freedom and child rearing: critic of parenting practices from a new perspective

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 82 ( 2013 ) 39 – 50

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.Selection and peer review under the responsibility of Prof. Dr. Kobus Maree, University of Pretoria, South Africa.doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.222

World Conference on Psychology and Sociology 2012

Freedom and Child Rearing: Critic of Parenting Practices From a New Perspective Huseyin Kotaman a *

a Sultan Qaboos University School of Education, Early Childhood Education Department , Muscat, 1234, Oman

Abstract

Freedom differentiates human beings from other creatures. It is a state of being that is unique to humankind and a quality that defines us as humans. The concept of freedom is important to parenting practices. As we raise children to live as humanly as possible, to be themselves and live their own life, we as parents and educators should have a good understanding of the concept of freedom. Freedom involves attaining laws of nature (mind) and rising above conditions. Laws that regulate natural processes and our lives are also embedded in our minds they cannot be externally imposed. Therefore, self-will, self-attempts, and self-effort are needed to acquire these laws. The purpose of this study was to examine three parenting stylesindulgent, authoritarian, and authoritative according to the above-mentioned perspective.

Selection and peer review under the responsibility of Prof. Dr. Kobus Maree, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

Keywords: Freedom, Source of Knowledge, Child Rearing, Sense of Self;

1. Introduction

Parents seek to raise their children to eventually become free, independent, self-reliant, and self-sufficient adults who can stand on their own feet and live their own lives. As human beings, we hope and plan for this eventuality because we know that freedom is a condition of humankind. It enables us to be ourselves and to develop a sense of self also vital to the concepts of being human and being an individual.

Parents engage in their most effective childrearing when they themselves have a good grasp of the concept of

look at primitive humans and their initial inability to create fire. Since they did not know the process of fire creation, nor even its necessity, they found themselves at the mercy of their conditions. If they felt cold in the middle of the night, they covered themselves with skins and waited for the sun to rise and warm them. While they might accidentally create fire at first, they did not enjoy the freedom that fire creation would provide to them

* Corresponding author: Huseyin Kotaman. Tel.: +90-538-288-4444 E-mail address: [email protected]

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.Selection and peer review under the responsibility of Prof. Dr. Kobus Maree, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

40 Huseyin Kotaman / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 82 ( 2013 ) 39 – 50

until they learned both how to create it and how to maintain it. Once that process was established, however, they became dependent both on the process and the fact of fire and all that it provided to them. Once they developed a law of fire building, it became possible to build fire at will. Being able to build a fire carried humans above their conditions because they did not have to wait for sunrise to become warm. Thus, in order to be free we must attain the laws of the mind (nature) and abide by those laws to carry us above our conditions. If we do not abide by the laws of building fire, then we cannot build a fire and we cannot rise above our conditions. Anomie, or the disregard of laws of the mind (nature), cannot provide freedom. As the definition and this simple example reveal, freedom, just like any other concept, cannot be defined arbitrarily. In other words, freedom does not change according to personal views. If we accept the postmodern paradigm and claim that the notion of freedom differs from person to person and from situation to situation, then we do not understand what freedom is. And, without a full understanding of freedom, we cannot effectively perform our parental duties child-rearing and education.

The basic goal of child-rearing and education is to support the child as s/he experiences the process of becoming him/herself. As noted earlier, in order for this to occur, a child should develop a sense of freedom and thereafter have access to ways to enhance his/her understanding of it. To do this successfully requires knowledge of the laws of the mind (nature). These laws, some of which are as basic as walking and talking, while others are

become a free human and to understand that freedom cannot be imposed from outside or bestowed by someone. Each child has to learn in order to develop; the extent of his/her development affects his/her sense of freedom. Much of this developmental process is self-initiated and self-maintained so that the life lessons become engrained. For example, if we teach children to read without creating a demand for reading, children may learn the mechanics of reading but may not become lifelong readers because they may read for the sake of obtaining a grade or another reason. In other words, they will not own the process of reading and unify themselves with it. Thus, the determinant of the learning process is the child him/herself because the source of laws and knowledge is the mind.

2. Source of laws and knowledge

Throughout the history of philosophy and educational philosophy three main claims have been made about the source of knowledge: rationalist, empirical, and constructivist. Basically, the empirical claim that the source of knowleUzun, & Yolsal, 2003). Constructivists claim that knowledge stems from the interaction between the individual and his/her environment. Everyone interacts with the environment differently; thus, each person builds a unique knowledge base (Piaget, 1979, 2008). Piaget (1977) points on which all the rest is based. The structures are neither given in advance in the human mind nor in the external world as we perceive or o 63). In other words, everyone creates their own reality. Finally, rationalists claim that the source of knowledge is the mind: we have knowledge and laws in our minds we must

knowledge and laws are not external and cannot be gained in interactions with others because every measurement contains error. We gather data about the outside world through observations and measurements. However, because our senses are deficient and change from person-to-person (some people see, hear, and/or smell better than others) and because every measurement contains errors, no matter how much data we gather from outside, some will be missing. We cannot reach intact, universal laws by summing up missing data. Thus, the amount and

people answer to this question is that the source of knowledge is our mind. Humans reach these universal laws because


they were already in their minds. Rationalists have discovered what is already in their mind as they assess their level and extent of knowledge.

While we agree with classic rationalism that the source of knowledge is the mind, there is a difference between our understanding and classical rationalism in terms of acquiring knowledge and reaching laws. We think that the law of nature and the law of the mind are one and the same thing. Therefore, we characterize laws that rule the universe as laws of the mind because whatever is inside is outside and whatever is outside is inside. There is unification between nature and humanity. Therefore, laws of the mind are equal in everyone and

be nurtured in order to acquire them. If there is no seed, no matter how suitable and appropriate the conditions are, nothing can flourish. Thus, the determinant of learning and development is the individual him- or herself. All in all, freedom cannot be imposed from outside and cannot be bestowed by someone. This does not mean that the role of environmental variables in learning and development can be neglected.

As mentioned earlier, the first step in development is to acquire laws that have already been identified. These laws are embedded in every human mind every human can learn them as they develop. Education supports each

example, language ability is embedded in every human being. If we use our seed metaphor we can say that the language seed is embedded in every child. However, until the child acquires and skillfully demonstrates the ability to use language, we cannot say that he/she knows a language. Again, if we return to our seed metaphor, the seed must be nurtured and raised in order to blossom and offer fruit otherwise, it will never emerge. The ability is in the child but does not belong to the child until the child works on it, raises it, and thus makes it him-

he is engaged in the learning process. Therefore, learning can be defined as development that occurs when one makes what is already in you, yours. This learning, which leads to development, also leads to freedom. As we learn and develop, we become freer human beings.

are the sum total of universal laws. The process of learning and developing involves maturing these laws, revealing them and making them our own. Through this development process, because we unify with the law we can rise above conditions that is what differentiates us as human beings. Rising above conditions is freedom; increasing freedom means living a life that is more humane. The individual him/herself determines this process however, other factors also have an impact on the development of the individual. One of the most important external

styles and practices according to the above-mentioned perspective. Its aim is to offer new horizons on childrearing and education for parents, scholars in the field of education, and teachers.

3. Parenting styles

Studies have revealed that from infancy to the end of adolescence, parenting style and childrearing practices relate to many aspects of child development, such as childre 1982; Pears & Moses, 2003), emotional development (Alegre, 2011; Karavasilis, Doyle, & Markiewicz, 2003; Ruffman, Perner, & Parking, 1999), school readiness (Sheridan et al., 2010), eating disorders (Haycraft & Blisset, 2010), academic achievement (Attaway & Bry, 2004; Boon, 2007; Dornbusch et al., 1987), emotional well-being (Suldo & Huebner, 2004& MID America Heart Institute, 2002; Pierce et al., 2002; Piko & Balazs, 2011), delinquency (Terry, 2004), eating disorders (Enten & Golan, 2009; Lobera, Rios, & Cas

permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative. Permissive parenting is divided into indulgent and neglecting parenting. With the exception of neglectful parenting these parenting styles are analyzed according to the


freedom construct described above. Since neglecting parenting is viewed here as a type of child abuse, it was not covered in this study.

3.1. Indulgent parenting

Indulgent parents do not impose their values, standards and rules on their children. They explain and discuss house rules with them. They do not use harsh, punitive or traditional disciplinary techniques. They exercise little control and make few demands. Contrarily, they try to meet every demand and satisfy all of the desires of their

they do not assist them during decision-making or in any other task that requires responsibility. In this way they express their affection and love. Unless children ask for help, they do not intervene and guide their children in their decisions, actions, and behaviors. Indulgent parents act as a resource which their children can use whenever they wish and need. Children have many rights but no responsibilities (Baumrind, 1967, 1991; Alegre, 2011; Boon, 2007; Gonzalez, Holbein, & Quilter, 2002). In fact, indulgent parents allow their children to exploit them.

Having rights without responsibilities prevents the development of the child because in order to be competent, you have to be able to do something. And when you do not have to take responsibility, you do not have to be responsible. Baumrind (1991) found that adolescents from indulgent families were less competent than

school achievement and parenting style. Their results revealed that permissive parenting was negatively associated with grades. In another study Haycarft and Blisset (2010) stated that eating disorder symptoms were associated with more authoritarian and permissive parenting styles than with an authoritative parenting style. Suldo and and peer- . What are the reasons for negative outcomes among the children of indulgent parents?

adult here is to protect the child and provide him or her with his/her desires (Baumrind, 1967). Of course, indulgent parents act independent individuals who can create their own lives. They allow the child to do whatever he or she wishes, so that from their early years of life they can practice making their own decisions and draw their own direction in life. There are two deficiencies in this perception. First, indulgent parents have a misconception of freedom. Second, they accept their children, as fully developed, mature human beings who can differentiate will from caprice, and reality from fantasy. These two deficiencies are related to each other. As mentioned above, freedom

children are free when with their parents. When children are in an environment that does not let them to do

and thus is not real independence. The will for freedom is the will of the mind; therefore, it is the real will of every human. If the mind is not

mature enough, the will can be overshadowed by sensory desires. Young children are under the impression of sensory inputs (Piaget, 2009). As Rousseau (1997) noted, humans are inclined to be good, true and real but do not always know what is good, true and real. People under the influence of sensory input are easy to deceive because changes in indulgent parents could allow a child who makes his/her own choices to eat candy all-day and every day. However, this is not nutritionally healthy. Eventually a child who eats just candy will get sick. If we compare a sick person to a healthy person, the healthy person is freer than the sick one. A sick child is more dependent on his/her environment than a healthy child. Similarly, several studies have shown that the children of indulgent parents have higher frequencies of substance abuse, smoking and alcohol use (Baumrind, 1991; Lamborn,


Therefore, sometimes allowing a child to make certain choices is not the best way to support his/her freedom. Any action or behavior that is not in accordance with the law of mind will lead neither to development nor

ent and guide the child. Take smoking and drinking as an example, if a child is inclined to smoke or use alcohol, parents should

intervene. Parents should be aware of the factors that create the drive to smoke. If the child is experiencing peer pressure, parents should arrange other activities for their child that would replace time spent substance-abusing friends. Further, parents should explain social pressures and how they may drive a person to do things that he/she does not want to do. They should teach their children how to say no. By introducing activities that will promote healthy development, they will guide their children to make healthy choices. In this case parents are providing appropriate opportunities for learning without punishing the child for his/her behavior or enforcing their will on

As mentioned before, individuals need to engage in learning and development. In order to develop, a child

should make developmentally appropriate attempts and parents should provide opportunities for these attempts. Children who engage in efforts that exceed their maturation and level of readiness can fail, which affects their development of self-confidence and self-reliance. Studies on school readiness support this idea. These studies have revealed that students who start school without developmentally appropriate academic, emotional, and social competencies like school less and learn less (Denham, 2006; Levenstein, Levenstein, & Oliver, 2002; Schwartz & Davis, 2006). On the other hand, children who are ready for school benefit more from schooling than their non-ready peers and display greater academic achievement and better social skills (Hair, Halle, Ramey & Ramey 2004; Terry-Humen, Lavelle, & Calkins, 2006; Unutkan, 2006). Indulgent parents let children do whatever they wish to do, and thereby prevent their children from facing challenges and taking responsibility for

se children to develop unrealistic self-images that depend on external data such as approvals by and appreciations of others. Under these circumstances, these children will not evolve to become self-reliant, independent individuals because their existence

Children whose development of a sense of self depends on external appraisals and approval find it difficult to engage in self-regulated behaviors. Studies have revealed that positive control techniques such as guiding, teaching, encouraging, and limit-setting activities with mild to moderate power-assertions from parents have a

-regulation development (Belsky, Rha, & Park, 2000; Eiden, Leonard, & Morrisey, 2001; Karreman, Van Tuijl, Van Aken & Dekovic 2006; Putnam, Spirtz, Stifter, 2002). Indulgent parents who do not appropriately support their children make it difficult for those children to develop self-regulation skills. Gonzalez, Holbein and Quilter (2002) found a significant positive association between maternal

their fear of failure. In order to protect their self-value they may not attempt to deal with developmentally appropriate challenges necessary for development. Studies on procrastination have shown that some students do not study for exams until the last day to protect their self-value. This is because procrastination provides an excuse for failure and an opportunity to protect their self-value and self-esteem (Smith, Sinclair, & Chapman, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Mastery-oriented students with better self-perceptions are typically more academically successful and procrastinate significantly less often than do performance-oriented students with low self-value. Also, performance-oriented children who seek approval and external reward for their behaviors tend to avoid work (Ames & Archer, 1988; Neumeister, 2004; Haycock, McCarthy, & Skay 1998; Tuckman, 1998; Wolters, 2003). These studies have revealed that dependence on external factors impedes independence and the individual search for improvement throughout the life course. Indulgent parents do not provide enough opportunities for their children to learn, develop, and become self-reliant, independent people. One primary reason may be their misconception about freedom.

To summarize indulgent parents should understand the concept of freedom. If the child does not face challenges and work to overcome them, then he or she cannot reach the laws embedded in him/her. Parents


should provide developmentally appropriate challenges for their children, let their children take responsibility for their behaviors, and provide them with support only when necessary. Par

parents should be scaffolders. Scaffolding provided by a more competent person enables that person to achieve his/her zone of proximal development (Bodrova & Leong, 1996; Karpov & Haywood, 1998; Karpov & Bransford, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978)

ature documents a positive impact of parental involvement -regulation (Xu &

Corno, 2003) and academic achievement (Chen & Fein, 2001; Keith et al., 1998, 1993). Several studies (Baumrind, 1991; Trusty & Lampe, 1997) have shown that parental control accompanied by parental involvement foster the development of an internal locus of control in adolescents. Therefore, parents should provide learning experiences and scaffold th

3.2. Authoritarian parenting

Authoritarian parents exercise strong control over their children. They are demanding. They have fixed rules and standards that are usually traditionally and theologically formulated. They think their role is to be the authority figure who ensures that children obey the rules and perform according to standards. As an authority figure their other role is to enforce rules and standards. They do not explain the rationale behind the rules and also do not offer reasons for their orders. They just expect obedience without any explanation. In order to protect their authority they put distance between themselves and their children. As a result, they have limited communication with their children. Authoritarian parents can apply harsh, punitive practices to enforce rules. They are not responsive and affectionate; rather, they are demanding and directive. Authoritarian parents do not

ir children as unique human beings who have the potential to grow to be him or her (Alegre, 2011; Baumrind, 1967, 1991 .

Studies reveal negative impacts of authoritarian parenting on the development of a sense of self and autonomy from the early years of life through the end of adolescence. Stanbury and Zimmerman (1999) examined

were authoritarian had difficulty developing self-regulated coping skills compared to peers whose parents were less authoritarian. A study by Karavasilis, Doyle, and Markiewicz (2003) found that negative parenting practices such as interacting with infants in an angry, non-responsive, intense and intrusive manner were associated with avoidant attachment in middle childhood and avoidant attachment in adolescence. They also noted that failure to

-view in the child. Several studies supported this claim (Lamborn et al., 1991; Suldo & Huebner, 2004). Lamborn et al. (1991) found that youngsters of authoritarian parents had poorer self-(2004) findings accord with these studies they also found that authoritarian parenting results in less self-reliance and self- -esteem. Children of authoritarian parents do not perceive themselves as competent individuals and have difficulty making their own decisions (Furnham & Cheng, 2000; Ferrari & Olivetti, 1993; Plunkett, Henry, Robinson, Behnke, & Falcon III, 2007; Tafarodi, Wild, & Ho, 2010). These findings show that if children just obey their

self.

therefore their learning and development. If a child cannot develop a healthy sense of self, he/she cannot become self-extrinsically controlled by outside authorities. Authoritarian parents are outside agents who are trying to inject


ideas that are strange to the organism. Children of authoritarian parents are performance oriented and have an extrinsic locus of control (Boon, 2007; Cohen, Biran, & Gross-Tsur, 2008; Ginsburg & Bronstein, 1993). This means that their behaviors are controlled by extrinsic rather than intrinsic factors such as personal desires and self-will. Studies centered in locations ranging from elementary school through college have shown that performance-oriented people are less motivated to learn in the interest of personal development instead, they tend to use work avoidance strategies to protect their self-value and self-esteem; prefer easy rather than challenging tasks; and are academically less successful than mastery-oriented people (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Lau & Chan, 2003; Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2003; Urdan & Midgley, 2003; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). A high level of control by authoritarian parents may result in less intrinsic motivation. A parent who does not allow their children to think and make decisions for themselves is not giving those children an opportunity to use their brain. Instead, they are more likely to obey and follow rules enforced for them (Baumrind, 1991). When this is the case, children do not actualize their attempts and work on their own activities. They shy away from challenging tasks and miss opportunities that would support their development.

Authoritarian parents enforce their beliefs and opinions as laws of the mind (nature). They believe that what they know is the reality and facts can be imposed from outside. There is no need for the child to work on his way

d obey them. Raising a child like this is simple, easy and fast like raising hormone injected tomatoes. No questioning, inquiring just accepting without proof. Even though the facts that are presented by the authority are valid and real because children have to accept, the children would not own them. Children would not own them because there is no self-effort involved in the process. They have to prove these facts to their minds in order to make them their own. Authoritarian parents set strict rules and standards and expect their children obey these. Everything is thought and predetermined by parents, only thing that children have to do follow the instructions.

nts leave limited

appropriate uncertainty in the environment that enables attempts that enable learning and development. Environment that has strict preset boundaries, which limit attempts impede development. For example, when we break one of our bones, doctor stabilizes it with plaster and when plaster is opened we realize that our muscles

mits the possibilities of attempts. Appropriate uncertainty promotes curiosity and therefore promotes new attempts. The child has to show effort to overcome that uncertainty. When everything is preset and borders are not flexible as an authoritarian parenting, it would not be possible to develop skills such as critical, inquiring, flexible thinking; considering other possibilities etc., which are required for higher level cognitive functioning. Therefore, is viewed here as another negative impact of authoritarian parenting.

The children of authoritarian parents actualize the wills and orders of their parents; therefore, they often either cannot or will not take responsibility for their own actions. If children do not feel responsible for their actions, they may find themselves engaging in a variety of actions that could cause harm both to themselves and to others. Such a situation provides the appropriate conditions for delinquent behaviors. It has been found that children of authoritarian parents have higher rates of delinquency than children of non-authoritative parents (Baldry & Farrington, 2000; Terry, 2004). Children of authoritarian parents have difficulty the difference between right and wrong because in their case right and wrong depends on the authority. Therefore, morality is conditional, with conditions determined by external forces. Again, because children are not raised as independent individuals they cannot express a need for and/or develop independently a set of humanistic moral values. In fact, dependent people cannot develop moral values (Baldry & Farrington, 2000; Terry, 2004).

Authoritarian parents seek to ensure that their children obey rules and standards; their relationship with their children is basically based on a power conflict. Dornbush et al. (1987) found that as adolescents grow, older authoritarian disciplinary styles decline. On the other hand, an authoritative parenting style does not change

ing to situations. It is

authoritarian parents to tend to be more permissive as their relationship with their children changes. As the child


moves riskier (citation). There is now the possibility that parents could lose ground in a conflict and thus lose some of their power. Children of authoritarian parents tend to learn to respect authority and obey power. When children

respect laws, but rather they will learn that they have to satisfy whoever makes the laws. Thus, parental arbitrariness may harm the balance of power in the family those viewed as weak receive less respect than those viewed as strong.

3.3. Authoritative parenting

Authoritative parents are loving, affectionate, caring, and responsive and at the same time demanding. These characteristics also demonstrate psychological well-being (Belsky, 1984). They accept their children as unique

accept their children as fully developed, mature adults. Therefore, they set clear boundaries for and guide them towards developmentally appropriate challenges. While guiding their children, authoritative parents do not use punitive, harsh disciplinary methods; rather, they use modeling, reasoning, rationalizing, explaining, and monitoring.

reasoning behind her policy, and solicits his objections when he refuses to conform. Both autonomous self-will

rder to enable their children to attempt activities that will shape them and thus allow them to actualize their potential. Authoritative parents intervene when it is necessary but they do not takeover responsibilities for their children (Alegre, 2011; Baumrind 1991, 1967; Boon, 2007; Enten & Golan, 2009; Suldo & Huebner, 2004).

every respect. Authoritative parents have securely attached children (Karavasilis, Doyle, & Markiewicz, 2003). Children of authoritative parents exhibit higher levels of school readiness than their peers from authoritarian and permissive families (Sheridan et al., 2010). They have significantly fewer eating problems during infancy (Haycraft & Blisset, 2010) and adolescence (Enten & Golan, 2009; Lobera, Rios, & Casals, 2011). Academically, they are higher achievers than their peers (Attaway & Bry, 2004; Baumrind, 1991; Boon, 2007; Dornbusch et al., 1987). Also, they have lower levels of substance use (Baumrind, 1991; Piko & Balazs, 2011; Pierce, Distefan,

delinquency (Terry, 2004; Baldry, & Farrington, 2000). Finally, Suldo and Huebner (2004) found that

adolescence. Why is authoritative parenting better than permissive and authoritative parenting? Many reasons can be asserted; this study emphasizes the development of the independent self in accordance with development of an understanding of freedom.

As mentioned above, the source of knowledge is our minds. Therefore, self-will and self-attempt are determinants in learning. In order to learn, one should make enhance all that is already embedded within and unify with it. This kind of learning leads to development since the learner adds new things to him/herself rather than just imitating others. First, having an individual self allows one to develop an individual will. Authoritative

individual selves and support their development. Studies show that the children of authoritative parents are intrinsically motivated, curious, and interested in learning, like to solve their own problems and tend to select challenging tasks (Cohen, Biran, & Gross-Tsur, 2008; Boon, 2007; Ginsburg & Bronstein, 1993). All these characteristics lead to personal development. Children of authoritative parents have high self-esteem (Alegre, 2011; Furnham & Cheng, 2000; Tafarodi, Wild, & Ho, 2010), which makes it easier for them to choose challenging tasks. Faced with challenging tasks and encouraged to overcome challenges, a child will learn to

achievement and he or she will know it, since they also know that the accomplishment did not occur in order to


satisfy a higher authority but to satisfy his/her self-desires. The result is a sense of personal satisfaction the best source for the development of a sense of self and motivation (Chase, 2001; Milner & Hoy, 2001; Schunk, 1991). This would lead to a positive cycle that feeds itself. In this cycle of development, the child should begin to work toward exceeding his current set of skills and current state of learning and begin to consider him/herself as a more developed human being. For example, when a child is working on a mathematics problem, his/her consciousness is occupied with the problem such that the self is suppressed during this active problem-solving-

in other words, succeeds in solving it and surmounts the challenge his/her consciousness becomes more developed in the wake of this successful problem-solving exercise. Consequently, the support provided by an authoritative parent during this process differs in a positive manner from that provided by those following authoritarian and permissive parenting styles.

4. Conclusion

This paper sought to introduce new perspectives on the concept of freedom in parenting and child-raising. Parents and educators should understand that freedom is a unique quality that distinguishes human beings from other creatures. Freedom allows an individual to reach the laws of the mind (nature) and rise above individual and collective conditions. In order to reach natural laws, we must be aware of them. After all, the laws of the mind and nature are identical. However, because every measurement contains errors, we cannot reach laws by looking externally or accessing them via information imposed externally. Their location is in fact the individual mind access to these laws requires a sense of connectedness with them. This can be achieved through the development of a sense of self. Ozbek and Kotaman (2011) defined self as the wanting and thinking part of humans. If children develop their own sense of self and become themselves, they can have a will. Therefore,

the challenge is developmentally appropriate that is, it is within their capability then children can overcome challenges on their own via personal efforts. In taking on these challenges, they will learn to take responsibility for their behaviors. When children work out their own challenges, they develop as human beings and come to know themselves better. In addition, in developing a sense of self and of ownership of individual development, the child begins to distinguish him/herself and develop a sense of self (Bee; 1995; Fasig, 2000; Piaget, 2009). Rather

authoritarian parenting, then children will experience deficiencies in their self-development. They will depend on external factors to rule their lives (Boon, 2007). On the other hand, as in permissive parenting, parents who do not provide developmentally appropriate challenges or opportunities and allow them to make attempts to handle challenges do not benefit their children either. In this case children can make attempts that exceed their capabilities. This may lead to disappointment and work avoidance (Haycock, McCarthy, & Skay 1998; Neumeister, 2004; Tuckman, 1998; Wolters, 2003). Work avoidasurmount challenges and thereby prevent development.

Descartes (2009) asserted that mind is equal in everyone. In accordance with this claim Ozbek and Kotaman (2011) asserted that laws of mind (nature) are equal among people and embedded in the human mind. The mind is the source of knowledge. Laws of walking, talking, reading, mathematics, physics, singing, writing, playing football, etc., are all embedded in our minds, like seeds. It only takes nurturing and developmental opportunities to help them grown into real skills and abilities.

to learn they must be motivated to be involved in the education of their children. Recognizing this support, children will be more motivated to learn and develop. Bandura (1977, 1986, 1997b) proved that people with higher self-efficacy who believe that they can achieve certain tasks are higher achievers than people who doubt their performance. People with higher self-efficacy belief attribute failure to insufficient efforts or deficient knowledge and skills that are acquirable, and quickly recover a sense of efficacy after failures or setbacks (Bandura, 1993; Kotaman, 2008). Even when people have sufficient knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform a


certain task, they may still hold doubts about those skills and abilities. As a result, they may not even attempt to perform it. These types of people typically shy away from difficult tasks and have low aspirations and weak commitments to the goals that they choose to pursue (Bandura, 1989, 1997a). Many studies show that people with high self-efficacy (who believe they can achieve) have higher motivation (Bouffard-Bouchard, 1990; Multon, Brown & Lent, 1991), persist longer when they face difficulties (Bouffard -Bouchard, 1990; Schunk, 1981; Zimmerman & Ringle, 1981), and higher learning performance and academic achievement (Jackson, 2002; Pietsch, Walker, & Chapman, 2003; Shih & Alexander 2000) than people with low self-efficacy. Also, these people initiate and manage their own behavior and do not need extrinsic intervention (Bandura, 1989b). These studies claim that conceptualizing mind as the source of knowledge increases motivation; motivation increases persistence in the face of difficulties encountered during development.

In summary, parents and educators should understand that the ultimate determinant of learning and sful development, parents and educators must first aid the

be supported and respected. Once a sense of self is present, then self-will is possible, which then leads to self-attempts and self-efforts to learn. Learning that occurs through this process will become engrained in the child and provide the basis for his/her further development. This type of learning enables the child to become a freer individual. Because freedom is what makes us human, this learning process one that enables self-actualization (and thereby a sense of humanity) results in self-satisfaction. The final result is an endless cycle of learning, satisfaction and development.

mind is not a fully developed mind, parents must guide their they will trigger in their children a healthy cycle for development. References

The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 19(1), 56-62.

Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260-267.

Attaway, M. N., & Bry, H. B Journal of Black Psychology, 30 (2), 229-247.

reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 452-477.

Baldry, C. A., & Farrington, P. D. (2000). Bullies and delinquents: Personal characteristics and parental styles. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10, 17-31.

Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84, 191 215 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs Prentice Hall Bandura, A. (1989a). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184. Bandura, A. (1989b). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25, 729-735. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148. Bandura, A. (1997a). Current directions in self-efficacy research. Advance in Motivation and Achievement, 10, 1-49. Bandura, A. (1997b). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H: Freeman and Company. Baumrind, D. (1967). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 38, 887-908. Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11 (1), 56-

95. Bee, H. (1995). The developing child. New York, NY: HarperCollins College Publishers. Bee, H. L., Barnard, E. K., Eyrees, J. S., Gray, A. C., Hammond, A. M., Spietz, L. A., Snyder, C., & Clark, B. (1982). Predic tion of IQ and

language skill from perinatal status, child performance, family characteristics, and mother-infant interaction. Child Development, 53, 1134-1156.

Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83-96. Belsky, J., Rha, J.-H., & Park, S.-Y. (2000). Exploring reciprocal parent and child effects in the case of child inhibition in US and Korean

samples. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24 (3), 338-347. Bodrova, E., & Leong, J., D. (1996). Tools of the Mind. Prentice Hall. Columbus, Ohio. Boon, J. H. (2007). Low- and high- achieving Australian secondary school students: Their parenting, motivations and academic achievement.

Australian Psychologist, 42 (3), 212-225.


Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (1990). Influence of self-efficacy on performance in a cognitive task. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 353363.

-efficacy motivational intentions and attributions in physical education and sport. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 47-54.

Cohen, E., Biran, G., Aran, A., & Gross-Tsur, V. (2008). Locus of control, perceived parenting style, and anxiety in children with cerebral palsy. Journal of Developmental & Physical Disabilities, 20, 415-423.

Denham, A. S. (2006). Social-emotional competence as support for school readiness: What is it and how do we assess it? Early Education and Development, 17 (1), 57-89.

Descartes, R. (2009). Dornbusch, M. S., Ritter, P., Leiderman, H. P., Roberts, F. D., & Fraleigh, J. M. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school

performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257. Duncan, F. A., & Caughy, O. M. (2009). Parenting style and the vulnerable child syndrome. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric

Nursing, 22 (4), 228-234. Eiden, D. R., Leonard, E. K., & Morrisey, S. (2001). Paternal alcoholism and toddler noncompliance. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental

Research, 25 (11), 1621-1633. Enten, S. R., & Golan, M. (2009). Parenting styles and eating disorder pathology. Appetite, 52, 784-787. Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon B S. (2002a). Improving student behavior and school discipline with community and family involvement. Education

and Urban Society, 35, 4-26. Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon B S. (2002b). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance through family and community involvement.

The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 308-318. -concept development. Social Development, 9 (3), 370-382.

Ferrari, R. J., & Olivette, J. M. (1993). Perception of parental control and the development of indecision among late adolescent females. Adolescence, 28 (112), 936-970.

Furnham, A., & Cheng, H. (2000). Perceived parental behavior, self-esteem and happiness. Social Psychiatry Epidemiol, 35, 463-470. d academic

performance. Child Development, 64, 1461-1474. Gon eived parenting

styles. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 450-470. Felsefe

Hair, E., Halle, T., Terry- -K: Predictions to academic, health, and social outcomes in first grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 431-454.

Haycock, A. L., McCarthy, P., & Skay, L. C. (1998). Procrastination in college students: The role of self-efficacy and anxiety. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, 317-324.

Haycraft, E., & Blisset, J. (2010). Eating disorder symptoms and parenting styles. Appetite, 54, 221-224. Jackson, W. J. (2002). Enhancing self-efficacy and learning performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 243-254. Karavasilis, L., Doyle, B. A., & Markiewicz, D. (2003). Associations between parenting style and attachment to mother in middle childhood

and adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27 (2), 153-164. Karpov, Y. V., & Bransford, J. D. (1995). L. S. Vygotsky and the doctirine of emprical and theoretical learning. Educational Psychologist,

30, 61-66. Karpov, Y. V., & Haywood, H. C. (1998). Two ways to elaborate Vygotsky. American Psychologist, 53, 27-36. Karreman, A, Van Tuijl, C., Van Aken, M. A. G., & Dekovic M. (2006). Parenting and self-regulation in preschoolers: A meta-analysis.

Infant and Child Development, 15, 561-579. Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., Kimberly, J. Q., Sperduto, J., Santillo, S., & Killings, S. (1998). Longitudinal effects of parent involvement on high

across gender and ethnic groups. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 335-362 Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., Troutman, G. M., Bickley, P., Trivette, P. S., & Singh, K. (1993). Does parental involvement affect eighth grade

student achievement? Structural analysis of national data. School Psychology Review, 22, 474 496.

Dergisi, 21 (1), 111-133. Lamborn, D. S., Mounts, S. N., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, M. S. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from

authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065. Lau, K., & Chan, D. W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of

Research in Reading, 26, 177 190. Levenstein, P., Levenstein, S., & Oliver, D. (2002). First grade school readiness of former child participants in a south carolina replication of

the parent-child home program. Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 331-353. Lobera, J. I., Rios, B. P., & Casals, O. G. (2011). Parenting styles and eating disorders. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing,

18, 728-735. Martin, J. A., Marsh, W. H., & Debus, L. R. (2003). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: A model of self-protection from a

longitudinal perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 1 36. -efficacy, stereotype threat, and persistence.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 263-276 Multon, D. K., Brown, D. S., & Lent, W. R. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38.


Neumeister, S. (2004). Understanding the relationship between perfectionism and achievement motivation in gifted college students. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 219-231

cent smoking. Journal of Adolescent Heath, 30, 418-425.

Pears, C. K., & Moses, J. L. (2003). Demographics, parenting, and theory of mind in preschool children. Social Development, 12 (1), 2-24. Piaget, J. (1979). Relations between psychology and other sciences. Annual Reviews Psychology, 30, 1-8. Piaget, J. (2008). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 51, 40-47

British Journal of Psychology, 100, 207-224. Pierce, P. J., Distefan, M. J., Jackson, C., White, M. M., & Gilpin, A. E. (2002). Does tobacco marketing undermine the influence of

recommended parenting in discouraging adolescent from smoking? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23 (2), 73-80. Pietsch, J., Walker, R., & Chapman, E. (2003). The relationship among self-concept, self-efficacy and performance in mathematics during

secondary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 589-603. Piko, F. B., & Balazs, A. M. (2011). Authoritative parenting style and adolescent smoking and drinking. Addictive Behaviors (in press). Plunkett, W. S., Henry, S. C., Robinson, C. L., Behnke, A., & Falcon III, C. P. (2007). Adolescent perception of parental behaviors,

adolescent self-esteem, and adolescent depressed mood. Journal of Child Family Studies, 16, 760-772. Putnam, P. S., Spritz, L. B., & Stifer, A. C. (2002). Mother-child coregulation during delay gratification at 30 months. Infancy, 3 (2), 209-

225. Ramey, T. C., & Ramey, L. S. (2004). Early learning and school readiness: Can early intervention make a difference? Merrill-Palmer

Quarterly, 50(4), 471-491. Rousseau, J. J. (1998). Emile Ruffman, T., Perner, J., & Parking L. (1999). How parenting style affects false belief understanding. Social Development, 8 (3), 395-411. Ryan, M. R. & Deci, L. E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 25, 54-67. -efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 73, 93-105. Schunk, H. D. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231. Schwartz, E., & Davis, S. A. (2006). Reactive attachment disorder: Implications for school readiness and school functioning. Psychology in

the Schools, 43(4), 471-479. Sheridan, M. S., Knoche, L. L., Edwards, P. C., Bovaird, A. J., & Kupzyk, A. K. (2010). Parent engagement and school readiness: Effects of

-emotional competencies. Early Education and Development, 21(1), 125-156. Shih, S-S., & Alexander, M. J. (2000). Interaction effects of goal setting and self- or other-

self-efficacy and cognitive skill within the Taiwanese classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 536-543. -efficacy, self-handicapping, and negative affective responses: An

Australian senior school student study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 471 485. Stansbury, K., & Zimmerman, K. L. (1999). Relations among child language skills, maternal socialization of emotion regulation, and child

behavior problems. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 30 (2), 121-143. Suldo, M. S., & Huebner, S. E. (2004). The role of life satisfaction in the relationship between authoritative parenting dimensions and

adolescent problem behaviors. Social Indicators Research, 66, 165-195. Tafarodi, W. R., Wild, N., & Ho, C. (2010). Parental authority, nurturance, and two-dimensional self-esteem. Scandinavian Journal of

Psychology, 51, 294-303. Terry, J. D. (2004). Investigating the relationship between parenting styles and delinquent behavior. McNair Scholars Journal, 8 (1), 87-96. Trusty, J., & Lampe, E. R. (1997). Relationship of high-school

control. Journal of Counseling & Development, 75, 375-384. Tuckman, W. B. (1998). Using tests as an incentive to motivate procrastinators to study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 66, 141-

147. Adolescence, 43, 143-152.

Unutkan, O. P. (2006). A study of pre-school children Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7 (4), 78-85.

Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2003). Changes in perceived classroom goal structures and pattern of adaptive learning during early adolescence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 534-551.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard College.

investigation in the United States and China. Child Development, 78 (5), 1592-1610. of their reading. Educational

Psychology, 89, 420-432. Wolters, A. C. (2003). Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 179-

187. Xu, J. ,& Corno, L. (2003). Family help and homework management reported by middle school students. The Elementary School Journal,

103, 503-517.

Zimmerman, J. B., & Ringle, J. (1981). Effects of model persistence and statements of -efficacy and problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 485-493.

freedom and child rearing: critic of parenting practices from a new perspective

Documents