aycock, Judy C. (2005). John Dewey
and the Art of Teaching . Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Simpson, Jeffry. (2010). Attachment and relationships: Milestones and future directions. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 27 (2), 173-180.
Smith, William, Zhang, Pidi. (2009). Students Perceptions and Experiences with Key Factors
During the Transition From High School to College. College Student Journal, 43 (2), 643-
657.
Springer, Ann. (2002). Legal Watch: Do Students Have a Right to Privacy? Academe,
September-October .
Steelman, Lala Carr, & Powell, Brian. (1991). Sponsoring the Next Generation: Parental
Willingness to Pay for Higher Education. The American Journal of Sociology, 96 (6),
1505-1529. 93
Sy, S., & Romero, J. (2008). Family responsibilities among latina college students from
immigrant families. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 7 (3), 212-227.
Taylor, Elizabeth. (2008). Admissions dean opens up on helicopter parents, joys of his job and
the truth about test scores Chicago Tribune (IL) : Chicago Tribune (IL).
Tiernet, William G., & Lechuga, Vincente M. (2004). New Directions for Higher Education:
Restructuring Shared Governance in Higher Education (Vol. 127). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Wallin, L, Rudberg, A, & Gunningberg, L. (2005). Staff experiences in implementing guidelines
for Kangaroo Mother Care - a qualitative study. International Journal Nursing Stud,
42 (1), 61 - 73.
Wartman, K.L. (2008). Parental Involvement in higher education: Understanding the relationship
among students, parents and the institution. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33 (6).
Weeks, K. M. (2001). Family-friendly FERPA policies: Affirming parental partnerships. New
directions for student services, 94 , 39-50.
Whitt, George Kuh and Elizabeth. (1988). Culture in American Colleges and Universities. ASH-
ERIC Higher Education report No.1 .
Williams Iv, John-John. (2008). Hovering parents bully teachers: Educators report harassment
from 'helicopter' caretakers Baltimore Sun, The (MD) : Baltimore Sun, The (MD).
Winegard, Tanya. (2010). Interactions of Senior-Level Student Affairs Administrator with
Parents of Traditional-Age Undergraduate Students: A Qualitative Study. Doctor of
Philosophy Dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Wolf, D., Sax, L., & Harper, C. (2009). Parental engagement and contact in the academic lives of
college students. NSAPA Journal, 46 (2), 325-358. 94
Wintre, M., & Yaffe, M. (2000). First-Year Students' Adjustment to University Life as a
Function of Relationships with Parents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15 (9). doi:
10.1177/0743558400151002
Appendices
95
Appendix A
NSSE Data Sharing Agreement (With Northeastern Signatures) 96
97
98
99
Appendix B.
NSSE: 2007 Experimental Items Codebook (Family and Friends Support)
100
101
102