Doctor of Philosophy

Research Methods 1: Qualitative

(PHD7010)
ASSIGNMENT 3- Final Examination

PREPARED FOR
PROF DR. SELVANATHAN A/L ARPUTHAM
MADAM JESS CHONG SOK FONG

PREPARED BY
MOHD SHAHIDAN BIN ZAINUDDIN ZAINAL ABIDIN
202009060023

SUBMISSION DATE
10th December 2020
 FORMAT OF YOUR REPORT

i) You must submit your assignments reports by the due dates stated above.
ii) You can include pictures, drawings etc. to support your answer.
iii) Font Types : Arial / Times New Roman
iv) Font size : 10 / 12 with 1 ½ spacing and justified your answer.
v) Must be submitted together with an Assignment Cover Page.
vi) You are to submit a soft copy in pdf format to LMS.
Kindly note that failure to submit any of the above will render a “No Submission” status and a
“0” mark grade for your assignments.

2 PHD7010 – Assignment 3
 Prepare an Idea Paper following the structure given below:

Structure of Idea Paper/Project Brief

Title:
The Relationship of Parenting Style and School Readiness

1. Introduction (200 words)

“If you can read this, thank a teacher.” The general public is familiar with this slogan made
popular by a teachers' union. A literal interpretation of this simple statement would suggest that most
public discussion about improving education should revolve around greater support for teachers and
school-based reform, with the school assuming the basic responsibility of influencing and developing
a child’s academic potential. But is this line of reasoning necessarily in the best interest of today’s
children?
Perhaps the educational debate should shift to, or at least include another more basic and
fundamental focus on family environment. Rearing a child is one of the most difficult and important
jobs that a large number of people undertake. Family environment has a pervasive and life-long
impact on children, yet most people enter into parenthood without significant preparation or training.
3 PHD7010 – Assignment 3
What influence does a child’s family life have on school achievement? What effect does a stimulating
home environment have on school readiness? Does family structure impact student learning? How
important are early literacy activities in the home?
 2. Background information on the proposed research (800 words)

Over the last two decades, considerable debate has occurred in society and in the research
community about changes in and the direction of student achievement. A large cross-national study
of Chinese, Japanese, and American school children determined that there were significant
achievement differences as early as kindergarten, with American children lagging behind others in
mathematics and reading (Sarah Prendergast, 2016). Continuing dialogue has centered on whether
student performance is improving or declining, whether changes in family characteristics have
affected student achievement, and whether social and educational programs and policy changes
aimed toward equal educational opportunities have been effective. When studying the American
family, Grissmer, Kirby, Berends, and Williamson (1994) used test scores to determine that there was
no evidence of a deteriorating family environment for students ages 14 to 18 in 1990 when compared
to similar students in 1970 and 1975. However, there are many who imply that the family has
deteriorated to the extent that it is losing the capacity to positively support the development of
children (Walberg, 1984).
Whether questioning or accepting the deterioration of the family unit, one should recognize that
more than 30 years of research indicate that families have more influence over a child’s academic
4 performance than any other factor--including schools (Laosa, 1982; Mattox,PHD7010
1995). –University
Assignment 3of

Chicago sociologist Coleman (1990) conducted a major research study in the mid-1960s designed to
explain differences in student performance between certain schools and certain classes. While
weighing the relative influence on student achievement of different school factors and teacher
variables, Coleman reached an interesting conclusion. Although some specific school factors had a
modest effect on school performance, the influence of family background was considerable. Based on
his studies conducted in the mid-60s, Coleman determined that resources under control of the school
were considerably less important than those that were intrinsic to the child’s family background. That
is, the resources brought to education from the home were considerably more important for
achievement than those provided by the schools.
Likewise, 20 years later, Bevevino (1988) established that from birth to age 18, the average
child spends 87% of his or her waking time under the influence of home environment, whereas only
13% of that time is under school supervision. It is no surprise, then, that Bevevino concluded a child’s
academic success is largely determined by parents and the environment they provide during the
child's life. Especially crucial are the first six years, a period of rapid physical, emotional, and
intellectual development. Gottfried (1984) discovered that the highest correlation between cognitive
development and environment tends to be found during the preschool years. In brain research, Bruer
 (1997) emphasized the rapid increase of synapses that connect neurons in the brain, starting in
infancy and continuing into later childhood. Until age 10, a child's brain contains more synapses than
at any other time in life. Early childhood experiences fine-tune these connections by reinforcing and
maintaining synapses that are repeatedly used and snipping away unused synapses. According to
Bruer, This time of high synaptic density and experiential fine-tuning is a critical period in a child's
cognitive development. It is the time when the brain is particularly efficient in acquiring and learning a
range of skills. During this critical period, children can benefit most from rich, stimulating learning
environments. If, during this critical period, we deprive children of such environments, significant
learning opportunities are lost forever.
In light of the family’s extraordinary influence and the changing home environment in today’s
society, a study of school readiness and its relationship to specific family environment factors is
relevant. The importance of environment cannot be overlooked or underestimated. As Mari Prinsloo
(2015) acknowledged, “Growth in writing and reading comes from within the child and as a result of
environmental stimulation”. Previous research has shown that the presence of specific family and
home environment characteristics may contribute to school readiness and later academic
achievement; conversely, the absence of certain identifiable factors may contribute to significant
delays in readiness (Rita Dangol, 2019). Therefore, increased knowledge of identified positive factors
5 PHD7010 – Assignment 3
will be beneficial in developing appropriate remediation strategies. In addition, public policy and
funding agencies must consider such findings to determine the most effective allocation of public
resource money for both education and social programs. If family environment is truly a key factor in
student achievement, it should be taken into account when attempting to evaluate the effectiveness of
both public policy and public investments.
 3. Research problem (500 words)
3.1. Research questions/issues

Several avenues of inquiry could be developed in regard to kindergarten readiness. For the purpose
of this study, however, four basic research questions were selected as the focal point of the
investigation:
1. What are the characteristics of the study's participants and their home environments?
2. What is the relationship between specific home/family characteristics and kindergarten
readiness?
3. Are there differences in the total School Readiness Screening scores of kindergarten students
from different socioeconomic status groups?
4. To what extent can socioeconomic status, literacy activities, and learning resources be used to
predict kindergarten readiness?

3.2. Research objectives

1. To investigate the relationship between family environment and school readiness of children
6 entering kindergarten in Petaling Jaya, Selangor. PHD7010 – Assignment 3

3.3. Hypotheses

Ho1: There is no significant relationship between family structure and school readiness.
Ho2: There is no significant relationship between father's level of education and school readiness.
Ho3: There is no significant relationship between mother's level of education and school readiness.
Ho4: There is no significant relationship between family income and school readiness.
Ho5: There is no significant relationship between preschool care and school readiness.
Ho6: There is no significant relationship between reading to a child and school readiness.
Ho7: There is no significant relationship between the child "reading" to a parent and school readiness.
Ho8: There is no significant relationship between participation in family teaching/learning activities
and school readiness.
Ho9: There is no significant relationship between participation in educational outings and school
readiness.
Ho10: There is no significant relationship between family mealtime and school readiness.
Ho11: There is no significant relationship between meal conversation and school readiness.
 Ho12: There is no significant relationship between frequency of television viewing and school
readiness.
Ho13: There is no significant relationship between duration of television viewing and school
readiness.
Ho14: There is no significant relationship between involvement with educational toys or hobbies and
school readiness.
Ho15: There is no significant relationship between the number of home educational tools and school
readiness.
Ho16: There is no significant relationship between the availability of a home computer and school
readiness.
Ho17: There is no significant relationship between the number of children's books in the home and
school readiness.
Ho18: There is no significant relationship between the frequency of new book acquisition or library
loans and school readiness.
Ho19: There is no significant difference in the School Readiness Screening scores of kindergarten
students from two-parent homes and those from other home situations.
Ho20: There is no significant difference in the School Readiness Screening scores of kindergarten
7 PHD7010 – Assignment 3
students from homes with different annual income levels.
Ho21: There is no significant difference in the School Readiness Screening scores of kindergarten
students based on the father’s level of education.
Ho22: There is no significant difference in the School Readiness Screening scores of kindergarten
students based on the mother’s level of education.
 4. Justification for the research (200 words)

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between family environment and
school readiness of children entering kindergarten in a rural East Tennessee county. For the purpose
of this study, three nonprocess and three process family factors were broadly identified.
Nonprocess or status factors are those defined as relatively static family characteristics,
including family income, family structure (two-parent home vs. other situations), and parents’
education level. Process variables are defined as opportunities provided by parents for parent-child
interactions in different situations or the actual family investment in children’s development through
time and resources. These include literacy activities (oral reading by parent or story telling by child,
educational teaching/learning activities, educational outings, frequency of family meal times, and
meal conversation); television viewing (frequency and duration); and availability of learning tools
(educational toys and hobbies, home educational tools, computers, number of children's books,
8 frequency of new book acquisition, and library loans). PHD7010 – Assignment 3

The School Readiness Screen, a test that assesses the basic skills necessary for success in
kindergarten, was used to measure school readiness of the participants. Data collection related to the
identified variables was gathered through self-reported parent surveys distributed to parents of
incoming kindergarten students at the four selected school sites.
 5. Unit of analysis (100 words)

The study’s population was taken from parents and kindergarten students enrolling in schools
located in Petaling Jaya, Selangor known as metropolitan city. Several grade configurations exist
within the 20-school public education system. Students are eligible to attend kindergarten if their
fourth birthday falls on or before December 1 of the school year.
Convenience cluster sampling was selected for use in this study because of availability and
feasibility of selecting naturally occurring groups in the population. For the purpose of this study, the
sample consisted of kindergarten students and School Readiness screening in four geographically
diverse schools within the system. Each site represented different size and school configurations: one
small K-8 school, one mid-sized K-4 school, one mid-sized K-3 school, and one large K-2 school.
Together, these four schools annually house approximately 50% of the total 800+ kindergarten
students in the county. It is the belief of this researcher that the selected schools.
9 PHD7010 – Assignment 3
 6. Methodology (400 words)

The School Readiness Screen was used to determine entering kindergarteners’ readiness for school.
The School Readiness Screening tests the following:
1. General knowledge and comprehension (identification of body parts, color recognition, following
directions);
2. Speech and language (personal data responses, picture vocabulary, syntax and fluency);
3. Gross motor skills (standing, walking, hopping);
4. Fine motor skills (draws a shape, draws a person);
5. Math (counts by rote, numerals in sequence);
6. Readiness (visual discrimination, recites alphabet, recognition of lower case letters;
7. Basic reading (auditory discrimination); and
8. Manuscript writing (prints personal data).
10 PHD7010 – Assignment 3
Both criterion- and norm-referenced, the School Readiness Screen provides information not
only about the child’s mastery of critical readiness skills but also about how the child’s performance
compares with that of other children.
The second instrument used in this research study was a self-reported parent survey.
Incorporating 18 questions in a closed-form multiple-choice format, it also contained one opened The
School Readiness Screen was administered to students by kindergarten teachers during the October
2021 countywide kindergarten screening. At that time, School Readiness student data sheets with
scores were completed for each kindergarten student, with one copy given to the parent and one
copy placed in the child’s cumulative record.
Parents were asked to complete the survey as their children were administered the School
Readiness Screen in an adjacent area. After each child completed the screening process, the score
was individually explained to the parents by the screening coordinator during a private exit
conference. At this time, parents returned the consent form and the completed survey. The screening
coordinator noted the total score in the upper right corner of the corresponding survey after each
conference.
In addition to a survey of demographic information including family income, family structure,
and parents’ educational background, the survey addressed home environment issues and family
 characteristics. The parent letter, informed consent, and parent survey were given to the parent or
primary caretaker of each incoming kindergarten student at the four selected school sites.

6.1. Data collection tools and analysis

This study describes the demographics and family/home characteristics of incoming

kindergarten students and their parents through descriptive analysis. This study also investigates the
relationship between characteristics of family environment and school readiness of kindergarten
children entering school in Petaling Jaya, Selangor. From research question 2, eighteen hypotheses
were developed and analyzed. From research question 3, an additional five hypotheses were
developed.
In answer to research question 1, descriptive analyses in the form of frequency tables were
used to describe basic demographics and family characteristics. Research question 2 was analyzed
using two correlational analyses. Kendall's tau-b was used to identify and explore the possible
relationships between the ordinal predictor variables (family characteristics) and the dependent

11
variable (School Readiness score). Cramer’s V was used to analyze the hypotheses that explored the
PHD7010 – Assignment 3
association between nominal variables and the School Readiness scores. Research question 3 was
analyzed using analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and independent samples t-tests. A hierarchical
multiple regression was used to analyze the effects of selected independent variables on the School
Readiness scores in response to research question 4.
 7. Limitations (100 words)

Limitations of the study included the population used, the objectivity of both researcher and
participants, and the instruments used. Generalizations with regard to the results must be limited to
kindergarten children within this county. The self-reported parent survey presented several inherent
limitations. Parents’ accuracy may have been limited by lack of reading ability, lack of understanding
of survey items, poor memory relating to past events, and their perceptions of the social acceptability
of certain responses. Therefore, the reliability of some responses may have been affected. The
reliability of the School Readiness K Screen was also considered a limiting factor, as the instrument
was administered by a number of kindergarten teachers from various schools throughout the selected
county. There was no opportunity to observe the home environment of the students and no proximal
(face-to-face) interviews were conducted.

12 PHD7010 – Assignment 3
 8. Proposed research timetable

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Month 2021 202 2021 2021 2021 2021 202 2021 2021 202 2021 2021
1 1 1
Chapter 1
Research Idea
Paper Draft
Problem
Statement
Objective and
Research
Question
Conceptual
framework and
definition
13 Chapter 2 PHD7010 – Assignment 3
Literature
Review
Chapter 3
Sample and
instruments
determination
Pilot test of the
instruments
Proposal Defend
Proposal
Correction
Chapter 4
Data Collection
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Month 2022 202 2022 2022 2022 2022 202 2022 2022 202 2022 2022
2 2 2
Data analysis
Chapter 5
Research
Findings
Conclusion
Recommendatio
 n
Final Viva
PhD Graduation

9. References

Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Bedinger, S. D. (1994). When expectations work: Race and
socioeconomic differences in school performance. Social psychology quarterly, 57(4), 283-299.

Bhattarai, P. C. (2015). Ethical leadership in Nepali technical and vocational education and training
schools: A convergent mixed methods study. (Unpublished doctoral thesis), Kathmandu
University: Kavre.
Carver, R. H., & Nash, J. G. (2012). Doing data analysis with SPSS version 18.0. Delhi: Cengage
Learning India Private Limited.

14 PHD7010 – Assignment 3
Cash, C. S. (1993). Building conditions and student achievement and behavior. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation), Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University: Blacksburg, VA.

Castro, M., Exposito-Casar, E., Lopez-Martin, E., Lizasoain, L., Navarro-Asencio, E., & Gaviria, J. L.
(2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational
research review, 14, 33-46.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(3rd ed.). New Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd.

Deyo, Z. M., Huynh, D., Rochester, C., Sturpe, D. A., & Kiser, K. (2011). Readiness for self-directed
learning and academic performance in an ability laboratory course. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education, 75(2), 1-6.

Earthman, G. I., Cash, C. S., & Berkum, D. V. (1996). A state-wide study of student achievement and
behavior and school building conditions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Council
of Educational Facility Planners, International, Dallas, TX.
 Hines, E. W. (1996). Building conditions and student achievement and behavior. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: Blacksburg, VA.

Kerlinger, F. N. (2011). Foundations of Behavioral research (2nd ed.). Delhi: Surjeet Publications.

Khadka, J. (2017). Perceived relation between Principals’ emotional intelligence and leadership
styles, and their effect on school performance. (Unpublished doctoral thesis), Kathmandu
University: Kavre.

Khattab, N. (2015). Students’ aspirations, expectation and school achievement: what really matters?
British educational research journal, 41(5), 731-748.

Saeid, N., & Eslaminejad, T. (2016). Relationship between student’s self directed-learning readiness
and academic self-efficacy and achievement motivation in students. International education
studies, 10(1), 225-232.

15 PHD7010 – Assignment 3
Santos, J. R. A., (1999). Cronbach’s alpha: A tool of assessing the reliability scales. Journal of
extension, 37(2), 1-5.

Shrestha, S. (2017). Teacher’s attitude towards inclusion of students with intellectual disability in
community schools. (Master dissertation), Kathmandu University: Kavre.

Singh, K. (2007). Quantitative social research methods. New Delhi: Sage publications India Pvt Ltd.
Sreejech, S., Mohapatra, S., & Anusree, M. R. (2014). Business research methods: An
applied orientation. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

----------------------------------------------------**End of questions**----------------------------------------------------
16 PHD7010 – Assignment 3