Theoretical Framework

The document discusses theoretical frameworks for school socialization style and parenting style. It describes Baumrind's typology of parenting styles (authoritative, authoritarian, permissive) and Maccoby and Martin's expansion to include indifferent/neglectful style based on levels of demandingness and responsiveness. This two-dimensional framework can also be applied to teachers and schools as socialization agents. Studies suggest authoritative schools with optimal levels of both demandingness (order, rules) and responsiveness (support, relationships) lead to lowest disengagement and highest achievement, especially for disadvantaged students.

Uploaded by

Dhave Guibone Dela Cruz

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

157 views2 pages

Theoretical Framework

Uploaded by

Dhave Guibone Dela Cruz

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 2

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

School socialization style is a framework that bridges two different areas of research: parenting
styles and school process. The typology of socialization style was originally developed to categorize and
illustrate parenting styles. Since then, it has been applied to different socialization agents such as
teachers (teaching style) or schools (school socialization style).

Typology of Parenting Style

The best-known theoretical framework in the field of parenting studies is Baumrind’s (1967)
typology of parenting style. Baumrind gauged levels of parental control to identify three categories of
parenting style: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive. Maccoby and Martin (1983) enhanced the
generalizability of Baumrind’s typology by creating a two-dimensional framework based on levels of
demandingness and responsiveness (Darling & Steinberg, 1993) of the socialization agent, that is, the
parent, or in our research, the school. Demandingness is the socialization agent’s willingness to socialize
children to integrate them into society, and responsiveness is the socialization agent’s recognition of
children’s individuality. This expanded framework included the three categories of parenting style
identified by Baumrind plus a fourth category: indifferent (also known as neglectful). Socialization style
“is a constellation of attitudes towards the child” (Darling & Steinberg) that creates the climate in which
socialization agent’s behaviors are expressed. Figure 1 shows Maccoby and Martin’s two-dimensional
framework of socialization style.

Responsiveness

High Low

Demandingness High Authoritative Authoritarian

Permissive Indifferent Low

Figure 1. Socialization style by level of responsiveness and demandingness

The biggest strength of the typology of parenting style is that it embraces both demandingness
and responsiveness. Demandingness has been operationalized as having high standards for behavior and
maturity, firm rule enforcement, and academic press, while responsiveness has been operationalized as
including warmth, open communication, respect for the child’s developmental needs, trust toward the
child, and encouragement of psychological autonomy (Aunola, Stattin, &Nurmi, 2000). Other theorists
have emphasized one of the two-qualities while assuming the existence of the other. For example, social
control theory (Hirschi, 1969), also known as social bonding theory, highlights the connection between
individuals and social institutions through commitment, involvement, and beliefs. These elements
represent responsiveness. At the same time, social control theory assumes that these social institutions
require individuals’ maturity and responsibility, which represent demandingness. The parenting style
framework, however, explicitly models the two-dimensional approach and suggests the existence of an
optimal combination of the two.
School Socialization Style

Although socialization style was originally developed to explain interpersonal phenomena

between children and parents, the two-dimensional approach (demandingness and responsiveness) of
socialization style has also can be applied to teachers and schools, which, like parents, are active agent’s
socializations. This student included teaching style as a component of the more general school
socialization style because some measures of teaching style and school socialization style overlap.

Studies of school socialization style, like those of parenting style, use the categorical descriptors
authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and indifferent based on levels of demandingness and
responsiveness, to describe schools, and an orderly disciplinary climate, while school responsiveness
includes supportive teacher-student relationships, a supportive school climate, and shared values.

Like most studies of parenting style, studies of teaching and school process suggest that the
authoritative socialization style is the most effective for schools. In research by Pellerin (2005), students
in the authoritative schools showed the lowest levels of behavioral and disengagement, defined as
absenteeism, tardiness, and turning in unfinished homework while students in indifferent schools
presented the highest levels. The appropriate combination of responsiveness and demandingness seems
to be more critical for disadvantaged students than for others. Connell’s self-system processes model
(1990) explains the mechanism by which social context influences students engagement at school
achievement. Self-system and processes are appraisals of self in relation to activities in the social
surroundings. Self-system processes are the result of a dialectic relationship between the individual’s
psychological needs (i.e., competence, relatedness, autonomy) and social context. Several self-system
processes were identified; one associated with competence are perceived strategies and capabilities;
one related to autonomy is self-regulation processes; and one’s linked to relatedness are the experience
of oneself as worthy and the perceived security of one’s relationships with significant others. The
appraisal of self-varies by the levels at which these needs are being fulfilled in the social surrounding.