Open access peer-reviewed chapter
Summary of the parental engagement continuum framework.
Abstract
This study presents the standpoint of parental engagement, conceptualized by Janet Goodall and collaborators, as a framework that is coherent to the principles of the holistic approach of pedagogy to teacher-parents’ partnerships. We bring forward the evolution of the concept of parental engagement and its main standpoints, in relation to more traditional theories on parental involvement. We also discuss previous findings about teachers’ and parents’ roles in education and teacher-parents’ partnerships, as well as how do changes in educational paradigms challenge home-school collaboration. Finally, the article highlights the need to implement research-based parental engagement practices in educational systems around the world.
Keywords
- parental engagement
- parental involvement
- teacher-parents partnership
- teacher-parents dialog
- home-school collaboration
- holistic education
- children’s learning
1. Introduction
Partnerships between parents and teachers regarding students’ education have been a well-researched topic throughout the past three decades. Much more recently, both research and practice contexts started adapting their perspectives on the centrality of the parents’ role in their children’s learning [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Such a shift is embedded in a mainstream worldwide tendency to adapt the goals of educational systems to an ever-changing and globalized world, targeting to develop not only competences in individual fields of knowledge, but also transversal competences, such as, for example, learning to learn, cultural competence, and entrepreneurship [1]. These changes, stimulated by the latest educational reflections within the scope of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [5] are deeply framed by the holistic approach in education.
In pedagogy, the holistic approach refers to the development of the whole student, underlining all the dimensions in which he/she can learn and grow as an individual, for example, cognitive, social, emotional, and spiritual dimensions [6]. This approach faces such dimensions as interdependently relevant to the well-being, healthy development, and success of the student and carries the notion that each student is the expert that guides his/her own learning process in life [7]. The adoption of a holistic approach in education requires, consequently, a role re-conceptualization of both teachers and parents.
It is important to address that, in this article,
Advertisement
2. From involvement to engagement
There is a consensus in research regarding the favorable impact of parents’ positive attitudes and behavior toward their children’s learning, schooling, and schools [8, 9, 10, 11]. Indisputably, research has shown that such parents’ emplacement impacts positively students’ academic achievement as well as learning in a broader sense [10, 12, 13, 14]. However, such a set of desirable parents’ attitudes and behavior has been conceptualized in numerous different ways. Researchers are far from unified regarding the terms and so are school professionals. The most traditional termination to describe various types of parents’ participation in education is
Research on parental involvement in education has mostly focused on the positive repercussion parental involvement has in students’ achievement, achievement-related self-perceptions, and autonomous motivation [8, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18]. Thus, there has been agreement that parental involvement is a multidimensional construct. On the other hand, most of the research conducted on involvement in the past decades is based on influential frameworks that conceptualize it in terms of parents’ participation in children’s schools or schooling, in other words, in the processes
Grolnick and Slowiaczeck [11] have stated the importance of integrating both educational and developmental constructs in the perspective of involvement, underlining the significance of
behavioral, (e.g., participating in activities promoted by the school, such as parents’ evening);
personal (e.g., positive child-parent affective interactions about and around school, such as parents’ assistance with homework);
cognitive-intellectual (e.g., exposure to cognitive-stimulating events and materials, such as books, that would help the children practice skills
useful in their schooling, like reading).
Later, Joyce Epstein [9] postulated a six-type model for parental involvement. In her model, Epstein underlines the concept of partnerships between parents and educators numerous times and calls for school staff’s key role in involving parents. Her framework includes (1) parenting; (2) communicating; (3) volunteering; (4) learning at home; (5) decision making; and (6) collaborating with community. Epstein’s framework [9] seems to pursuit an even more home- and parent-related standpoint for academic success, enhancing the value of the home context and figures. Within each of the six types of involvement, the author highlights, based in a solid cluster of research findings, numerous advantages of involving parents in schools—for students, for teachers and for parents themselves [9].
Despite of viewing involvement from the perspective of ecological systems theory [21], considering various system levels that influence children’s development (e.g., family, school, and community), Epstein’s model is still school-centered, attached to a perspective of fulfillment of schools’ needs and academic success of the students. For example, regarding the first type of involvement described in the model,
The models of Grolnick and Slowiaczeck and Epstein highlight two main domains of involvement:
In recent years, the body of research pointing to the centrality of effective teacher-parent communication and partnership have begun to expand consistently [23, 24], giving parental involvement a more family-centered approach and, consequently, questioning the involvement-concept and its adequacy. It has been strongly suggested that the termination
In parallel, the term parental engagement has been gaining space in research on home-school partnerships and shedding new lights on the topic [4, 25, 26, 27, 28], mostly in the United States and the United Kingdom. This is the case especially regarding studies focused on parental involvement from a comprehensive point of view, seeking to understand not only the parental role in academic success but also their role in teacher-parent communication and parent–child interactions outside the academic sphere (e.g., parenting styles and non-academic related activities away from school) [29, 30]. Similar perspectives can be found on educational policies documents of international organizations [31, 32].
From that standpoint and based on several findings and influential theories [33, 34], Goodall and Montgomery [10] built an original up-to-date framework on parental engagement, where previous parental involvement practices are included and extended.
Goodall and Montgomery’s model [10] places emphasis on parents’ relationship with their children and their children’s learning, in
Goodall and Montgomery’s model presupposes that the children’s learning occurs in all varieties of contexts that largely surpass the school environment, giving the home environment and experiences, as well as other contexts mediated by parents, an enormous relevance as children’s learning scenarios. This model is presented as a
Table 1.
Note: The information was extracted from Goodall and Montgomery [10] and compiled by the author of the present article.
By observing the information in Table 1, it becomes clearer that the third point of the continuum, parental engagement, integrates the positive characteristics of the previous two points, since it portraits an
Thus, through this model’s lenses, a true teacher-parent relationship encompasses reciprocal open mindsets, where both teachers and parents learn from each other, show mutual interest in what each other has to say, and have a genuine concern about not only the schooling success, but about all other life contexts that are significant for the child. Here, parents’ levels of expertise on their own children are valued by teachers and their role is elevated, both teachers’ and parents’ perspectives matter and both have
The presented framework allows analysis and comprehension of the important relationships between parents and teachers, regarding the children’s learning, from a holistic perspective. The word
However, it is important to address that the third point, as well as the whole continuum dynamics, refers to an ideal framework, one that parents and, especially, teachers should aim to [10].
2.1 Teachers’ role on parental engagement
Although
Teachers are central stakeholders in education and constitute cohorts of powerful agents for change, due to their training, specialization, and experience [12, 36]. Teachers’ psychological and behavioral characteristics regarding the involvement of parents have been strongly associated to parents’ actual involvement [8, 30, 37]. Additionally, although teachers are more successful in involving parents during the initial levels of schooling [38, 39], they continue to act as key figures for parental engagement throughout all levels of children’s academic life, especially regarding difficult pupils and hard to reach families [40, 41, 42].
Research has evidenced that teachers consider families’ involvement important to the students’ school success, recognizing that parents are positive contributors. Howbeit, the majority of these studies focused on the home-based academical involvement of parents (e.g., reinforcement of the learning that occurs in school, especially in supporting homework at home), pointing out such forms as the most valued types of parental involvement [43, 44, 45, 46, 47].
In different cultures, teachers’ conceptualizations and practices have been focused on and proven to be crucial to parental involvement, in particular for those parents who have difficulties in being involved [41, 42]. These include the emotional climate experienced when teachers and parents interact, including the time dedicated to effective communication and dialog, but also other aspects, such as teachers’ self-efficacy and role beliefs, expectations about involvement and specific practices to promote involvement [13, 37, 48, 49, 50, 51].
Improving home-school effective communication has been identified as a primary way to enhance trust between teachers and parents, as well as has the
Much of what is considered to be structurally necessary for an effective dialog in teacher-parent interactions lies in the teachers’ set of competences such as managing the time dedicated to talk to and
Parental involvement is greater when parents feel that teachers include them and value their contributions [37, 56]. In fact, teachers whose expectations are that the parents can contribute to the children’s learning are more likely to involve parents than those teachers who have low expectations on the competences of their students’ parents [13, 54, 57]. Teachers’ support of parents to learn how to help their children is appreciated by parents [54] and teachers’ invitations for involvement are positively responded by parents [30], which gives teachers’ solicitations an important and predicting role on the dynamics of parental engagement. Additionally, teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions on parental involvement has been significantly related to involvement itself, also functioning as a predictor [11]. These studies corroborate the importance of student teachers having an academic path that highlights parental engagement strategies and attitudes.
On the other hand, and despite agreeing that home-school collaborations are essentially important, teachers and parents differ in opinion about the extent in which each other actually meet their expectations. Research has shown that often teachers and parents have incongruent parents’ role perceptions and that teachers expect parents to perform academic-related tasks in the home more frequently than parents do themselves, both in primary and secondary levels [43]. This adds, once more, to the evidence on the power teachers do have, to change the perspective from
2.2 Parents’ role on parental engagement
Parent’s influences on their children’s achievement have been largely studied [8, 11, 16, 18]. Factors like parents’ socioeconomic status and educational background are known to act as predictors of students’ achievement and school adaptation, as well as of parental involvement [9, 42, 58]. Literature is also consistent about the positive response from parents toward their children’s learning, regarding teachers’ expectations and solicitations of parental involvement [13, 37, 49, 50], which is believed to contribute to the parents’ role of themselves and for them to view their own participation as important, through the teachers’ eyes.
However, in comparison to research on teachers’ role and perceptions or studies where both teachers’ and parents’ attributes are analyzed regarding children’s academic success, only more recently, parents’ role and perceptions started gaining significant space as objects of study on parental involvement [19, 59, 60]. That can be explained, in some extent, due to the history of school and home contexts’ instituted views of each other as entities with different and complementary objectives [52, 61], where children’s schooling was a school duty and children’s basic well-being and healthy development was attributed solely to parents. Lately, as these two tremendous tasks increasingly merge into each other, the role of parents’ attitudes and behavior is being progressively more taken into account, from a holistic point of view.
Today, we know that parents who believe that their own role is important in affecting their child’s achievement in school tend to more often facilitate the development of their child’s interests, in comparison to parents who do not view their role as important [20]. Role beliefs identified in research are, in part, related to what modern expectancy-value theory refers as task-value [62]. Task-value beliefs are key determinants of choice, persistence, and engagement in tasks. Eccles and Wigfield [62] outlined four components of task-value: attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and costs. Regarding parental engagement, these components would refer to (a) the personal importance the parent would attribute for positively contributing to their child’s learning; (b) the genuine enjoyment the parent would feel about doing so; (c) the relation the parent attributes between positively contributing to their children’s learning and their own personal goals in life; and (d) the amount of effort or negative experiences a parent feels they have to go through in order to do so.
Recent findings point out that enjoyment and genuine interest of parents about their children’s learning have life-long positive impacts. Parents who read recreationally to their children at young age and who talk informally to their adolescent children around a table, about political or social issues, are more likely to have a significant impact on children’s life and school outcomes than those parents who do not [32]. These kinds of
Various authors [2, 22, 30, 63, 64] have recently studied the impact of parental styles at home. Goodall [2] points to the
As the role of parents in engaging in children’s learning is acknowledged to be such an essential element in the children’s lives, in and outside school, research also underlines the existence of a pattern in the quality of the child’s affective relationship with parents and with teachers, since children seem to have a concordant evocative impact on both parents and teachers [14]. This gives teacher-parents’ partnerships even more centrality, once teachers, as professional educators, have opportunity to identify and break such patterns when they are not effective for the child’s sake [24, 65, 66]. In such cases, teachers have the ability to comprehend more complex home dynamics such as those of students from diverse cultural or socioeconomic backgrounds,
2.3 Challenges for parental engagement
Surpassing the sphere of children’s academic achievement or school engagement, teacher-parents’ partnerships are nowadays seen as a powerful tool for breaking undesirable patterns. It has been considered an extremely important element on equity issues in education when built on effective teacher-parent dialog [40, 42]. Yet, this scenario is not prevalent in most schools around the world, since, as Goodall [3] attests, the most popular perception of working with parents is still
Despite the growing knowledge regarding parental engagement in a larger sense, one of non-dependence of the school environment, many are the obstacles for engagement to take place in schools and homes around the world. Some of them have been around longer than the others, which make it even more difficult for the school community to tackle them, as they seem to pile up. For instance, the lack of resources such as time and personnel, in many schools, prevents teachers from developing consistent approaches for parental involvement itself, let alone practices of engagement, that demand an even superior amount of time and follow-up dialogue between teachers and parents. Some of the linger drawbacks for involvement and engagement practices also list: lack of support from schools’ administration or simply a set of school’s beliefs that do not favor teacher-parents’ partnerships; mothers’ over fathers’ representativeness in schools; and difficulty of maintaining or establishing effective home-school dialogue throughout the levels of schooling.
Regarding the institutional level, leaders such as the school’s headmaster or department’s head teachers may or may not adopt a facilitator role to involving and engaging parents [67]. For the engagement path to be accessible, it is essential that a consistent definition of parental engagement is shared between school’s administration, teachers, and parents of a specific school, so all these cohorts are able to develop realist and shared expectations about each other’s roles [68]. Thus, headmasters and head teachers have a decisive role on the development of a school culture which values the engagement of parents in the children’s learning [69].
Such school’s guidelines can also make a difference in engaging
Another well-known stumbling rock for parental engagement, that is cited above, constitutes the difficulty of maintaining or creating teacher-parents’ partnerships as children grow in age and grade level. As children develop into young adults, the nature of their relationships with adults and peers changes, as they look forward to a progressively more independent life, which originates a growing distance between teacher and parents dialogs [73]. Additionally, in most countries, as children progress in education, the number of teachers grow, fact that also handicaps teachers-parents’ partnerships and holistic education. In that matter, Goodall [35] encourages that schools explore the numerous possibilities technology provides for engagement of parents of older students as well as busier or hard to reach parents (e.g., e-mail, texting, and specific channels of communication).
Technology transports us to a more recent range of challenges for parental engagement, together with diversity in classrooms and teacher education programs.
Despite the lack of research in the topic, that, as Goodall [35] herself attests, consists in a very difficult theme to study appropriately, the transformation in the major routes of communication between teachers and parents has crucially changed in the last few years. In Finland, for instance, digital communication has become the primary means for teachers and parents to communicate [74]. The advance and accessibility of technology consist of an advantage for parental engagement, when the tools are well used by professionals, for example, as it helps professionals to communicate with parents more efficiently and reach a higher number of parents in a little amount of time [35]. However, these practices elicit new and unknown difficulties that need to be outpaced by schools. As pointed out in Finland [74], such strategies may shorten distances with a specific group of parents, such as the ones from rural contexts, but other groups may feel they are not given enough space to communicate as teachers would think. The lack of substantial education of teachers on how to use technology to improve teacher-parents dialogue, during their trainings, needs to be tackled in order to bring schools and homes together [35, 74].
In fact, teacher education needs reflections and updates in many parts of the world. In Portugal, for example, only 39% of lower secondary teachers reported feeling prepared, by the time they had finished their studies, to teach in cognitively diverse settings and 27% reported a strong need to receive formal education in this area [75]. Classroom diversity certainly challenges teachers, often causing tense relationships to emerge with parents. To respond this and other flaws, a huge educational reform based on a holistic approach has been recently implemented by the Portuguese government [76], even though no additional training for practitioners have been made available, so far.
Finally, and because education needs to be approached from an ecological systems perspective [21], one of the greater challenges for parental engagement dwells not only in the classroom, but in the community and the society. Along with globalization, teachers all around the world must deal with a rising diversity of students and parents, which demands teachers to have a creative, sensitive, and versatile attitude toward parents. Such diversity requires a greater amount of resources from the teacher than it does in cases where he/she deals with more uniform groups of children.
Advertisement
3. Conclusions
In a primary contact, parental engagement may seem complex and sometimes even utopic. The holistic approach to pedagogy calls for a holistic approach to teacher-parents’ partnerships and vice-versa: one cannot fully achieve its goals without the other. It is probably one of the main reasons it has been so difficult even for well-intentioned and well-educated teachers to introduce engagement practices and to break the traditional cycles where schools ask parents for more than they can give and the whole family ends up feeling frustrated.
After a closer look, one may realize engagement practices have, in fact, a simple foundation. It is based on authentic interactions, true acceptance, trust, and believe in bringing out the best of each family; it goes beyond interacting as teacher and parents—rather, refers to interacting as whole individuals that are sensitive about each other’s needs, beliefs, and ideas and instead of competing with each other, unify their strengths for the common goal of the child’s success in life.
For a teacher of a holistic classroom environment who wants to develop a closer and an authentic partnership with his/her pupil’s parents, there is a need to preserve his/her attitude in the classroom, reflecting it in the interactions with the parents [3]. If the teacher has the goal to prompt the development of the student as a whole person, then, first, the teacher needs to
Beyond all challenges presented before, it has been difficult to move from an
However, as stated above, engaging parents demands a deep reflexive attitude from the teacher—one that most likely develops through practice and meaningful internalization processes of knowledge [78]. “Beginning teachers need to be encouraged to develop a moral stance in relation to their professional responsibilities” ([78], p. 33) in order to meaningfully develop the ability and sensitiveness to stablish authentic partnerships with all parents. The teacher’s professional knowledge will reveal itself in pedagogical decisions that cannot be dissociated from his/her own principles and values. This means that each student teacher’s path will be unique and will be shaped by the formal education they will receive, the thoughts and discussions they will encounter during this period, and the moral choices regarding values and principles they will make along the way.
A purposeful teacher looks for not only fulfilling his/her own goals in life but has a profound sense of beyond-the-self impact and self-transcendent goals [79]. Teacher education can establish optimal contexts to foster student teachers’ sense of purpose in life and in teaching, self-knowledge, and reflection ability. Methods that involve guided analysis, group, and individual reflections and are based on authentic cases from student teachers’ past experiences in school [79] seem to offer a promising wellspring for teaching how to engage parents. This could involve, for example, student teachers’ recollection of memorable learning experiences with their parents, reflection about the meaning and impact it had in their studying-learning process and reflection about their teachers’ attitude toward parents at the time.
Practitioners’ and researchers’ efforts, through research-based practices and practice-based research, are crucial in giving life to such a framework in schools and homes, more and more as years go by, and making the holistic approach more than a
References
- 1.
Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. Vol. 2014. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education Publications; 2016 - 2.
Goodall J. Parental engagement to support children’s learning: A six point model. School Leadership & Management. 2013; 33 (2):133-150. DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2012.724668 - 3.
Goodall J. Learning-centred parental engagement: Freire reimagined. Educational Review. 2017; 70 (5):603-621. DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2017.1358697 - 4.
Goodall J. Parental engagement and deficit discourses: Absolving the system and solving parents. Educational Review. 2019:1-13. DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2018.1559801 - 5.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The Future of Education and Skills—Education 2030. OECD Publishing; 2018. DOI: 10.1787/1d0bc92a-en [Internet]. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf [Accessed: 2019-06-15] - 6.
Tirri K. Holistic school pedagogy and values: Finnish teachers’ and students’ perspectives. International Journal of Educational Research. 2011; 50 (3):159-165. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2011.07.010 - 7.
Ricci C, Pritscher C. Holistic Pedagogy: The Self and Quality Willed Learning. New York: Springer; 2015. 226 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-14944-8_19 - 8.
Eccles J. Families, schools and developing achievement motivations and engagement. In: Grusec J, Hastings P, editors. Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research. New York: The Guilford Press; 2007. pp. 665-691 - 9.
Epstein JL. School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators and Improving Schools. Boulder: Westview Press; 2001. 624 p - 10.
Goodall J, Montgomery C. Parental involvement to parental engagement: A continuum. Educational Review. 2014; 66 (4):399-410. DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2013.781576 - 11.
Grolnick WS, Slowiaczek ML. Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development. 1994; 65 :237-252. DOI: 10.2307/1131378 - 12.
Epstein JL. School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators and Improving Schools. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westview Press; 2011. 656 p - 13.
Hoover-Dempsey K, Bassler O, Brissie J. Explorations in parent-school relations. Journal of Educational Research. 1992; 85 (2):287-294. DOI: 10.1080/00220671.1992.9941128 - 14.
Silinskas G, Kiuru N, Aunola K, Lerkkanen MK, Nurmi JE. The developmental dynamics of children’s academic performance and mothers’ homework-related affect and practices. Developmental Psychology. 2015; 51 (4):419-433. DOI: 10.1037/a0038908 - 15.
Hill N, Tyson D. Parental involvement in middle School: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology. 2009; 45 :740-763. DOI: 10.1037/a0015362 - 16.
Hoover-Dempsey KV, Sandler HM. Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record. 1995; 97 (2):310-331 - 17.
Pacheco P, Mata L. Literacia familiar—Crenças de pais de crianças em idade pré-escolar e características das práticas de literacia na família. [Family literacy—Beliefs of parents of preschool age children and characteristics of family literacy practices]. Análise Psicológica. 2013; 3-XXXI :217-234. DOI: 10.14417/S0870-8231201300030001 - 18.
Peixoto F, Carvalho R. Parental attitudes toward academic achievement: Effects on motivation, self-concept and school achievement. In: Wosnitza M, Karabenick SA, Efklides A, Nenniger P, editors. Contemporary Motivation Research: From Global to Local Perspectives. Göttingen & New York: Hogrefe & Huber; 2009. pp. 279-297 - 19.
Böök ML, Perälä-Littunen S. Responsibility in home-school relations—Finnish parents’ views. Children & Society. 2015; 29 :615-625. DOI: 10.1111/chso.12099 - 20.
Georgiou SN. Parental attributions as predictors of involvement and influences on child achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 1999; 69 (3):409-429. DOI: 10.1348/000709999157806 - 21.
Bronfenbrenner U. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1979. 330 p - 22.
Mata L, Pedro I, Peixoto F. Parental support, student motivational orientation and achievement. The Impact of Emotions. International Journal of Emotional Education. 2018; 10 (2):77-92 - 23.
Epstein JL, Sheldon SB. Moving forward: Ideas for research on School, Family, and community partnerships. In: SAGE Handbook for Research in Education: Engaging Ideas and Enriching Inquiry. London: Sage Publications; 2006. pp. 117-138 - 24.
Sabol TJ, Pianta R. Recent trends in research on teacher-child relationships. Attachment & Human Development. 2012; 14 (3):213-231. DOI: 10.1080/14616734.2012.672262 - 25.
Chen J, Pisani L, White S, Soroui J. Parental engagement in early childhood education at home. Reading Psychology. 2012; 33 :497-524. DOI: 10.1080/02702711.2012.703038 - 26.
Fenton P, Ocasio-Stoutenburg L, Harry B. The power of engagement: Sociocultural considerations in the quest for equity. Theory Into Practice. 2017; 56 :214-225. DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2017.1355686 - 27.
Fretwell N, Osgood J, O’Toole G, Tsouroufli M. Governing through trust: Community-based link workers and parental engagement in education. British Educational Research Journal. 2018; 44 (6):1047-1063. DOI: 10.1002/berj.3478 - 28.
Harris A, Goodall J. Removing obstacles: Achieving inclusive approach to Parental engagement. Curriculum Briefing. 2006; 5 (1):17-19 - 29.
Silinskas G, Niemi P, Lerkkanen M, Nurmi J. Children’s poor academic performance evokes parental homework assistance—But does it help? International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2012; 37 (1):44-56. DOI: 10.1177/0165025412456146 - 30.
Souto-Manning M, Swick KJ. Teachers’ beliefs about parent and family involvement: Rethinking our family involvement paradigm. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2006; 34 (2):187-193. DOI: 10.1007/s10643-006-0063-5 - 31.
European Comission. National Reforms in School Education—Portugal [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/national-reforms-school-education-53_en [Accessed: 2019-06-15] - 32.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Let’s Read Them a Story! The Parent Factor in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2012. DOI: 10.1787/9789264176232-en [Internet]. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264176232-en.pdf?expires=1567713726&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1F88820C7C1430DD5AA0F21D65C66319 [Accessed: 2019-06-15] - 33.
Dewey J. Experience and education. The Educational Forum. 1986; 50 (3):241-252 - 34.
Freire P. Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum; 1994. 240 p - 35.
Goodall J. Technology and school-home communication. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning. 2016; 11 (2):118-131. DOI: 10.1080/22040552.2016.1227252 - 36.
Molina SC. Family, school, community engagement, and partnerships: An area of continued inquiry and growth. Teaching Education. 2013; 24 (2):235-238. DOI: 10.1080/10476210.2013.786894 - 37.
Hoover-Dempsey KV, Walker JMT, Sandler HM, Whetsel D, Greem CL, Wilkins AS, et al. Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. Elementary School Journal. 2005; 106 (2):105-130. DOI: 10.1086/499194 - 38.
Costa M, Faria L. Parenting and parental involvement in secondary school: Focus groups with adolescents’ parents. Paidéia. 2017; 27 :28-36. DOI: 10.1590/1982-43272767201704 - 39.
Eccles J, Harold RD. Family involvement in children’s and adolescents’ schooling. In: Booth A, Dunn JF, editors. Family-School Links: How Do they Affect Educational Outcomes? Mahwah: Erlbaum; 1996. pp. 3-34 - 40.
Baquedano-Lopez P, Alexander RA, Hernandez SJ. Equity issues in parental and community involvement in schools: What teacher educators need to know. Review of Research in Education. 2013; 37 (1):149-182. DOI: 10.3102/0091732X12459718 - 41.
Goodall J. Narrowing the Achievement Gap: Parental Engagement with Children’s Learning. 1st ed. London: Taylor and Francis; 2017. 182 p. DOI: 10.4324/9781315672465 - 42.
Kim Y. Minority parental involvement and school barriers: Moving the focus away from deficiencies of parents. Educational Research Review. 2009; 4 (2):80-102. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.003 - 43.
Deslandes R, Rousseau N. Congruence between teachers’ and parents’ role construction and expectations about their involvement in homework. International Journal about Parents in Education. 2007; 1 (0):108-116 - 44.
DePlanty J, Coulter-Kern R, Duchane K. Perceptions of parental involvement in academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research. 2007; 100 (6):361-368. DOI: 10.3200/JOER.100.6.361-368 - 45.
Oliveira JHB. Psicologia da Educação, Temas Complementares, Vol. 3. [Psychology of Education, Complementary Subjects, Vol. 3]. Legis Editora: Porto; 2009. 251 p - 46.
Patall E, Cooper H, Robinson JC. Parent involvement in homework: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research. 2008; 78 (4):1039-1101. DOI: 10.3102/0034654308325185 - 47.
Silva P, Silva R, Rocha C. Relação Escola-Família. [School-family relationships]. Educação, Sociedade e Cultura. 1996; 6 :143-200 - 48.
Baum AC, McMurray-Schwarz P. Preservice teachers’ beliefs about Family involvement: Implications for teacher education. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2004; 32 :57-61 - 49.
Designing DR, School I. Family, and community collaboration programs in Quebec, Canada. The School Community Journal. 2006; 16 (1):81-106 - 50.
Moroni S, Dumont H, Trautwein U, Niggli A, Baeriswyl F. The need to distinguish between quantity and quality in research on parental involvement: The example of parental help with homework. Journal of Educational Research. 2015; 108 :417-431. DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2014.901283 - 51.
Patrikakou EN, Weissberg RP. Parents’ perceptions of teacher outreach and parent involvement in children’s education. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community. 2000; 20 :103-119. DOI: 10.1300/J005v20n01_08 - 52.
Adams KS, Christenson KL. Trust and the family-school relationship: Examination of parent-teacher differences in elementary and secondary grades. Journal of School Psychology. 2000; 38 :477-497. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-4405(00)00048-0 - 53.
Christenson S, Reschly A, editors. Handbook of School-Family Partnerships. New York: Routledge; 2010. 546 p - 54.
Hoover-Dempsey KV, Walker JMT, Jones KP, Reed RP. Teachers involving parents (TIP): An in-service teacher education program for enhancing parental involvement. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2002; 18 (7):843-867. DOI: 10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00047-1 - 55.
De Coninck K, Valcke M, Vanderlinde R. A measurement of student teachers’ parent-teacher communication competences: The design of a video-based instrument. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2018; 44 (3):333-352. DOI: 10.1080/02607476.2018.1465656 - 56.
Epstein JL, Sanders MG. Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school, family, and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education. 2006; 81 (2):81-120. DOI: 10.1207/S15327930pje8102_5 - 57.
Bandura A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman; 1997. 604 p - 58.
Hornby G, Witte CA. Survey of parental involvement in middle schools in New Zealand. Pastoral Care in Education. 2010; 28 (1):59-69. DOI: 10-1080/02643940903540363 - 59.
Cheminais R. Family Partinership Working – A Guide for Education Practitioners. London: Sage; 2011. 128 p - 60.
Harris A, Andrew-Power K, Goodall J. Do Parents Know they Matter? Raising Achievement through Parental Engagement. London: Continuum International Publishing Group; 2009. 123 p - 61.
Berger EH. Parent involvement: Yesterday and today. Elementary School Journal. 1991; 92 (3):209-219. DOI: 10.1086/461648 - 62.
Eccles J, Wigfield A. Motivational beliefs, values and goals. Annual Review Psychology. 2002; 53 :109-132. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153 - 63.
Pomerantz E, Moorman EA, Litwack SD. The how, whom, and why of parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational Research. 2007; 77 (3):373-410. DOI: 10.3102/003465430305567 - 64.
Sikiö R, Siekkinen M, Holopainen L, Silinskas G, Lerkkanen M, Nurmi J. Maternal parenting styles, homework help, and children’s literacy development in language minority and Finnish-speaking families. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2017; 33 (2):235-250. DOI: 10.1007/s10212-017-0330-4 - 65.
Levinthal C. Vinculação na Sala de Aula: Concordância Entre os padrões de vinculação da criança Com os Pais e Com a Educadora [Attachment in the Classroom: Concordance between child’s Attachment Patterns with the Parents and with the Kindergarten Teacher]. [master’s Thesis]. Lisbon: ISPA—Instituto Universitário; 2014 - 66.
Veríssimo M, Torres N, Silva F, Fernandes C, Vaughn BE, Santos AJ. Children’s representations of attachment and positive teacher-child relationships. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017; 8 :1-7. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02270 - 67.
Young C, Austin S, Growe R. Defining parental involvement: Perceptions of school administrators. Education. 2013; 133 (3):291-297 - 68.
Wilder S. Effects of parental involvement on academic achievement: A meta-synthesis. Educational Review. 2014; 66 (3):377-397. DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2013.780009 - 69.
Ferguson C. Organizing Family and Community Connections With Schools: How Do School Staff Build Meaningful Relationships With All Stakeholders? National Center for Family & Community Connections with Schools. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory [Internet]; 2005. pp. 1-7. Available from: http://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/rb/rb4-Rel.pdf - 70.
Kikas E, Poikonen P, Kontoniemi M, Lyyra A, Lerkkanen M, Niilo A. Mutual trust between kindergarten teachers and mothers and its associations with family characteristics in Estonia and Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2011; 55 (1):23-37. DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2011.539852 - 71.
Silinskas G, Leppänen U, Aunola K, Parrila R, Nurmi J. Predictors of mothers’ and fathers’ teaching of reading and mathematics during kindergarten and grade 1. Learning and Instruction. 2010; 20 (1):61-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.01.002 - 72.
Lamb ME. How do fathers influence children’s development? Let me count the ways. In: Lamb ME, editor. The Role of the Father in Child Development. 5th ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2010. pp. 1-26 - 73.
Harris A, Goodall J. Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning. Educational Research. 2008; 50 :277-289 - 74.
Kuusimäki A, Uusitalo-Malmivaara L, Tirri K. Parents’ and teachers’ views on digital communication in Finland. Education Research International. 2019:1-7. DOI: 10.1155/2019/8236786 - 75.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners. OECD Publishing; 2019. DOI: 10.1787/1d0bc92a-en [Internet]. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/1d0bc92a-en/1/1/2/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/1d0bc92a-en&_csp_=1418ec5a16ddb9919c5bc207486a271c&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book [Accessed 2019-06-20] - 76.
Direção-Geral de Ensino (DGE). Perfil dos Alunos à Saída da Escolaridade Obrigatória [Exit profile of students leaving compulsory education]. Lisbon: DGE; 2017. [Internet]. Available from: https://dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/Curriculo/Projeto_Autonomia_e_Flexibilidade/perfil_dos_alunos.pdf [Accessed: 2019-06-15] - 77.
Goodall J. Leading for parental engagement: Working towards partnership. School Leadership & Management. 2018; 38 (2):143-146. DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2018.1459022 - 78.
Gillies D. Developing the thoughtful practitioner. In: Peters MA, Cowie B, Menter I, editors. A Companion to Research in Teacher Education. Singapore: Singer; 2017. pp. 23-35 - 79.
Tirri K, Kuusisto E. How can purpose be taught? Journal of Religious Education. 2016; 64 :101-112. DOI: 10.1007/s40839-017-0035-7