Citation
Connection between parenting roles and familial obligation in regards to student motivation based on self-determination theory

Material Information

Title:
Connection between parenting roles and familial obligation in regards to student motivation based on self-determination theory
Creator:
Kelly, Larissa Ann ( author )
Place of Publication:
Denver, Colo.
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (58 pages) : ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Autonomy (Psychology) ( lcsh )
Parentling ( lcsh )
Motivation in education ( lcsh )
Motivation in education ( fast )
Autonomy (Psychology) ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
Recent educational research has focused on student success in the classroom particularly revolving and concerning student motivation. Much of the previous research has concentrated on how dyadic relationships such as parent-child relationships and teacher-student relationships impact a student's motivation in the classroom. This current study aims to push past these relationships and encourage examining a student's motivation from a more holistic ecological view utilizing familial obligation.
Review:
For this study, secondary quantitative data that was previously collected was utilized and reanalyzed. This involved surveyed measures that utilized a 7-point likert scale. For this study surveyed data was collected from over 300 students. This sample was then limited to only looking at students from Latino American, European American and Asian backgrounds from self-reports. Findings of this study display that parental autonomy support and familial obligation were significantly correlated to motivation based on self-determination theory. In addition, it was found that familial obligation was a partial mediator between parental autonomy support and motivation at all varying levels based on self-determination theory. These results align with all three reported guiding research questions and corresponding hypotheses.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Larissa Ann Kelly.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
on10121 ( NOTIS )
1012118253 ( OCLC )
on1012118253
Classification:
LD1193.E35 2017m K45 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
CONNECTION BETWEEN PARENTING ROLES AND FAMILIAL OBLIGATION IN
REGARDS TO STUDENT MOTIVATION BASED ON SELF-DETERMINATION
THEORY
by
LARISSA ANN KELLY B.S., Colorado State University, 2013
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts
Education and Human Development
2017


This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Larissa Ann Kelly has been approved for the Education mid Human Development program by
Jung-in Kim
Jorge Chavez
Ruben P. Viramontez Anguiano


ii
Kelly, Larissa Ann (M. A in Education and Human Development)
Connection between Parenting Roles mid Familial Obligations in Regards to Student Motivation Based on Self-determination Theory
Thesis directed by Professor Jung-in Kim
ABSTRACT
Recent educational research has focused on student success in the classroom particularly revolving and concerning student motivation. Much of the previous research has concentrated on how dyadic relationships such as parent-child relationships and teacher-student relationships impact a students motivation in the classroom. This current study aims to push past these relationships and encourage examining a students motivation from a more holistic ecological view utilizing familial obligation.
For this study, secondary quantitative data that was previously collected was utilized mid reanalyzed. This involved surveyed measures that utilized a 7-point likert scale. For this study surveyed data was collected from over 300 students. This sample was then limited to only looking at students from Latino American, European American and Asian backgrounds from self-reports. Findings of this study display that parental autonomy support and familial obligation were significantly correlated to motivation based on self-determination theory. In addition, it was found that familial obligation was a partial mediator between parental autonomy support mid motivation at all varying levels based on self-determination theory. These results align with all three reported guiding research questions and corresponding hypotheses.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved: Dr. Jung-in Kims & Dr. Jorge Chavez


DEDICATION
iii
To the ones who continue to learn.
To the ones who always strive for more. To the ones who remain to have courage.
To the ones who have doubted but chose to conquer.


IV
ACKNOLEDGEMENTS
To my Mom and Dad, it is safe to say that none of this would have been possible without the both of you. For everything you do for me and continue to do me, I am everlastingly grateful. Thank you for always believing in me and supporting me through all my endeavors. I hope to continue to make you proud throughout my journey.
Dr. Kim, thank you for taking a chance on me and opening my eyes to the world of educational research with little to no experience in the field. With your guidance and encouragement I was able to learn and experience more in the field of research than I once believed possible within the realm of my masters education. I look forward to closing this chapter on my thesis work but opening up more pathways to learning and future research.
Dr. Chavez, I am extremely honored and grateful that you were able to come to University of Colorado-Denver this year. In one year, I have had the honor to learn from you and your true expertise. With your support I have gained knowledge that is indispensible. Thank you for always having the patience to meet with me and teach me even when the concepts I was learning I had little previous experience with. I truly look forward to continuing to working with you in the future.
Dr. Ruben, who would have thought that passing out flyers in the snow would lead to so many opportunities in the years to follow? I sure didnt! It is hard to put into words the way in which your leadership has impacted my life for the better. I will forever see you as my mentor and will always feel as though I owe you for all the opportunities you have provided for me. Though I know being the servant leader that you are, you would never ask for anything in return. Thank you for everything, and here is to four more years.
Jenn, Shauna and Mari, thanks for being there for me and for the constant support. Whether it was helping me with SPSS, proofreading my work, providing last minute meals or just offering emotional support, I do not believe this thesis experience would have happened without you all there. I know in the future we will continue to support each other on our journeys and that sure does make me hopeful mid happy.


V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION................................................................ 1
Overview................................................................ 1
Purpose of Study.........................................................2
Guided Research Questions................................................2
Significance of Study....................................................3
Personal Identification of the Topic.....................................3
II. LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................... 5
Introduction.............................................................5
Self-determination Theory mid Students Motivation.......................5
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation.................................6
Motivation and Autonomy Support....................................8
Familial Obligation.................................................... 10
Familial Obligation and School Success........................... 12
Familial Obligation when considering Cultural Backgrounds........ 13
Strong Familial Obligation and Potential Negative Implications... 14
Current Study.......................................................... 15
III. METHODS.................................................................. 16
Research Design.........................................................16
Participants........................................................... 16
Procedures and Measures ................................................18
Hypotheses
20


VI
IV. FINDINGS.....................................................................23
Correlation Data Analysis..................................................23
Correlation between family obligation and motivation..................23
Correlation between family obligation and autonomy support..........23
Correlation between autonomy support and motivation.................24
Multivariate Analysis......................................................24
Multivariate analysis of family obligation and extrinsic motivation.22
Multivariate analysis of family obligation and introjected regulation.23
Multivariate analysis of family obligation mid identified regulation..24
Multivariate analysis of family obligation and intrinsic motivation.25
Multivariate analysis of family obligation and autonomy support...26
Family Obligation as a Mediator............................................29
V. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION FOR RESEARCH......................................31
Discussion.................................................................31
Interpretation of Results..................................................31
Guided research question 1..........................................31
Guided research question 2..........................................32
Guided research question 3..........................................33
Limitations of the Current Study...........................................33
Strengths of the Current Study.............................................34
Future Research............................................................34
Implications mid Conclusion................................................35
REFERENCES........................................................................38


vii
APPENDIX
A: UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER COLORADO MULTI
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (COMIRB) APPROVAL..........40
B: SURVEY QUESTIONARE...................................41


LIST OF TABLES
viii
TABLES
1. Table of Student Background...................................................17
2. Table 2 Intercorrelations.....................................................24
3. Table 3.1 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis predicting Extrinsic
Motivation.....................................................................25
4. Table 3.2 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis predicting Introjected
Regulation.....................................................................26
5. Table 3.3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis predicting Identified
Regulation...................................................................27
6. Table 3.4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis predicting Intrinsic
Motivation...................................................................28
7. Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis predicting Family
Obligation
29


1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Overview
Roughly 3.5 million students are projected to graduate from high school during the 2016-2017 school year (NCES, 2016). Recently, high school graduation rates are at an all time high, peaking at 82% in the 2013-2014 school year (US Department of Education, 2016). Increased levels of academic success are also reflected in the lowering drop out rate, which has declined from 10.9% in 2000 to 6.5% in 2014 (NCES, 2016). Additionally, of those graduating from high school, roughly 40% will end up participating in some sort of collegiate education (NCES, 2016).
With these rising graduation rates, it is more important that ever to understand the changing climate of a students educational experience. Contrastingly, there is also a need to have a better understanding of the consequences of not graduating from high school may have on a student. Specifically, having a well-rounded mid well-developed idea of what intervention help motivate high school students and what factors may prevent students from graduating. Educational research shows that promoting positive motivational practices is not only essential for student academic success but also results in higher levels of autonomy and free thought (Deci & Vallerand, 1991), which are important characteristics for future academic endeavors. However, much of motivational research thus far has focused on simple dyadic relationships, such as teacher-student relationships and parent-child relationships. While these dyadic relationships are import ant, they fail to provide a complete picture of the complex concept mid construct of a students motivation. In addition, many teachers only see their students for nine months


2
out of the year so it is imperative that other relationships such as familial relationships are explored more in depth.
In order to have a fuller, more in-depth understanding of motivational practices mid outcomes for students, it is imperative to dig deeper past these dyadic relationships mid examine learning and motivation through a more holistic ecological lens. Ecological theory can be utilized as overarching lens for this study. By understanding a student from separate systems such as their relationship to their microsystem and macrosytems, there can be a more clear understanding of outside holistic influencers on student academic success. A students microsystem consists of the close relationships mi individual may encounter on a day-to-day basis (Bronfenbrenner, 2009). This includes a students close relationship to members of its family. Studying more complex outside factors as potential influences can help to develop a better understanding of micro- and macro- level factors that may effect student motivation. By examining more complex outside influences, we can open the door to understanding more about resiliency factors that impact a students motivational tendencies in the classroom.
Specifically having a more in depth understanding of students cultural and family backgrounds and what influences these may have on motivational practices in a classroom setting is essential to begin exploring. With a growing diverse population of American high school students from varying cultural identity mid values, it is imperative we begin to examine how coming from diverse family backgrounds impacts a students educational experience and practices. In recent years, research has emerged that challenges the question of how family background or a sense of family obligation plays into students motivational success (Fuligni, 2001). Family obligation can be defined as the extent to which family members feel a sense of duty to assist one another mid to take


3
into account the needs and wishes of the family when making decisions (Fuligni, Tseng & Lam, 1999).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to examine if family obligation has any connection or significant impact on a students motivation in the classroom. In addition, this study aims to begin exploring differing family backgrounds based on student self-reported identity. The relationship between family obligation and students classroom motivation will be examined using a racially mid ethnically diverse sample of high school students who are likely to hold significantly different cultural perceptions of family obligation. Furthermore, this current research aims to challenge future researchers to look past the student-teacher dyadic relationship mid begin to examine motivational tendencies from a wider more holistic and ecologically based lens.
Guided Research Questions
For this thesis three primary research questions are presented:
1. Do parental practices that support autonomy predict motivation in the classroom based on self-determination theory?
2. Does familial obligation affect a students motivation in the classroom?
3. Does familial obligation mediate the relationship between autonomy supportive practices and motivation?
Significance of the Study
There has been a vast amount of research done regarding self-determination theory and motivation in the classroom. There has also been some research regarding family obligation mid parenting roles. However, there has been little to no research in regards to the connection between these three variables. With motivation being a critical


4
proven element to a students success research must turn to a students life at home as cause for motivation in the classroom or lack there of.
Personal Identification of the Topic
In order to grasp the reasoning for this research study it is important to understand the authors relation to the topic. Being a graduate student at the University of Colorado Denver, I (Larissa Kelly) have had the ability to serve in the community in regards to college readiness mid preparation. Primarily, I would serve in communities with diverse cultural backgrounds. I was able to see first hand how family can impact a students success in the classroom and how family practices varied amongst students of different cultural backgrounds. Being able to witness first hand how the idea of upholding a familys honor or expectations in regards to academic success begins to challenge me to think about academic success more critically.
After learning more about motivation practices through my work with my fellow research team, I started to ponder the connections between classroom success and a students family background. I began to wonder what factors, if any, from family life impacted a students success in the classroom.
I believe that these specific connections and questions are relatively untouched in the research community within education, psychology, human development and family science. I hope that this research will open doors for future research to expand across disciplines mid look at varying factors outside the realm of the classroom in regards to a students success. Additionally, I plan to continue with my interest in this topic in my
future research endeavors.


5
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The idea of a students success based on their motivational tendencies date back to several decades of educational research. Moreover, understanding why a student feels motivated mid what external factors influence their motivation has been successfully understood and further developed in recent years. Educational researchers have developed and evolved research in regards to teachers impact on their students motivation. Additionally developmental researchers have pushed to understand parental support in relation to students academic success. However, how familial obligation may affect a students overall motivation has received limited empirical attention in research.
Having a better understanding of what particular external factors impact not only a students academic success but also overall motivation is imperative in order to promote healthy engagement. This summary of literature will discuss previous research in the areas of motivation, familial obligation and parental autonomy and uses self-determination theory as framework for linking current research.
Self-Determination Theory and Students Motivation
Self-Determination Theory, or SDT, (Ryan & Deci, 2000) is a major mid particularly promising theory of motivation that suggests that behaviors that are internalized or intrinsically motivated are more likely to be maintained than behaviors that are externalized or extrinsically motivated. It has been established from developmental psychologist that each individual is born with tendencies to be curious and playful despite any direct rewards (Harter, 1978). This exhibitions that from an early age individuals express the desire to be driven intrinsically rather


6
than extrinsic ally. In addition, it challenges research to think as to where true intrinsic motivation comes from and how it can be successfully promoted.
Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation has been previously defined as the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than for some separable consequence, (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The ability to be intrinsically motivated is unique to humans as they move about cognitive, social and physical development (Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, it should be noted that most individuals have inclinations to be more intrinsically motivated towards certain activities over others. This is due to the fact that reward for the individual is in the task itself (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Thus, individuals are only intrinsically motivated towards tasks that they have a high internal interest towards. Moreover, it has been found that intrinsically motivated tasks were those that provided satisfaction of innate psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
In contrast, since the majority of tasks an individual partakes in are not solely addressing inner psychological needs, it is imperative we understand outside influences on motivation. For example, it has been found that intrinsic motivation becomes weaker with each advancing grade (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Extrinsic motivation takes into consideration any activity done in order to achieve some detachable outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000). This then differs from intrinsic motivation, which focuses on innate and purely internal interests. The range for why an individual becomes externally motivated is wide and consists on a spectrum (Ryan & Deci,
2000). For example, a student may be extremely extrinsically motivated in the classroom due to the fact their parents have promised them a $10 reward for each good grade they receive. This displays a direct reward influenced by extrinsic motivational practice. The student feels motivated to perform and do well so they can achieve the physical award. Contrastingly, a student may be externally motivated to do well mid achieve high grades because they feel as


7
though their academic success will lead them to college acceptance. This too is an external influencer but looks highly different compared to the first example.
To better understand the full spectrum of extrinsic motivation it is important to analyze the various types of extrinsic motivation and where they fall on the continuum of motivation.
This is important to have a clear understanding of because different types of motivation can predict various outcomes such as a student dropping out of high school or building resiliency. Researchers have identified three distinct types of extrinsic motivation, which fall on a continuum based on how external the motivation is to the individual. These three categories of extrinsic motivation that are pertinent to this study, are based on the varying amount of autonomy support fulfilled, which will be further examined and defined later. The first type of extrinsic motivation, external regulation, utilizes the least amount of autonomy needs.
External regulation is synonymous with outside reward. Thus an individual feels the need to complete or perform a task in order to satisfy mid external demand or obtain an external imposed reward contingency (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The example utilized earlier about a student performing well in school to obtain the $10 reward from their parents is an excellent example of this type of extrinsic motivation. The student attempts to perform well and is motivated by the direct reward they will receive.
Continuing on the spectrum of extrinsic motivation, the next category of extrinsic motivation is introjected regulation. Although this category still has a high level of outside control it does not incorporate direct rewards. Instead the individual feels the pressure to perform in order to avoid guilt or anxiety or to attain ego-enhancements or pride (Ryan & Deci, 2000). An example of this category could be a student feeling pressure to perform well and achieve high grades in school in order to avoid their parents feeling disappointed in them.


8
Although there is no direct reward or consequence associated with the outcome of the students grade, they feel an indirect pressure to perform to the standard their parents have placed.
A more autonomous form of extrinsic category of motivation, identification, concerns an increased awareness of the personal importance of the task for the individual. In this way, they understand the task is an imperative activity to achieve a certain goal. The example from before of a student attempting to do well in school and achieve high grades in order hopefully obtain college acceptance displays the stepping stone process of this category.
Motivation and autonomy support. Self-determination theory also analyzes a students motivational tendencies on the foundation that three psychological needs are met of competency, autonomy and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). When each one of these psychological needs is met, a student is more likely to be successfully motivated in a classroom setting. However, when one of these needs is not fully met, a student may experience a lack in motivation, which could in turn fuel a students drop out (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For this current study the psychological need of autonomy will be primarily focused on.
Understanding both intrinsic motivation and the varying spectrum of extrinsic motivation is imperative to understanding why students are motivated in the classroom and where this motivation comes from. Self-determination theory takes largely into consideration autonomy which concerns actions that are experienced as emanating from or congruent with ones self (Ryan & Connell, 1989). Moreover, it concerns an individual need to make decisions from a sense of internal and controlled confidence. Additionally, it has been found that when autonomous, student initiate and regulate their behavior with a high degree of volition and a sense of choice (Jang, Ryan & Kim, 2009). In order to gain autonomy however, a certain level of autonomy support needs to be incorporated into an individuals learning processes. This being


9
said, finding the balance between autonomy support in contrast to exhibiting control over a students learning experience can be a challenging task for many educators.
In the past, there has been a vast amount of research done on the impact an educator may have on a students motivation and academic achievement. Moreover, the implications of having a highly controlling learning environment vs. an autonomy supportive learning environment have additionally been research and analyzed. It has been found that overall higher levels of autonomy support in the classroom in contrast to controlling tendencies in the classroom often end up promoting a greater level of intrinsic motivation for individual students (Ryan &
Grolnick, 1986). By promoting autonomy support in a safe environment teachers are able to catalyze their students desire to be more creative and over time promote their students aspiration for a challenge (Ryan & Grolnick, 1986). Contrastingly, it has been found that students who attempt to learn in a more controlling environment that does not promote autonomy support, not only lose intrinsic motivation but also learn less overall (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987).
The effect of parental autonomy support rather than that of educators on a students motivation has been studied less, but research suggests it is important in student academic success. Since parents are the primary socializing agent in a students early life, it is expected that they would have a substantial influence on their autonomous regulation (Grolnick & Price, 2005). Parents who provide autonomy support allow them to have more choices and thus relinquish overarching control. When examining the role a parents autonomy support may have on a students motivation in the classroom, it is important to analyze reports from the students perception. This is because understanding how the students perceives their parents autonomy support in return helps to better understand their parents influence on a students internal or external motivation. Previous studies have found that, parental autonomy support, from either parent fosters feelings of autonomy at school (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). Moreover, it has been


10
argued that the importance of parental autonomy support decreases as a child grows up and relies less on their parents to perform tasks. However, a variety of studies have found despite the child being in high school, elementary school or even in a college setting, students still highly value their parental autonomy support (Guay, Ratelle & Chanal, 2008). In fact, it has been found that parental autonomy support is valued even more from the child when they are going through stressful times such as transitioning to high school or college (Guay, Ratelle & Chanal, 2008).
In conclusion, SDT essentially is a theory of self-regulation. At times, individuals engage in behavior because of external factors, such as rewards or punishments, mid at times, they engage in behavior because of internal factors, such as enjoyment. Because motivation exists on a continuum, individuals can also be motivated to engage in behavior for many reasons. However, the important aspects of SDT take in to consideration what overall influences a students intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. By understanding what external factors influence motivation we can then have a better understand on how to influence and promote healthy extrinsic and intrinsic motivation.
Familial Obligation
Previous research in regards to motivation has taken into careful consideration the dyadic relationships a student experiences, such as teacher-student relationships and parent-child relationships. However, to better understand external factors and influences a student may be experiencing it is imperative we expand research focuses outside of these dyadic relationships mid into expanded ecological factors such as familial obligation. By examining the baseline of the little research done on the connections between familial obligation and adolescent developmental success mid also familial obligation mid school success, we can start to expand


11
our ideas and thoughts regarding the potential influence familial obligation may have on student motivation.
Familial obligation has been studied in length across disciples related to family life, individual success mid cultural obligation. Much of the current research on familial obligation has focused on duties surrounding focuses on duties surrounding childrens assistance to the family or to sibling care (Fuligni, 2001). However, a childs familial obligation can extend to their decisions mid activities outside of the household, in which a smaller amount of research has been examined. Furthermore, there has been little research to examining the direct connection between a students family orientation and their motivational tendencies in the classroom.
Family obligation refers to the extent to which family members feel a sense of duty to assist one another and to take into account the needs and wishes of the family when making decisions (Fuligni, Tseng & Lam, 1999). Childrens feelings of obligation towards their family may be a critical element towards their relationship with their family, which in return directly affects their feelings of autonomy (Fuligni & Pederson, 2002). Moreover, a sense of family obligation can change overtime depending on the familys economic resources and changing family structure (Fuligni & Pederson, 2002).
Fuligni, Tseng and Lam (1999), have done extensive research in the area of familial obligation concerning adolescents across Asian, Latin American and European backgrounds and how this impacts their overall development. In their study, Fuligni, Tseng mid Lam aimed to better understand adolescents attitude and connection to their family backgrounds by surveying over 1,000 twelfth graders students in the California region. Over 80% of the sample population was from five ethnic backgrounds including: Chinese, Filipino, Mexican, Central and South .American and European. They found students of Asian And Latin American background held significantly stronger values and greater expectations in regard to respect mid future obligations


12
to their families relative to their student peers of European backgrounds (Fuligni, Tseng and Lam, 1999).
However, it was also found that the relations between adolescents values, expectations mid other aspects of their development tended to be quite similar across all cultural backgrounds (Fuligni, Tseng mid Lam, 1999). For example, this may demonstrate that although there are strong differences between adolescents perception of familial obligation from varying cultural backgrounds, there may be more similarities than once thought.
Family obligation and school success in relation to motivation. Previous research has shown that particular cultures uphold their family orientation mid academic success more than others. For example Fuligni (2001) found Asian and Latin American students reported they believe that school success is one of the most important ways an adolescent can assist their family. Moreover, in Fuligni (2001) suggested that the desire for students from Latin and Asian American backgrounds need to support, assist and respect their families, leads them to place more value on the importance and usefulness of education than do their European American peers (Fuligni, 2001). Additionally, in earlier research, Fuligni, Tseng mid Lams (1999) found some connection was that adolescents who had attitudes supportive of family obligations tended to be more academically motivated over all (Fuligni, Tseng and Lam, 1999). These findings suggest that perceptions of family obligation could have a significant impact on student motivational outcomes in the classroom.
Much of the connection between why certain cultures place larger emphasis on academic success versus other cultures could be related to the familys emigration. Many Latin and Asian Americans who have immigrated to the United States have done to provide their children with better opportunities and resources. Therefore, students from these cultural backgrounds have often cited indebtedness and responsibility to do well in school (Fuligni, 2001). Furthermore,


13
other students from diverse ethnic backgrounds have reported that they believe obtaining an education will help them find employment in the future and will give them the ability to support their family (Fuligni, 2001). Therefore, this may imply that an adolescents obligation to their family may be based in a particular belief that the usefulness of their education surpasses just the practicality for their own life in but for their families life as well.
Family obligation when considering cultural backgrounds. Within a society that tends to emphasize adolescent autonomy mid independence, the question is often raised as to whether or not adolescents from collectivism traditions will suffer from not practicing common individualistic tendencies of their peers. Fuligni, Tseng and Lams (1999) study however demonstrates that adolescents from more collectivistic traditions who maintain their familial values do not face negative developmental outcomes as a consequence. In fact, a large number of adolescents from Asian and Latin American backgrounds felt a great obligation to demonstrate family support and respect towards their family (Fuligni, Tseng and Lam, 1999). Furthermore, when it came to supporting family members in the future once the adolescent became an adult, a decline in desire to continue to support was seen across generations and across all ethnic backgrounds (Fuligni Tseng and Lam, 1999). This may be due to latter-generations of families living in the United States may not need as much assistance from their children once they become adults. However, third-generation adolescents from Asian and Latin American families still endorsed their future obligations more strongly than their European American peers (Fuligni, Tseng mid Lam, 1999).
Strong family obligation and potential negative implications. Although, familial obligation has been shown to promote positive development in adolescents, there have been certain outlying situations where a strong sense of family duty has been found to be associated with less positive adolescent development. Adolescent students who reported a very strong sense of family


14
obligation actually tended to receive lower grades compared to their peers who displayed a moderate level of family obligation (Fuligni, Tseng and Lam, 1999). This could be due to students who have a strong sense of familial duty feeling as though they need to cut back on academic studies while their family is going through difficult times financially (Suarez-Orozco, 1995). While education remains central to these adolescents success, the family may provide more pressing issues that the adolescent with strong familial duty feels takes precedence. However, Fuligni, Tseng and Lam (1999) also reported that there was no real connection between having a high level of familial obligation negative developmental outcomes in adolescence. In fact, it was found that even in a society that places emphasis on autonomy mid independent, youth from collectivistic traditions tend to retain their parents familistic values mid these values do not have a negative impact on their development (Fuligni, Tseng & Lam, 1999). Current Study
There has been an extensive amount of research examining students motivation and academic success in the classroom. Much of this research that utilizes self-determination theory examines students motivation has examined the effect of autonomy support on based on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Dyadic relationships such as teacher influences on student motivation and parental influence on student motivation have been heavily examined. However, the main purpose of this research study will aim to examine the connections between a students perception of their familial obligation and their motivational tendencies in the classroom. Additionally, this study aims to challenge research to look past simple dyadic relationships that may influence a students motivation and began looking at influences from a more holistic or ecological lens.
In return, this study adds to the current body of research on motivation that has previously examined motivational tendencies by drawing on the literature on familial obligation


15
to the existing literature on self-determination theory. More importantly, however, this study hopes to begin to connect the two areas and begin to better understand the importance familial obligation may have on students motivational tendencies and thus academic success. Finally, this current study hopes to develop familial obligation as a mediator between parental autonomy supportive practices mid motivational tendencies in the classroom.


16
CHAPTER III METHODS
Research Design
For this research project, secondary quantitative data analysis was utilized. Secondary data can be defined as, existing data originally collected at an earlier time, which was utilized for a completely different research study (Johnson & Christensen, 2008, pg. 243). Dr. Jung-in Kim of University of Colorado Denver originally collected the data being utilized for this current study in Fall 2006. Though the data was previously collected, the current study will reanalyze the existing data in a way that varies greatly from the original analyses of the collected data. This type of data collection has been highly utilized by researchers within the discipline of Education mid Human Development mid Family Science.
The current research study was submitted to and approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB) for exempt research category four. This approval became effective on February 14th, 2017 and the protocol approval number is 17-0126, (See Appendix A).
Participants
(Students)
The current data were drawn from a large, diverse population of high school students. Additionally, the measure utilized during the initial data collection was diverse in its selection of questions and optional responses. Data was collected utilizing a 7-point likert scale survey that consisted of hundred and six questions. For this study in particular roughly eighty of the hundred mid sixty questions will be utilized. Additionally, responses in regards to the students self reported ethnic identity was also utilized.


17
The sample consists of 331 ninth grade students (141=boys, 187=girls) who were currently enrolled at a high school in the southern California region. The age range of the students was from 13 years of age to 18 years of age, with 81% of the students reporting to be 14 years old. This school was utilized due to its high diversity in student population in terms of ethnic representation. Additionally, this school had high attendance rate (95%) and a low drop out rate (<1%).
The current study utilized only student participants who self-reported as identifying as Asian American, Latino or Europe mi American, were utilized for several reasons. First of all, this population made up the majority of the sample. Comprising 82.4% of the total collected sample. Secondly, limiting the sample to only three groups allowed the primary researcher to have a better understanding of these groups specific connections to family obligation and motivation. After limiting the sample, the total number of participants in the study consisted of 240 participant ; 75 of who identified as Asian American, 92 who identified as Latino and 73 who identified as European American. (See Table 1)
Table 1:
Student Background
Student Reported Ethnic Background Number Percentage
Asian American 75 31.25%
Latino 92 38.33%
European .American 73 30.42%
TOTAL: 240


18
Procedures and Measures
During initial data collection, students completed a series of measures using a 7-point likert scale (1= not at all true, 7 = very true). This primary data was collected while students were in attendance during a math class their enrolled in for the mathematics class.
Approximately 30 mathematics classes participated in the study, with an estimated 11 students participating in each class.
While demographic information was collected, the only identifying criterion for the survey was the last name of the teacher who was teaching the mathematics course at the time. Furthermore, only students whose parents had completed the consent form completed the survey instruments.
Instrumentation
Self-Regulation Questionnaire. Four types of student self-regulated motivation were measured via the Ryan mid Connells (1989) Self-Regulation QuestionerAcademics.
Questions were focused around reasons why the student was motivated to study mathematics. In addition, these particular questions were utilized in assessing the type of motivation a student experienced based on self-determination theory (external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, intrinsic motivation).
External regulation was measured utilizing nine questions of the Self-Regulation questioner; questions 2, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24, 25, 28, 32 (see appendix B). An example of a response from this section is when asked, Why do I try to do well in school? A student responding,
Because thats what I am supposed to do Response options were based on a 7-point likert scale which ranged from 1= not true at all to 7 = very true. The external regulation score consists of the sum of the responses to the nine questions divided by the total number of questions
answered.


19
Introjected regulation was also measured utilized the Self-Regulation questioner mid also contained nine relevant questions; questions 1, 4, 10, 12, 17, 18, 26, 29, 31 (see appendix B). For introjected regulation an example of a pertaining response was when asked, Why do I work on my classwork? A student responding, Because I want the teacher to think I am a good student Response options were based on a 7-point likert scale which ranged from 1= not true at all to 7 = very true. The introjected regulation score consists of the sum of the responses to the nine questions divided by the total number of questions answered.
Identified regulation applied the Self- Regulation questioner as well and was comprised of seven different questions; questions 5, 8, 11, 16, 21, 23, 30 (see appendix B). In regards to identified regulation, when asked, Why do you do your homework? a student may respond,
Because it is important to me to do my homework. Response options were based on a 7-point likert scale which ranged from 1= not true at all to 7 = very true. The identified regulation score consists of the sum of the responses to the seven questions divided by the total number of questions answered.
Intrinsic motivation was measured utilizing seven responses of the Self-Regulation questioner; questions 3, 7, 13, 15, 19, 22, 27. An example of a response from this area of the measure was when asked, Why do I try to answer hard questions in class? a student responding, Because it's fun to answer hard questions Response options were based on a 7-point likert scale which ranged from 1= not true at all to 7 = very true. The intrinsic motivation score consists of the sum of the responses to the seven questions divided by the total number of questions answered.
Perception of parents motivating style. Students perception of their parents' motivation style, either controlling or supportive, was measured utilizing thirteen out of fifteen items developed by Robbins (1994). Within this scale, two subscales were used perception of


20
parental controlling style and perception of parental autonomy support. Response options were based on a 7-point likert scale which ranged from 1= not true at all to 7 = very true. The perception of parents motivating style score consists of the sum of the responses to the fifteen questions divided by the total number of questions answered. An example of a response from this section was My parents help me choose my own direction. For controlling items of the subscale, six responses were utilized with no responses being reverse coded. An example of a response from this section was, My parents are always telling me how to behave .
Familial Obligation. Students perception of their familial obligation was assessed utilizing four items following Fuligni (2001). Response options were based on a 7-point likert scale which ranged from 1= not true at all to 7 = very true. The familial obligation score consists of the sum of the responses to the four questions divided by the total number of questions answered. The responses asked of the students were the following: An important reason I try to do well in school is to please my parents-siblings I want to do well in school so that I can be better prepared to take care of my family, The main reason I try to do well in school is to bring honor my family, It is important to me that my parents-guardians are proud of my achievement in school.
Hypotheses
Guiding Research Question 1: Do parental practices that support autonomy predict students various types of motivation in the classroom based on the four types identified by self-determination theory?
Hypothesis 1:
A: Parental autonomy supportive practices predict external regulation in the classroom.
B: Parental autonomy supportive practices predict introjected regulation in the classroom.
C: Parental autonomy supportive practices predict identified regulation in the classroom.


21
D: Parental autonomy supportive practices predict intrinsic motivation in the classroom. Rationale: The effect of parental autonomy support rather than that of educators on a students motivation has been studied less, but research suggests it is important in student academic success. Since parents are the primary socializing agent in a students early life, it is expected that they would have a substantial influence on their autonomous regulation (Grolnick & Price, 2005). This in return then should have some effect on a students motivational tendencies in the classroom.
Guiding Research Question 2: Does familial obligation predict a students various types of motivation in the classroom based on the four types identified by self-determination theory?
Hypothesis 2:
A: Familial obligation predicts external regulation in the classroom.
B: Familial obligation predicts introjected regulation in the classroom.
C: Familial obligation predicts identified regulation in the classroom.
D: Familial obligation predicts intrinsic motivation in the classroom.
Rationale: Much of the current research on familial obligation has focused on duties surrounding focuses on duties surrounding childrens assistance to the family or to sibling care (Fuligni, 2001). However, a childs familial obligation can extend to their decisions and activities outside of the household, in which a smaller amount of research has been examined. Furthermore, there has been little research to examining the direct connection between a students family orientation mid their motivational tendencies in the classroom.
Guiding Research Question 3: Does familial obligation mediate the relationship between autonomy supportive practices and motivation?
Hypothesis 3:
A: Parental autonomy supportive practices predict family obligation.


22
B: The effect of autonomy support on motivation will be reduced when controlling for family obligation.
Rationale: There has been limiting research previously that has analyzed familial obligation as a mediator between autonomy support and motivation. This part of the study has limited support in previous research but presents itself as the unique aspect of the current study.


23
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS
All tests and analyses were performed utilizing IBM SPSS Statistics Version 24 software. In order to test the various hypotheses of this study a correlation matrix was developed with descriptive statistics of standard deviation and mean provided for each variable. Multiple regression analyses were performed mid partial mediation was established. The results of these analyses are reported in the following sections.
Correlation between family obligation and motivation. To exam the bivariate relationship between family obligation mid extrinsic motivation (including introjected regulation mid identified regulation), a correlation matrix was conducted (Table 2). As can be seen from Table 2, all variables were significantly mid positively correlated with each other including family obligation mid external regulation (r = .463, p <0.01). Family obligation and introjected regulation were also significantly and positively correlated (r = .558, p < 0.01).
Intercorrelations between family obligation mid intrinsic motivation or identified regulation, were also examined. As seen in Table 2, family obligation was significantly and positively correlated with intrinsic motivation (r = .263, p <0.01) and identified regulation (r = .374,/? <0.01).
Correlation between autonomy support and family obligation. Connections between family obligation mid parental practices that are supportive of autonomy was analyzed as well.
As seen in Table 2, family obligation was significantly and positively correlated with parental practices that are supportive of autonomy (r = 291, p < 0.01).


24
Correlation between autonomy support and motivation. Additionally, connections between autonomy support and of the four levels of motivation were also examined. All four levels of motivation were significantly and positively correlated with parental autonomy supportive practices. As seen in Table 2, autonomy support mid external regulation ( r = .267, p < 0.01), autonomy support and introjected regulation ( r = .382, p < 0.01), autonomy support and identified regulation ( r = .350, p < 0.01), and autonomy and intrinsic motivation ( r = .230, p < 0.01) were all significantly and positively correlated to each other.
Table 2.1
Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations for Extrinsic Motivation, Introjected Regulation, Identified Regulation, Intrinsic Motivation, Family Obligation and Autonomy Support (N=237)
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Extrinsic Motivation 4.32 1.28 .624** .417** .328** .463** .267**
2. Introjected Regulation 4.1 1.45 .707** .509** .558** .382**
3. Identified Regulation 4.91 1.38 .589** .374** .350**
4. Intrinsic Motivation 2.63 1.29 .263** .230**
5. Family Obligation 5.2 1.5 .291**
6. Autonomy Support 4.37 1.33
** p< 0.01
Multivariate Analysis
Multivariate Analysis Predicting External Regulation. Presented in Table 3.1 is the
hierarchical multiple regression analysis examing the link between parental autonomy support, family obligation mid external regulation. Previous bivariate results indicated a strong correlation between parental autonomy support, family obligation and external regulation. In step 1, external regulation is regressed on ethnicity and sex to serve as a baseline. No significant differences in external regulation were found between, Asian, Latino and European American students or between males and females. In step 2 of the analysis, sex and ethnicity are controlled for. Additionally in step 2, it was found that females negatively predicted external regulation (fi


25
= -0.132, p < 0.05). However, in step 2 of the analysis, parental autonomy supportive practices significantly predicted external regulation (J3 = 0.277, p < 0.05). In step 3 of Table 3.1, when controling for ethnicity, gender and parental autonomy supportive practices family obligation significantly predicted external regulation (J3 = 0.457, p < 0.05). Additionally, in step 3 females continued to stay negatively significant (J3 = 0.152, p < 0.05), while parental autonomy supportive practices remained positively significant (J3 = 0.135,/? < 0.05).
Table 3.1
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis summary predicting External Regulation from Familial Obligation, when controlling for ethnicity, sex and parental autonomy support. (N=237)
V ariable B SEB p R2 AR2
Step 1 (Constant) 4.464 0.169 0.014 0.001
Asian 0.054 0.211 0.02
Latino -0.019 0.203 -0.007
Female -0.292 0.167 -0.115
Step 2 (Constant) 3.277 0.315 0.089 0.074
Asian 0.155 0.204 0.057
Latino 0.042 0.196 0.016
Female -0.337 0.161 -0.132 *
Autonomy 0.265 0.060 0.277 *
Step 3 (Constant) 2.1 0.324 0.267 0.251
Asian -0.131 0.188 -0.048
Latino -0.282 0.181 -0.108
Female -0.389 0.145 -0.152 *
Autonomy 0.129 0.057 0.135 *
Family Obi. 0.387 0.052 0.457 *
*p<0.05
Multivariate Analysis Predicting Introjected Regulation. Displayed in Table 3.2 is the
results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis examining the link between family obligation and introjected regulation. In step 1, introjected regulation is regressed on ethnicity and sex to serve as a baseline. No significant differences in introjected regulation were found


26
between, Asian, Latino and European .American students or between males and females. In step 2 of the analysis, when controlling for sex and ethnicity, parental autonomy supportive practices remained significant (J3 = 0.385,/? < 0.05). It can also be interpreted from step 3 of Table 3.2 when controling for ethnicity, gender and parental autonomy support, family obligation significantly predicts introjected regulation (J3 = 0.507,/? < 0.05). Additionally, when examining Table 3.2 in step 3, it can be seen that the Latino variable becomes significantly negatively associated with introjected motivation (J3 = -0.128, p < 0.05).
Table 3.2
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis summary predicting Introjected Regulation from Familial Obligation, when controlling for ethnicity, sex and parental autonomy support. (N=237)_____________________________________________________________________________
V ariable B SEB p R2 AR2
Step 1 (Constant) 3.923 0.190 0.013 0
Asian 0.127 0.237 0.041
Latino -0.069 0.228 -0.023
Sex 0.285 0.188 0.099
Step 2 (Constant) 2.064 0.341 0.159 0.145
Asian 0.286 0.221 0.093
Latino 0.027 0.212 0.009
Sex 0.215 0.175 0.075
Autonomy 0.414 0.065 0.385 *
Step 3 (Constant) 0.591 0.336 0.378 0.365
Asian -0.072 0.195 -0.023
Latino -0.378 0.188 -0.128 *
Sex 0.15 0.151 0.052
Autonomy 0.245 0.059 0.228 *
Family Obi. 0.484 0.054 0.507 *
*/?< 0.05
Multivariate Analysis Predicting Identified Regulation. Presented in Table 3.3 are the
results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis exploring the link between family


27
obligation and identified regulation. In step 1, identified regulation is regressed on ethnicity and sex to serve as a baseline. No significant differences in identified regulation were found between, Asian, Latino and European .American students or between males and females. As seen in step 2 of Table 3.3, when controlling for sex and ethnicity, parental autonomy supportive practices significantly predicts identified regulation (f = 0.395, p < 0.05). In step 3 of Table 3.3, when controlling for ethnicity, gender and autonomy supportive practices, family obligation significantly predicts identified regulation (f = 0.298, p < 0.05). Additionally, in step 3 autonomy supportive practices remain significant (f = 0.267, p < 0.05), indicating partial mediation of the family obligation between the autonomy supportive practices and identified regulation.
Table 3.3
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis summary predicting Identified Regulation from Familial Obligation, when controlling for ethnicity, sex and parental autonomy support. (N=237)_______________________________________________________________
V ariable B SEB p R2 AR2
Step 1 (Constant) 4.725 0.183 0.015 0.002
Asian 0.279 0.229 0.094
Latino -0.017 0.220 -0.006
Sex 0.198 0.182 0.071
Step 2 (Constant) 3.052 0.333 0.127 1.293
Asian 0.422 0.215 0.142
Latino 0.069 0.206 0.024
Sex 0.135 0.170 0.049
Autonomy 0.373 0.064 0.359 *
Step 3 (Constant) 2.218 0.364 0.2 1.237
Asian 0.219 0.211 0.074
Latino -0.16 0.203 -0.056
Sex 0.098 0.163 0.035
Autonomy 0.277 0.064 0.267 *
Family Obi. 0.274 0.058 0.298 *
*p< 0.05


28
Multivariate Analysis Predicting Intrinsic Motivation. Displayed in Table 3.4 are the
results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis examining the link between family obligation and intrinsic motivation. In step 1, intrinsic motivation is regressed on ethnicity and sex to serve as a baseline. No significant differences in intrinsic motivation were found between, Asian, Latino and European .American students or between males and females. In step 2 of Table 3.4, when controlling for sex and ethnicity, parental autonomy supportive practices significantly predicts intrinsic motivation (p = 0.224, p < 0.05). When controlling for ethnicity, gender and parental autonomy supportive practices in Step 3 in Table 3.4, family obligation significantly predicts intrinsic motivation (p= 0.229, p < 0.05). Additionally, in step 3 parental autonomy supportive practices remains significant (p = 0.153,/? < 0.05).
Table 3.4
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis summary predicting Intrinsic Motivation from Familial Obligation, when controlling for ethnicity, sex and parental autonomy support. (N=237)___________________________________________________________________________
V ariable B SEB p R2 AR2
Step 1 (Constant) 2.587 0.172 0.006 -0.007
Asian -0.085 0.215 -0.031
Latino -0.102 0.207 -0.038
Sex 0.195 0.171 0.075
Step 2 (Constant) 1.61 0.326 0.056 0.04
Asian -0.001 0.211 0
Latino -0.051 0.202 -0.019
Sex 0.158 0.167 0.061
Autonomy 0.218 0.062 0.224 *
Step 3 (Constant) 1.009 0.365 0.101 0.081
Asian -0.147 0.211 -0.053
Latino -0.217 0.204 -0.081
Sex 0.132 0.163 0.051
Autonomy 0.149 0.064 0.153 *
Family Obi. 0.197 0.058 0.229 *
*p<0.05


29
Multivariate Analysis of Family Obligation and Autonomy Support. Presented in Table 4 are the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis prediciting family obligation when controlling for autonomy support. In step 2 of Table 4, when controlling for ethnicity and gender, autonomy support significantly predicts family obligation (J3 = 0.311, p < 0.05). Additionally though, Latino and Asian ethnicity variables remain significant predictors (J3 = 0.271,/? > 0.05; p = 0.229, p > 0.05).
Table 4
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis summary predicting Familial Obligation with Autonomy Support when controlling for ethnicity and sex. (N=237)__________________
V ariable B SEB R2 AR2
Step 1 (Constant) 4.616 0.195 0.054 0.041
Asian 0.605 0.244 0.188 *
Latino 0.757 0.234 0.245 *
Female 0.194 0.193 0.064
Step 2 (Constant) 3.044 0.360 0.149 0.134
Asian 0.74 0.233 0.229 *
Latino 0.837 0.233 0.271 *
Female 0.134 0.184 0.045
Autonomy 0.35 0.069 0.311 *
*p<0.05
Family Obligation as a Mediator. In hypothesis 3 it is proposed that family obligation mediating the effect between parental autonomy support for all four types of motivation proposed by self-determination theory. When analyzing Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, through step 2 and step 3, it can be found that family obligation is significantly prediciting motivation when controlling for ethnicity, gender and parental autonomy support.


30
Additionally, when examining Step 2 of Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, it can be found that parental autonomy support also significantly predicts varying levels of motivation. Furthermore, in Table 4, parental autonomy support is found to positively and significantly predict family obligation. Finally, in Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, although the effect or parental autonomy support is still significant when family obligation is added to step 3 of each table, the effect is considerably reduced in each regressional analysis. In Table 3.1, from step 2 to step 3, parental autonomy support is reduced by 51%. In table 3.2, from step 2 to step 3, parental autonomy support is reduced by 41%. In table 3.3, from step 2 to step 3, parental autonomy support is reduced by 26%. In table 3.4, from step 2 to step 3, parental autonomy support is reduced by 32%. Through the analysis of Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 and by following Baron mid Kennys (1986) model mid definition of mediation,it can be determined that family obligation mediates a considerable portion of the effect of parental autonomy support on each of the four types of
motivation examined here.


31
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH
Discussion
The current study was a secondary quantitative analysis study that utilized previously collected likert scaled survey data. The purpose was to begin to better understand the connections between familial obligation and motivation regarding students in a classroom environment. It was found that familial obligation was a mediator between parental autonomy supportive practices mid motivation at varying levels. Furthermore, there were additional notable correlations between variables including that of ethnicity and sex.
Interpretation of Results
Research Question 1: Parental autonomy supportive practices and motivation. As
was hypothesized, parental autonomy supportive practices are significant predictors of motivation at all four types of identified by self-determination theory (external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, intrinsic motivation). These results were in alignment with prior research that suggested positive parental autonomy support encouraged student motivation in a classroom setting (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). The current findings suggest that parental autonomy support is an important consideration and factor when attempting to understand a students motivation and academic success in the classroom. However, previous research has shown that parental autonomy support would be assumed to predict autonomous forms of motivation such as intrinsic motivation mid identified regulation. It is slightly unexpected that parental autonomy supportive practices would also predict more controlled forms of motivation such as introjected regulation mid external regulation. Further research is needed to advance these particular results and analyses.


32
Research Question 2: Familial obligation and motivation. The results of the study align with the original hypotheses that familial obligation would be a predictor of motivation. This was the case for four distinct types of motivation identified by self-determination theory (external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, intrinsic motivation). Previous research had shown that adolescents who had attitudes supportive of family obligations tended to be more academically motivated over all (Fuligni, Tseng and Lam, 1999).
However, the current study expanded on previous research and showed that familial obligation has a significant impact on four distinct types of motivation identified by self-determination theory, which previously had not been studied. The importance of these results shows a more detailed connection between a students perception of family obligation and motivation in the classroom. In particular, the finding that intrinsic motivation and familial obligation were significantly and positively correlated is contrary to the finding by Fuligni (2001), which found no association, mid merits further study.
These particular results bring new insight into the research area of motivation and family science. It exhibitions that studying the connections between familial obligation mid motivation is a vital factor to consider. Moreover, this highlights the need to consider factors external to the classroom, which may impact motivation.
Research Question 3: Familial Obligation as a Mediator. Hypothesis 3 dealt with familial obligation as a mediator of the relationship between parental autonomy supportive practices and motivation at all four varying levels. As was hypothesized, familial obligation was a successful partial mediator between parental autonomy supportive practices and motivation. This was the most noteworthy outcome of the current study because familial obligation has not been examined as a mediator between these two variables in previous research.


33
The importance of these results displays that familial obligation successfully partially mediates the relationship between parental autonomy supportive practices and motivation. By establishing familial obligation as a partial mediator, we can determine that familial obligation has some sort of impact on a students motivation. Thus, we can establish that the connections between a students perception of familial obligation mid their motivational tendencies should be explored in more depth.
In addition, these results in particular support the overarching goal of the current study that motivation needs to begin to be analyzed utilizing a more holistic ecological approach (Bronfenbrenner, 2009). By looking past dyadic relationships in the classroom, motivational research can be challenged at looking at addition micro-level mid macro-level influencing relationships such as a students family obligation. These results have displayed that looking at these more complex relationships are vital to future research projects and developments. Limitations of the Current Study
There were several limitations to the current study. The research design of this study exhibited some limitations. Originally, the data for this study was collected during a one-time data collection utilizing likert scaled survey response. This means that the data collected only represents the students thoughts, feelings and perceptions at the given time of the survey. The format of the survey and its questions may have served as a limitation as well since it mainly utilized likert scaled questions. Consequently, it is probable that utilizing an additional form of data collection, such as interviewing student participants, could lead to more conclusive results. This would allow for future studies to have a better rounded and in depth analysis of the developed connections.
Additionally, the sample was another main limitation of the study. The sample was limited to only one school for data collection. Thus, it is possible that the results could have been


34
changed if more schools in the region were surveyed. This means that the results of the study could be just generalizable for the school studied in particular but could potentially not reflect student opinions across all schools in the region. Furthermore, the sample size was relatively small once it was reduced by the researcher to just looking at Asian American, Latino and European .American students from the original sample.
Strengths of the Current Study
A primary strength of this study was that it examined the connections between several variables that had not been looked at closely before. In previous research, familial obligation had been connected to motivation but never analyzed specifically utilizing self-determination theory. Furthermore, this study was unique because it was able to examine familial obligation as a mediator between parental autonomy support mid varying levels of motivation based on self-determination theory. Exploring familial obligation as a partial mediator between parental autonomy supportive practices and motivation utilizing self-determination theory had not been investigated in previous research.
In addition, this current study extended the body of research within motivation past the scope of relationships inside the classroom to interactions outside of the classroom, such as familial obligation.
Also, even though the studys data was collected at one school. The school chosen for the study was extremely diverse in its student population. This adds to the strength of the study by allowing for a diverse sample population.
Future Research
There were several unanswered questions that arose in the current study which were not foreseen by the authors original research questions and hypotheses. Specifically, there were multiple correlations between variables studied that were not anticipated. In particular


35
differences in sex and ethnic background, which only appeared in multivariate analyses showed a need for additional investigation in future research.
When running the multiple regression analyses predicting extrinsic motivation, it was found that females were positively and significantly correlated. Meaning that overall females had higher levels of extrinsic motivation than males. This displays that there are possible sex differences when considering extrinsic motivation in the classroom, which are suppressed until you consider parental autonomy support. It is feasible this may be due to different environmental settings or different gender socialization between males and females. Future research could provide more insight as to why these sex differences exist and further explore this topic in more depth.
Additionally, while running the multiple regression analyses predicting introjected regulation, it was found that Latinos reported significantly lower levels of introjected regulation after controlling for familial obligation. This exhibits there may be significant differences in ethnic backgrounds when it comes to familial obligation. There is a possibility; this may be due to cultural differences across the student sample. In future research, these differences could be further explored to better understand why these differences may exist.
Furthermore, future research could adapt the results mid implications of the current study to a larger population. This could include expanding the sample across multiple schools in the same region or examining different age groups.
Implications and Conclusions
The current study has extensive implications not only across the field of motivation but in regards to the field of family science as well. Many of the questions of this study were only partially addressed and surfaced many new questions to be further explored. In addition, this


36
study aimed to address many of the unanswered questions in previous research regarding the connections between a students family life at home and motivational outcomes in the classroom.
There were significant connections between a students perception of their own familial obligation and motivation at varying levels based on self-determination theory. This exhibits that a students motivation is a more complicated construct than previous research may have perceived. A students motivation is perhaps more complex than just analyzing the effects of a teachers positive or negative teaching influence. It is also more complicated than simply analyzing the basic dyadic relationship a student may experience between teachers, peers or caregivers. To fully understand a students motivation, all aspects of an individuals ecological environment needs to be further explored and analyzed including familial obligation.
This research challenges future research to look past dyadic relationships in the classroom and encourage researchers to begin exploring motivation from a more ecological standpoint. Students in the United States are more diverse than ever before and come from a multitude of backgrounds, families mid communities. It is imperative that future research aims to explore these differences to have a better understanding of what motivates students and how to maximize their learning potential in the classroom.
The result of this study has found connections between relationships that in previous research have not been explored in much depth. In particular, finding significant connections between family obligation and motivation challenges future research to push past dyadic relationships to begin studying student motivation from a more holistic ecological lens. Additionally, this study has found that there is connection between family obligation and motivation that needs to be studied further in depth. By having a better and fuller understanding of student perception of their own family obligation, more successful motivational techniques can be persuaded in the classroom.


37
Likewise, exploring ethnic background and sex differences is also essential to having a better understanding as to why students learn the way they do and how to optimize motivational potential in the classroom. Moving forward, researchers within the field of motivation and family science should continue observing students as individuals and consider all the ecological systems that may influence a students motivation mid academic success.


38
REFERENCES
Baron, R. M., Sc Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2009). The ecology of human development. Harvard university press.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 325-346.
Fuligni, A. J. (2001). Family obligation and the academic motivation of adolescents from Asian, Latin .American, and European backgrounds. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2001 (94), 61-76.
Fuligni, A. J., Sc Pedersen, S. (2002). Family obligation and the transition to young adulthood. Developmental psychology, 38(5), 856.
Fuligni, A. J., Tseng, V., Sc Lam, M. (1999). Attitudes toward family obligations among
.American adolescents with Asian, Latin .American, and European backgrounds. Child development, 70(A), 1030-1044.
Grolnick, W. S., Sc Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(5), 890.
Grolnick, W. S., Sc Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children's self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of educational psychology, 81(2), 143.
Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., Sc Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of self-determination in education. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(2),
233.


39
Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered. Toward a developmental model. Human development, 21 (1), 34-64.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., Sc Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically oriented Korean students?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 644.
Johnson, B., Sc Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Sage.
Pomerantz, E. M., Grolnick, W. S., Sc Price, C. E. (2005). The role of parents in how children approach achievement. Handbook of competence and motivation, 259-278.
Ryan, R. M., Sc Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.
Ryan, R. M., Sc Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57(5), 749.
Ryan, R. M., Sc Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and projective assessments of individual differences in children's perceptions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(3), 550.


40
University Research
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER | ANSCHUTZ MEDICAL CAMRUS
Colorado Multipk Institutional Review Board, CB F49D
University of Colorado, Anschutz Medial CanajS'US 1200 1 E 17th Pixe, BuiMins 500. Room M3 214 Aurora, Colorado 30045
303.724.1055 [Phone) 303.724.0 990 [Fax] COMIKB Home Page [Web] comirbfilucdenver.edu [E-Mail] FWA00005070 [FWA]
University of Colorado Hospital Denver Health Medical Center Veteran's Administration Medical Center Children's Hospital Colorado University of Colorado Denver Colorado Prevention Center
Certificate of Exemption
15-Feb-2017
Investigator: Larissa Kelly
Subject: COMIRB Protocol 17-0126 Initial Application
Review Date: 15-Feb-2017
Effective Date: 14-Feb-2017
Completion Date: 14-Feb-2020 No Sponsor-
Connection between Parenting Roles and Familial Obligations in Regardsto Student Motivation Based on Self-determination Theory
Category: 4
Submission ID: app
Anticipated
Sponsor(s):
Title:
Exempt
SUBMISSION DESCRIPTION:
Exemption determination
Your COMIRB Initial submission app lias been APPROVED FOR EXEMPTION. Periodic continuing review is not required. For the duration of your protocol, any change in die experimental design/content/pereonnel of this study mustbe approved by COMIRB before implementation of the changes.
The anticipated completion date of this protocol is 14-Feb-2020. COMIRB will administratively close this project on this date unless otherwise instructed bye-mail to COMIRB@ucdenver.edu. If the project is completed prior to this date, please notify the COMIRB office in writing or by e-mail once the project has been closed


41
Throughout the surveys, you will be asked to respond about yourself in one MATHEMATICS CLASS that you are taking this semester. What type of MATHEMATICS CLASS will you be using as the basis for your responses to the surveys? Please write down the name of the class, class time, and last name of the teacher.
(1) Name of the class_________________
(2) Class time____________
(3) Last name of the teacher_______________
Here are some questions about yourself as a student in the context of the MATH CLASS you are taking this semester.
Each question has a scale from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true).
Please circle the number that best describes what you think.
There is no right or wrong answer on these items, so please be honest in answering questions.
No one at school or home will see your answers.
Example:
Not at All Somewhat Very True True True
I enjoy reading my textbook. 1 2 3 4 6 7


Please put a checkmark in the boxes (I 1. Your Sex: 1 1 Male 1 1 Female
42
) and fill in the blanks with your responses.
2. Your Age:___________years old
3. What is yours and your parents' ethnic background? Check off the best description below:
Asian, Asian American American Indian Native American Black, African American Latino/a, Mexican, Mexican American White, Euro- American Mixed or Other (write in below):

(1) You
(2) Father
(3) Mothe
4. Is English your native/home language? Yes No (If not, please specify:__________________)
5. Did you immigrate or move to the U.S. from elsewhere? Yes (Then, how old were you?_______years old)
No
6. Where were you and your parents bom (State or Country)? Please answer as specifically as you know.
(1) Your Birthplace:_______________________________________
(2) Your father's Birthplace:_____________________________________________________(or check here if you don't know )
(3) Your mother's Birthplace:_____________________________________________________(or check here if you don't know
o
7. Generation Check off the best description below:
ist. generation (I and my mother were bom in another country.)
2nd generation (I was bom in the US, and my mother was bom in another country.)
3rd generation (I and my mother were bom in the US, and my grandparents were bom in another country.)
4th generation (I and my mother were bom in the US. And, as far as I know, my grandparents were born in the US.)
8. What is your approximate grade in your math class? Letter grade (A, B, C, D, etc.):_
9. Who is your primary care-giver during the day, for most of the week?
| | Your Mother Your Father Your Grandmother Your Grandfather Your older sibling
| | Other (write in):________________________________


43
Here are some questions about yourself as a student in the context of the MATH CLASS you are taking this semester.
Each question has a scale from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true).
Please circle the number that best describes what you think.
There is no right or wrong answer on these items, so please be honest in answering questions.
No one at school or home will see your answers.
Not at All Somewhat Very True True True
Example. I enjoy reading my textbook. 1 2 3 4 6 7
In my math class... Not at All True Somewhat True Very True
1. Its important to me that I learn a lot of new concepts this year. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Its important to me that other students in my class think I am good at my class work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Its important to me that I dont look stupid in class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. One of my goals in class is to learn as much as I can. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. One of my goals is to show others that Im good at my class work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. One of my goals is to keep others from thinking Im not smart in class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. One of my goals is to master a lot of new skills this year. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. One of my goals is to show others that class work is easy for me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Its important to me that I thoroughly understand my class work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. One of my goals is look smart in comparison to the other students in my class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Its important to me that my teacher doesnt think that I know less than others in class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Its important to me that I improve my skills this year. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Its important to me that I look smart compared to others in my class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. One of my goals in class is to avoid looking like I have trouble doing the work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


44
Here are more questions about yourself as a student in the context of the MATH CLASS you are taking this semester.
There is no right or wrong answer on these items, so please be honest in answering questions.
No one at school or home will see your answers.
A. Why do I do my math homework? Not at All Somewhat Very
True True True
15. Because I want the teacher to think Im a good student. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Because Ill get in trouble if I dont. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. Because its fun. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. Because I will feel bad about myself if I dont do it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. Because I want to understand the subject. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. Because thats what Im supposed to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. Because I enjoy doing my homework. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. Because its important to me to do my homework. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
B. Why do I work on my math class work? Not at All Somewhat Very
True True True
23. So that the teacher wont yell at me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24. Because I want the teacher to think Im a good student. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25. Because I want to learn new things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26. Because Ill be ashamed of myself if it didnt get done. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27. Because its fun. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
28. Because thats the rule. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
29. Because I enjoy doing my class work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
30. Because its important to me to work on my class work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
C. Why do I try to answer hard questions in math class? Not at All Somewhat Very
True True True
31. Because I want the other students to think Im smart. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
32. Because I feel ashamed of myself when I dont tiy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
33. Because I enjoy answering hard questions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
34. Because thats what Im supposed to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
35. To find out if Im right or wrong. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
36. Because its fun to answer hard questions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
37. Because its important to me to tiy to answer hard questions in class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
38. Because I want the teacher to say nice things about me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
D. Why do I try to do math well in school? Not at All Somewhat Very
True True True
39. Because thats what Im supposed to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
40. So my teachers will think Im a good student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
41. Because I enjoy doing my school work well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
42. Because I will get in trouble if I dont do well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
43. Because Ill feel really bad about myself if I dont do well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
44. Because its important to me to tiy to do well in school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
45. Because I will feel really proud of myself if I do well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
46. Because I might get a reward if I do well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


45
Below are examples of things students sometimes feel about their parents when the students study math. Please think of whichever parent or parents or guardian with whom you live or you think of as your primary care-giver as your reference.
There is no right or wrong answer on these items, so please be very honest in answering questions.
Parents will never see your answers.
In terms of studying math... Not at All True Somewhat True Very True
47. My parents want me to spend time thinking about concepts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
48. My parents dont like it when I make mistakes in my class work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
49. My parents would like it if I could show that Im better at class work than other students in my class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
50. My parents want my work to be challenging for me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
51. My parents would like me to show others that I am good at class work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
52. My parents would like it if I didnt look stupid in class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
53. My parents would like me to do challenging class work, even if I make mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
54. My parents think getting the right answers in class is very important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
55. My parents think that its important not to do worse than other students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
56. My parents want me to understand my class work, not just memorize how to do it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
57. My parents think that its important that my teacher doesnt think that I know less than others in class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
58. My parents want me to see how my class work relates to things outside of school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
59. My parents would be pleased if I could show that class work is easy for me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
60. My parents want me to understand concepts, not just do the work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
61. My parents want me to avoid looking like I have trouble doing the work in class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


46
Below are some more examples of things students sometimes feel about their parents. Please think of whichever parent or parents or guardian with whom you live or you think of as your primary care-giver as your reference.
There is no right or wrong answer on these items, so please be very honest in answering questions.
Parents will never see your answers.
Not at All True Somewhat True Very True
62. My parents seem to know how I feel about things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
63. My parents whenever possible, allow me to choose what to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
64. My parents expect me to act right away when they make a request. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
65. My parents tiy to tell me how to run my life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
66. My parents tiy to understand how I see things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
67. My parents are always telling me how I should behave. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
68. My parents tell me exactly how to do my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
69. My parents listen to my opinion or perspective when Tve got a problem. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
70. My parents tiy to tell me what kinds of friends I should have. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
71. My parents allow me to contradict or disagree with their opinion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
72. My parents insist upon my doing things their way. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
73. My parents are usually able to consider things from my point of view. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
74. My parents can always tell how I feel about important matters. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
75. My parents help me to choose my own direction. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
76. My parents arent very sensitive to my own needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Below are examples of things students sometimes feel about their family.
There is no right or wrong answer on these items, so please be very honest in answering questions. Family will never see your answers.
Not at All True Somewhat True Very True
77. An important reason that I tiy to do well in school is to please my parents-siblings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
78. I want to do well in school so that I can be better prepared to take care of my family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
79. The main reason I tiy to do well in school is to bring honor to my family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
80. It is important to me that my parents-guardians are proud of my achievement in school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Below are examples of things students sometimes feel about their MATH teachers.
There is no right or wrong answer on these items, so please be very honest in answering questions. Teachers will never see your answers.
47
In my math class... Not at All True Somewhat True Very True
81. My teacher in math class seems to know how I feel about things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
82. My teacher in math class whenever possible, allows me to choose what to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
83. My teacher in math class expects me to act right away when he/she makes a request. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
84. My teacher in math class tries to understand how I see things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
85. My teacher in math class is always telling me how I should behave. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
86. My teacher in math class tells me exactly how to do my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
87. My teacher in math class listens to my opinion or perspective when Ive got a problem. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
88. My teacher in math class allows me to contradict or disagree with his/her opinion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
89. My teacher in math class insists upon my doing things his/her way. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
90. My teacher in math class is usually able to consider things from my point of view. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
91. My teacher in math class helps me to choose my own direction. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
92. My teacher in math class isnt very sensitive to my own needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Here are some questions about the MATH CLASS you are taking and about the work you do in the class this semester.
There is no right or wrong answer on these items, so please be honest in answering questions.
No one at school or home will see your answers.
In my math class... Not at All True Somewhat True Very True
93. In our class, trying hard is very important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
94. In our class, showing others that you are not bad at class work is really important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
95. In our class, how much you improve is really important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
96. In our class, getting good grades is the main goal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
97. In our class, really understanding the material is the main goal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
98. In our class, getting right answers is very important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
99. In our class, its important that you dont make mistakes in frr\nt nf 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


48
memorize it.
101. In our class, its important not to do worse than other students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
102. In our class, learning new ideas and concepts is very important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
103. In our class, its very important not to look dumb. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
104. In our class, its OK to make mistakes as long as you are learning. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
105. In our class, its important to get high scores on tests. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
106. In our class, one of the main goals is to avoid looking like you can't do the work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Thank you so much for your help!
Please check if you have completed all 8 pages before you turn in!




Full Text

PAGE 1

CONNECTION BETWEEN PARENTING ROLES AND FAMILIAL OBLIGATION IN REGARDS TO STUDENT MOTIVATION BASED ON SELF DETERMINATION THEORY by LARISSA ANN KELLY B.S., Colorado State University, 2013 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts Education and Human Development 2017

PAGE 2

! This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Larissa Ann Kelly has been approved for the Education and Human D evelopment program by Jung in Kim Jorge Chavez Ruben P. Viramontez Anguiano

PAGE 3

! "" Kelly, Larissa Ann (M.A in Education and Human Development) Connection between Parenting Roles and Familial Obligations in Regards to Student Motivation Based on Self d etermination Theory Thesis directed by Professor Jung in Kim ABSTRACT Recent educational research has focused on student success in the classroom particularly revolving and concerning student motivation. Much of the previous research has concentrated on h ow dyadic relationships such as parent child relationships and teacher student relationships impact a student's motivation in the classroom. This current study aims to push past these relationships and encourage examining a student' s motivation from a more holistic ecological view utilizing familial obligation. For this study, secondary quantitative data that was previously collected was utilized and reanalyzed. This involved surveyed measures that utilized a 7 point likert scale. For this study surveyed da ta was collected from over 300 students. This sample was then limited to only looking at students from Latino American, European American and Asian backgrounds from self reports. Findings of this study display that parental autonomy support and familial ob ligation were significantly correlated to motivation based on self determination theory. In addition, it was found that familial obligation was a partial mediator between parental autonomy support and motivation at all varying levels based on self determin ation theory. These results align with all three reported guiding research question s and corresponding hypotheses. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Dr. Jung in Ki m's & Dr. Jorge Chavez

PAGE 4

! """ DEDICATION To the ones who continue to learn To the ones who always strive for more. To the ones who remain to have courage. To the ones who have doubted but chose to conquer.

PAGE 5

! "# ACKNOLEDGEMENTS To my Mom and Dad it is safe t o say that none of this would have been possible without the both of you. For everything you do for me and continue to do me, I am everlastingly grateful. Thank you for always believing in me and supporting me through all my endeavors. I hope to continue to make you proud throughout my journey. Dr. Kim, thank you for taking a chance on me and opening my eyes to the world of educational research with little to no experience in the field. With your guidance and encouragement I was able to learn and experience more in the field of research than I once believed possible within the realm of my masters education. I look forward to closing this chapter on my thesis work but opening up more pathways to learning and future research Dr. Chavez, I am extremely honored and gr ateful that you were able to come to University of Colorado Denver this year. In one year, I have had the honor to learn from you and your true expertise With your support I have gained knowledge that is i ndispensible. Thank you for always having the pati ence to meet with me and teach me even when the concepts I was learning I had little previous experience with. I truly look forwa rd to continuing to working with you in the future. Dr. Ruben, w ho would have thought that passing out flyers in the snow woul d lead to so many opportunities in the years to follow? I sure didn't! It is hard to put into words the way in which your leadership has impacted my life for the better. I will forever see you as my mentor and will always feel as though I owe you for all t he opportunities you have provided for me. Though I know being the servant leader that you are, you would never ask for anything in return. Thank you for everything, and here is to four more years. Jenn, Shauna and Mari thanks for being there for me and for the constant support. Whether it was helping me with SPSS, proofreading my work, providing last minute meals or just offering emotional support, I do not believe this thesis experience would have happened without you all there. I know in the future we will continue to support each other on our journeys and that sure does make me hopeful and happy.

PAGE 6

! # TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .. 1 Overview ... 1 Purpose of Study .. 2 Guided Research Questions .. 2 Significance of Study 3 Personal Identification of the Topic .. 3 II. LITERATURE REVIEW 5 Introduction ..... .. 5 Self determination Theory and Student's Motivation ... 5 Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation 6 Motivation and Autonomy Support ... 8 Familial Obligation 10 Fa milial Obligation and School Success 12 Familial Obligation when considering Cultural Backgrounds 13 Strong Familial Obligation and Potential Negative Implications ... 14 Current Study ...... 15 III. M ETHODS .. 16 Research Design ..16 Participants 16 Procedures and Measures ...18 Hypotheses ..20

PAGE 7

! #" IV. FINDINGS ..23 Correlation Data Analysis 23 Correlation between family obligation and motivation 23 Correlation between family obligation and autonomy support 23 Correlation between autonomy support and motiv ation 24 Multivariate Analysis 24 Multivariate analysis of family obligation and extrinsic motivation 22 Multivariate analysis of family obligation and introjected regulation. .. 23 Multivariate analysis of family oblig ation and identified regulation 24 Multivariate analysis of family obligation and intrinsic motivation.25 Multivariate analysis of family obligation and autonomy support26 Family Obligation as a Mediator .. .29 V. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION FOR RESEARCH 31 Discussion 31 Interpretation of Results 31 Guided research question 1 .. 31 Guided research question 2 ... 32 Guided research ques tion 3 ... 33 Limitations of the Current Study ... 33 Strengths of the Current Study .. 34 Future Research 34 Implications and Conclusion 35 REFERENCES .. 38

PAGE 8

! #"" APPENDIX A: UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER COLORADO MULTI INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (COMIRB) APPROVAL .40 B: SURVEY QUESTIONARE ... 41

PAGE 9

! #""" LIST OF TABLES TABLES 1. Table of Student Background 17 2. Table 2 Intercorrelations ... .. 24 3. Table 3.1 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis predicting Extrinsic Motivation ... 25 4. Table 3.2 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis predictin g Introjected Regulation ... 26 5. Table 3.3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis predicting Identified Regulation ..27 6. Table 3.4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis predicting Intrinsic Motiva tion .. .. 28 7. Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis predicting Family Obligation .2 9

PAGE 10

! $ CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Overview Roughly 3.5 million students are projected to graduate from high school during the 2016 2017 school year (NCES, 2016). Recently, high school graduation rates are at an all time high, peaking at 82% in the 2013 2014 school year (US Department of Education, 2016). Increased levels of academic success are also reflected in the lowering drop out rate, which has declined from 10.9% in 2000 to 6.5% in 2014 (NCES, 2016). Additionally, of those graduating from high school, roughly 40% will end up participating in some sort of collegiate education (NCES, 2016). With these rising gr aduation rates, it is more important that ever to understand the changing climate of a student's educational experience. Contrastingly, there is also a need to have a better u nderstanding of the consequence s of not graduating from high school may have on a student Specifically, having a well rounded and well developed idea of what intervention help motivate high scho ol students and what factors may prevent students' from graduating Educational research shows that promoting positive motivational practices is not only essential for student academic success but also results in higher levels of autonomy and free thought (Deci & Vallerand, 1991) which are important characteristics for future academic endeavors. However, much of motivational research thus far h as focused on simple dyadic relationships, such as teacher student relationships and parent child relationships. While these dyadic relationships are important, they fail to provide a complete picture of the complex concept and construct of a student 's mot ivation. In addition, many teachers only see their students for nine months

PAGE 11

! % out of the year so it is imperative that other relationships such as familial relationships are explored more in depth. In order to have a fuller, more in depth understanding of motivational practices and outcomes for students, it is imperative to dig deeper past these dyadic relationships and examine learning and motivation through a more holistic ecological lens. Ecological theory can be utilized as overarching lens for this stu dy. By understanding a student from separate systems such as their relationship to their microsystem and macrosytems, there can be a more clear understanding of outside holistic influencers on student academic success. A student's microsystem consists of t he close relationships an individual may encounter on a day to day basis (Bronfenbrenner, 2009). This includes a student's close relationship to members of its family. Studying more complex outside factors as potential influences can help to develop a bett er understanding of mi cro and macro level factors that may effect student motivation. By examining more complex outside influences, we can open the door to understanding more about resiliency factors that impact a student's motivational tendencies in the classroom. Specifically having a more in depth understanding of students' cultural and family backgrounds and what influenc es these may have on motivational practices in a classroom setting i s essential to begin exploring With a growing diverse populati on of American high school students from varying cultural identity and values, it is imperative we be gin to examine how coming from diverse family backgrounds impact s a student's educational experience and practices. In recent years, research has emerged that challenges the question of how family background or a sense of family obligation plays into student's motivational success (Fuligni, 2001). Family obligation can be defined as "the extent to which family members feel a sense of duty to assist one ano ther and to take

PAGE 12

! & into account the needs and wishes of the family when making decisions" (Fuligni, Tseng & Lam, 1999). Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study is to examine if family obligation has any connection or significant impact on a student' s motivation in the classroom In addition, this study aims to begin exploring differing family backgrounds based on student self reported identity The relationship between family obligation and student's classroom motivation will be examined using a racia lly and ethnically diverse sample of high school students who are likely to hold significantly different cultural perceptions of family obligation. Furthermore this current research aims to challenge future researchers to look past the student teacher dya dic relationship and begin to examine motivational tendencies from a wider more holistic and ecologically based lens. Guided Research Questions For this thesis three primary research questions are presented: 1. Do parental practices that support autonomy predict motivation in the classroom based on self determination theory? 2. Does familial o bligation affect a students motivation in the classroom ? 3. Does familial obligation mediate the relationship between autonomy supportive practices and motivation? Signi ficance of the Study There has been a vast amount of research done regarding self determination theory and motivation in the classroom. There has also been some resea rch regarding family obligation and parenting roles. However, there has been little to no research in regards to the connection between these three variables. With motivation being a critical

PAGE 13

! proven el ement to a student's success research must turn to a student's life at home as cause for motivation in the classroom or lack there of. Personal Identification of the Topic In order to grasp the reasoning for this research study it is important to understand the author s relation to the topic. Being a graduate student at the University of Colorado Denver, I (Larissa Kelly) have had the ability t o serve in the community in regards to college re adiness and preparation. Primarily I would serve in communities with diverse cultural backgrounds. I was able to see first hand how family can impact a student's success in the classroom and how family prac tices varied amongst students of different cultural backgrounds. Being able to witness first hand how the idea of upholding a family's honor or expectations in regards to academic success begins to challenge me to think about academic success more critical ly. After learning more about motivation practices through my work with my fellow research team, I started to ponder the connections between classroom success and a student's family background. I began to wonder what factors, if any, from family life i mpacted a studen t's success in the classroom. I believe that these specific connections and questions are relatively untouched in the research community within education, psychology, human development and family science. I hope that this research will op en doors for future research to expand across disciplines and look at varying factors outside the realm of the classroom in regards to a student's success. Additionally, I plan to continue with my interest in this topic in my future research endeavors.

PAGE 14

! ( C HAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The idea of a student's success based on their motivational tendencies date back to several decades of educational research. Moreover, understanding why a student feels motivated and what external factors influence their motivation has been successfully understood and further developed in recent years. Educational researchers have developed and evolved research in regards to teacher's impact on their student's motivation. Additionally developmental researchers have pushed to understand parental support in relation to student's academic success. Howeve r, how familial obligation may affect a student's overall mo tivation has received limited empirical attention in research Having a better understanding of what particu lar external factors impact not only a student's academic success but also overall motivation is imperative in order to promote healthy engagement. This summary of literature will discuss previous research in the areas of motivation, familial obligation a nd parental autonomy and uses self determination theory as framework for linking current research. Self Determination Theory and Student's Motivation Self Determination Theory, or SDT, (Ryan & De ci, 2000) is a major and particularly promising theory of mo tivation that suggests that behaviors that are internalized or intrinsically motivated are more likely to be maintained than behaviors that are externalized or extrinsicall y motivated. It has been established from developmental psychologist that each indiv idual is born with tendencies to be curious and playful despite any direct rewards (Ha rter, 1978). This exhibitions that from an early age individuals express the desire to be driven intrinsically rather

PAGE 15

! ) than extrinsically. In addition, it challenges resea rch to think as to where true intrinsic motiva tion comes from and how it can be successfully promoted Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic m otivation Intrinsic motivation has been previously defined as "the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactio ns rather than for some separable consequence" (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The ability to be intrinsically motivated is unique to humans as they move about cognitive, social and physical development (Ryan & Deci, 2000) However, it should be noted that most indiv iduals have inclinations to be more intrinsically motivated towards certain activities over others. This is due to the fact that reward for the individual is in the task itself (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Thus, individuals are only intrinsically motivated towards tasks that they have a high internal interest towards. Moreover, it has been found that intrinsically motivated tasks were those that provided satisfaction of innate psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In contrast since the majority of tasks an ind ividual par takes in are not solely addressing inner psychological needs, it is imperative we understand outside influ ences on motivation. For example it has been found that intrinsic motivation becomes weaker with each advancing grade (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Extrinsic motivation takes into consideration any activity done in order to achieve some detachable outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000). T his then differs from intrinsic motivation, which focuses on innate and purely internal interests. The range for why an indi vidual becomes externally motivated is wide and consists on a spectrum (Ryan & Deci, 2000) For example, a student may be extremely extrinsically motivated in the classroom due to the fact their parents have promised them a $10 reward for each good grade t hey receive. This displays a direct reward influenced by extrinsic motivational practice. The student feels motivated to perform and do well so they can achieve the physical award. Contrastingly, a student may be externally motivated to do well and achiev e high grades because they feel as

PAGE 16

! though their academic success will lead them to college acceptance. This too is an external influencer but looks highly different compared to the first example. To better understand the full spectrum of extrinsic motivati on it is important to analyze the various types of extrinsic motivation and where they fal l on the continuum of motivation. This is important to have a clear understanding of because different types of motivation can predict various outcomes such as a stud ent dropping out of high school or building resiliency. Researchers have identified three distinct types of extrinsic motivation, which fall on a continuum based on how external the motivation is to the individual. These three categories of extrinsic motiv ation that are pertinent to this study, are based on the varying am ount of autonomy support fulfilled which will be further examined an d defined later. The first type of extrinsic motivation, "external regulation", utilizes the least amount of autonomy ne eds. External re gulation is synonymous with outside reward. Thus an individual feels the need to complete or "perform a task in order to satisfy and external demand or obtain an external imposed reward contingency" (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The example utiliz ed earlier about a student performing well in school to obtain the $10 reward from their parents is an excellent example of this type of extrinsic motivation. The student attempts to perform well and is motivated by the direct reward they will receive. Co ntinuing on the spectrum of extrinsic mo tivation the next category of extrinsic motivation is introjected regulation. Although this category still has a high level of outside control it does not incorporate direct rewards. Instead the individual feels the "pressure to perform in order to avoid guilt or anxiety or to attain ego enhancements or pride" (Ryan & Deci, 2000). An example of this category could be a student feeling pressure to perform well and achieve high grades in school in order to avoid their parents feeling disappointed in them.

PAGE 17

! + Although there is no direct reward or consequence associated with the outcome of the student's grade, they feel an indirect pressure to perform to the standard their parents have placed. A more autonomous form of ext rinsic category of motivation, identification, concerns an increased awareness of the personal importance of the task for the individual. In this way, they understand the task is an imperative activity to achieve a certain goal. The example from before of a student attempting to do well in school and achieve high grades in order hopefully obtain college acceptance displays the stepping stone process of this category. Motivation and autonomy s upport Self determination theory also analyzes a student's mo tivational tendencies on the foundation that three psychological needs are met of competency, autonomy and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). When each one of these psychological needs is met, a student is more likely to be successfully motivated in a classr oom setting. However, when one of these needs is not fully met, a student may experience a lack in motivation, which could in turn fuel a student's drop out (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For this current study the psychological need of autonomy will be primarily fo cused on. Understanding both intrinsic motivation and the varying spectrum of extrinsic motivation is impera tive to understanding why students are motivated in the classroom and where this motivation comes from. Self determination theory takes largely int o consideration autonomy which concerns actions that are experienced as emanating from or congruent with one's self (Ryan & Connell, 1989). Moreover, it concerns an individual need to make decisions from a sense of internal and controlled confidence. Addi tionally, it has been found that when autonomous, student initiate and regulate their behavior with a high degree of volition and a sense of choice (Jang, Ryan & Kim, 2009). In order to gain autonomy however, a certain level of autonomy support needs to b e incorporated into an individuals learning processes. This being

PAGE 18

! said, finding the balance between autonomy support in contrast to exhibiting control over a student's lear ning experience can be a challenging task for many educators. In the past, there ha s been a vast amount of research done on the impact an educator may have on a student's motivation and academic achievement. Moreover, the implications of having a highly controlling learning environment vs. an autonomy supportive learning environment have additionally been research and analyzed. It has been found that overall higher levels of autonomy support in the classroom in contrast to controlling tendencies in the classroom often end up promoting a greater level of intrinsic motivation for individua l students (Ryan & Grolnick, 1986). By promoting autonomy support in a safe environment teachers are able to catalyze their student's desire to be more creative and over time promote their student's aspiration for a challenge (Ryan & Grolnick, 1986). Cont rastingly, it has been found that students who attempt to learn in a more controlling environment that does not promote autonomy support, not only lose intrinsic motivation but also learn less overall (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987). The effect of parental auton omy support rather than that of educators on a student's motivation has been studied less, but research suggests it is important in student academic success Since parents are the primary socializing agent in a student's early life, it is expected that th ey would have a substantial influence on their autonomous regulation (Grolnick & Price, 2005). Parents who provide autonomy support allow them to have more choices and thus relinquish overarching control. When examining the role a parent's autonomy support may have on a student's motivation in the classroom, it is important to analyze reports from the student's perception. This is because understanding how the student's perceives their parent's autonomy support in return helps to better understand their pa rent's influence on a student's internal or external motivation. Previous studies have found that, parental autonomy supp ort, from either parent fosters feelings of autonomy at school (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). Moreover, it has been

PAGE 19

! $! argued that the importanc e of parental autonomy support decreases as a child grows up and relies less on their parents to perform tasks. However, a variety of studies have found despite the child being in high school, elementary school or even in a college setting, students still highly value their parental autonomy support (Guay, Ratelle & Chanal, 2008). In fact, it has been found that parental autonomy support is valued even more from the child when they are going through stressful times such as transitioning to high school or c ollege (Guay, Ratelle & Chanal, 2008). In conclusion, SDT essentially is a theory of self regulation. At times, individuals engage in behavior because of external factors, such as rewards or punishments, and at times, they engage in behavior because of in ternal factors, such as enjoyment. Because motivation exists on a continuum, individuals can also be motivated to engage in behavior for many reasons. However, the important aspects of SDT take in to consideration what overall influences a student's intrin sic and extrinsic motivation. By understanding what external factors influence motivation we can then have a better understand on how to influence and promote healthy extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Familial Obligation Previous research in regards to motivation has taken into careful consideration the dyadic relationships a student experiences, such as teacher student relationships and parent child relationships. However, to better understand e xternal factors and influences a student may be experiencin g it is imperative we expand research focuses outside of these dyadic relationships and into expanded ecological factors such as familial obligation. By examining the baseline of the little research done on the connections between familial obligation and a dolescent developmental success and also familial obligation and school success, we can start to expand

PAGE 20

! $$ our ideas and thoughts regarding the potential influence familial obligation may have on student motivation. Familial obligation has been studied in le ngth across disciples related to family life, individual success and cultural obligation. Much of the current research on familial obligation has focused on duties surrounding focuses on duties surrou nding children's assistance to the family or to sibling care (Fuligni, 2001). However, a child's familial obligation can extend to their decisions and activities outside of the household, in which a smaller amount of research has been examined. Furtherm ore, there has been little research to examining the direc t connection between a student's family orientation and their motivational tendencies in the classroom. Family obligation refers to "the extent to which family members feel a sense of duty to assist one another and to take into account the needs and wishe s of the family when making decisions" (Fuligni, Tseng & Lam, 1999). Children's feelings of obligation towards their family may be a critical element towards their relationship with their family, which in return directly affects their feelings of autonomy (Fuligni & Pederson, 2002). Moreover, a sense of family obligation can change over time depending on the family's economic resources and changing family structure (Fuligni & Pederson, 2002). Fuligni, Tseng and Lam (1999 ), have done extensive research in t he area of familial obligation concerning adolescent's across Asian, Latin American and European backgrounds and how this impacts their overall development. In their study, Fuligni, Tseng and Lam aimed to better understand adolescent's attitude and connec tion to their family backgrounds by surveying over 1,000 twelfth graders students in the California region. Over 80% of the sample population was from five ethnic backgrounds including: Chinese, Filipino Mexican, Central and South American an d European. They found students of Asian And Latin Ameri can background held significantly stronger values and greater expectations in regard to respect and future obligation s

PAGE 21

! $% to their families relative to their student peer s of European backgrounds (Fuligni, Tseng an d Lam, 1999). However, it was also found that the relations between adolescents' values, expectations and other aspects of their development tended to be quite similar across all cultural backgrounds (Fuligni, Tseng and Lam, 1999). For example, t his may demonstrate that although there are strong differences between adolescents perception of familial obligation from varying cultural backgrounds, there may be more similarities than once thought. Family obligation and school s uccess in relation to motivati on Previous research has shown that particular cultures uphold their family orientation and academ ic success more than others. For example Fuligni ( 2001 ) found Asian and Latin American students reported they believe that school success is one of the most important ways an adolescent can assist their family. Moreover, in Fuligni (2001) suggested that the desire for students from Latin and Asian American backgrounds need to support, assist and respect their families, leads them to place more value on the imp ortance and usefulness of education than do their European American peers ( Fuligni, 2001). Additionally, in earlier research, Fuligni, Tseng and Lam's (1999) found some connection was that adolescents who had attitudes supportive of family obligations ten ded to be more academically motivated over all (Fuligni, Tseng and Lam 1999 ). These findings suggest that perceptions of family obligation could have a significant impact on student motivational outcomes in the classroom. Much of the connection between wh y certain cultures place larger emphasis on academic success versus other cultures could be related to the family's emigration. Many Latin and Asian Americans who have immigrated to the United States have done to provide their children with better opportu nities and resources. Therefore, students from these cultural backgrounds have often cited indebtedness and responsibility to do well in school (Fuligni, 2001). Furthermore,

PAGE 22

! $& other students from diverse ethnic backgrounds have reported that they believe ob taining an education will help them find employment in the future and will give them the ability to support their family (Fuligni, 2001). Therefore, this may imply that an adolescent's obligation to their fa mily may be based in a particular belief that the usefulness of their education surpasses just the practicality for their own life in but for their families life as well. Family obligation when considering cultural b ackgrounds Within a society that tends to emphasize adolescent autonomy and independenc e, the question is often raised as to whether or not adolescents from collectivism traditions will suffer from not practicing common individualistic tendencies of their peers. Fuligni, Tseng and Lam's (1999) study however demonstrates that adolescents from more collectivistic traditions who maintain their familial values do not face negative development al outcomes as a consequence. In fact, a large number of adolescents from Asian and Latin American backgrounds felt a great obligation to demonstrate family support and respect towards their family (Fuligni, Tseng and Lam, 1999). Furthermore, when it came to supporting family members in the future once the adolescent became an adult, a decline in desire to continue to support was seen across generations and a cross all ethnic backgrounds (Fuligni Tseng and Lam, 1999). This may be due to latter generations of families living in the United States may not need as much assistance from their children once they become adults. However, "third generation adolescents from Asian and Latin American families still endorsed their future obligations more strongly than their European American peers" (Fuligni, Tseng and Lam, 1999). S trong family obligation and potential negative i mplications Although, familial obligation has been shown to promote positive development in adolescents, there have been certain outlying situations where a st rong sense of family duty has been found to be associated with less positive adolescent development. Adolescent students who reported a very strong sense of family

PAGE 23

! $' obligation actually tended to receive lower grades compared to their peers who displayed a moderate level of family obligation (Fuligni, Tseng and Lam, 1999). This could be due to students who have a strong sense of familial duty fee ling as though they need to cut back on academic studies while their family is going through difficult times financially (Suarez Orozco, 1995). While education remains central to these adolescent's success, the family may provide more pressing issues that the adolescent with strong familial duty fee ls takes precedence. However, Fuligni, Tseng and Lam (1999 ) also reported that there was no real connection between having a high level of familial obligation negative developmental outcomes in adolescence. In f act, it was found that even in a society that places emphasis on autonomy and independent, youth from collectivistic traditions tend to retain their parents' familistic values and these values do not have a negative impact on their development (Fuligni, Ts eng & Lam, 1999). Current Stud y There has been an extensive amount of research examining students' motivation and academic success in the classroom. Much of this research that utilizes self determination theory examines students' motivation has examined the effect of autonomy support on based on int rinsic and extrinsic motivation Dyadic relationships such as teacher influences on student motivation and parental influence on student motivation have been heavily examined. However, the main purpose of this research study will aim to examine the connections between a student's perception of their familial obligation and their motivational tendencies in the classroom. Additionally, this study aims to challenge research to look past simple dyadic relationships that may influence a student's motivation and began looking at influences from a more holistic or ecological lens. In return, this stu dy adds to the current body of research on motivation that has previously examined motivational tendencies by drawing on the literature on familial obligation

PAGE 24

! $( to the existing literature on self determination theory More importantly, however, this study hopes to begin to connect the two areas and begin to better understand the importance familial obligation may have on stude nts' motivational tenden cies and thus academic success. Finally, this current study hopes to develop familial obligation as a mediator between parental autonomy supportive practices and motivational tendencies in the classroom.

PAGE 25

! $) CHAPTER I II METHODS Research Design For this research project, secondary quantitative data analysis was utilized. Secondary data can be defined as, existing data originally collected at an earlier time, which was utilized for a completely different research st udy (Johnson & Christensen, 2008 pg. 243). Dr. Jung in Kim of University of Colorado Denver originally collected the data being utilized for this current study in Fall 2006 Though the data was previously collecte d, the current study will reanalyze the exi sti ng data in a way that varies greatly from the original analyses of the collected data. This type of data collection has been highly utilized by researchers within the discipline of Education and Human Development and Family Science. The current research study was submitted to and approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB) for exempt research category four. This approval became effective on February 14 th 2017 and the protocol approval number is 17 0126, (See Appendix A). Partic ipants ( Students ) The current data were drawn from a large, diverse population of high school students. Additionally, the measure utilized during the initial data collection was diverse in its selection of questions and optional responses. Data was collect ed utilizing a 7 point likert scale survey that consisted of hundred and six questions. For this study in particular roughly eighty of the hundred and sixty questions will be utilized. Additionally, responses in regards to the student's sel f reported ethni c identity was also utilized.

PAGE 26

! $* The sample consists of 331 ninth grade students (141=boys, 187=girls) who were currently enrolled at a high school in the southern California region. The age range of the students was from 13 years of age to 18 years of age, with 81% of the students reporting to be 14 years old. This school was utilized due to its high diversity in student population in terms of ethnic representation. Additionally, this school had high attendance rate (95%) and a low drop out rate (<1%). T he current study utilized only student participants who self reported as identifying as Asian American, Latino or European American, were utilized for several reasons. First of all, this population made up the majority of the sample. Comprising 82.4% of t he tota l collected sample. Secondly limiting the sample to only three groups allowed the primary researcher to have a better understanding of these groups' specific connections to family obligation and motivation. After limiting the sample, the total numb er of participants in the study consisted of 240 participant; 75 of who identified as Asian American, 92 who identified as Latino and 73 who identified as European American. (See Table 1) Table 1: Student Background Student Reported Ethnic Background Numb er Percentage Asian American 75 31.25% Latino 92 38.33% European American 73 30.42% TOTAL: 240

PAGE 27

! $+ Procedures and Measures During initial data collection, students completed a series of measures using a 7 point likert scale (1= not at all true, 7 = v ery true). This primary data was collected while students were in att endance during a math class their enrolled in for the mathematics class Approximately 30 mathematics classes participated in the study, with an estimated 11 students participating in eac h class. While demographic information was collected, the only identifying criterion for the survey was the last name of the teacher who was teaching the mathematics course at the time. Furthermore only student's whose parents h ad completed the consent form completed the survey instruments. Instrumentation Self Regulation Questionnaire Four types of student self regulated motivation were measured via the Ryan and Connell's (1989) Self Regulation Questioner Academics. Questions were focused around reas ons why the student was motivated to study mathematics. In addition, these particular questions were utilized in assessing the type of motivation a student experienced based on self determination theory (external regulation, introjected regulation, identif ied regulation, intrinsic motivation). External regulation was measured utilizing nine questions of the Self Regulation questioner ; questions 2, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24, 25, 28, 32 (see appendix B). An exam ple of a response from this section is when asked, Wh y do I try to do well in school?" A student responding, Because that's what I am supposed to do". Response options were based on a 7 point likert scale which ranged from 1= not true at all to 7 = very true. The external regulation score consists of the su m of the responses to the nine questions divided by the total number of questions answered.

PAGE 28

! $, Introjected regulation was also measured utilized the Self Regulation questioner and also c ontained nine relevant questions; questions 1, 4, 10, 12, 17, 18, 26, 2 9, 31 (see appendix B) For introjected regulation an example of a pertaining response was when asked, Why do I work on my classwork?" A student responding, Because I want the teacher to think I am a good student". Response options were based on a 7 poin t likert scale which ranged from 1= not true at al l to 7 = very true. The introjected regulation score consists of the sum of the responses to the nine questions divided by the total number of questions answered. Identified regulation applied the Self R egulation questioner as well and was compri sed of seven different questions; questions 5, 8, 11, 16, 21, 23, 30 (see appendix B) In regards to identified regulation, when asked, Why do you do your homework?" a student may respond, Because it is importan t to me to do my homework". Response options were based on a 7 point likert scale which ranged from 1= not true at al l to 7 = very true. The identified regulation score consists of the sum of the responses to the seven questions divided by the total number of questions answered. Intrinsic motivation was measured utilizing seven responses of the Self Regulation questioner ; questions 3, 7, 13, 15, 19, 22, 27 An example of a response from this area of the measure was when asked, "Why do I try to answer hard questions in class?" a student responding, "Because it's fun to answer hard questions" Response options were based on a 7 point likert scale which ranged from 1= not true at all to 7 = ver y true. The intrinsic motivation score consists of the sum of the re sponses to the seven questions divided by the total number of questions answered. Perception of parents' motivating style. Student's perception of their parents' motivation style, either controlling or supportive, was measured utilizing thirteen out of fi fteen items developed by Robbins (1994). Within this scale, two subscales were used perception of

PAGE 29

! %! parental controlling style and perception of parental au tonomy support Response options were based on a 7 point likert scale which ranged from 1= not true at all to 7 = very true. The perception of parents' motivating style score consists of the sum of the responses to the fifteen questions divided by the total number of questions answered. An example of a response from this section was My parents help me ch oose my own direction". For controlling items of the subscale, six responses were utilized with no responses being reverse coded. An example of a response from this section was, My parents are always telling me how to behave". Familial Obligation. Stud ent's perception of their familial obligation was assessed utilizing four items following Fuligni (2001). Response options were based on a 7 point likert scale which ranged from 1= not true at all to 7 = very true. The familial obligation score consists of the sum of the responses to the four questions divided by the total number of questions answered. The responses asked of the students were the following: An important reason I try to do well in school is to please my parents siblings", I want to do we ll in school so that I can be better prepared to take care of my family", "The main reason I try to do well in school is to bring honor my family", It is important to me that my parents guardians are proud of my achievement in school". Hypotheses Guidi ng Research Question 1: Do parental practices that support autonomy predict students' various types of motivation in the classroom ba sed on the four types identified by self determination theory ? Hypothesis 1: A: Parental autonomy sup portive practices pred ict external regulation in the classroom. B: Parental autonomy supportive practices predict introjec ted regulation in the classroom. C: Parental autonomy supportive practices predict identif ied regulation in the classroom.

PAGE 30

! %$ D: Parental autonomy supportive p ractices predict intrin sic motivation in the classroom. Rationale: The effect of parental autonomy support rather than that of educators on a student's motivation has been studied less, but research suggests it is important in student academic success Si nce parents are the primary socializing agent in a student's early life, it is expected that they would have a substantial influence on their autonomous regulation (Grolnick & Price, 2005). This in return then should have some effect on a student's motivat ional tendencies in the classroom. Guiding Research Question 2: Does familial obligation predict a students' various types of motiva tion in the classroom based on the four types identified by self determination theory ? Hypothesis 2 : A: Familial obligat ion predicts external regulation in the classroom. B: Familial obligation predicts introject ed regulation in the classroom. C: Familial obligation predicts identified regulation in the classroom D : Familial obligation predicts intrinsic motivation in the cla ssroom Rationale: Much of the current research on familial obligation has focused on duties surrounding focuses on duties surrou nding children's assistance to the family or to sibling care (Fuligni, 2001). However, a child's familial obligation can exte nd to their decisions and activities outside of the household, in which a smaller amount of research has been examined. Furtherm ore, there has been little research to examining the direct connection between a student's family orientation and their motivati onal tendencies in the classroom. Guiding Research Question 3: Does familial obligation mediate the relationship between autonomy supportive practices and motivation? Hypothesis 3: A: Parental autonomy supportive practices predict family obligation.

PAGE 31

! %% B: The effect of autonomy support on motivation will be reduced when controlling for family obligation. Rationale: There has been limiting research previously that has analyzed familial obligation as a mediator between autonomy support and motivation. This part of th e study has limited support in previous research but presents itself as the unique aspect of the current study.

PAGE 32

! %& CHAPTER IV FINDINGS All tests and analyses were performed utilizing IBM SPSS Statistics Version 24 software. In order to test the various hypotheses of this study a correlation matrix was developed with descriptive statistics of standard deviation and mean provided for each variable. Multiple regression analyses were performed and partial mediation was established. The re sults of these analyses are reported in the following sections. Correlation between family o bligation and m otivation. To exam the bivariate relationship between family obligation and extrinsic motivation (including introjected regulation and identified re gulation ), a correlation matrix was conducted (Ta ble 2 ) As can be seen from Table 2 all variables were significantly and positively correlated with each other including family obl igation and external regulation ( r = .463, p <0.01). Family obligation and introjected regulation were also significantly and positively correlated ( r = .558, p < 0.01). Intercorrelations between family obligation and intrinsic motivation or identified regulation, were als o examined. As seen in Table 2 family obligation was s ignificantly and positively correlated with intrinsic motivation ( r = .263, p <0.01) and identified regulation ( r = .374, p <0.01). Corre lation between autonomy support and family obligation Connections between family obligation and parental practices t hat are supportive o f autonomy was analyz ed as well. As seen in Table 2 family obligation was significantly and positively correlated wi th parental practices that are supportive of autonomy ( r = .291, p < 0.01). ! ! !

PAGE 33

! %' Corr elation between autonomy support and m otivation Additionally, connections between autonom y support and of the four levels of motivation w ere also examined. All four levels of motivation were significantly and positively correlated with parental autonomy s upportive practices. As seen in Table 2 autonomy support and external regulation ( r = .267, p < 0.01), autonomy support and introjected regulation ( r = .382, p < 0.01), autonomy support and identified regulation ( r = .350, p < 0.01), and autonomy and i ntrinsic motivation ( r = .230, p < 0.01) were all significantly and positively correlated to each other. Table 2.1 Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations for Extrinsic Motivation, Introjected Regulation, Identified Regulation, Intrinsic Motivation, Family Obligation and Autonomy Support (N=237) Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Extrinsic Motivation 4.32 1.28 __ .624** .417** .328** .463** .267** 2. Introjected Regulation 4.1 1.45 __ .707** .509** .558** .382** 3. Identified Reg ulation 4.91 1.38 __ .589** .374** .350** 4. Intri nsic Motivation 2.63 1.29 __ .263** .230** 5. Family Obligation 5.2 1.5 __ .291** 6. Autonomy Support 4.37 1.33 __ ** p < 0.01 Multivariat e Analysis Multivariate Analysis Predicting External Regulation Presented in Table 3.1 is the hierarchical multiple regression analysis examing the link between parental autonomy support, family obl igation and external regulation Previous bivariate resu lts indicated a strong correlation between parental autonomy support, family obl igation and external regulation In step 1, external regulation is regressed on ethnicity and sex to serve as a baseline. No significant dif ferences in external regulation wer e found between, Asian, Latino and European American students or between males and females. In step 2 of the analysis, sex and ethnicity are controlled for. Additionally in step 2, it was found that females negatively predicted external regulation ( ! ! ! !

PAGE 34

! %( = 0.132, p < 0.05). However, in step 2 of the analysis, parental autonomy supportive practices significantl y predicted external regulation ( = 0.277, p < 0.05) In step 3 of Table 3.1, when controling for ethnicity, gender and parental autonomy support ive practices family obligation s ignificantly predicted external regulation ( = 0.457, p < 0.05). Additionally, in step 3 females continued to stay negatively significant ( = 0.152, p < 0.05), while parental autonomy supportive practices remained posi tively significant ( = 0.135, p < 0.05). Multivariate Analysis Predicting Introjected Regulation. Displayed in Table 3.2 is the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analy sis examining the link between family obligation and introjected regulation. In step 1, introjected regulation is regressed on ethnicity and sex to serve as a baseline. No significant differences in introjected regulation were found Table 3.1 Hierarchical multiple regression anal ysis summary predicting External Regulation from Familial Obligation, when controlling for ethnicity, sex and parental autonomy support. (N=237) Variable B SEB R R Step 1 0.014 0.001 (Constant) 4.464 0.169 Asian 0.054 0.211 0.02 Latino 0.019 0.203 0.007 Female 0.292 0.167 0.115 Step 2 0.089 0.074 (Constant) 3.277 0.315 Asian 0.155 0.204 0.057 Latino 0.042 0.196 0.016 Female 0.337 0.161 0.132 Autonomy 0.265 0.060 0.277 Step 3 0.267 0.251 (Constant) 2.1 0.324 Asian 0.131 0.188 0.048 Latino 0.282 0.181 0.108 Female 0 .389 0.145 0.152 Autonomy 0.129 0.057 0.135 Family Obl. 0.387 0.052 0.457 *p<0.05

PAGE 35

! %) between, Asian, Latino and European American students or between males and females. In step 2 of the analysis, when controlling for sex and ethnicity, parental autonomy supportive practices remained significant ( = 0.385, p < 0.05). It can also be interpreted from step 3 of Table 3.2 when controling for ethnicity, gender and parental autonomy support family obligation significantly predicts introjected regulation ( = 0.507, p < 0.05). Additionally, when exami ning Table 3.2 in step 3, it can be seen that the Latino variable becomes significantly negatively associated with introjected motivation ( = 0.128, p < 0.05). Multivariate Analysis Predicting Identified Regulat ion. Presented in Table 3.3 are the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis exploring the link between family Table 3.2 Hierarchical multiple regression analysis summary p redicting Introjected Regulat ion from Familial Obligation, when controlling for ethnicity, sex and parental autonomy support. (N=237) Variable B SEB R R Step 1 0.013 0 (Constant) 3.923 0.190 Asian 0.127 0.237 0.041 Latino 0.069 0.228 0.023 Sex 0.285 0.188 0.099 Step 2 0.159 0.145 (Constant) 2.064 0.341 Asian 0.286 0.221 0.093 Latino 0.027 0.212 0.009 Sex 0.215 0.175 0.075 Autonomy 0.414 0.065 0.385 Step 3 0.378 0.365 (Constant) 0.591 0.336 Asian 0.072 0.195 0.023 Latino 0.378 0.188 0.128 Sex 0.15 0.151 0.052 Autonomy 0.245 0.059 0.228 Family Obl. 0.484 0.054 0.507 *p<0.05 ! !

PAGE 36

! % obligation and identified regulation. In step 1, identified regulation is regressed on ethnicity and sex to serve as a baseline. No significant differences in identified regulation were found between, Asian, Latino and European American students or between males and females. As seen in step 2 of Table 3.3, when controlling for sex and ethnicity, parental autonomy supportive practic es significantly predicts identified regulation ( = 0.395 p < 0.05). In step 3 of Table 3.3, when controlling for ethnicity, gender and autonomy supportive practices, family obligation significantly predicts identified regulation ( = 0.298, p < 0.05). Additionally, in step 3 autonomy supportive practices remain significant ( = 0.267, p < 0.05), indicating partial mediation of the family obligation between the autonomy supportive practices and identified regulation. Table 3.3 Hierarchical multiple reg ression analysis summary predicting Identified Regulation from Familial Obligation, when controlling for ethnicity, sex and parental autonomy support. (N=237) Variable B SEB R R Step 1 0.015 0.002 (Constant) 4.725 0.183 Asian 0.279 0.229 0.094 Latino 0.017 0.220 0.006 Sex 0.198 0.182 0.071 Step 2 0.127 1.293 (Constant) 3.052 0.333 Asian 0.422 0.215 0.142 Latino 0.069 0.206 0.024 Sex 0.135 0.170 0.049 Autonomy 0.373 0.064 0.359 Step 3 0.2 1.237 (Constant) 2.218 0.364 Asian 0.219 0.211 0.074 Latino 0.16 0.203 0.056 Sex 0.098 0.163 0.035 Autonomy 0.277 0.064 0.267 Family Obl. 0.274 0.058 0.298 p<0.05 ! !

PAGE 37

! %+ Multivariate Analysis Predicting Intrinsic Motivation. Displayed in Table 3.4 are the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis examining the link between family obligation and intrinsic motivation. In step 1, intrinsic motivation is reg ressed on ethnicity and sex to serve as a baseline. No significant differences in intrinsic motivation were found between, Asian, Latino and European American students or between males and females. In step 2 of Table 3.4, when controlling for sex and ethni city, parental autonomy supportive practices significantly predicts intrinsic motivation ( = 0.224, p < 0.05). When controlling for ethnicity, gender and parental autonomy supportive pra ctices in Step 3 in Table 3.4, family obligation significantly predic ts intrinsic motivation ( = 0.229, p < 0.05). Additionally, in step 3 parental autonomy supportive practices remains significant ( = 0.153, p < 0.05). Table 3.4 Hierarchical multiple regression analysis summary predicting Intrinsic Motivation from Fami lial Obligation, when controlling for ethnicity, sex and parental autonomy support. (N=237) Variable B SEB R R Step 1 0.006 0.007 (Constant) 2.587 0.172 Asian 0.085 0.215 0.031 Latino 0.102 0.207 0.038 Sex 0.195 0.171 0.075 Step 2 0.056 0.04 (Constant) 1.61 0.326 Asian 0.001 0.211 0 Latino 0.051 0.202 0.019 Sex 0.158 0.167 0.061 Autonomy 0.218 0.062 0.224 Step 3 0.101 0.0 81 (Constant) 1.009 0.365 Asian 0.147 0.211 0.053 Latino 0.217 0.204 0.081 Sex 0.132 0.163 0.051 Autonomy 0.149 0.064 0.153 Family Obl. 0.197 0.058 0.229 *p<0.05

PAGE 38

! %, ! ! ! ! M ultivariate Analysis of Family Obligation and Autonomy Support. Presented in Table 4 are the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis prediciting family obligation when controlling for autonomy support. In step 2 of Table 4, when controllin g for ethnicity and gender, autonomy support significantly predicts family obligation ( = 0.311, p < 0.05 ). Additionally though, Latino and Asian ethnicity variables remain significant predictors ( = 0.271, p > 0.05; = 0.229, p > 0.05). Family Obligation as a Mediator. I n h ypothesis 3 i t is proposed that family obligation mediating the effect betwe en parental autonomy support for all four types of motivation proposed by self determination theory When analyzing Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, through step 2 and step 3 it c an be found that family obligation is significantly prediciting motivation when controlling for ethnicity, gender and parental autonomy support. Table 4 Hierarchical multiple regression analysis summary predicting Familial Obligation with Auton omy Support when controlling for ethnicity and sex. (N=237) Variable B SEB R R Step 1 0.054 0.041 (Constant) 4.616 0.195 Asian 0.605 0.244 0.188 Latino 0.757 0.234 0.245 Female 0.194 0.193 0.064 Step 2 0.149 0.134 (Constant) 3.044 0.360 Asian 0.74 0.233 0.229 Latino 0.837 0.233 0.271 Female 0.134 0.184 0.045 Autonomy 0.35 0.069 0.311 *p<0.05

PAGE 39

! &! Additionally, when examining Step 2 of Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, it can be found that parental autonomy su pport also significantly predicts varying levels of motivation. Furthermore, in Table 4, parental autonomy support is found to positively and significantly predict family obligation. Finally, in Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, although the effect or parental autonomy support is still significant when family obligation is added to s tep 3 of each table, the effect is considerably reduced in each regressional analysis In Table 3.1, from step 2 to step 3, parental autonomy support is reduced by 51%. In table 3. 2, from step 2 to step 3, parental autonomy support is reduced by 41%. In table 3.3, from step 2 to step 3, parental autonomy support is reduced by 26%. In table 3.4, from step 2 to step 3, parental autonomy support is reduced by 32%. Through the analysis of Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 and by following Baron and Kenny's (1986) model and definition of mediation, it can be determined that family obligation mediates a considerable portion of the effect o f parental autonomy support on each of the four types of motivation examined here.

PAGE 40

! &$ CHAPTER V DISCUSS ION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH Discussion The current study was a secondary quantitative analysis study that utilized previously collected likert scaled survey data. The purpose was to begin to bett er understand the connections between familial obligation and motivation regarding students in a classroom environment. It was found that familial obligation was a mediator between parental autonomy sup portive practices and motivation at varying levels Fu rthermore, there were additional notable correlations between variables including that of ethnicity and sex. Interpretation of Results Research Question 1: Parental autonomy supportive practices and motivation. As was hypothesized, parental autonomy suppo rtive practices are significant predic tors of motivation at all four types of identified by self determination theory (external regulation introjected regulation, identified regulation, intrinsic motivation). These results were in alignment with prior res earch that suggested positive parental autonomy support encouraged student motivation in a classroom setting (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). The current findings suggest that parental autonomy support is an important consideration and factor when attempting to un derstand a student's motivation and academic success in the classroom. However, previous research has shown that parental autonomy support would be assumed to predict autonomous forms of motivation such as intrinsic motivation and identified regulation. It is slightly unexpected that parental autonomy supportive practices would also predict more controlled forms of motivation such as introjected regulation and external regulation. Further research is needed to advance these particular results and analyses.

PAGE 41

! &% Research Question 2: Familial obligation and motivation. The results of the study al ign with the original hypotheses that familial obligation would be a predictor of motivation This was the case for four distinct types of motivation identified by self d etermination theory (external regulation introjected regulation, identified regulation, intrinsic motivation ) Previous research had shown that adolescents who had attitudes supportive of family obligations tended to be more academically motivated over al l (Fuligni, Tseng and Lam 1999 ). However, the current study expanded on previous research and showed that familial obligation has a significant impact on four distinct types of motivation identified by self determination theory, which previously had not been studied. The importance of these results shows a more detailed connection between a student's perception of family obligation and motivation in the classroom. In particular, the finding that intrinsic motivation and familial obligation were significa ntly and positively correlated is contrary to the finding by Fuligni (2001), which found no association, and merits further study. These particular results bring new insight into the research area of motivation and family science. It exhibitions that stud ying the connections between fami lial obligation and motivation is a vital factor to consider. Moreover, this highlights the need to consider factors external to the classroom, which may impact motivation. Research Question 3: Familial Obligation as a Medi ator. Hypothesis 3 dealt with familial obligation as a mediator of the relationship between parental autonomy supportive practices and motivation at all four varying levels As was hypothesized, familial obligation was a successful partial mediator between parental autonomy suppor tive practices and motivation This was the most noteworthy outcome of the current study because familial obligation has not been examined as a mediator between these two variables in previous research.

PAGE 42

! && The importance of these res ults displays that familial obligation successfully partially mediates the relationship between parental autonomy supportive practices and motivation. By establishing familial obligation as a partial mediator, we can determine that familial obligation has some sort of impact on a student's motivation. Thus, we can establish that the connections between a student's perception of familial obligation and their motivational tendencies should be explored in more depth. In addition, these results in particular s upport the overarching goal of the current study that motivation needs to begin to be analyzed utilizing a more holistic ecological approach (Bronfenbrenner, 2009). By looking past dyadic relationships in the classroom, motivational research can be challe nged at looking at addition micro level and macro level influencing relationships such as a student's family obligation. These results have displayed that looking at these more complex relationships are vital to future research projects and developments. L imitations of the Current Study There were several limitations to the current study. The research design of this study exhibited some limitations. Originally, the data for this study was collected during a one time data collection utilizing likert scaled survey response. This means that the data collected only represents the students' thoughts, feelings and perceptions at the given time of the survey. The format of t he survey and its questions may have served as a limitation as well since it mainly utilize d likert scaled questions. Consequently, it is probable that utilizing an additional form of data collection, such as interviewing student participants, could lead to more conclusive results. This would allow for future studies to have a better rounded and in depth analysi s of the developed connections Additionally, the sample was another main limitation of the study. T he sample was limited to only one school for data collection. Thus, i t is possible that the results could have been

PAGE 43

! &' changed if more school s in the region were surveyed. This means that the results of the study could be just generalizable for the school studied in particular but could potentially not reflect studen t opinions across all schools in the region. Furthermore, the sample size was r elatively small once it was reduced by the researcher to just looking at Asian American, Latino and European American students' from the original sample. Strengths of the Current Study A primary strength of this study w as that it examined the connections between several variables that had not been looked at closely before. In previous research, familial obligation had been connected to motivation but never analyzed specifically utilizing self determination theory. Furthermore, this study was unique becaus e it was able to examine familial obligation as a mediator between parental autonomy support and varying levels of motivation based on self determination theory. Exploring familial obligation as a partial mediator between parental autonomy supportive pract ices and motivation utilizing self determination theory had not been investigated in previous research. In addition, this current study extended the body of research within motivation past the scope of relationships inside the classroom to interactions ou tside of the classroom, such as familial obligation. Also, even though the study's data was collected at one school. The school chosen for the study was extremely diverse in its student population. This adds to the strength of the study by allowing for a diverse sample population. Future Research There were several unanswered questions that arose in the current study which were not foreseen by the author's original research questions and hypotheses. Specifically, there were multiple correlations between variables studied that were not anticipated. In particular

PAGE 44

! &( d ifferences in sex and ethnic background which only appeared in multivariate analyses showed a need for additional investigation in future research. When running the multiple regression anal yse s predicting extrinsic motivation it was found that females were positively and significantly correlated Meaning that overall females had higher levels of extrinsic motivation than males. This displays that there are possible sex differences when consid ering extrinsic motivation in the classroom, which are suppressed until you consider parental autonomy support It is feasible this may be due to different environmental s ettings or different gender socialization between males and females. Future research could provide more insight as to why these sex differences exist and further explore this topic in more depth Additionally, while running the multiple regression analyses predicting introjected regulation, it was found that Latinos reported significantly lower levels of introjected regulation after controlling for familial obligation. This exhibits there may be significant differences in ethnic backgrounds when it comes to familial obligation. There is a possibility; this may be due to cultural difference s across the student sample. In future research, these differences could be further explored to better understand why these differences may exist. Furthermore, future research could adapt the results and implications of the current study to a larger popu lation. This could include expanding the sample across multiple schools in the same region or examining different age groups. Implications and Conclusions The current study has extensive implications not only across the field of motivation but in regards to the field of family science as well. Many of the questions of this study were only partially addressed and surfaced many new questions to be further explored. In addition, t his

PAGE 45

! &) study aimed to address many of the unanswered questions in previous researc h regarding the connections between a student's family life at home and motivational outcomes in the classroom. There were significant connections between a student's perception of their own familial obligation and motivation at varying levels based on s elf determination theory. This exhibits that a student's motivation is a more com plicated construct than previous research may have perceived A student's motivation is perhaps more complex than just analyzing the effects of a teacher's positive or negativ e teaching influence. It is also more complicated than simply analyzing the basic dyadic relationship a student may experience between teachers, peers or caregivers. To fully understand a student's motivation, all aspects of an individual's ecological envi ronment needs to be further explored and analyzed including familial obligation. This research challenges future research to look past dyadic relationships in the classroom and encourage researchers to begin exploring motivation from a more ecological st andpoint. Students' in the United States are more diverse than ever before and come from a multitude of backgrounds, families and communities. It is imperative that future research aims to explore these differences to have a better understanding of what mo tivates students and how to maximize their learning potential in the classroom. The result of this study has found connections between relationships that in previous research have not been explored in much depth. In particular, finding significant connec tions between family obligation and motivation challenges future research to push past dyadic relationships to begin studying student motivation from a more holistic ecological lens. Additionally, this study has found that there is connection between famil y obligation and motivation that needs to be studied further in depth. By having a better and fuller understanding of student perception of their own family obligation, more successful motivational techniques can be persuaded in the classroom.

PAGE 46

! &* Likewise, e xploring ethnic background and sex differences is also essential to having a better understanding as to why students' learn the way they do and how to optimize motivational potential in the classroom. Moving forward, researchers within the field of motivat ion and family science should continue observing students as individuals and consider all the ecological systems that may influence a student's motivation and academic success.

PAGE 47

! &+ REFERENCES Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderato r mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology 51 (6), 1173. ./012314/3113/5!67!8%--,97! !"#$#%&'&()$&*$"+,-.$/#0#'&1,#.2 7!:;/#;/ "?@!A/3>>7 B3C"5!D7!E75!F;GG3/;1<5!H7!I75!J3GG3?"3/5!E7!K75!L!H@;15!H7!M7!8$,,$97!M0?"#;?"01!;13G2 Q <3?3/R"1;?"01!A3/>A3C?"#37! 3/+%-24&.-'$15)%"&'&(452 5! 67 8& Q '95!&%( Q &')7 Fuligni, A. J. (2001). Family obligation and the academic motivation of adolescents from Asian, Latin American, and European backgrounds. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 2001 (94), 61 76. Fuligni, A. J., & Pedersen, S. (2002). Family obligation and the transition to young adulthood. Developmental psycho logy 38 (5), 856. Fuligni, A. J., Tseng, V., & Lam, M. (1999). Attitudes toward family obligations among American adolescents with Asian, Latin American, and European backgrounds. Child development 70 (4), 1030 1044. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of personality and social psychology 52 (5), 890. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children's self regulation and competen ce in school. Journal of educational psychology 81 (2), 143. Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of self determination in education. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne 49 (3), 233.

PAGE 48

! &, Harter, S (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered. Toward a developmental model. Human development 21 (1), 34 64. Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self determination theory explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experi ences of collectivisti cally oriented Korean students?. Journal of Educational Psychology 101 (3), 644. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches Sage. Pomerantz, E. M., Grolnick, W. S., & Price, C. E. (2005). The role of parents in how children approach achievement. Handbook of competence and motivation 259 278. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, an d well being. American psychologist 55 (1), 68. Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of personality and social psychology 57 (5), 749. Ryan, R. M., & Gr olnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self report and projective assessments of individual differences in children's perceptions. Journal of personality and social psychology 50 (3), 550.

PAGE 49

! '! S0G0/;<0!M=G?"AG3!T1>?"?=?"01;G!H3# "3U!.0;/<5!S.! V',! 61"#3/>"?@!02!S0G0/;<05!W1>CP=?X!M3<"C;G!S;RA=>! $&--$!D7!$*?P!JG;C35!.="G<"1Y!(--5!H00R!Z&%$'! W=/0/;5!S0G0/;<0!+--'( &-&7*%'7$-((![JP013\ &-&7*%'7-,,-![V;]\ S^MTH.!:0R3!J;Y3 [_34\! C0R"/4`=C<31#3/73<= !!! [D Q M;"G\ V_W----(-*-![V_W\ University of Colorado Hospital Denver Health Medical Center Veteran's Administration Medical Center Children's Hospital Colorado University of Colorado Denver Colorado Prevention Center !"#$%&%'($"))*&)+,"-.$%*/ ) 15 Feb 2017 0/1"2$%3($*#4 ) E;/">>; a3GG@ Subject: COMIRB Protocol 17 0126 Initial Application 5"1%"6 ) 7($"4 ) $( Q V34 Q %-$* +&&"'$%1" ) 7($"4 ) ) $' Q V34 Q %-$*! 8/$%'%.($"9)!*-.:"$%*/)7($"4) $' Q V34 Q %-%-! ;.*/2*#<2=4 ) Z0 bA01>0/c Title: Connection between Parenting Roles and Familial Obligations in Regards to Student Motivation Based on Self determination Theory !"#$%& ()&#*+,-. ;>?-%22%*/)074) ;AA ;@AB0;;0C D)7+;!50EF0CD4 ) Exemption determination G*>#) !CB05A)0/%$%(:)2>?-%22%*/)(..)H(2)?""/)8EE5CI+7)JC5)+K+BEF0CDL) J3/"0<"C!C01?"1="1Y!/3#"3U!">!10?!!/3d="/3<7! V0/!?P3!<=/;?"01!02!@0=/!A/0?0C0G5!;1@!CP;1Y3!"1!?P3!3]A3/"R31?;G!<3>"Y1eC01?31?eA3/>0113G!02!?P">!>? =<@!R=>?!43! ;AA/0#3< 4@ S^MTH. 4320/3 "RAG3R31?;?"01 02 ?P3 CP;1Y3>7 The anticipated completion date of this protocol is 14 Feb 2020. COMIRB will administratively close this project on this date unless otherwise instructed by e mail to COMIRB@ucdenver.edu. If the project is completed prior to this date, please notify the COMIRB office in writing or by e mail once the project has been closed

PAGE 50

! '$ Through out the surveys, you will be asked to respond about yours elf in one MATHEMATICS CLASS that you are taking this semester What type of MATHEMATICS CLASS will you be using as the basis for your responses to the surveys? Please write down the name of the c lass class time and last name of the teacher. (1) N ame of the c lass _________ __ ________ __ __ (2) C lass time ____ ______ ____ (3) Last n ame of the teacher _______________ __ _____ Here are some questions about yourself as a student in the context of the MATH CLASS you are taking this semester. Each question h as a scale from 1 ( not at all true ) to 7 ( very true ) Please circle the number that best describes what you think. There is no right or wrong answer on these items, so please be honest in answering questions. No one at school or home will see your answe rs. Example: Not at All S omewhat V ery T rue True T rue I enjoy reading my textbook. 1 2 3 4 ) Tj ET Q q 0.24 0 0 0.24 479.9261 444.6161 cm BT 50 0 0 50 0 0Tm /TT1 1 Tf ( 6 7

PAGE 51

! '% Please put a checkmark in the boxes ( ) and fill in the blanks with your responses. 1 Your Sex : Male Female 2 Your Age: ________ years old 3 What is yours and your parents f ethnic background? Check off the best description below: Asian, Asian American American Indian Native American Black, African American Latino /a Mexican, Mexican Am erican White, Euro American Mixed or Other (write in below): __________ ___ __ ___ (1) You ! (2) Father ! (3) Mother ! 4 Is English your native/home language? Yes No (If not, please specify: ______________) 5 Did y ou immigrate or move to the U.S. from elsewhere ? Yes (Then, h ow old were you? ____ years old ) No 6 Where were you and your parents born (State or Country)? Please answer as specifically as you know. (1) Your Birthplace : ____________________________ ______ (2) Your father f s Birthplace: __________________________________ (or check here if you don f t know ) (3) Your mother f s Birthplace: __________________________________ (or check here if you don f t know ) 7 Generation Check off the best description below: 1 st generation ( I and my mother were born in another country. ) 2 nd generation ( I was born in the US, and my mother was born in another country. ) 3 rd generation ( I and my mother were born in the US, and my grandparents were born in another cou ntry. ) 4 th generation ( I and my mother were born in the US. And, as far as I know, my grandparents were born in the US. ) 8 What is your approximate grade in your math class? Letter grade (A, B, C, D, etc ) : ______ 9. W ho is your primary care giver du ring the day, for most of the week? Your Mother Your Father Your Grandmother Your Grandfather Your older sibling Other (write in):_____________________________

PAGE 52

! '& Here are some questions about yourself as a student in the context of the MATH CLAS S you are taking this semester. Each question has a scale from 1 ( not at all true ) to 7 ( very true ) Please circle the number that best describes what you think. There is no right or wrong answer on these items, so please be honest in answering questio ns. No one at school or home will see your answers. Not at All S omewhat V ery T rue True T rue Example I enjoy reading my textbook. 1 2 3 4 ) Tj ET Q q 0.24 0 0 0.24 492.166 557.1761 cm BT 50 0 0 50 0 0 Tm /TT11 Tf ( 6 7 In my math class Not at All S omewhat V ery T rue True T rue 1. It's important to me that I learn a lot of new concepts this year. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. It's important to me that other students in my class think I am good at my class work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. It's important to me that I don't look stupid in class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. One of my goals in class is to learn as much as I can. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. One of my goals is to show others that I'm g ood at my class work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. One of my goals is to keep others from thinking I'm not smart in class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. One of my goals is to master a lot of new skills this year. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. One of my goals is to show others that class work is easy for me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. It's important to me that I thoroughly understand my class work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. One of my goals is look smart in comparison to the other students in my class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. It's important to me that my teacher doesn't think that I know less than others in clas s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. It's important to me that I improve my skills this year. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. It's important to me that I look smart compared to others in my class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. One of my goals in class is to avoid looking like I have troub le doing the work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 53

! '' Here are more questions about yourself as a student in the context of the MATH CLASS you are taking this semester. There is no right or wrong answer on these items, so please be honest in answering questions. N o one at school or home will see your answers. A. Why do I do my math homework? Not at All S omewhat V ery T rue True T rue 15. Because I want the teacher to think I'm a good student. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Be cause I'll get in trouble if I don't. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. Because it's fun. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. Because I will feel bad about myself if I don't do it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Because I want to understand the subject. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. Because that's what I'm supposed to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. Because I enjoy doing my homework. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. Because it's important to me to do my homework. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B. Why do I work on my math class work? Not at All S omewhat V ery T ru e True T rue 23. So that the teacher won't yell at me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. Because I want the teacher to think I'm a good student. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. Because I want to learn new things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. Because I'll be asha med of myself if it didn't get done. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. Because it's fun. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. Because that's the rule. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. Because I enjoy doing my class work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. Because it's important to me to work on my class work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 C. Why do I try to answer hard questions in math class? Not at All S omewhat V ery T rue True T rue 31. Because I want the other students to think I'm smart. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. Because I fe el ashamed of myself when I don't try. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. Because I enjoy answering hard questions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 34. Because that's what I'm supposed to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. To find out if I'm right or wrong. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 36. Because it's fun to answer hard questions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 37. Because it's important to me to try to answer hard questions in class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 38. Because I want the teacher to say nice things about me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 D. Why do I try to do math well in school? Not at All S omewhat V ery T rue True T rue 39. Because that's what I'm supposed to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 40. So my teachers will think I'm a good student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41. Because I enjoy doing my school w ork well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 42. Because I will get in trouble if I don't do well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 43. Because I'll feel really bad about myself if I don't do well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 44. Because it's important to me to try to do well in school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 45. Because I will feel really proud of myself if I do well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 46. Because I might get a reward if I do well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 54

! '( B elow are examples of things students sometimes feel about their parents when the students study math. Please think of whichever parent or parents or guardian with whom you live or you think of as your primary care giver as your reference. There is no right or wrong answer on these items, so please be very honest in answering questions. Parents will never see yo ur answers. In terms of studying math Not at All S omewhat V ery T rue True T rue 47. My parents want me to spend time thinking about concepts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 48. My parents don't like it when I make mist akes in my class work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 49. My parents would like it if I could show that I'm better at class work than other students in my class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 50. My parents want my work to be challenging for me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 51. My parents woul d like me to show others that I am good at class work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 52. My parents would like it if I d id n't look stupid in class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 53. My parents would like me to do challenging class work, even if I make mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 54. My parents think getting the right answers in class is very important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 55. My parents think that it's important not to do worse than other students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 56. My parents want me to understand my class work, not just memorize h ow to do it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 57. My parents think that i t's important that my teacher doesn't think that I know less than others in class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 58. My parents want me to see how my class work relates to things outside of school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 59. My parents would be pleased if I could show that class work is easy for me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 60. My parents want me to understand concepts, not just do the work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 61. My parents want me to avoid looking like I have trouble doing the work in class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 55

! ') B elow are some more examples of things students sometimes feel about their parents Please think of whichever parent or parents or guardian with whom you live or you think of as your primary care giver as your reference. Th ere is no right or wrong answer on these items, so please be very honest in answering questions. Parents will never see your answers. Not at All S omewhat V ery T rue True T rue 62. My parents seem to know how I feel about things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 63. My parents whenever possible, allow me to choose what to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 64. My parents expect me to act right away when they make a request. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 65. My parents tr y to tell me how to run my l ife. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 66. My parents tr y to understand how I see things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 67. My parents are always telling me how I should behave. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 68. My parents tell me exactly how to do my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 69. My parents listen to my opinion or perspective when I've got a problem. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 70. My parents tr y to tell me what kinds of friends I should have. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 71. My parents allow me to contradict or disagree with their opinion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 72. My parents insist upon my doing things their way. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 73. My parents are usually able to consider things from my point of view. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 74. My parents can always tell how I feel about important matters. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 75. My parents h elp me to choose my own direction. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 76. My parents are n't very sensitive to my own needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Below are examples of things students sometimes feel about their family. There is no right or wrong answer on these items, so pleas e be very honest in answering questions. Family will never see your answers. Not at All S omewhat V ery T rue True T rue 77. An important reason that I try to do well in school is to please my parents sibl ings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 78. I want to do well in school so that I can be better prepared to take care of my family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 79. The main reason I try to do well in school is to bring honor to my family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80. It is important to me th at my parents guardians are proud of my achievement in school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 56

! '* B elow are examples of things students sometimes feel about their MATH teachers. There is no right or wrong answer on these items, so please be very honest in answering questi ons. Teachers will never see your answers. In my math class Not at All S omewhat V ery T rue True T rue 81. My teacher in math class seem s to know how I feel about things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 82. My teacher i n math class whenever possible, allow s me to choose what to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 83. My teacher in math class expect s me to act right away when he/she make s a request. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 84. My teacher in math class tr ies to understand how I see things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 85. My teacher in math class is always telling me how I should behave. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 86. My teacher in math class tell s me exactly how to do my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 87. My teacher in math class listen s to my opinion or perspective when I' ve got a problem. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 88. My teacher in math class allow s me to contradict or disagree with his/her opinion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 89. My teacher in math class insist s upon my doing things his/her way. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 90. My teacher in math class is usually able to consider things from my point of view. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 91. My teacher in math class help s me to choose my own direction. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 92. My teacher in math class isn 't very sensitive to my own needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Here are some questions about the MATH CLASS you are taking and about the work you do in the class this semester. There is no right or wrong answer on these items, so please be honest in answering questions. No one at school or home will see your answers. In my mat h class Not at All S omewhat V ery T rue True T rue 93 In our class, trying hard is very important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 94 In our class, showing others that you are not bad at class work is really important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 95 In our class, how much you improve is really important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 96 In our class, getting good grades is the main goal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 97 In our class, really understanding the material is the main goal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 98 In our class, getting right answers is very important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 99 In our class, it's important that you don't make mistakes in front of everyone. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 100 In our class, it's important to understand the work, not just 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 57

! '+ memorize it. 101 In our class, it's important not to do worse than other students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 102 In our class, learning new ideas and concepts is very important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 103. In our class, it's very important not to look dumb. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 104 In our class, it's OK to make mistakes as long as you are learning. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 105. In our class, it's important to get high scores on tests. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 106 In our class, one of the main goals is to avoid looking like you can't d o the work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Thank you so much for your help! Please check if you have completed all 8 pages before you turn in!