14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper
Educating a Critical Relationship with AI Technologies Through Experiences of Visual Arts. An art-based participatory action-research in Primary School
Emanuela Guarcello1, Abele Longo2, Smaranda-Sabina Moldovan3, Cristina Daju3, Bogdan Matei3
1University of Turin, IT; 2Middlesex University, UK; 3University of West Timișoara, RO
Presenting Author: Guarcello, Emanuela
Theoretical Framework. The massive global diffusion of "radical" technologies (AITs) permeates the daily life of families and children (Floridi, 2017, 2020), bringing enormous potential but at the same time opening wide problematic spaces (Malavasi, 2019; Revelli, 2020); spaces among which homologation, synchronisation of conscience and unique thinking are the most insidious and worrying problems (Abott, 2014; Stiegler, 2014, 2015). These spaces are often difficult to manage for families, who find themselves displaced in their task of guiding (and containing) the relationship that children have with the AITs. Although the complexity of the current relationship between children and AITs is therefore undeniable, it is actually thanks to it (e.g. the use of stick, stone, graphic tools, ...) that human beings originally initiated and cultivated an extraordinary process of humanisation of themselves and the creative world (Ferraris, 2020; Remotti, 2011). Despite the fact that this original humanising function is still potentially quite alive, the evolution of technologies places in the foreground not only the current problems of homologation, but also real future risks. These risks are associated with the ever more unlimited power of the human being – and especially of future adults – to use technologies for the destruction of the self and nature as well as for the indiscriminate overcoming of the boundaries of the human condition (Brooks, 2017; Turing, 1950). There follows an important and urgent need for formation, a formation that guides the new generations in an early and universal way from primary school onwards to cultivate those particular human qualities - of thought and judgment (Arendt, 1978; Ricœur, 1995, 2001; OECD, 2019; Schleicher, 2020; Unesco, 2021) - necessary for the critical, creative and ethical orientation of the new AITs, so that they are still an opportunity for self-humanisation in an absolutely unique way. It is also an early formation that cannot exclude the involvement of families and community, precious educational spaces for the nourishment and direction of children's thought and judgment.
This training can find a particularly promising opportunity in visual aesthetic experiences (Dewey, 2005), exercising in children the ability to think and feel the experience (captured within the image) in a comprehensive and integral, critical and creative way (Bertin, 1974; Balzola & Rosa, 2011), allowing them to reconstruct the full sense of it, valuing aspects of diversity and divergence. They do so by promoting unique and individual processes of problematising and creative discernment and deliberation; the beginning of a new, revolutionary thought. The aesthetic-visual experience in fact nourishes the ability of children to value "diversities", which in turn become drivers and mediators for cultural and social change.
Among the aesthetic-visual experiences that can be proposed to children, one that can be particularly promising for education towards a critical and creative relationship with AIT is a digital art experience generated with AI. It is indeed a well-known experience at European and international level, still pioneering in primary school, which exercises children in a critical and creative relationship with the AITs not only evoking this same relationship (through the image), but making children have an active and personal experience of it (Fahlén, 2021).
Research Questions. How to train children in primary school to develop a critical and creative relationship with the AITs through aesthetic experiences of visual art generated with AI? How to involve families and community in this formative process? What specific educational outcomes can be achieved through these experiences?
Objectives. The paper aims at understanding whether, how and under what circumstances aesthetic experiences of visual art generated with AI can train children and families in a critical and creative relationship with AITs.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedStarting from this theoretical framework, the presentation will aim at analysing and discussing the method and results of the international research project funded and led by the University of Turin during the 2022-2023 academic year, in partnership with the University of West Timişoara and Middlesex University of London. The project involves three Primary Schools (in Timişoara, Turin and in London) and involves six teachers, five classrooms and children's families. The research methodology refers to the art-based participatory action-research (Asakura et al., 2020; Crobe, 2020; Hiltunen, 2009; Huckaby, 2018; Knowles & Cole, 2008; Leavy, 2017; Melkas & Harmaakorpi, 2011; Prior, Kossak & Fisher; 2022; Rubesin, 2018; Seppälä, Sarantou & Miettinen, 2021; Shelton & Mallon, 2021; Wang, Siegesmund & Hannes, 2017). It is a particularly fertile research methodology in the field of scholastic education especially because of its capacity to actively involve teachers and children and to promote critical and creative processes of human experience understanding and social contexts transformation. Processes activated and nourished precisely thanks to art-based experiences.
Within this methodological perspective, the research planning is articulated in three phases:
First phase (March-April 2023):
to realise a formative path with the involved teachers in order to share and reflect on the issue of the development of a critical and creative relationship with AITs, through aesthetic experiences of visual art generated with AI;
to design the aesthetic experience to be undertaken with children, through the use of the Artivive tool.
Second phase (May-September 2023):
to implement the aesthetic experience with children (10-11 years old). The aesthetic experiences will be designed by teachers and researchers referring to three formative steps, based on experiential learning theory (Kolb, 2015): aesthetic experience; personal and collective reflection on critical and creative aspects of the relationship with experimented AIT (e.g., Artivive Tool); conceptual framework (Video Pill) on the ancient relation Human-Technology and some open questions on the current problematic aspects of this relationship; group and plenary discussion.
Third phase (November 2023):
to organise an international online conference and a virtual exhibition with the children's artworks, directed at teachers and researchers, children and families. This opportunity facilitates the sharing with parents and communities the children's core reflections on their relationship with AITs and to develop some of the most critical points for families and communities in guiding the relationship that children have with the AITs.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe art-based participatory action-research presented seeks to identify:
specific formative outcomes achieved by children through this formative experience;
a first pilot “model” of formative experience for children/families in primary school (steps, methodology and evaluation plan), to develop a critical and creative relationship with the AITs through aesthetic experiences of visual art generated with AI;
potentialities and criticalities of the entire formative process.
In order to recognise, analyse and discuss these expected outcomes, there will be (Efrat Efron & Ravid, 2019):
a pre and post evaluation through qualitative questionnaires with the children on the topic of the relationship with AITs (criticalities and potentialities) (Beed, Stimson, 1985; Ammuner, 1998), before and after the formative experience;
a hermeneutic analysis on the dialogues (among children-teachers-researchers) recorded during the activities in the classroom (Kvale, 1996; Betti, 1987) ;
an analysis of the artworks created by the children during the activities in classroom (Barone & Eisner, 2012; Efrat Efron & Ravid, 2019; Eisner, 2002, 1991);
an analysis of the logbooks written by the teachers and the observer;
a content analysis on individual semi-structured interviews with the participating teachers after the completion of the formative experience (Brown & Danaher 2019; Souliotis; 2022).
ReferencesArendt, H. (2004). Verità e politica. La conquista dello spazio e la statura dell’uomo. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
Balzola, A. & Rosa, P. (2011). L'arte fuori di sé. Un manifesto per l'età post-tecnologica. Milano: Feltrinelli.
Barone, T., & Eisner, E. (2012). Arts-based research. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc.
Bataille, G. (1955). La peinture préhistorique. Lascaux ou la naissance de l'art. Genève: Skira.
Bertin, G.M. (1974). L'ideale estetico. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
Brown, A. & Danaher P.A. (2019). CHE Principles: facilitating authentic and dialogical semi-structured interviews in educational research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 42(1), 76-90.
Crobe, S. (2020). L’arte come pratica di ricerca e azione. Pratiche di co-creazione artistica per la conoscenza, interpretazione, trasformazioni dell’urbano. Note a partire da una esperienza di ricerca. Tracce Urbane, 8, 255-268.
Dewey, J. (2005). Arts as Experience. London: Penguin Publishing Group.
Efrat Efron, S. & Ravid, R. (2019). Action research in education: A practical guide. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Fahlén, M. (2020). The Educational Practice of School-Age Educare Teachers Teaching Visual Art in Swedish Primary Schools. International Journal for Research on Extended Education, 8(2), 173–190.
Floridi, L. (2017). La quarta rivoluzione: come l'infosfera sta trasformando il mondo. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
Knowles, J. G. & Cole, A. L. (2008). Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Kolb, D. (2015). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education LTD.
Leavy, P. (2017). Introduction to arts based research. In Leavy P. (ed.). Handbook of arts-based research. New York: Guilford Press, 3–21.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1964). Le geste et la parole. Technique et langage. Tome 1. Paris: Albin Michel.
Malavasi, P. (2019). Educare Robot? Pedagogia dell'intelligenza artificiale. Milano: Vita e Pensiero.
Prior Ross, W., Kossak, M. & Fisher, T.A. (2022). Applied Arts and Health: Building Bridges across Arts, Therapy, Health, Education, and Community. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Rubesin, H. (2018). “I Am Not Deaf”: Art-Based Participatory Action Research with Refugee Women From Burma, https://digitalcommons.lesley.edu/expressive_dissertations/53/ (29.01.2023).
Stiegler, B. (2019). The Age of Disruption: Technology and Madness in Computational Capitalism. Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Tiina, S., Sarantou, M. & Miettinen S. (2021). Arts-Based Methods for Decolonising Participatory Research. London: Routledge.
Wang, Q., Coemans, S., Siegesmund, R. & Hannes, K. (2017). Arts-based methods in socially engaged research practice: A classification framework. Art/Research International: A Transdisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 5–39.
14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper
The Complexity of Managing Multichannel Communication in Family-school Relations as Seen by Parents and School Leaders
Melodie Burri, Sonja Beeli-Zimmermann, Anne-Sophie Ewald, Evelyne Wannack
Pädagogische Hochschule Bern, Switzerland
Presenting Author: Burri, Melodie;
Beeli-Zimmermann, Sonja
The term multichannel communication is usually used in a technical or marketing context. In this contribution, however, we propose to adopt it to the educational context in order to more adequately capture and understand the intricacy of family-school relations. Digital transformation has not only increased the diversity of available communication channels, including the adaptation of specific channels like messaging apps to the school context. It has also changed the quality of communication and opened new possibilities such as asynchronous exchanges or automated translations. This presentation reports findings from an exploratory study focusing on school websites as one of the first and most common digital communication channels for family-school relations. The interplay of the different channels, in particular the role of the website in this process, will be given special attention.
The importance of family-school relations and its positive effects on children’s developments is well documented (Sheridan & Moorman Kim, 2015), and various concepts focus on this connection, such as Epstein’s (1987) seminal model of overlapping spheres of influence. Overall, these models highlight communication as a key element. Family-school communication can either be perceived as being predominantly one way, i.e., schools meeting their basic obligations of informing parents about specific issues, or two-way, reflecting a partnership between the two parties (Epstein, 1987). The term partnership thereby reflects a shift in the notion of family-school relations towards a more equal footing, an approach which is rarely put into practice (among others: Olmstead, 2013).
Schools and families engage in communication both on an individual and a collective level, using a variety of communication channels such as short messages via general or school specific apps, e-mails, electronic newsletters, or websites in addition to phone calls, analogue notes, and personal contacts (Sacher, 2014). A growing body of literature suggests that digital technologies are changing and improving the way schools and families communicate with media-based contacts being considered to be more efficient, immediate, and convenient (Goodall, 2016; Bordalba & Bochaca, 2019). More specifically, school websites offer several technical features for communication and interaction, such as mail or telephone links, contact forms or chat functions. However, research shows that the potential of such technologies is rarely utilized (Taddeo & Barnes, 2016; Tavas and Bilač 2011).
To date, most of the existing empirical work focusing on the interface of family-school relations and digital media, specifically school websites, has been carried out in Anglo-Saxon countries (e.g., Gilleece & Eivers, 2018; Taddeo & Barnes, 2016). To our knowledge, no such specific studies were conducted in German-speaking countries, particularly Switzerland. More specifically, many existing studies were conducted in the context of free school choice and in countries where schools are obliged to maintain a school website, such as the UK. Contrary to this situation, Swiss schools are not obliged to have a school website and there is no free school choice for compulsory schooling. More generally, policies in Switzerland hardly regulate family-school relationships and the country’s federal structure with its three levels of policymaking contributes to a culture of interaction that is marked by personal beliefs (Ho & Vasarik Staub, 2019).
Therefore, this contribution aims to add to the fragmented body of knowledge on the use of digital media in family-school relations. It describes current practices in the use of websites by Swiss public schools and how they relate to other communication channels employed in family-school relations. We explore how family-school communication takes place through various channels and how these are interlinked. Specifically, we investigate, who (school leaders, teachers, parents) communicates what, using which channel (particularly websites, messages, phone calls, analogue notes), and to what effect.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research adopts a multi-method approach, drawing on three sources of data: (1) Firstly, 40 school websites from four German-speaking cantons in Switzerland were analysed. The data used for this purpose were PDF-files generated from the entry pages of the respective websites, as well as the contents of the entire website. The categories for the content analysis were developed deductively and inductively following Mayring (2010). Due to the great heterogeneity of the data, the category system was developed throughout the entire analytic process. The deductive categories were based on concepts from web design (Design TLC, 2018), interactivity (Adami, 2015), multimodality (Kress, 2010), and family-school relations (Sacher, 2014). (2) Secondly, we selected eight schools and conducted in depth problem-centred interviews (Witzel, 2000) with the personnel responsible for the respective website. Interview partners mainly included school principals, in some cases also teachers and administrative staff. (3) In order to reflect the two-way nature of family-school communication, we thirdly conducted 34 short semi-standardised interviews with parents from seven schools. All interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis, whereby we again developed the category system based on data and the previously mentioned theoretical concepts.
To achieve as heterogenous a sample as possible, we employed purposeful sampling with the aim of achieving maximum variation (Patton, 2015) throughout the study. In doing so, we considered the following variables for the first sample of 40 schools: location of the school (rural, intermediary, urban); structure of the school (number of locations); levels taught at the school (primary only, primary and secondary, secondary only). For the selection of the second sample of eight schools, additional features specific to the website were included, among them the integration of the school website into the municipality’s website, the use of templates, and the presence of specific content, particularly information specifically directed at parents. When selecting parents, our third sample, the consequent implementation of purposeful sampling was not possible as we relied on parents who volunteered to participate in the interviews. We conducted interviews with all parents who volunteered. While the interviews with the school staff were conducted in person, the interviews with the parents were carried out over the phone or using video calls. The interviews with school personnel lasted between 33 and 100 minutes, the interviews with the parents between 15 and 40 minutes. All interviews were transcribed and then analysed with the help of the MAXQDA software.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsSchools use a diversity of channels to manage their family-school relations, whereby specific communication channels are often related to specific functions: school leaders mainly employ emails or use the website, teachers rely on messages and phone calls or personal contacts. Together these channels form an intricate structure within which changes related to the use of one channel such as the website have an influence on the use of other channels. All schools use websites as a communication channel for family-school relations. However, it is mostly used for one-way communication and interactivity is not intended, a finding consistent with previous research (Taddeo & Barnes, 2016; Roman & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2015; Tavas and Bilač 2011). Parents appreciate existing multichannel communication and highlight the importance not only of digital and personal communication, but also analogue documents for specific information such as class schedules. These findings are in accord with studies indicating that a diversity of communication methods is needed for a successful communication; there is no one size fits all approach (Christenson, 2003).
Although all schools agree that running a website goes without saying (and parents equally consider it a must), we found that clarifying the website’s function and conceptualisation, particularly in relation to other communication channels, was often lacking and family-school relations were rarely systematically elaborated or based upon specific concepts. We argue that schools and/or school leaders in highly diverse contexts shaped by national, regional and local policies need to systematically think about family-school relations. Ongoing technical developments (generation of more data, e.g., through learning management systems; visibility on social media; etc.) will add to the complexity of this task not least of all due to changes in parents’ expectations towards school communication.
ReferencesAdami, E. (2015). What’s in a click? A social semiotic framework for the multimodal analysis of website interactivity. Visual Communication, 14(2), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357214565583
Bordalba, M. M., & Bochaca, J. G. (2019). Digital media for family-school communication? Parents' and teachers' beliefs. Computers & Education, 132, 44–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.006
Christenson, S. L. (2003). The Family-School Partnership: An Opportunity to Promote the Learning Competence of All Students. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(4), 454–482. https://doi.org/10.1521/SCPQ.18.4.454.26995
Design TLC (2018, July 11). Website Terminology: Learn How To Speak The Language. https://designtlc.com/website-terminology/
Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a Theory of Family – School Connections: Teacher Practices and Perent Involvement. In K. Hurrelmann, F.-X. Kaufmann, & F. Lösel (Eds.), Prävention und Intervention im Kindes- und Jugendalter: Vol. 1. Social Intervention: Potential and Constraints (pp. 121–136). De Gruyter.
Gilleece, L., & Eivers, E. (2018). Primary school websites in Ireland: How are they used to inform and involve parents? Irish Educational Studies, 37(4), 411–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2018.1498366
Goodall, J. S. (2016). Technology and school–home communication. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 11(2), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/22040552.2016.1227252
Ho, E. S. C., & Vasarik Staub, K. (2019). Home and School Relationships in Switzerland and Hong Kong. In S. B. Sheldon & T. A. Turner-Vorbeck (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Family, School, and Community Relationships in Education (pp. 291–314). Wiley Blackwell.
Kress, G. R. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
Olmstead, C. (2013). Using Technology to Increase Parent Involvement in Schools. TechTrends, 57(6), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0699-0
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating theory and practice (Fourth edition). Sage.
Roman, T. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2015). Comparison of Parent and Teacher Perceptions of Essential Website Features and Elementary Teacher Website Use: Implications for Teacher Communication Practice. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 32(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2015.1092897
Sacher, W. (2014). Elternarbeit als Erziehungs- und Bildungspartnerschaft: Grundlagen und Gestaltungsvorschläge für alle Schularten (2., vollständig überarbeitete Auflage). Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&ean=9783781553408
Sheridan, S. M., & Moorman Kim, E. (Eds.). (2015). Research on Family-School Partnerships Ser: v.1. Foundational Aspects of Family-School Partnership Research. Springer International Publishing AG. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kxp/detail.action?docID=2096155
Taddeo, C., & Barnes, A. (2016). The school website: Facilitating communication engagement and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12229
Witzel, A. (2000). Das problemzentrierte Interview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1), Art. 22. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0001228
14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper
Patterns of Partnership Practices: Digital Media vs. Face-to-Face Contact?
Theresia Gabriele Hummel, Yvonne Anders
University of Bamberg, Germany
Presenting Author: Hummel, Theresia Gabriele
Existing research emphasizes that parental involvement positively influences children’s development (e.g., Clarke et al., 2017). Concepts of parental involvement highlight the importance of outreach to families as an important aspect of preschool teachers’ professional roles (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). Moreover, a few studies have shown that parents are more likely to be involved in their child’s education when the teachers make a stronger effort to engage them (e.g., Cutshaw et al., 2020). In Germany, preschools offer mostly a standard repertoire of partnership activities consisting of daily communication, helping at events, and attending parent meetings (e.g., Cohen & Anders, 2020). However, a lack of time, different interests, or language barriers often prevent the successful implementation of these partnership activities. As families continue to grow in diversity, it is necessary for preschool teachers to develop an awareness of diverse family dynamics, which call for the implementation of various activities to support families in different ways (Gándara, 2011). The use of digital media offers flexibility and increased accessibility for families, and thus the opportunity to overcome existing barriers and establish new approaches to parental involvement (e.g. Hall & Biermann, 2015). Despite the enormous potential of technology to improve reach and impact of preschool efforts to engage parents, previous research indicates that the use of digital media in cooperating with parents has not yet become common practice (e.g., Knauf, 2020; McFadden & Thomas, 2016). However, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers faced challenges in finding new ways to cooperate with parents without face-to-face contact, and the use of digital tools has played an important role in this regard (e.g., Cohen et al., 2021). Accordingly, it is critical to examine teachers’ partnership practices in detail to gain insight into the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on preschool efforts to engage parents.
The current study therefore investigates (a) the frequency and intensity of teachers’ partnership practices in Germany, (b) and the role of digital media in partnership practices. Due to the use of quantitative diaries, this study makes a unique contribution to the body of existing research in describing processes of partnership practices on a daily level. In the second part, (c) the study also investigates what structural characteristics (e.g., teacher-child ratio) are related to aspects of partnership practices. The structural characteristics of preschools are thought to form the foundations for the kinds of processes that can take place within preschools (Pianta et al., 2005). Whereas the evidence on relations between structural features and children’s experiences has been well-established (see for an overview Slot, 2018), it remains unclear how these characteristics relate to parent-teacher interactions. The implications of our findings will be discussed in the light of the theoretical background as well as the results of previous studies in this context.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedData collection for the present study took place between April 2022 and June 2022. All data were obtained as part of the evaluation of a German governmental preschool initiative that was set up to support preschools in implementing language education and effective partnerships between preschool teachers and parents. For the analyses, we used diary-style data from 197 teachers of 88 preschools. Each teacher completed five diaries, resulting in a total of data from 985 diaries. On a daily base, we measured four aspects of teachers’ partnership practices, namely the implementation of partnership practices (1 = yes, 0 = no), the intensity of partnership practices (the amount of time teachers spent on partnership practices), the use of digital media (1 = yes, 0 = no), and the type of digital tools used in partnership practices (e.g., smartphone, tablet). In addition, each day the structural characteristics of the pedagogical work were rated in the diaries. Based on previous research (e.g., Cohen & Anders, 2020; Cutshaw et al., 2020), we include the following characteristics: teacher-child ratio, group size, ethnic composition (percentage of children not speaking German at home), and teachers’ working hours (number of hours per day). To investigate the patterns of partnership practices and the relation between aspects of partnership practices and structural characteristics, descriptive and correlational analyses were conducted using the SPSS statistical package version 28.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results of the present study highlight that partnership activities are not part of preschool teachers’ daily work: In a total of one-fifth of all diaries (20.0%), teachers reported being involved in partnership practices. On average, teachers were involved in partnership practices on one day over the five days of the survey (M = 0.99; SD = 1.22). However, almost half of the teachers (46.7%) were not involved in partnership activities on any of the five days. There are hardly teachers who deal with partnership practices on a daily basis (1.5%). On average, professionals spent 44 minutes (SD = 40.30) per day cooperating with families.
Digital media were used on 16.5% of all days when teachers were involved in partnership activities. Multifunctional media such as tablets (in 33.3% of the situations), smartphones (26.7%) or laptops (23.3%) are used most frequently. Digital cameras are used in about one in five situations (20.0%). Video projectors (3.3%) and desktop computers (6.7%) are used much less frequently. Overall, teachers used an average of one device per day (M = 1.30; SD = 0.60). However, there are also professionals who use up to three different media in one day (Max = 3).
With regard to the structural characteristics of pedagogical work, the higher the percentage of children not speaking German at home, the more digital media were used in partnership practices (r = .16; p = .035). The relation between the teacher-child ratio and the implementation of digital media in partnership practices were negative (r = -.16; p = .041). The more children a teacher cares for, the less they use digital media in their partnership practices. Further regression analyses investigate relations between structural characteristics and patterns of partnership practices in more detail.
ReferencesClarke, B. L., Wheeler, L. A., Sheridan, S. M., Witte, A. L., Sommerhalder, M. S., & Svoboda, E. A. (2017). Supporting latinx student success via family–school partnerships: Preliminary effects of conjoint behavioral consultation on student and parent outcomes. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 27(3), 317–343.
Cohen, F. & Anders, Y. (2020). Family involvement in early childhood education and care and its effects on the social-emotional and language skills of 3-year-old children. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(1), 125–142.
Cohen, F., Oppermann, E. & Anders, Y. (2021). (Digitale) Elternzusammenarbeit in Kindertageseinrichtungen während der Corona-Pandemie. Digitalisierungsschub oder verpasste Chance? Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 24, 313–338.
Cutshaw, C. A., Mastergeorge, A. M., Barnett, M. A. & Paschall, K. W. (2020). Parent engagement in early care and education settings: relationship with engagement practices and child, parent, and centre characteristics. Early Child Development and Care, 1–16.
Gándara, P. (2011). Bridging language and culture. In S. Redding, M. Murphy & P. Sheley (Eds.), Handbook on family and community engagement (pp. 117-120). Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute.
Hall, C. M. & Bierman, K. L. (2015). Technology-assisted interventions for parents of young children: emerging practices, current research, and future directions. Early childhood research quarterly, 33, 21-32.
Hornby, G., & Lafaele, R. (2011). Barriers to parental involvement in education: an explanatory model. Educational Review, 63(1), 37–52.
Hummel, T. G., Cohen, F. & Anders, Y. (2022). The role of partnership practices in strengthening parental trust, Early Child Development and Care, 1-16.
Knauf, H. (2020). Digitalisierung in Kindertageseinrichtungen: Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung zum Status quo. Frühe Bildung, 9(2), 99–101.
McFadden, A. & Thomas, K. (2016). Parent perspectives on the implementation of a digital documentation portal in an early learning centre. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(4), 86–94.
Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Early, D., & Barbarin, O. (2005). Features of pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality and child-teacher interactions. Applied Developmental Science, 9(3), 144–159.
Slot, P. (2018). Structural characteristics and process quality in early childhood education and care: A literature review. OECD Publishing.
|
