Abstract

This research was aims to examine the point of view of university students about parental participation in their curricular and co-curricular activities. It explores the comparisons in parental participation level regarding students’ gender, socio-economic status in public and private universities. This exploration followed the quantitative research method. The sample for this research consisted of the graduation students (boys and girls) of public and private sector universities which were located in Lahore district. A random sampling procedure was used to collect data from boys and girls studying in different universities. The sample size of this survey was 300 students. The researcher has constructed a questionnaire for finding out the opinions of students about their parental participation in their academics. After the collection of data, the data were analyzed. Findings of the research revealed that parental involvement was different due to gender, education and social status of university students.

Key Words

Parental Participation, differences, University students, Curricular and Co-curricular Activities.

Introduction

Parental participation has many benefits in every stage of life and level of education. In schools, it is directly related to students’ completion of studies in less time and it develops better relationship between family and college. Normally, partnership of community and parents is better definition of parental involvement because educators, parents, and others in community have a role to play in performing responsibility in students’ development and education (Epstein, 2001). A framework of involvement leads to the development of complete partnership programs. The challenges come in the way to parental involvement and family is responsible to resolve these problems to reduce issues and to produce positive results (Epstein, Simon, Salinas, Jansorn, & Van Voorhis, 2002). It is important to explain relationships of some categories of parental involvement of the students with poor behavior that are accepted to help in resolving students’ problems (Epstein, 2001). 

Additionally, a smaller number of students are placed in the category of poor behavior in some educational programs. More students have maintained a positive behavior and have shown a positive behavior when parents were worried about their education. Students higher enrolment rates must be maintained and have greater enrollment in higher secondary education when rate of parental Participation is high (Henderson, 1994). The adolescents anxious about the provision of common verbal support of learning in universities and they can do better in class (Clark, 1990). Most students’ parents who take care of their children’s education are confident about their college and academics. Parents secured the future of their children and the further levels of education when they committed for their children and give the proper attention to their behavior and education (Henderson, 1994).  

Most of the time, the family routine practice has played a dynamic role in contributing the children's academics success (Sheldon, 2003). Some factors influencing parental participation, as investigated by the Clark (1983), has been included appreciating schooling and developing participation in class, founding detailed daily and weekly family practices, setting up family participation and responsibilities in students’ education and behavioral development, use the structured or unstructured time for the deeply supervision and observance of children. Fan and Chen (2001) stated that when parents supervise their children at home their children get good grades and GPAs but sometimes results of this supervision are subject specific. 

The quality time given by the family is one of the factors that have additionally contributed to their adolescents’ educational success (Epstein, Sanders, Sheldon, Simon, Salinas, Jansorn, & Hutchins, 2018; Sheldon, 2003). When students and their families are encouraged to develop hobbies and co-curricular activities ultimately cause their success. Epstein and Sheldon (2019) have explained that 

programs that are planned to meet the needs of participation of parents should have provided the opportunity for parental participation.

Researcher Joyce Epstein's (1991) framework for parental involvement is the most common framework which represents the parental participation in learners’ education and has included sample practices that facilitate and describe large amount of participation. This framework has included the experiments and effects assumed from applying the six types of participation. The purpose of this study was trying to overcome the major issues that create the problems in involvement of parents at university level. Parental involvement has a role to play in self-grooming and psychological development of students and enhancement of parent’s involvement for character building and for better learning outcomes of students. This will be definitely helpful in future for producing self-confident personalities and the satisfaction of parents. Therefore, parents' involvement in higher studies helps to make the students confident, motivated self-oriented, independent, civilized and productive members of society. 

Sui-Chu and Willms, (1996) have shown strongest relationship of involvement of students’ parents with academic achievement and also, it has a moderate effect on reading achievement. Education and income of parents have a strong result in student academic achievement (Muller, 2018). Singh, Bickley, Trivette, and Keith (1995) have explained in their study that parental involvement has its influence in elementary schools and has no influence on school-related activities. Lareau (1987) has expressed social networking also participate in home and school relationship. Parents participate in education like giving a message to their children that school is an influential and valuable place (Sawyer, 2015). David, Ball, Davies, and Reay (2003) have shown that parental participation varies in terms of gender and parents' educational background changes. They further told about students' selections of their universities in higher education and related it to changes in institutional level practices and policies. Daniyal, Nawaz, Hassan, and Mubeen (2012) have conducted a Study on parental involvement and they have shown that activities that are not included in routine curriculum also have positive effect on students’ academic achievement. 

This study has explored variations in parental participation in curricular and other activities of public and private university students. It also aims to explore the difference regarding five factors influencing parental participation namely: gender, sector, social status, parents’ education, graduation level, and economic status.

Objectives

The main objective is:

1. To compare the parental participation in curricular and co-curricular activities of university students.




Research Questions 

This research has unfolded as follows: 

1. Is the difference exists due to gender regarding the influence of parental participation of university students?

2. What is the difference due to the sector for university regarding the influence of parental participation of university students?

3. What is the difference due to social status regarding the influence of parental participation of university students?

4. What is the difference due to the education of parents regarding the influence of parental participation of university students?

5. What is the difference due to graduation regarding the influence of parental participation of university students?

6. Is the difference due to economic status exists regarding the influence of parental participation of university students?

Methodology

Population and Sampling 

The study was conducted on pupils of universities. The population consisted of the male and female students of public sector universities and private universities that were situated in Lahore. The sample consisted of the students (boys and girls) studying in public and private sector universities which were located in Lahore. A random sampling method was used to collect data. Four universities were randomly selected which included the boys and girls. 




Research Instrument

The researcher was used the survey questionnaire for the collection of data. The questionnaire has six parts demographics part, parental participation related to academic achievement; parental involvement connected to career choice, parental involvement related to guidance and counseling, parental involvement related to co-curricular activities and barriers, issues and problems related to parental involvement. It was developed by the researcher and validated by the experts of education. It was pilot tested on sixty students and reliability was calculated that was found 0.78 which was encouraging.




Data Collection and Data Analysis 

After the pilot testing researcher personally collected data from graduate students of different universities. The researcher visited public and private universities for the collection of data. After explaining the determination of this study, the instrument was distributed to three hundred respondents. The data was collected from the students of graduation level (boys and girls) of public and private universities.

Results

After analysis of data, results were obtained and shown in figures and tables.

Table 1. Frequency and percentage of Demographic variables (N=300)

Variables	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Male	150	50%
Female	150	50%
Social status
Poor	10	3.3%
Middle	258	86.0%
Rich	32	10.7%
University
Public	149	49.7%
Private	150	50.0%
Graduation
BA	72	24%
BSc	68	22.7%
BS	160	53.3%
Economic status
Govt service	59	19.7%
Private service	111	37.0%
Business	101	33.7%
Professional	29	9.7%
Education of parents
SSC/HSC	53	17.7%
Graduation	181	60.3%
Post-graduation	65	21.7%

Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the participants. Three hundred graduation level students participated in this study. The sample size included 150(50%) males and 150(50 %) females. There were 149(49.7%) students of public university and 150(50.0%) were from private universities.  Many of the student's social status 258(86.0%) were middle, 32(10.7%) were rich and 10(3.3%) were poor. There were various programs in public and private universities at graduation level. There were 72 (24%) BA, 68 (22.7%) B.Sc, 160(53.3%) BS was graduation students.

In the term of the economic status of parents, out of the 300 participants 59(19.7%) of them reported that their parents’ economic status was government service, 111 (37.0 %) economic status was private service. One hundred one (33.7%) students had economic status business and 29 (9.7%) economic status were professional.

In the case of education of parents, out of the 300 participants 53(17.7%) of them reported that their parents were   SSC/HCS, 181 (60.3%) were graduated and 65 (21.7%) posted graduated.

 

Table 2. Result of independent samples t-test used for gender regarding the influence of parental participation on the curricular and co-curricular activities of a student at university level

	Gender
Factors	Male		Female		t-test
	M	SD	M	SD	t	P
Parental participation related to academic achievement	3.40	.772	3.71	.696	-3.68	<.001
Parental participation related to career choice	3.05	.83	3.24	1.007	-1.77	<.001
Parental participation related to guidance and counseling	3.24	1.08	3.77	1.109	-4.20	.077
Parental participation related to co-curricular activities	3.43	.678	3.75	.702	-3.99	<.001
The barriers, issues and problems in parental involvement of university students.	3.41	.916	3.94	.966	-4.80	<.001

A noteworthy difference was existed in male (M=3.40, SD=.77) and female (M=3.71, SD=.69) students’ parental involvement in relation to their academic achievement t (298) = -3.684, p < .001. The parental involvement of male students (M = 3.05, SD =.83) was notably different than parental involvement of female students (M=3.24, SD= 1.01) related to their career choice. Parental involvement related to guidance and counseling was found notably different in males (M=3.24, SD=1.08) and female students (M=3.75, SD=.702) with t (298) = -4.204, p < .077.

In the case of Parental participation related to co-curricular activities, a noteworthy difference in involvement of parents of male students and female students (M=3.43, SD=.678) and (M=3.75, SD=.702) respectively with t (298) = -3.99, p <.001 was noted.

Parental involvement related to the barriers, issues, and problems of university students. There was a noteworthy difference in involvement of male and female students parent with t (298) = -4.808, p < .001, the mean score of involvement of males’ parents (M=3.41, SD=.916) was less than involvement of females’ parents (M=3.94, SD=.966)

Figure 1

Comparison of scores of parental Participations on the Curricular and co-curricular activities of the student regarding gender



Table 3. Result of independent samples t-test used for university regarding the influence of parental participation on the curricular and co-curricular activities of a student at university level

	University
Factors	Public		Private		t-test
	M	SD	M	SD	t	P
Parental participation related to academic achievement	3.56	.715	3.54	.787	.185	.853
Parental participation related to career choice	3.29	.932	3.00	.899	2.79	.006**
Parental participation related to guidance and counseling	3.67	1.09	3.34	1.14	2.51	.013*
Parental participation related to co-curricular activities	3.61	.734	3.57	.680	.514	.607
The barriers, issues and problems in parental involvement of university students.	3.73	.932	3.62	1.01	.947	.345

*p<.05, **p<.01, t = two tailed.

No notable difference was noted regarding parental involvement of students from universities (public & private) with t(298) =.185, p= .853. Parental involvement related to career choice was not notably different in parents of students from universities (public and private) with t (298) = 2.79, p = .006. Whereas, the result of parental involvement related to guidance and counseling shows no notable difference in parental involvement of students from universities (public and private) t (298) =2.51, p = .013. The variation regarding parental participation related to co-curricular activities of students from universities (public and private) with t (298) =.514, p = .607 was not found significant. There was no noteworthy variation in parental involvement of students from universities (public and private), t (298) =. 947, p < .345 related to the barriers, issues, and problems of university students.

Figure 2

Comparison of scores of parental Participations on the Curricular and co-curricular activities of the student regarding university



Table 4. Result of One-Way ANOVA for social status regarding the influence of parental participation on the curricular and co-curricular activities of a student at university level

Factors	Poor		Middle		Rich		ANOVA
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	P
Parental participation related to academic achievement	2.89	.697	3.58	.735	3.53	.813	4.16	.016
Parental participation related to career choice	3.70	1.09	3.16	.916	2.83	.873	3.68	.026
Parental participation related to guidance and counseling	2.78	.984	3.56	1.09	3.32	1.33	2.795	.063
Parental participation related to co-curricular activities	3.92	.718	3.60	.693	3.38	.775	2.59	.077
The barriers, issues and problems in parental involvement of university students.	3.92	.989	3.74	.957	3.10	.953	6.56	.002

The students with parents from different social status is divided into three groups (Group 1: Poor; Group 2: Middle; Group 3: Rich), there was a noteworthy difference at the p < .05 level in parental involvement related to the academic achievement (social status) for the three groups (F (2, 297) = 4.167, p =.016. Parental participation of students from poor Social groups was notably different from mean score of parental involvement from middle social group (p =.012).  The mean score of involvement of parents from poor social groups (M = 2.89, SD =.697) was less than mean score of involvement of parents from middle social group (M= 3.58, SD=.735) in academic achievement. 

A noteworthy difference was found in parental involvement related to the barriers, issues, problems of university students (social status) for the three groups (F (2, 297) =6.564, p <.002).  Post hoc test showed that the middle social group was different mean scores from mean score of rich social group (p < .001). The mean score of involvement of parents in middle social group (M =3.74, SD =.957) was more than mean score of involvement of parents rich social group (M=3.10, SD=.953) regarding barriers, issues, and problems of university students. 

Figure 3

: Comparison of scores of parental Participations on the Curricular and co-curricular activities of the student regarding Economics Status



Table 5. Result of One-Way ANOVA for the education of parents regarding the influence of parental participation on the curricular and co-curricular activities of students at university level

Factors	SSC/HSC		Graduation		Post-graduation		ANOVA
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	P
Parental participation related to academic achievement	3.46	.635	3.50	.769	3.76	.755	3.35	.036*
Parental participation related to career choice	3.27	.850	3.13	.947	3.10	.931	.581	.560
Parental participation related to guidance and counseling	3.42	1.116	3.43	1.09	3.77	1.19	2.36	.095
Parental participation related to co-curricular activities	3.75	.671	3.50	.712	3.70	.692	3.52	.031*
The barriers, issues and problems in parental involvement of university students.	3.81	.940	3.64	1.01	3.66	.906	.599	.550

*p<.05

The education of parents is separated into three groups (Group 1: SSC/HSC; Group 2: Graduation; Group 3: Post-graduation) there exists a difference in parental participation related to the academic achievement for the three groups (F (2, 297) =3.35, p =.036). The post hoc test has shown that the mean score of parent of group 2 was considerably different from mean score of parents in group 3, (p = .045).  The mean score of parents of group 2 (M = 3.50, SD =.769) was less than mean score of parents of group 3 (M= 3.76, SD=.755) in academic achievement.

The difference in parental participation was reasonable in relation to the barriers, issues, and problems in parental involvement of university students’ parents in three groups (F (2, 297) =.599, p =.550).  Post hoc test has shown that the average score of each group was not considerably changed from mean score of other parents group in relation to barriers, issues, and problems of university students.

Figure 4

Comparison of scores of parental Participations on the Curricular and co-curricular activities of the student regarding the Education of parents



Table 6. Result of One-Way ANOVA for graduation regarding the influence of parental participation on the curricular and co-curricular activities of a student at university level

Factors	BA		B. Sc		BS		ANOVA
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	P
Parental participation in academic achievement	3.60	.750	3.58	.881	3.51	.691	.424	.654
Parental participation in career choice	2.99	.906	3.17	.931	3.20	.930	1.36	.256
Parental participation in guidance and counseling	3.60	1.06	3.37	1.18	3.52	1.13	.724	.486
Parental participation in co-curricular activities	3.44	.694	3.53	.693	3.68	.707	3.40	.035*
The barriers, issues and problems in parental participation of university students.	3.60	.856	3.58	1.101	3.75	.969	.952	.387

*p<.05

The graduation is divided into three groups (Group 1: BA; Group 2: B. Sc; Group 3: BS). No reasonable difference in parental involvement related to the academic achievement in three groups (F (2, 297) =.424, p =.645) was found. Post hoc test has shown that each group was not different in mean score of one another group in academic achievement. Similarly, the mean score of each graduation group was not significantly different from mean score of one another graduation group in relation to career choices, guidance and counseling, and barriers, issues, and problems of university students.

The difference in parental participation related to the co-curricular activities for the three groups (F (2, 297) =3.40, p =.035) was found to be different. Post hoc test showed that the graduation (BA) group has a significantly different mean score than graduation (BS) group (p =.037).  The mean score of graduation (BA) group (M = 3.44, SD =.694) has less than mean score than graduation BS group (M= 3.68, SD=.707) in co-curricular activities.

Figure 5

Comparison of scores of Parental Participations on the Curricular and co-curricular Activities of the Student Regarding Graduation



Table 7. Result of One-Way Anova for Economic Status Regarding the Influence of Parental Participation on the Curricular and Co-Curricular Activities of Students at University Level

Factors	Govt Service		Private Service		Business		Professional		ANOVA
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	P
Parental participation related to academic achievement	3.59	.843	3.57	.749	3.52	.662	3.54	.870	.14	.93
Parental participation related to career choice	3.27	.932	3.18	.868	3.10	.957	2.91	1.00	1.12	.33
Parental participation related to guidance and counseling	3.51	1.195	3.48	1.06	3.52	1.10	3.54	1.36	.02	.99
Parental participation related to co-curricular activities	3.60	.788	3.65	.681	3.54	.670	3.48	.765	.69	.55
The barriers, issues and problems in parental involvement of university students.	3.58	1.08	3.77	.969	3.62	.909	3.67	1.00	.67	.57

Note: p<.05

The economic status is divided into four groups (Group 1: Govt service; Group 2: Private Service; Group 3: Business; Group 4: Professional). No notable difference at the p < .05 level in parental involvement related to the academic achievement for the four groups (F (3, 296) =.14, p =.93) was noted. The post hoc test has shown that the mean score of each economic status group was not significantly different from the mean score of one another economic status group in academic achievement. Similarly, in case of career choice, guidance and counseling, and co-curricular activities no reasonable difference was found. The difference at the p < .05 level in parental involvement related to the barriers, issues, and problems of university students (economic status) for the four groups (F (3, 296) =.67, p =.57) was found significant. 

Figure 6

Comparison of scores of parental Participations on the Curricular and co-c




Discussion

The involvement of male and female students’ parents was compared and variations were found in relation to their curricular and co-curricular activities. The results were in favor of female students because their parents were more involved regarding their curricular and co-curricular activities. Similarly, parental involvement related to guidance and counseling, and barriers, issues, and problems of parents of university students have notable difference regarding their gender. These results are in favor of female students (e.g. Carter, & Wojtkiewicz, 2000). Conversely, parental involvement related to career choice has no notable difference among male and female students (e.g. Muller, 1998). The study has also shown no reasonable difference in parental involvement related to academic achievement, co-curricular activities public and private university students. In the same way, no noteworthy difference in involvement of parents in relation to barriers, issues, and problems of university students (e.g. Park, Stone, & Holloway, 2017).

The involvement of parents in the rich social group was less than participation of parents from poor and middle social groups in career choice. Findings of article have highlighted no difference exists in the level of parental involvement related to the guidance and counseling and co-curricular activities for three groups. The involvement of parents of middle social groups was more than involvement of parents in rich social groups regarding barriers, issues and problems in parental involvement of university students (e.g. David, Ball, Davies, & Reay, 2003). In case of education of parents, three groups were formed as students with parents having SSC/HSC, students with parents having graduate degrees and students with parents having post-graduation degrees. All groups have no difference in parental involvement related to career choice, guidance, and counseling. On the other hand, Difference in parental involvement for three groups in relation to academic achievement and co-curricular activities was reasonable. Also, overall level of parental participation is same in BA, BSc and BS students (e.g. Pong, Hao, & Gardner, 2005).

The difference in parental participation related to the co-curricular activities exists for the three groups. The parental involvement of the graduation BA group was less than graduation BS group in co-curricular activities. Moreover, students from each economic group have same level of parental involvement. Variations exist in parental involvement in relation to gender, education, economic and social background (e.g. David, Ball, Davies, & Reay, 2003).

Conclusion and Recommendations

The conclusion of the study was that gender difference exists and parents of girls are more conscious about their activities either related to their curriculum or extra curriculum. Results have shown that we should bridge the gap between teachers, parents, and students. University management should provide teachers, students, and parent guidance and counseling centers. Make friendly and trustful relationship with their parents. Work with unity and honesty. It is a challenge for university and administration how to work with parents and students to enhance students’ work productivity. 

References

• Carter, R. S., & Wojtkiewicz, R. A. (2000). Parental Involvement with Adolescents' education: Do Daughters or Sons Get More Help? Adolescence, 35(137).
• Clark, R. M. (1990). Why disadvantaged students succeed: What happens outside school is critical. Public welfare, 48, 17-23.
• Daniyal, M., Nawaz, T., Hassan, A., & Mubeen, I. (2012). The effect of co-curricular activities on the academic performances of the students: a case study of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan. Bulgarian Journal of Science & Education Policy, 6(2).
• David, M. E., Ball, S. J., Davies, J., & Reay, D. (2003). Gender issues in parental involvement in student choices of higher education. Gender and Education, 15(1), 21-36.
• Epstein, J. L. (1991). Effects on student achievement of teachers' practices of parent involvement. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. 1984. Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
• Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
• Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. (2019). The importance of evaluating programs of school, family and community partnerships. Aula abierta, 48(1), 31-42.
• Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2001). Moving forward: Ideas for research on school, family, and community partnerships. SAGE handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry, 117- 138.
• Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S. B., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R.,& Hutchins, D. J. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Corwin Press.
• Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students' academic achievement: A metaanalysis. Educational psychology review, 13(1), 1-22.
• Henderson, A. T., & Berla, N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to student achievement