parent-teacher engagement a coteaching and … · 2013. 10. 13. · linda-dianne willis . bed; dipt...

PARENT-TEACHER ENGAGEMENT: A COTEACHING AND COGENERATIVE

DIALOGUING APPROACH

Linda-Dianne Willis BEd; DipT

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Centre for Learning Innovation

Faculty of Education

Queensland University of Technology

2013

Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach i

Publications

Refereed journals Willis, L.-D., & Menzie, K. (2012). Coteaching social education: An oasis in

changing times. The Social Educator, 30(1), 15-22. Book chapter Willis, L.-D., & Ritchie, S. M. (2010). Parents as coteachers of science and

technology in a middle-school classroom. In C. Murphy, & K. Scantlebury (Eds.), Coteaching in international contexts: Research and practice (pp. 281-302). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Refereed conference papers Willis, L.-D. (2010). Engaging parents in STEM: Coteaching and cogenerative

dialoguing in a Queensland High School. In Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) in Education International Conference: Advancing education through STEM, 26-27 November 2010, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Willis, L.-D. (2009). A multiliteracies project in the middle school: Parents as

coteachers. In Australia Association for the Teaching of English and Australian Literacy Educators’ Association (AATE/ALEA) National Conference: Bridging divides: Ensuring access, equity, and quality in literacy and English education, 9-12 July 2009, Wrest Point Conference Centre, Hobart, Australia.

Professional journals Willis, L.-D., & Menzie, K. (2013). A practical approach to developing the general

capabilities in middle-years English. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years. (July, in-press).

ii Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach

Keywords

agency|passivity, agency|structure, capitals, cogenerative dialoguing,

coteaching, dialectic, engagement, fields, habitus, individual|collective,

margin|centre, parents, parent-teacher relationships, secondary school

Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach iii

Abstract

The accumulated evidence from more than four decades of education

research strongly suggests that parent involvement in schools carries significant

benefits for students as well as for the success of schools (e.g., Henderson & Mapp,

2002). Governments in Australia and overseas have supported parent involvement in

schools with a range of initiatives while parent groups have indicated a strong desire

for expanded school roles that include participation in formal educational processes

namely curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. Research has also signalled the need

for teachers to engage parents rather than adopt traditional parent-school

involvement practices so that parents can participate as joint educators in their

children’s schooling alongside teachers (Pushor, 2001). Actually improving the

quality of contact and relationships between parents and teachers to enable

engagement however remains problematic.

Coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing originally emerged as an innovative

approach in the context of teaching secondary school science. Coteaching brings

together the collective expertise of several individuals to expand learning

opportunities for students while cogenerative dialogues refer to sessions in which

participants talk, listen, and learn from one another about the process (Roth & Tobin,

2002a). Coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing reportedly benefits students

academically and socially while rewarding educators professionally and emotionally

through the support and collaboration they receive from fellow coteachers. These

benefits ensue because coteaching theoretically positions teachers at one another’s

elbows, providing new and different understandings about teaching based on first-

hand perspectives and shared goals for assisting students to learn. This thesis

proposes that coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing may provide a vehicle for

improving quality of contact and relationships between parents and teachers.

To investigate coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing as a parent-teacher

engagement mechanism, interpretive ethnographic case study research was

conducted involving two parents and a secondary school teacher. Sociological ideas,

namely Bourdieu’s (1977) fields, habitus, and capitals, together with multiple

dialectical concepts such as agency|structure (Sewell, 1992) and agency|passivity

iv Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach

(Roth, 2007b, 2010) were assembled into a conceptual framework to examine parent-

teacher relationships by describing and explaining cultural production and identity

construction throughout the case study. Video and audio recordings of cogenerative

dialogues and cotaught lessons comprised the chief data sources. Data were analysed

using qualitative techniques such as discourse and conversation analysis to identify

patterns and contradictions (Roth & Tobin, 2002a). The use of quality criteria

detailed by Guba and Lincoln (2005) gives credence to the way in which ethical

considerations infused the planning and conduct of this research.

From the processes of data collection and analyses, three broad assertions

were proffered. The findings highlight the significance of using multiple coordinated

dialectical concepts for analysing the affordances and challenges of coteaching and

cogenerative dialogues that include parents and teachers. Adopting the principles and

purposes of coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing promoted trusting respectful

relationships that generated an equitable culture. The simultaneous processes and

tensions between logistics and ethics (i.e., the logistics|ethics dialectic) were

proposed as a new way to conceptualise how power was redistributed among the

participants. Knowledge of positive emotional energy and ongoing capital exchange

conceived dialectically as the reciprocal interaction among cultural, social, and

symbolic capitals (i.e., the dialectical relationship of cultural|social|symbolic capital)

showed how coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing facilitated mutual

understandings, joint decision-making, and group solidarity. The notion of passivity

as the dialectical partner of agency explained how traditional roles and

responsibilities were reconfigured and individual and collective agency expanded.

Complexities that surfaced when implementing the coteaching and cogenerative

dialoguing approach were outweighed by the multiple benefits that accrued for all

involved. These benefits included the development of community-relevant and

culturally-significant curricula that increased student agency and learning outcomes,

heightened parent self-efficacy for participating in and contributing to formal

educational processes, and enhanced teacher professionalism.

This case study contributes to existing theory, knowledge and practice, and

methodology in the research areas of parent-teacher relationships, specifically in

secondary schools, and coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing. The study is

particularly relevant given the challenges schools and teachers increasingly face to

Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach v

meaningfully connect with parents to better meet the needs of educational

stakeholders in times of continual, complex, and rapid societal change.

vi Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach

Table of Contents

Publications .............................................................................................................................................. i

Keywords ................................................................................................................................................ ii

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................. iii

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... vi

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ ix

List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. x Glossary ................................................................................................................................................. xi

Statement of Original Authorship ..................................................................................................... xviii

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. xix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Chapter introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Background .................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Overviewing parent involvement in schools ................................................................................ 3

1.3.1 Parent voices ..................................................................................................................... 4 1.3.2 Government initiatives ..................................................................................................... 6 1.3.3 Changes in parent involvement ........................................................................................ 7

1.4 Justifying the research ............................................................................................................... 10 1.4.1 Traditional parent-school involvement ........................................................................... 10 1.4.2 Parent-school participation ............................................................................................. 11 1.4.3 Parent-school engagement .............................................................................................. 12

1.5 Research problem ...................................................................................................................... 15

1.6 Coteaching and cogenerative dialogues ..................................................................................... 15

1.7 Research aims and overview ...................................................................................................... 16 1.8 Thesis format ............................................................................................................................. 18

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 21 2.1 Chapter introduction .................................................................................................................. 21

2.2 Parent-teacher engagement ventures .......................................................................................... 21 2.2.1 The Reggio Emilia experience........................................................................................ 22 2.2.2 Parent networks and influence ........................................................................................ 24 2.2.3 Engaging community and teachers ................................................................................. 25 2.2.4 Canadian initiatives ........................................................................................................ 27 2.2.5 The Australian agenda .................................................................................................... 29

2.3 Genesis and development of coteaching and cogenerative dialogues ........................................ 31

2.4 Studies of coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing ................................................................... 35 2.4.1 Early developments ........................................................................................................ 36 2.4.2 Pairing experts and novices ............................................................................................ 40 2.4.3 Benefits for stakeholders ................................................................................................ 42 2.4.4 Expanded roles for student participants .......................................................................... 43 2.4.5 Involving primary school students in cogenerative dialogues ........................................ 45

2.5 Logistical and ethical dimensions .............................................................................................. 48 2.6 Chapter summary and implications for my study ...................................................................... 54

CHAPTER 3: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................. 57

Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach vii

3.1 Chapter introduction .................................................................................................................. 57

3.2 Culture ....................................................................................................................................... 57 3.3 Fields, habitus, and capitals ....................................................................................................... 60

3.4 Agency|structure dialectic .......................................................................................................... 68 3.4.1 Power .............................................................................................................................. 70 3.4.2 Agency|passivity dialectic .............................................................................................. 71

3.5 Identity and the individual|collective dialectic ........................................................................... 73

3.6 Conceptual framework ............................................................................................................... 77 3.7 Research review and questions for investigation ....................................................................... 78

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES ......................................................... 81 4.1 Chapter introduction .................................................................................................................. 81

4.2 Interpretive ethnographic case study research ........................................................................... 81

4.3 Research site .............................................................................................................................. 84 4.3.1 Participant selection ........................................................................................................ 86 4.3.2 Participant descriptions ................................................................................................... 88

4.4 Data collection and management ............................................................................................... 92

4.5 Data analysis .............................................................................................................................. 96 4.5.1 Generating final assertions.............................................................................................. 99 4.5.2 Data representation ....................................................................................................... 103

4.6 Ethical considerations .............................................................................................................. 105 4.7 Chapter summary ..................................................................................................................... 107

CHAPTER 5: REDISTRIBUTING POWER ................................................................................ 109 5.1 Chapter introduction ................................................................................................................ 109

5.2 Changing habitus ..................................................................................................................... 110

5.3 When fields intersect ................................................................................................................ 117 5.3.1 Ethical quandaries: complexities of enhancing parent agency...................................... 127 5.3.2 From control “over” to collaboration “with” the parents .............................................. 131

5.4 Reconfiguring the classroom field ........................................................................................... 137

5.5 New theoretical insights: logistics and ethics .......................................................................... 146

5.6 Chapter summary and conclusions........................................................................................... 148

CHAPTER 6: ALIGNING CAPITALS .......................................................................................... 151 6.1 Chapter introduction ................................................................................................................ 151

6.2 [Re]mobilising the parents’ resources ...................................................................................... 152

6.3 Ruth positioned centrally to and in the classroom field ........................................................... 159

6.4 Dale: constructing a new identity ............................................................................................. 167 6.4.1 Cogenerated plans: cultural production ........................................................................ 175 6.4.2 Balancing opportunities and challenges........................................................................ 180

6.5 New theoretical insights: capital exchange .............................................................................. 182

6.6 Chapter summary and conclusions........................................................................................... 184

CHAPTER 7: MANOEUVRING COLLECTIVELY ................................................................... 187 7.1 Chapter introduction ................................................................................................................ 187

7.2 Shifting roles and responsibilities ............................................................................................ 188 7.2.1 Developing community-relevant and culturally-significant curricula .......................... 195 7.2.2 Scaffolding to enhance agency ..................................................................................... 198

viii Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach

7.3 Becoming knowledge producers .............................................................................................. 200

7.4 Moving from idea(l) to reality ................................................................................................. 206 7.5 Changes in teacher identity ...................................................................................................... 210

7.6 New theoretical insights: the role of passivity ......................................................................... 217

7.7 Chapter summary and conclusions .......................................................................................... 218

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 221 8.1 Chapter introduction ................................................................................................................ 221

8.2 Findings and conclusions ......................................................................................................... 221 8.3 Significance and contributions of this research ....................................................................... 227

8.4 Limitations of this research ...................................................................................................... 232

8.5 Suggestions for future investigations ....................................................................................... 233

8.6 Conclusions and reflections ..................................................................................................... 235

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 237

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 253 Appendix A Heuristics for productive coteaching ................................................................... 253 Appendix B Heuristics for productive cogenerative dialogue sessions ................................... 254 Appendix C Interview 1: Protocol for parents at beginning of study ...................................... 255 Appendix D Interview 1: Protocol for cooperating teacher at beginning of study................... 256 Appendix E Interview 2: Protocol for parents at end of study ................................................. 257 Appendix F Interview 2: Protocol for cooperating teacher at end of study ............................. 259 Appendix G Student questionnaire conducted at end of study ................................................ 260 Appendix H Master list of audio, video, and transcript data (sample) ..................................... 262 Appendix I Transcript analysis of raw data sample ................................................................. 265 Appendix J Transcription conventions and descriptions.......................................................... 270 Appendix K Letter of introduction .......................................................................................... 271 Appendix L Follow-up letter to students’ parents after parent evening ................................... 272 Appendix M Consent form (parent/caregiver and student participant) .................................... 273 Appendix N Consent form (cooperating teacher and parent participants) ............................... 277 Appendix O Detailed study timeline ........................................................................................ 281 Appendix P Curriculum overview for the War and Refugees unit .......................................... 284 Appendix Q Example of War and Refugees assessment task .................................................. 285

Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach ix

List of Figures

Figure 3.1. A multi-dialectic conceptual framework ............................................................................ 77

Figure 4.1. Spiral depiction of data analysis processes ......................................................................... 97

Figure 4.2. Outline for representing the analytical process for deriving final assertions .................... 102

Figure 4.3. Representing the data in this thesis ................................................................................... 103

Figure 4.4. Case synopsis ................................................................................................................... 104

Figure 5.1. Reconceptualising the distribution of power in parent-teacher relationships ................... 147 Figure 5.2. Representation of analytical process for generating Assertion 1 ...................................... 149

Figure 6.1. Revised conceptual framework ........................................................................................ 184

Figure 6.2. Representing the analytical process for generating Assertion 2 ....................................... 185

Figure 7.1. Representing the analytical process for generating Assertion 3 ....................................... 219

Figure 8.1. Original conceptual framework ........................................................................................ 221

Figure 8.2. Reconceptualising the distribution of power in parent-teacher relationships ................... 224 Figure 8.3. Revised conceptual framework ........................................................................................ 225

x Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach

List of Abbreviations

ACSSO Australian Council of State School Organisations

APC Australian Parents’ Council

HoD Head of Department

ICTs Information Communication Technologies

MCEETYA Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training, and Youth

Affairs

MP Member of Parliament

NGO Non-Government Organisation

NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council

P & C Parents and Citizens Association

QUT Queensland University of Technology

SoSE Study of Society and the Environment

ZPD Zone of Proximal Development

Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach xi

Glossary

Agency denotes an individual’s capacity or power to act. The actual form and extent

of an individual’s agency depends upon the specific range of cultural

schemas and resources (i.e., structures) available in the field in which they

may be operating (Sewell, 1992).

An assertion constitutes a form of generalisation (Erickson, 1986) based on patterns

of coherence (i.e., consistencies) in the data (Tobin, 2006b).

Assessment refers to that which constitutes valid realisation of knowledge on the

part of students in schools (Bernstein, 2003).

Authenticity refers to criteria used in sociological research that reflect a

commitment to ontological, educative, catalytic, and tactical dimensions.

Authentic research focuses on ways to encourage learning by participants

including self learning, learning about others, and the research process itself

(Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Stith, 2007).

Capitals refer to an individual’s knowledge of schemas and practices within certain

fields. Various forms of capital exist including cultural and social. An

additional form that each of these can assume is symbolic (Bourdieu, 1977).

Bourdieu’s conceptualisation of capitals borrows from the notion of

economic capital hence each form possesses certain exchange value within a

given field.

Cogenerative dialoguing describes those times following a cotaught lesson when

participants critically discuss the teaching and learning process in which

they have just participated (Roth & Tobin, 2002a). During these forums,

participants talk, listen, and learn from one another across boundaries such

as age, gender, ethnicity, religion, social class, profession, or educational

background (LaVan, 2004).

Contradictions occur during cultural enactment as inconsistencies in patterns of

schemas and practices that exist dialectically with patterns of coherence

(i.e., consistencies) (Tobin, 2006b).

xii Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach

A conventional curriculum orientation refers to a set of knowledge and skills that

has been prescribed for students to learn and anticipates the use of

traditional directive pedagogy by teachers (Kemmis, Cole, & Suggett,

1983).

Corespect describes the mutual respect among coteachers that fosters

communication, values each individual’s contributions, and creates an

environment for sharing and generating new ideas as well as openness to

constructive criticism (Murphy & Scantlebury, 2010).

Coresponsibility denotes how coteachers share responsibility for all aspects of

teaching and student learning (Tobin & Roth, 2006).

Coteaching is when two or more individuals teach a group of students

collaboratively across all aspects of teaching including planning, enactment,

reflection, and assessment. Its original purpose was for individuals to learn

how to teach or to improve their existing teaching while providing students

with more learning opportunities than they could as single practitioners

(Roth & Tobin, 2002a).

A critical curriculum orientation views education as a means for improving society

through collective rather than individual action (Kemmis, Cole, & Suggett,

1983). Teachers are encouraged to adopt approaches that position them as

learners alongside their students in the classroom community whereby

together they identify unjust or unsustainable values and practices, propose

alternatives, and instigate appropriate action to realise those alternatives

(Hoepper & McDonald, 2004).

Cultural capital encompasses the knowledge, skills, dispositions, uses of language,

and other conscious and unconscious attributes that can either help or hinder

people in achieving their respective goals (Bourdieu, 1977; Olitsky, 2005).

Culture describes the dialectic relationship between systems of symbols and

meanings, and systems of practices (i.e., symbols|practices) whereby certain

cultural patterns are supported resulting in cultural reproduction while

others are not, leading to cultural production or transformation (Sewell,

1999a, 1999b).

Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach xiii

Curriculum denotes that which constitutes valid knowledge with respect to formal

learning in schools (Bernstein, 2003).

Curriculum orientation refers to the underlying assumptions and beliefs about

education as manifested in the processes and practices of schools, explicitly

and implicitly (Kemmis, Cole, & Suggett, 1983). Different curriculum

orientations include conservative, liberal, and critical.

Dialectic denotes two or more theoretical concepts that mutually exclude and

mutually presuppose each other (Roth, 2005a). In the agency|structure

dialectic, for example, agency and structure are inseparable since

individuals’ actions take meaningful form through their surrounding

structures while structures are reproduced and transformed through the

actions of individuals (cf. Sewell, 1992). Agency|structure therefore

represents a single identity comprised of two non-identical entities, agency

and structure (Roth & Tobin, 2002a).

Disposition describes an individual’s tendency to think, speak, and act in certain

ways (Bourdieu, 1990).

Emotions describe the affective states that individuals experience and express

(Turner, 2011).

Emotional energy constitutes one force in an encounter that is conceptualised as

either positivity or negatively valenced (Turner, 2002). When an individual

experiences positive emotional energy they display feelings of confidence,

elation, strength, enthusiasm, and initiative in action-taking whereas

negative emotional energy is linked to fear, frustration, disappointment,

disinterest, and anger (Collins, 2004).

Encounters refer to the dialectical relationship between interactions and associated

transactions that manifest during any one occasion when a group of

individuals are in one another’s continuous presence (cf. Goffman, 1959).

Encounters are therefore conceived as a form of cultural enactment: as

culture is produced (reproduced and transformed) some patterns are

supported and enacted while others are not (i.e., contradictions occur) (Pitts,

2007; Tobin, 2006b).

xiv Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach

Ethics of responsibility refers to the inherent responsibility individuals have to and

for one another in the world – a responsibility that links everyone together

and is interwoven throughout the social networks associated with schooling

(Roth, 2007a; Stith & Roth, 2008).

Fields describe structured social spaces in which culture is enacted (Bourdieu, 1977).

Habitus describes a system of durable and transposable dispositions that an

individual develops in response to the different fields that they encounter

(Bourdieu, 1977).

Hermeneutic phenomenology may be thought of simply in terms of

phenomenology which asks: “What is happening for an individual?” and

hermeneutics which ask: “Why is this happening?” (Siry, 2009, p. 19).

Hermeneutic phenomenology therefore represents a method for

contemplating how the same physical setting and shared environment can be

perceived differently by one individual to the next (cf. Roth, 2005a).

Huddles resemble miniature informal cogenerative dialogues involving coteachers

and/or students that are deployed in real time to touch base, fine tune, or

reflect on lessons (Tobin, 2006a; Tobin, Zurbano, Ford, & Carambo, 2003).

Identity describes who an individual says they are to others as well as to themselves

but is also inscribed on an individual by other participants in their

community and how they view their status (Tobin, 2009b). An individual’s

identity is thus mediated by the sociocultural situation in which an activity

takes place and the ways in which an individual perceives they can use their

capitals to mobilise their agency (Kress, 2006).

Individual|collective dialectic refers to the recursive relationship that exists between

an individual and their community such that when an individual contributes

to the development of the community they indirectly contribute to their own

learning and development processes, continually (Roth & Tobin, 2002a).

Interactions describe the reciprocal influence of individuals upon one another’s

actions when in one another’s immediate physical presence (cf. Goffman,

1959). Interactions therefore coexist and presuppose transactions such that

the two may be conceived dialectically (i.e., interactions|transactions) (Pitts,

2007).

Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach xv

A learning community is one in which participants learn from one another in order

to work toward mutual goals based on their shared understandings of the

teaching and learning environment (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Legitimate peripheral participation concerns the process whereby newcomers

move from watching or performing a task peripherally toward full

participation in a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Margin|centre dialectic can explain how the actions of individuals in social settings

are transformed since, when conceived of dialectically, it is possible to think

of being centred (experience) in the margin (practice) (Goulart & Roth,

2006).

The message systems comprise curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment through

which formal education is considered to be actualised (Bernstein, 2003).

Micro, meso, and macro are three recursively-related levels used in sociology as

heuristics for analysing social life where macro refers to social structures,

meso to organisations and institutions, and micro to concrete actions,

interactions, and transactions (Tobin, 2005).

Misrecognition is a Bourdieusian term that describes the unconscious acceptance of

people’s roles within society rather than the view that society has produced

such roles by actively positioning individuals in certain ways (Bourdieu &

Wacquant, 1992).

Multi-dialectic framework describes the framework used in this thesis to represent

different dialectical paired concepts.

Parent refers to a student’s biological parent or grandparent, guardian, caregiver, or

other stakeholder with primary responsibility for a child’s well-being.

Parent-teacher engagement refers to schools and teachers adopting a proactive

rather than reactive approach to enable parents to participate in and

contribute to their children’s learning together with teachers and other

educators for the benefit of all stakeholders (Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005b).

Parent-school participation usually denotes the decision-making roles parents may

play in schools such as sitting on a school council (McConchie, 2004).

xvi Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach

Passivity is a concept for conceiving the way individuals learn by unconsciously

opening themselves to being impressed by something that others say or do

that they cannot anticipate. Passivity is considered to operate dialectically

with agency (i.e., agency|passivity) (Roth, 2007b).

Pedagogy connotes that which constitutes valid transmission of knowledge in

relation to formal learning in schools (Bernstein, 2003).

Power constitutes the ability of individuals to exercise agency and appropriate the

resources of a field (Kemper & Collins, 1990). Power may therefore be a

force that is positive (i.e., power to, for, or with) or negative (i.e., power

over or against) among players in educational relationships.

Resources incorporate material and human elements. Material resources comprise

objects, animate and inanimate, naturally occurring or manufactured while

human resources include the characteristics of individuals such as

knowledge, commitment, or physical strength (Sewell, 1992).

Rituals represent forms of cultural enactment used by individuals to speak, act, and

respond to others during encounters. Rituals perform certain structuring

roles such as opening, closing, ordering, and repairing the flow of

interactions in a situation (Turner, 2002).

Schemas include social rules or attitudes, values, and beliefs that afford or constrain

an individual’s actions in certain environments (Sewell, 1992). Turn-taking

during conversations or hand-raising by students are examples of schemas

that structure the social spaces of cogenerative dialogues and classrooms

respectively.

Social capital refers to the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, available to an

individual or community by virtue of constructing durable networks of

relationships with others of mutual acquaintance and recognition (Bourdieu

& Wacquant, 1992).

Solidarity describes when individuals experience feelings of belonging, allegiance,

and affiliation to a group (Siry, 2009).

Spielraum refers to a teacher’s pedagogical manoeuvrability for speaking and acting

with a sense of what is appropriate in the moment. Beginning teachers are

Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach xvii

considered to have less Spielraum than experienced practitioners (Roth &

Tobin, 2002a).

Structures may be conceived as the dialectical relationship between resources that

are actual and schemas that are virtual (i.e., resources|schema) (Sewell,

1992).

Symbolic capital refers to the status of an individual or object as recognised and

respected by others within a particular culture (Bourdieu & Wacquant,

1992).

Traditional parent-school involvement describes conventional uni-directional

relationships between parents and schools where family resources such as

time, energy, money, and expertise flow directly or indirectly into the

school for the purpose of supporting its curriculum, program, and activities

(Lueder, 2000).

Transactions cannot be thought about separately from interactions (i.e., interactions

and transactions are dialectically entwined: interactions|transactions).

During encounters, culture is enacted as individuals interact and also

transact by appropriating resources that become available (Pitts, 2007).

Zone of proximal development is a concept used to explain how social and

participatory learning occurs. It refers metaphorically to the distance

between an individual’s actual developmental level and the level of

potential development as made possible with guidance from, or in

collaboration with, more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978).

xviii Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the

best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature: _________________________

Date: 4 June 2013

Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach xix

Acknowledgements

It is a great pleasure to thank those people who contributed to the successful

completion of this thesis. Sincere thanks go to my supervisors for their knowledge

and guidance. To Associate Professor Jim Watters, I especially appreciated your

experience and leadership. Like a metaphorical gyroscope you provided stability and

direction to pilot me to the finish line. To Dr Beryl Exley, I particularly acknowledge

your careful attention to detail and intellectual rigour for helping me shape and

improve the quality of this thesis. To Professor Stephen Ritchie, I am grateful to you

for introducing me to the phenomenon of coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing.

I also acknowledge the financial, academic, and technical support of the

Queensland University of Technology (QUT). In particular, I appreciate an

Australian Postgraduate Award plus stipend that provided necessary financial

assistance for two years of my candidature. A writing retreat, library sessions, and

the Writing for Publication Group were among the learning experiences from which

I benefitted at QUT. My supervisory team, especially Beryl, provided or

recommended me for multiple tutoring or lecturing opportunities for which I am also

grateful. To the academic panel, thank you for supplying useful and constructive

feedback on this thesis at my final oral seminar at QUT in October 2012.

To my academic colleagues at QUT and The University of Queensland, thank

you for your interest and encouragement. To other colleagues across Australia and

overseas, I appreciated feedback on papers presented at various conferences. I

specifically benefitted from advice and suggestions from talking with Professor

Kenneth Tobin and in response to philosophical questions via e-mail with Professor

Wolff-Michael Roth.

I am truly indebted to those known in this thesis as John (cooperating teacher)

and Dale and Ruth (parents). Your participation not only ensured this research was

possible but successful. You have my abiding respect and thankfulness for the time,

energy, and care you freely gave to extend knowledge and understanding about

coteaching and student learning.

xx Parent-Teacher Engagement: A Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing Approach

I further thank the school community, in particular, the Principal, whose

professional leadership ensured this research materialised. As well, thanks to the

school’s Deputy Principals, Heads of Department, and friendly administration staff.

To the students in John’s class, your participation was invaluable, and to all the

students’ parents, your continued, enthusiastic support was humbly received. To the

pre-service teacher whom I call Nada, your positive contributions were appreciated.

I am obliged to many of my friends and colleagues who shared and

encouraged me during my higher degree research journey. To Nancy, a member of

my original cohort, I prize our special relationship. As my sounding board in

cyberspace, your wise counsel helped me navigate challenging times with dignity

and strength. To Lisette, Katy, and Carly, without your friendship and understanding,

I would be much poorer. I also thank Karena, your unflagging support has meant the

world to me. To Alex, your practical help with proof-reading and editing was

exceptional. Our discussions about my research always inspired and motivated me,

particularly when I needed it most.

Finally, the possibility of this thesis relied on the support and encouragement

I received from personal friends, past teaching partners, and family including my

parents, parents in-law, and extended members. Thank you all. I particularly wish to

acknowledge my late grandparents, William and Linda McKinlay, whose lives were

spent fighting for social justice for disadvantaged Australians. They imprinted on me

the value of a good education. In completing this thesis, I honour them and their

work. To those dearest to me, my daughter and son in-law, Rachel and Nathan, thank

you for your prayers and unconditional love. I also appreciated your expert technical

assistance with many different aspects of this thesis. To my son, Brock, your

sacrifices over this past year are testament to your remarkable strength of character

and love. I look forward to being your, “Dr Mum”. To my youngest son, Anthony,

your musical genius is tempered by tremendous self-awareness. As I wrote this

thesis, I was entertained as well as sustained by your thoughtfulness and care. To

Don, my husband and best friend, I credit your steadfast support for the successful

completion of this thesis. Thank you for countless hours spent discussing and proof-

reading my work. I am richly blessed by your perfect love.

To the Author and Finisher of Faith, in whom dwells Life, Light, and Love, I

am truly grateful for answered prayer: this thesis. Amen.

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION

Bastiani (2000), a British consultant on parent1-school and community

matters whose work is nationally and internationally recognised, writes:

Clear, consistent, and cumulative evidence about the contribution of parents to

children’s school behaviour, attitudes, and academic achievement also carries

clear messages that apply to all schools and all teachers. This applies not only

to the coordination of collective efforts at the level of whole-school policy and

approach, but also to the quality of contact and relationship between

individual members of staff and the families of the children they teach. (p. 35)

The message from Bastiani is clear: the value of parents’ contributions to students’

learning is substantiated by a wealth of research evidence. Although such findings

carry significant ramifications for school administrators, policy-makers, teachers,

parents, and students, it is also apparent that the benefits of such contributions can

only be reaped if all educational players give more attention to growing quality

contact and relationships between teachers and families. What is not clear in

Bastiani’s statement is how such contact and relationships may be actualised.

This thesis responds to the inherent challenge in Bastiani’s (2000) declaration

by documenting a recent coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing intervention

undertaken in an Australian secondary school. Coteaching and cogenerative

dialoguing is a way of improving students’ learning by providing teachers with

opportunities to share their different understandings and insights about how to

develop better teaching practices (Roth & Tobin, 2002a). Simply stated, coteaching

describes when two or more individuals collaboratively plan, enact, and assess

1 The term, “parent” refers to a student’s biological parent or grandparent, guardian, caregiver, or other stakeholder with primary responsibility for a student’s well-being. At times I use the terms, “family” or “community” to reflect the ways in which parents may be understood and are represented in the relevant research literature (e.g., Constantino, 2003; Henderson & Mapp, 2002).

2 Chapter 1: Introduction

teaching and learning with an emphasis on learning from one another. Cogenerative

dialogues refer to sessions in which participants talk, listen, and learn to value each

other’s reflections on the affordances and challenges of coteaching for all involved in

the process (Roth & Tobin, 2002a). In this thesis, coteaching and cogenerative

dialoguing is considered as one rather than two separate fields (see Section 3.3).

Coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing typically involves teachers and pre-

service teachers but this thesis addresses a gap in the available research material by

investigating the kinds of relationships that developed between different educational

participants: two parents, Dale and Ruth, and a secondary school teacher, John.2 The

study’s contribution is to extend theory, knowledge and practice, and methodology of

coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing into a new research area, exploring ways the

phenomenon addresses power sharing, decision-making, and role delineation among

the participants.

This chapter contextualises the study by providing background information

about the involvement of parents in schools, incorporating my understanding of key

terms pertaining to parent-teacher relationships. Next the research problem is

delineated and the phenomenon of coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing is

introduced. The study’s aims, an overview of the investigation, and thesis outline

follow.

1.2 BACKGROUND

Parents and teachers are two groups of people with ostensibly much in

common. One area is their mutual concern about how to prepare the children in their

care for future life and work against the backdrop of an increasingly complex and

rapidly-changing world. My experiences first, as a parent, and second, as a teacher

with a career spanning three decades, were that parents and teachers usually tackled

this complex daunting mission separately. As a parent, I recognised the substantial

knowledge parents possessed about their children and their children’s lives. As a

primary and lower secondary school teacher, I recognised that parents’ knowledge of

their children, combined with their different experiences, skills, and general world

knowledge, represented a potentially underutilised resource for classroom learning.

2 All names are pseudonyms.


During my teaching, I became comfortable with actively cultivating positive

relationships with parents. My strategies included practices commensurate with those

recommended by the Australian Scholarships Group and National Excellence in

Teaching Awards (2008) such as welcoming open and frank discussions with parents

about their children whenever possible, providing frequent opportunities for parent

participation in classroom activities and events, and clearly and regularly

communicating information with parents about classroom happenings and the

curriculum. Although moderated by the different school settings in which I worked, I

also adopted approaches beyond those conventionally used by teachers namely

organising open nights and social barbeques, liaising with parent representatives,

establishing alternative communication lines when face-to-face meetings were

precluded (e.g., using e-mail), and inviting parents as guest speakers and visitors to

the classroom. These measures helped facilitate harmonious working relationships

between me and the parents of my students while simultaneously furthering

curriculum goals for student learning.

Yet, intuitively I sensed even closer parent-teacher ties were possible,

especially in the upper primary and lower secondary school years (i.e., students aged

from nine to 14). Subsequently, I have considered that my disposition stemmed

partly from being unable to activate the potential of parents’ resources in any

consistent sustained fashion. Another reason was that my efforts conferred only some

of the reported benefits on stakeholders of individuals and/or groups, such as

teachers and parents, working closely together (e.g., Pushor, 2001, 2007; Pushor &

Murphy, 2004). Ways to cultivate productive relationships between parents and

teachers thus provided the genesis for this investigation.

1.3 OVERVIEWING PARENT INVOLVEMENT IN SCHOOLS

For over forty years, finding ways to enhance meaningful parent involvement

in schools has occupied governments, educators, and parent organisations across the

world including the United States of America, United Kingdom, Scotland,

Australasia, continental Europe, and Scandinavia (Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003).

Behind this trend has been the weight of research evidence that strongly and

consistently correlates parent involvement in student learning with benefits for

students academically, socially, and emotionally (e.g., Henderson & Mapp, 2002).

Mapp (2004) reports that such benefits are not restricted to students in primary


schools since parent involvement also has positive effects on the education of

secondary school students. Research also supports the case that high levels of parent

and community involvement correlate positively with high-performing schools

(Jesse, Davis, & Pokorny, 2004). These schools are distinguished by higher rates of

student achievement and success irrespective of factors such as students’ gender,

socio-economic class, ethnic background, stage of schooling, or parents’ education

levels (Davis, 2000; Jeynes, 2005). Given the well-documented dividends of parent

involvement, it would seem controversial not to encourage meaningful relationships

between parents and schools (McConchie, 2004).

1.3.1 Parent voices

Parent organisations are increasingly placing governments under pressure for

more involvement in schools. One argument concerns the logic of involving parents

in schools since children are first taught, and most influenced, by their parents

(Wolfendale, 1992). Another argument is that parents are more than “interested third

parties” when it comes to their children’s education (Cuttance & Stokes, 2000, p.

59). Cuttance and Stokes explain that there are few aspects of a child’s schooling that

do not directly or indirectly affect parents. In launching research using the National

Family-School Partnerships Framework, the then Australian Commonwealth

Education Minister, Dr Brendan Nelson (2004) elaborated:

Parents are saying they want to work together with schools because by doing

so they can support their children’s learning. They want to work with teachers

to bring home and school experiences together. And they want to be involved

in the development of school policies and not just in supporting the delivery

of what the school has already developed. After all, while we all have an

interest in a highly-educated population, it is the parents who are of course

most concerned in seeing their child develop to his or her potential. (p. 1)

According to Nelson, expanding roles for parents in schools not only promotes the

interests of students but also parents, schools, communities, and governments.

Parents typically play auxiliary roles in schools that have been variously

categorised under such headings as volunteers, chaperones, organisers, fundraisers,

spectators, and audience members (Lueder, 2000; McGilp, 1991). Such terms


describe traditional parent-school involvement which is generally uni-directional,

with family resources such as time, energy, money, and expertise flowing directly or

indirectly into schools for the purpose of supporting their curricula, programs, and

activities (Lueder, 2000).

A comprehensive report on student and school achievement prepared for the

Australian Commonwealth Government by Cuttance and Stokes (2000) identifies

that parents want more opportunities to be consulted and to share in school decision-

making about how they are informed and what they are informed about. Of parents,

the report indicates: “they may not always be able to contribute, but they want

recognition of the fact that they have a role in school decision-making and that they,

not the school, are ultimately responsible for managing the education of their

children” (p. 6). However, the report notes that parents’ strongest need is to improve

their “knowledge of curriculum, learning programs, and teaching methodology” (p.

59). This knowledge is considered necessary so parents can reinforce at home what

their children are learning in school. Cuttance and Stokes explain:

Parents want schools to be approachable and to be positive and responsive to

their need for information. They want schools to understand the role of

parents as partners in the education of their children. For this reason they also

want teachers, both primary and secondary, to acknowledge that classroom

programs and teaching strategies are legitimate areas for parent interest. (p.

61)

Given the established centrality of parents to their children’s education, there is a

desire by some parent groups to play more than marginal roles in schools.

Canadian research by Pushor (2001) highlights the need to establish new

school spaces to enable parents to share in knowledge, voice, responsibility, and

decision-making alongside educators. She maintains that without these spaces it is

unlikely that parents will be able to contribute meaningfully to those aspects of their

children’s education to which they seek access, namely the message systems.

Bernstein (2003) considers that formal education is actualised through three

interrelated message systems: curriculum (knowledge that is valid), pedagogy (valid

transmission of knowledge), and assessment (valid realisation of this knowledge by


learners). Not all parents can or want to be involved in every way in schools (Baker,

1997). However, Cairney and Munsie (1992) assert that assuming “parents have only

a limited responsibility in relation to their children as learners” because “the school is

the site of the main game” is no longer tenable (p. 5). More recently, Muller and

Associates (2009) have reported that some Australian parents need “to participate

actively in the education of children and to contribute to the enrichment of the

education program” in real and substantive ways (p. 5). Hence, many parents

recognise the importance of actively contributing to their children’s education while

some want to expand their school roles and have signalled that the message systems

constitute legitimate areas for their significant participation.

1.3.2 Government initiatives

Research results that connect parent involvement and students’ success at

school have informed major government projects and reports. These include the

Coleman Report (1966) in the United States of America, the Plowden Report (1967)

in Britain, and the Karmel Report (1973) and Carrick Report (1989) in Australia.

Historically, the release of these reports coincided with a time when governments

began to view parents more as “customers” (Golby, 1989, p. 135) and “consumers”

of education (Reynolds, 1989, p. 168). Due to the prevailing economic, social, and

political conditions that characterised the late 1970s and beginning 1980s, the reports

provided a rationale and platform for governments to devolve certain educational

responsibilities and services to parents (Reynolds, 1989). Combined with pressure

from parent groups, these conditions led to governments actively supporting parent

involvement by way of legislation and policy development. Notable examples

included the United States of America, England, Canada, Australia, and its State of

Queensland where this thesis is situated.

In the United States of America, Parental Participation, was enunciated as

one of eight voluntary national education goals (Educational Programs that Work,

1995). It projected that: “By the year 2000, every school will promote partnerships

that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social,

emotional, and academic growth of children” (p. 1). States and districts consequently

set about developing policies to guide schools in establishing more systematic

connections with parents (Epstein, 1995). The Federal, No Child Left Behind Act

2001, stipulated that partnership programs with parents were mandatory for schools


to be eligible for, or to receive, ongoing government funding (United States

Department of Education, 2003).

In England, The Children’s Plan, aimed to put the needs and wishes of

families first (Department for Children, Schools, & Families, 2007). In order to raise

the educational achievement of the country, The Children’s Plan viewed parents’

roles as pivotal in their children’s school lives. In 2010, Australia’s Commonwealth

Government released the My School website as part of its Building the Education

Revolution (Australian Curriculum & Assessment & Reporting Authority, 2010). In

speaking about the reform, the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for

Education, Ms Julia Gillard (2010) stated: “This is about getting more information to

parents, empowering them in those conversations so they can be there with more

knowledge as a partner in their child’s education” (para. 20). She iterated that the

website will assist parents to make more informed choices about schools and

facilitate dialogue between parents and schools about how to improve the quality of

classroom learning.

Similar reforms and policy decisions have occurred in Queensland. In 2010,

the Queensland Government released its Education Green Paper entitled, A Flying

Start for Queensland Children (Department of Education & Training, 2010).

Students’ perceived flagging performance in national and international testing was a

primary antecedent to the Paper which invited public contributions on several

proposals to improve the State’s education system. Recruiting an “army” of

volunteers drawn from the pool of parents, grandparents, and members of the broader

community to improve early literacy levels was a major proposition (p. 13). It further

anticipated that “having a broad range of adults in classrooms showing children the

wonders of reading will make an important contribution” to the development and

well-being of all students (p. 13). A critical element of the proposed reforms

therefore was the probable contribution that parents and community members could

make in classrooms. Government initiatives in Australia and abroad have highlighted

the importance of parent involvement in schools as an issue of national and

international significance.

1.3.3 Changes in parent involvement

To promote such parent involvement, schools have employed various

strategies. These include traditional linear models whereby schools offered activities


and those parents disposed to participate received parent-training programs and

initiatives to enhance home-school links (Carreón, Drake, & Calabrese Barton, 2005;

Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003). Also tried were creative measures such as Drop in

for Coffee, part of the Scottish Government’s 1999 New Community Schools

initiative aimed at increasing social inclusivity for children and families via service

provisions funnelled through schools (Illsley & Redford, 2005). As well, a raft of

innovative outreach projects have been attempted including: “assigning parent

coordinators and family liaisons in schools, establishing homework hotlines,

providing childcare and transportation services, conducting home visits, holding

town meetings for parents to voice concerns, and supporting teacher-parent school

renewal teams” (in Calabrese Barton et al., 2001, p. 689).

Strategies adopted by Australian schools include particular practices related

to “text and talk” when interacting with parents (Keogh, 1999, p. 1). Schools’

promotional materials, for example, have incorporated catch-all phrases such as

parent-school partnership, community involvement, and family-school networks that

position parents as partners in their children’s education. As a consequence, the

following statement by Rowan (2009) is now representative of almost any Australian

school website: “Parents play a key role in the learning of their children. Here at

School X we are strongly supportive of parental involvement” (p. 13). However,

parent involvement can have one meaning for parents and another for schools as

highlighted by Rowan according to the words of one particular parent:

Oh yes I’ve worked out what parental participation means at this school. Get

your kids to school on time in their uniform with their homework done and a

lunchbox full of school approved food and all permission notes and

fundraising forms appropriately completed. Don’t ask any questions. Go

away. Come back on time, park in the designated areas, take the children,

supervise homework. Do it all again tomorrow. Buy us a present at

Christmas… (p. 13)

In the past, some Canadian parents have reportedly gone further, declaring

that while schools quickly trot out politically-correct platitudes about “parental

involvement” and “excellence” they are reluctant to translate them into practice

(Lewington & Orpwood, 1993, p. 6). Lewington and Orpwood concluded that


parents subsequently perceive contradictory messages from schools like: “We want

you involved. [But], if there is a problem, we don’t want you involved” (p. 6).

More recently, Pushor and Ruitenberg (2005a) similarly report on the strong

unconscious messages Canadian schools send to parents by way of signs, displays,

activities, and labelling of space (e.g., car parks) that position them in school

margins. Pushor and Ruitenberg conclude: “at best [schools] extend parents the

privileges of guests and at worst [they] treat them as unwelcome or bothersome

interlopers” (p. 2). In addition, in his report for the Family-School and Community

Partnerships Bureau in Australia, Holmes (2009) notes: “parents like to regard

themselves as partners in their children’s education but [are] uncertain about what

such partnerships entail, and how they can make their most effective contribution”

(p. 10). Recognising the importance of parent involvement in schools and actualising

effective participation therefore represents an ongoing challenge for schools as well

as parents.

A major response to government initiatives in countries such as Australia and

Canada has been a shift from parents playing traditional involvement roles such as

tuckshop volunteers to more decision-making roles associated with school

governance (Neilsen-Hewett & Coutts, 2009). Despite these advances, multiple

difficulties associated with the relocation of power have persisted for both parents

and schools (Marsh, 2004). Confronted with new educational policy, Crump (1997)

found that problems were exacerbated by a lack of game-readiness from all players.

Without the necessary preparation and/or training, parents experienced tension

between supporting their child’s school and having to critically reflect on those

aspects that could be improved (Crump, 1997). Challenges related to work demands

and lack of time (Harris & Goodall, 2008), various anxieties about venturing into the

school environment (Marsh, 2004), and feelings of frustration and even humiliation

when consulting with teachers (Power & Clark, 2000) constituted further

impediments for parents. However, “issues of authority and power deep-rooted and

often non-negotiable” meant that schools generally expected parents to support and

reinforce their perspectives and values without question (Crump, 1997, p. 42).

Indeed, one observer described structures established by legislation to promote

parent-school participation as tantamount to “toothless tigers” (Marsh, 2004, p. 190).

Cuttance and Stokes (2000) noted that while most schools afforded parents


opportunities to provide a measure of feedback on policy developments, parent

involvement in curriculum policies and teaching programs remained minimal.

Although government attempts to improve the involvement of parents in

schools are seen to be welcome, researchers such as Marsh (2004) and Cuttance and

Stokes (2000) suggest that these initiatives have not been enough to alter the

traditional asymmetry in power sharing, decision-making, and role delineation

between parents and schools. Enhanced parent roles have promised much yet without

crucial school restructuring that provides the educational spaces for parents such as

those discussed in this thesis, Pushor (2007) observes that most changes have

delivered little more than new ways to play the same old games.

1.4 JUSTIFYING THE RESEARCH

Missing within the relevant research literature are representative examples or

studies of the involvement of parents in schools where parents and teachers mutually

contribute and benefit from the educational relationship. The issue is clouded by a

lack of unanimity in education circles (Carreón et al., 2005; Lueder, 2000) and

within the relevant research literature (McCarthey, 2000) about what parent

involvement actually entails. This present research necessarily involves explicating

key terms that describe parent relationships with schools and teachers namely

traditional parent-school involvement, parent-school participation, and parent-school

engagement. My choice of these terms reflects their use throughout the relevant

literature (e.g., Ferlazzo & Hammond, 2009; McConchie, 2004; Muller &

Associates, 2009).

1.4.1 Traditional parent-school involvement

As indicated earlier, traditional parent-school involvement, describes the

ways parents typically participate in schools. Marsh (2004) defines involvement as:

“very limited opportunities whereby parents undertake activities that have been

designed and initiated by the school principal and staff” (p. 183). Beare’s (1993)

work informs several researchers’ unpacking of the meaning of the term (e.g.,

Beagley, 1996; Benson, 1999; Pushor, 2001; Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005b). He

points out that the word involvement is derived from the Latin involvere which

means “to roll into” (p. 207). It signals being “co-opted” or “drawn in” and implies

the involved individual is “brought into the act by another party”; they are “there by


invitation” (p. 207). Benson elaborates that involvement “implies wrapping up or

enveloping parents somehow into the system” (p. 48). By extension, it leads to the

kinds of invitations from schools to which parents react by participating in school-

sanctioned ways. For example, Pushor and Ruitenberg (2005b) note that: “parents

who are ‘involved’ serve the school’s agenda by doing the things educators ask or

expect them to do – volunteering at school, parenting in positive ways, and

supporting and assisting their children at home with their schoolwork” (p. 12). This

perspective aligns with Rowan’s (2009) earlier account (see Section 1.3.3).

Pushor (2001) adds that parent involvement perpetuates hierarchical school

structures, positioning educators as experts who hold professionally-trained ways of

knowing and assumes that parents’ knowledge is of lesser value – a deficit view.

Examples of parent involvement therefore maintain the power and authority of

educators and a consequent focus on what parents can do for schools not vice versa

(Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005b). Traditional parent-school involvement is thus more

about schools realising their intentioned outcomes for children and less on satisfying

parents’ hopes, dreams, or intentions for their children or any personal or family

goals they might hold (Pushor, 2001; Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005b).

1.4.2 Parent-school participation

In this thesis, parent-school participation, refers to active forms of parent-

school and community involvement, notably the decision-making roles parents can

play in schools. In Australia, these roles generally entail the representative kind such

as when parents sit on school councils, Parents and Citizens (P & C) associations,

and fund-raising committees (McConchie, 2004). School councils or their

counterparts (e.g., school boards, boards of trustees, school advisory councils, school

governing bodies) vary considerably from one education system to another (Beere &

Dempster, 1998) and in Australia’s case, among its States. Despite these variations,

structures to realise effective parent-school participation feature prominently on the

educational landscapes of not only Australia but other countries including the United

States of America, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Canada.

Compared with traditional parent-school involvement, parent-school

participation shifts parents’ focus from the well-being of their respective children

(Munn, 1993) to the policies and practices of the school as these affect its student

population generally (Golby, 1993). Parent participation allows parents more


opportunities “to take part in” the running of schools and carries stronger

connotations for an individual than traditional parent-school involvement because it

speaks to their right to be included (Beare, 1993, p. 207). As such, it represents an

attempt to bring parents in from the sidelines to work more alongside educators

(Pushor, 2001). However, whether schools in practice can match the intent of such

participation depends on how they regard the role of parents in the decision-making

process. According to Beare, the critical question is whether parents’ roles are seen

as central in and to the process, or as politically expedient and functional.

As noted previously, researchers such as Crump (1997) and Marsh (2004)

have voiced disquiet about the benefits of parent-school participation. In 1993,

Martin wrote: “the appearance of reform in parental participation... is not necessarily

what it seems... [since] parents in reality have no greater voice than they formerly

had” (in Benson, 1999, p. 37). Eight years later, Boylan and Bittar (2001) observed

that decision-making by parents remained predominantly administrative rather than

curriculum-related and tended to support decisions schools had already made. More

recently, Shatkin and Gershberg (2007) continued to question whether parent-school

participation improves curriculum and instruction. One explanation by Vyverman

and Vettenburg (2009) is that since children are viewed as outside the parent-school

relationship, they simply experience the consequences of parent-school participation.

On this point, Bastiani (1993) had observed that the notion of participation which

strengthened parents’ roles while subsequently improving school management,

without reaping benefits for students such as enhanced learning outcomes, was

educationally flawed. Although parent-school participation measures may enable

parents to contribute differently in schools, these limit involvement to peripheral

school matters rather than on what Beare (1989) described as “the essential stuff of

schooling” (p. 35), that is, the message systems.

1.4.3 Parent-school engagement

A beneficial way to conceive of parent involvement in schools is as parent-

school engagement.3 The literal translation of engagement is “to make a pledge” as

derived from en – “to make” and gage – “pledge” (Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005b, p.

3 The term, “engagement” is preferred in this thesis to “partnership” because its definition can be utilised more readily according to the benefits aligned with parents as coteachers in schools.


12). Dictionary definitions of pledge include: “a moral commitment” (Pushor &

Ruitenberg, 2005b, p. 12). Engagement also denotes, “contact by fitting together;

…the meshing of gears” (Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005b, p. 13). Like gears that enable

a car to run, an engaged individual is “integral” and “essential” to the educational

process (Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005b, p. 13). Pushor and Ruitenberg argue that

engaged parents are enabled to work side-by-side with schools and teachers in their

children’s education systems, “fitting together their knowledge of children, of

teaching and learning, with teachers’ knowledge” (p. 13). They theorise that: “with

parent engagement, possibilities are created for the structure of schooling to be

flattened, power and authority to be shared by educators and parents, and the agenda

being served to be mutually determined and mutually beneficial” (p. 13).

Drawing on its literal definition, parent engagement in schools predisposes

educators and parents to think and act in mutually beneficial ways because the

relationship is underwritten by a moral commitment. Further, such engagement shifts

the premise for including parents in schools from one of convenience or usefulness to

viewing their involvement as integral and essential because they are “so much a part

of the action that it is impossible to exclude them” (Beare in Pushor, 2001, p. 131).

Parent-school engagement therefore allows parents to become “a presence” whereby

they come to feel “part of the fabric of the school” (Calabrese Barton, Drake, Perez,

St. Louis, & George, 2004, p. 7). Accordingly, when schools and teachers seek to

engage parents they are adopting a proactive rather than reactive approach.

Calabrese Barton et al. describe re-actions as the “kinds of actions [that] position

parents as receivers of school structures rather than framers, and show only how

parents fit into an already pre-conceived structure” (p. 8). Pushor (2007) maintains

however that when educators are proactive they enter an interactive school

community:

...to create with parents a shared world on the ground of school – a world in

which “parent knowledge” and teacher knowledge both inform decision-

making, the determination of agendas, and the intended outcomes of their

efforts for children, families, the community, and the school. (p. 3)


Parent-school engagement therefore enables parents to participate in and contribute

to their children’s learning together with teachers and educators for the benefit of all

players involved (Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005b).

Although a changing socio-political climate has seen new government

policies and initiatives and heard calls from parent organisations that have made

parent-school contact more common, many and complex issues between parents and

teachers evidence a continued disconnection. Goos, Lowrie, and Jolly (2007) offer

further explanation: “Consensus has not been reached about how these effective

relationships should be achieved, who holds responsibility for what, and where

power and control should reside in making educational decisions” (p. 8). Cox-

Petersen (2011) notes that the situation is exacerbated by “the stress related to

standardised testing and negative information highlighted within media sources” (p.

6). Moreover, she writes that although “there are many teachers who work

collaboratively with families, there are just as many who do not have the experience,

education, or strategies to develop positive reciprocal relationships outside the four

walls of the classroom” (p. 6). Holmes (2009) expresses a similar outlook when

summarising Australian schools’ communication practices, stating:

This is not to deny that significant efforts are being made by many schools to

greatly enhance their communication practices, including by greater openness

to the presence of parents in the school, the appointment, and in some cases by

the development of sophisticated websites, e-mail lists, and SMS alerts. But

the majority of schools are a long way from establishing regular and effective

networks of general communication between the school and the home, let

alone more direct and frequent engagement between teachers and parents as

partners in an educational enterprise. (p. 10)

From this discussion, it can be drawn that generally schools are challenged when it

comes to adopting a disposition of engagement. Schools and teachers that do are

faced with the further challenge of deciding how to enact such engagement. In

addition, strategies such as those described by Holmes that tackle logistics via

improved communication lines may forge closer ties among parents, schools, and

teachers but the effectiveness of such measures for enhancing students’ learning

remains debatable and is therefore open to further research.


1.5 RESEARCH PROBLEM

The previous section noted the benefits to students of parents who play

expanded roles in schools. The overarching research problem of this thesis is thus not

whether parents should participate in schools but how relationships between parents

and schools, in particular teachers, may be developed whereby parents are enabled to

play more central roles in their children’s formal education. The available literature

pertaining to coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing theorises the phenomenon as

an innovative approach to generate productive relationships among educational

players (Roth & Tobin, 2002a). At the heart of my philosophical investigation then is

to study how coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing may offer a means to realise

parent-teacher4 engagement that aligns with Roth and Tobin’s (2002a)

conceptualisation of the phenomenon:

Teaching and learning to teach at the elbows of other teachers (including each

other) provide us with new and different understandings and allow us to

describe a different epistemology of teaching. We adopt a first-person

perspective on teaching, sometimes our own and at times that of peers, but

seen through the eyes of coparticipants engaged in an activity with the same

primary intention of assisting students to learn. (p. xi)

1.6 COTEACHING AND COGENERATIVE DIALOGUES

From the late 1990s, coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing emerged as a

promising mechanism for teaching secondary school science in Canada and the

United States of America (e.g., Roth & Tobin, 2002a). The approach has since

permeated other content areas and educational settings (Murphy & Scantlebury,

2010). Tobin (2006a) describes coteaching as when two or more individuals teach a

group of students collaboratively across all aspects of teaching including planning,

enacting, reflecting, and assessing. It differs from other joint teaching practices in its

philosophy, theoretical underpinnings, and goals (Gallo-Fox, 2009). The purpose of

coteaching is for individuals to learn how to teach or improve their existing teaching

4 Putting “parent” before “teacher” presumes that parents as well as teachers have important roles to play in schools. The order accords with research by Holmes (2009) and Muller and Associates (2009) and reflects the philosophical bent of Pushor (2001) by asking readers to pause a

parent-teacher engagement a coteaching and … · 2013. 10. 13. · linda-dianne willis . bed; dipt...

Documents