Abstract
This chapter presents an overview of the conceptual toolkits used to theorise relationships between ECEC settings and families in academic journal articles, published in English, between the years 2000–2010 and 2021–2022. The reconstructed overview of the theories employed by researchers from different regions of the world creates a base for classification of the theories as positivistic (i.e., interested in measuring PI for prediction and control of academic achievement), interpretative (i.e., aiming at deeper contextual understandings of the perspectives of all social actors that have a part PI), or critical (i.e., delving into the socio-economic conditions and power relations constituting diverse understandings of the world of PI, in conjunction with the desire for change). The chapter concludes with an outline of the theories discussed in further chapters, which are of an interpretive and critical nature and embrace the understanding of more-than-parental involvement presented in Chap. 1.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
Navigating the Theoretical Landscape
Theories applied to conceptualise parental involvement (PI) have been previously subject to reflection in the field of early childhood education and care (ECEC). While revisiting the phenomenon of PI, Tekin (2011) recognised three significant theoretical approaches to the concept: the cultural-historical perspective, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, and Epstein’s models. Green (2017), in contrast, reconstructed theories employed in research on PI, into groups based on their different epistemologies (positivistic, interpretative, and critical). Based on a biometric literature analysis, Addi-Raccah et al. (2021) drew networks of clusters of psychological and sociological theories used in the research on PI between 2014 and 2018, showing how theoretical approaches can facilitate different understandings of PI and work with diverse epistemologies. Despite their differences, each one of these overviews assumes that theories play a significant role in conditioning and improving our understanding of PI. While the critical and sociological approaches tend to challenge the white-middle-class premisses underlying the notion of PI (Devlieghere et al., 2022; Addi-Raccah et al., 2021), the dominating positivistic account (Green, 2017), as well as school attainment-oriented psychological perspectives (Addi-Raccah et al., 2021), support an understanding of PI as an asymmetric practice of parents fitting into the criteria set out by preschools (Crozier, 2001; Doucet, 2011; Devlieghere et al., 2022). Addi-Raccah et al. (2021, p. 13) have shown how salient the privilege and domination of urban, US-centric theoretical perspectives can be by pointing out the number of times certain theorists have been cited, like Epstein (424 citations), Jeynes (307 citations), Hoover-Damsey (225 citations), Lareau (184 citations), and Hill (148 citations).
This chapter aims at balancing this domination by drawing a qualitative map of theories that conceptualise PI, and whose potential could be used to conceptualise more-than-parental involvement in ways that allow for the “democratic deficit” to be overcome (Van Laere et al., 2018). This means that after presenting a qualitative overview of the found theories, their different aims and intentions will be discussed, and those theories that merit a closer look when trying to embrace the relational and contextual perspective of more-than-parental involvement (as presented in Chap. 1) will be outlined.
Methodology
The literature search was driven by the following research question: What theories have been employed to conceptualise PI in early childhood education? The search was conducted in December 2022 and included the following academic databases: ERIC (2604 hits), Web of Science (4518 hits), Teacher Reference Center (176 hits), SocINDEX (621 hits), Academic Search Elite (2607 hits), and Scopus (10,606 hits). The keywords employed in the search were intended to capture possible synonyms, expansions, and equivalents of (a) parents/caregivers, (b) involvement/engagement/collaboration, and (c) early childhood education. This resulted in the inclusion of the following keywords:
-
+ parent* OR famil* OR relative* OR caregiver* OR mother* OR father*
-
+ involve* OR participant* OR engage* OR collaborat* or cooperat*
-
+ kindergarten OR preschool* OR early childhood education OR ECE OR early childhood education and care OR ECEC OR preschool education OR daycare OR nurser*.
The number of hits after the duplicate control was 14,342. A further review of the identified articles was conducted with the help of Rayyan.ai software, which allows for systematisation. As the search included many articles from the field of early childhood medicine and health, as well as early intervention studies where parental opinions/involvement/engagement were significant, the selection criterion employed was journal articles belonging to the formal level of early childhood/preschool education. Such excluded a great body (n = 13,648) of articles from other fields than early childhood education and publications in the form of book chapters or books (n = 259). The final number of articles included in the review was 435. An overview of the number of articles per year is presented in Table 2.1.
The numbers show the incredible growth of research interest in this subject, in the last years. Because of the high number of articles, those that were included in the analyses were published in 2000–2010 and 2021–2022. In the analysis of the articles, the focus was on the theoretical framework used, the country/cultural context of the reported research, and the aim/intention of the article. This approach created a foundation for the selection of theories for further chapters of the book.
Parents’ Involvement Conceptualised (Around the World?)
The Figs. 2.1–2.3 presented below show in which countries and regions of the world the diverse theories were applied from the year 2000 and the periods of 2001–2010 and 2021–2022. With the passage of time, the number of countries researching and publishing on PI grew incredibly, which also influenced the breadth of the theoretical approaches being employed. While some theories have been applied in the field since 2000, others are relatively new.
Year 2000
Figure 2.1 presents the theories used to conceptualise PI in the field of ECE in the year 2000. The articles come mainly from the United States, but also from Italy and Malaysia, and the depicted theories are as follows:
-
(A) Attachment theory – inspired by writings of Bowlby (1997)
-
(B) Ecological model Bronfenbrenner (B) – inspired by writings of Bronfenbrenner (1975, 1979)
-
(C) Cultural-historical approach – Vygotsky (1926/1997) inspired approach including writings of diverse authors
-
(D) Social constructivism and discourse theory – Foucault (1981) inspired critical approach to meanings and society
-
(F) Family involvement questionnaire developed by Fantuzzo et al. (2000)
-
(Q) Theory of ECEC quality – inspired postmodern theoretisations of quality as meaning-making (Dahlberg et al., 1999; Moss, 1988)
-
(I) An inductively developed set of themes capturing aspects of involvement that were meaningful to parents participating in the study
-
(S) Synthetic use of diverse categories coming from different models and approaches
Table 2.2 provides a detailed overview of the articles published on this subject in 2000.
Regardless of only eight articles being found through the query, the array of theoretical approaches being used is quite wide. In some cases, the theoretical approach was replaced by a tool that defined the diverse dimensions of PI and measured the degree to which different groups of parents (e.g., those with a lower socio-economic status) represent certain forms of PI defined in advance (Fantuzzo et al., 2000). Such an approach was balanced by trials of more adequate models capable of either capturing PI (Cassibba et al., 2000; Hanson et al., 2000; Kohl et al., 2000) or understanding the perspectives of the social actors involved (Hewitt & Maloney, 2000), as well as the social production of PI and its criteria (Lubek & deVries, 2000; New et al., 2000; Soodak & Erwin, 2000). Theories deployed to understand the social conditions and power relations underpinning the existence of temporary forms of PI, such as discourse theory and postmodern theories of quality (Dahlberg et al., 1999), show how theory can be used to enable critical reflection over existing practice and inspire changes in established conditions. In contrast to such theories, ready-made scales did not inspire discussion of the assumptions and meanings attached to PI, but rather raised questions as to how the performance of the expected forms of PI among parents could be increased.
2001–2010
Figure 2.2 presents a map of the theories found in publications from 2001 to 2010 that conceptualised PI in the field of ECE. The articles were again mostly from the United States, but a higher number of countries and continents became visible in English-language journal articles during this time. Other countries with relevant publications included Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Greece, Israel, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, and Thailand. The theories depicted were as follows:
-
(A) Attachment theory – inspired by writings of Bowlby (1997)
-
(AA) Academic achievement theories – mostly developed by Jeynes (1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2010)
-
(AC) Theory of acculturation – growing on sociological research on adaptation to a culture started by Thomas and Znaniecki (1996)
-
(B) Bronfenbrenner’s theory of ecological systems– inspired by writings of Bronfenbrenner (1975, 1979)
-
(BU) Bourdieu’s social theory (Bourdieu, 1990; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992)
-
(C) Cultural-historical approach – Vygotsky (1926/1997) inspired approach including writings of diverse authors (e.g. Rogoff, 2003; Hedegaard., 2005; Hedegaard & Fleer, 2008)
-
(CR) Critical theories that highlight power relations – inspired by Foucault’s (1981) analysis of discourse and power
-
(CL) Collaboration theory – including sociological and psychological conceptualisations of collaboration and partnerships
-
(D) Discourse theory – based on approaches of Foucault (1981), Laclau (1995) and Laclau & Mouffe (1985)
-
(E) Epstein’s (1986, 1990, 1992, 2001) models of parental involvement
-
(F) Fantuzzo’s family involvement questionnaire developed by Fantuzzo et al. (2000)
-
(Fs) Family systems theories – that are Bateson (1971, 1978) inspired approaches to understand families and their involvement in PI as systemic
-
(G) Gender theory understood here as both feministic and sociological approaches aiming to capture the role of gender in PI
-
(Lit) Literacy theories – including approaches measuring early literacy and numeracy, as well as perspectives on literacies as cultural practices (Rogoff, 2003; Cummins, 2001, 2009)
-
(NO) No theoretical toolkits employed
-
(Q) Theories of quality – including modern (Harms & Clifford, 1980; Harms et al. 1998; Howes et al., 1992) and postmodern (Dahlberg et al., 1999; Moss, 1988) approaches
-
(I) Inductively developed conceptual networks
-
(SC) Social capital theories – inspired by sociological works of Coleman (1988, 1994) and Putnam (2000)
The tables below present the theories used in each country and the ways in which they were categorised. Specifically, Table 2.3 contains journal articles from 2001 to 2003, Table 2.4 covers articles from 2004 to 2005, Table 2.5 covers 2006–2007, Table 2.6 covers 2008, Table 2.7 covers 2009, and Table 2.8 covers articles published in 2010.
Theories of Relationships and Literacies
During 2001–2010, the English-language research on PI published in academic journals intertwined diverse theories, and authors from different regions of the world started contributing to the field. The recognised need for conceptualising full and equal partnerships between families and educational institutions inspired the use of the theory of the educational village (Breitborde & Swiniarski, 2002) and notion of social capital (Devjak & Berncik, 2009; Farell et al., 2004; File, 2001). The theory of attachment was used to underline the foundational and relational (and not only structural/formal) character of PI in ECE (Bretherhon et al., 2005; Hughes & Kwok, 2007). The relationship between fathers and preschools is seen as an extension of the most crucial nourishing attachments for a child’s socialisation and participation in play.
The idea of bridging home and kindergarten practices (connected to enhancing literacies) is also articulated by the cultural-historical theoretical perspective (Korat, 2001). Literacy theories may, however, serve different intentions and values. For instance, Makin and Spedding (2001) used a flexible model to demonstrate support at home for early language and literacies (SHELL) that acknowledges the diverse needs and practices of Indigenous and non-Indigenous families, whereas Lee (2002) focused on measuring the factors contributing to literacy development. In another vein, Arnold et al. (2008) confirmed the correlation between a particular definition of PI and preliteracies, whereas Taylor et al. (2008), by building on multiliteracy perspectives, challenged the colonial dichotomy of a right or wrong way to facilitate literacies, thus empowering culturally diverse ways of knowing and the home practices that support it. Zhou and Salili (2008) also took a culturally sensitive approach when looking at home literacy environments that support children’s interest in books.
Combining Models and Theories
The diverse combinations of theories that arose from 2001 to 2010 may be interpreted as part of a search for conceptual tools capable of embracing the deep (albeit not always just) and complex socio-cultural entanglements of PI. Embracing the complexity of culture with anthropological theories and depicting the power relations that underpin the practices of PI with the toolkits of Butler and Foucault, as done by Maranhão and Sarti (2008), brings diverse values and views into the process and goal of education, while also allowing for the possibility of empowerment. Morrow and Malin (2004) describe a trajectory of empowerment connected to one particular programme (Sure Start) and show how reducing asymmetries in power relations opens up space for disagreements, conflicts, and dilemmas, which again raises important questions regarding professionals’ preparation to work in such complex environments.
It was also found that Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory was combined with both critical and academic-achievement-oriented theoretical perspectives. While merging the model with critical race theory allows for the representation of racism underpinning PI at schools (Suizzo et al., 2008), operationalising the child’s development level through academic achievement uses theory to justify the search for correlations between the effects of child–teacher relations and PI on academic attainment, particularly in the case of low-income families (Dearing et al., 2008). Combining Bronfenbrenner’s model with the PI questionnaire developed by Fantuzzo et al. (2000) shows that PI influences children’s socio-emotional competence, which is considered important for learning and school readiness (Sheridan et al., 2010). When analysing the academic and social outcomes connected to PI in a public kindergarten, Powell et al. (2010) employed both Bronfenbrenner’s and Epstein’s models, as well as Fantuzzo’s questionnaire. Even the intentions of combining a theory with a model are often connected to capture “more”, looking at the findings may give an impression of a wide theory being narrowed down to a model and its focus.
In another vein, Seginer’s (2006) literature review shows how the employment of theories of social capital, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, and Epstein’s model enables more ecological and context-oriented approaches to research on PI. However, Epstein’s theory turned out to be used for different aims. For instance, Pomerantz et al. (2007) employed the theoretical toolkit to analyse parental commitment to resources, which turned out to be a factor contributing to better academic achievement. Inspired by Epstein’s model, Huang and Mason (2008) scrutinised the components behind academic achievement and found a supporting role for PI.
Combining Epstein’s theoretical model with the concept of “climate” allows us to explore how (pre)schools create an atmosphere conducive to the various dimensions of PI (Bhering, 2002). Related to literacy theories, Epstein’s perspective contributes to the recognition of the value of parental culture in home literacy programmes (Cassidy et al., 2004). The complexity of family relationships and their involvement with educational institutions can also be seen in the extension of Epstein’s model by the perspectives of family systems theory and multicultural considerations, as in the study of Arndt and McGuire-Schwartz (2008). These authors combine the model of Epstein with theories of social capital and Bourdieu’s social theory, what makes the model “able” to map disadvantages by identifying socio-economic, cultural, linguistic, and logistical barriers to PI faced by migrant parents. In Harry’s (2008) research, supported by the existing body of knowledge on equality, Epstein’s model is used to promote understanding of the barriers to the implementation of ideal practices. Deficit views of families, cross-cultural misunderstandings, differing values, and culturally based differences in caregivers’ views of their roles also came into the picture in other studies. Epstein’s model was also adapted to research on Indigenous families (Nagel & Wells, 2009) and enabled descriptions of culturally responsive practices of PI.
Such cultural sensitivity is generally not appreciated in research on PI that applies acculturation theory, which shows the importance of parental acculturation in achieving academic success in the next generation of the family (Bodovski & Durham, 2010). More specifically, Capps et al. (2010) combined acculturation theory with gender theory, which allowed for an exploration of how the acculturation of migrant fathers shifts gender performances more in line with the dominant culture, including greater involvement in children’s education.
Gender Perspective
The gender dimension also appears in the article by Ishii-Kuntz et al. (2004), who try to understand how the different factors related to gender roles can support PI. In a similar way, Tulanada (2001) explored how cultural gender discourses create conditions for social interactions, including those between professionals and parents in the ECEC context. The presumption of different expectations and attitudes towards the other gender’s ability to care also comes out in the research of Palm and Fagan (2008). Awareness of gender discrimination underpins the work of Ball (2010), who uses the emancipatory potential of gender theories to shed light on marginalised parental experiences and claims of institutional acknowledgement.
Quality Theories
An interesting approach to PI is presented in articles that build on quality theories. While modernistic approaches to quality see PI as a significant element in the process of ensuring ECEC quality (Sakellriou & Rentzou, 2009; Zellman & Perlman, 2006), according to postmodern approaches, quality is understood as a process of meaning-making, and such researchers are more interested in the meanings attached to good home–school collaboration involving different groups of parents (Barbarin et al., 2006). Awareness of the quality of cooperation as anchored in traditions, social contexts, legal frameworks, and situational demands is also discussed by Devjak and Berncik (2009).
2021–2022
Figure 2.3 presents a map of the theories found in articles published from 2021 to 2022. The extent to which the different theories were applied to diverse cultures shows significant growth, as the published articles come from 32 countries from all regions of the world, including Australia, Austria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Korea, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Tanzania, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The greater number of published papers and the wider scope of countries contributing to international journal publications led to a greater number of theories being involved. The theories depicted in the articles published in 2021–2022 are as follows:
-
(A) Attachment theory – inspired by writings of Bowlby (1997)
-
(AA) Academic achievement theories – mostly developed by Jeynes (1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2010)
-
(B) Bronfenbrenner’s theory of ecological systems – inspired by writings of Bronfenbrenner (1975, 1979)
-
(Bi) Biesta’s (2004) theory on the community
-
(BU) Bourdieu’s social theory (Bourdieu, 1990; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992)
-
(C) Cultural-historical approach – Vygotsky (1926/1997) inspired approach including writings of diverse authors (e.g. Rogoff, 2003; Hedegaard., 2005; Hedegaard & Fleer, 2008)
-
(CR) Critical theories that highlight power relations, inspired by Foucault’s (1981) analysis of discourse and power and theories of social justice (Fraser & Honneth, 2003)
-
(D) Discourse theory – based on approaches of Foucault (1981), Laclau (1995) and Laclau & Mouffe (1985)
-
(E) Epstein’s (1986, 1990, 1992, 2001) models of parental involvement
-
(F) Fantuzzo’s family involvement questionnaire developed by Fantuzzo et al. (2000)
-
(FB) Froebel’s (1912) inspirations
-
(I) Inductively developed conceptual networks
-
(Q) Theories of quality – including modern (Harms & Clifford, 1980; Harms et al. 1998; Howes et al., 1992) and postmodern (Dahlberg et al., 1999; Moss, 1988) approaches
-
Narrative theories (N).
-
(PA) Theory of practice architectures developed by Kemmis et al. (2014)
-
(SC) Social capital theories – inspired by sociological works of Coleman (1988, 1994) and Putnam (2000)
-
(SD) Self-developed concepts or scales of PI or new combinations of existing psychological scales
-
(SN) Synthetic conceptual toolkits based on diverse literature.
As presented in Fig. 2.3, these theories were employed by scholars from all over the world, including those in Anglo-Saxon countries, as well as the Global South.
In the years 2021–2022, more articles on PI were published than between 2000 and 2010, which shows that interest in the subject had grown all over the world. Figure 2.3 shows the growing geographical spread, with the subject engaging more and more regions of the world and motivating further scientific debate on the collaboration between families and ECEC settings. The growing number of papers – all presented in Tables 2.9 and 2.10 – has also resulted in more theoretical approaches being used, however, with some also being “re-used” and their validity being further confirmed.
Those theoretical perspectives transcending the boundaries between different regions of the world are those that either take into consideration the local socio-cultural context (like the ecological model of Bronfenbrenner and the Vygotsky-inspired cultural-historical perspective) or those that focus on phenomena that are possible to measure and compare regardless of the context, such as academic achievement.
Cultural-Historical Perspective
Looking at a few studies in particular, the cultural-historical framework enabled Morales-Alexander (2021) to understand PI as a cultural practice, which again facilitates the perception of many practices of Latino parents in the United States as supportive and valuable for children’s all-round development and ultimate school readiness. This theoretical framework thus promotes a deeper understanding of parental practices, and not just their assessment from another culturally established standpoint. Analogical re-perception of diverse home activities as actually supporting children’s literacies and parents being factual teachers also appears in the text of Uysal Bayrak et al. (2021). Another important feature of this theoretical toolkit lies in how it enables the exploration of parental perspectives on children’s learning (Višnjić-Jevtić, 2021), in particular book-provision programmes (Gillanders & Barak, 2022), or teachers’ and parents’ co-constructed understandings of learning in play (Wu, 2021). An interesting application of the cultural-historical perspective by Liu and Hoa Chung (2022) traces the effects of fathers’ and mothers’ expectations and the context of the home environment on children’s literacies.
Other articles building on the cultural-historical (context-sensitive) theoretical framework were intended to capture changes in PI during the COVID-19 pandemic. While Soltero-González and Gillanders (2021) identify a more authentic, even digitally mediated form of parent–teacher communication and a greater variety of practices that families create to support children’s learning and well-being, Farrugia and Busuttil (2021) focus on digital connections and disconnections between home and school during children’s remote learning. Guan et al. (2022) focus on how COVID-19 enabled grandparents’ involvement in math learning, and thus extended the parental involvement into intergenerational one. In another study, León-Nabal et al. (2021) employed an ecological theoretical perspective to describe the virtual home visits during the COVID-19 outbreak in China that turned out to be supportive arenas for information exchange and socio-emotional support. Cultural-historical theory is also used as a basis for developing a locally sensitive and locally applicable scale for evaluating parent–child interaction (Shinina & Mitina, 2022). A slightly different, albeit close, theoretical perspective (of cultural models) is used by Sisson et al. (2022) to describe the processes of balancing power relations and supporting authentic partnerships between professionals and parents through the activities of co-designing and co-creating diverse artefacts.
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is another context-sensitive approach that serves as a foundation for articles with a similar focus to the one conceptualised by the cultural-historical perspective. Some of the authors merge these perspectives when describing their own theoretical framework by focusing on the commonalities connected to the importance of the context (Farrugia & Busuttil, 2021; Uysal Bayrak et al., 2021; Wu, 2021). Others, by employing the theory of ecological systems, conduct projects analogous to those administered through cultural-historical perspectives. For instance, by employing the ecological systems theory, Zhang et al. (2021) conducted research on parental play beliefs in a way that was analogical to the project of Višnjić-Jevtić (2021), which explored parental understandings of learning with the use of the cultural-historical theoretical toolkit, while Bayat and Madayibi (2022) closely examined home-based involvement in Philippi during pandemics.
As the child is kept at the centre as a final beneficiary of parental collaboration with ECEC settings, Yngvesson and Garvis (2021) include the perspective and agency of the child in their research. The child’s voice is presented through the story constellations of teachers, parents, and children. Through this approach, Yngvesson and Garvis (2021) actively connect the child to the mesosystem of ECEC–family collaboration.
Combined with attachment theory, ecological systems theory enables us to track how intergenerational family-based attachments (with parents and grandparents) factor into and influence social adaption in an ECEC setting (Zhang et al., 2022). The effects of the mesosystem’s collaborations on the child’s development can also be traced with the use of Bronfenbrenner’s model. For instance, Liu et al. (2022) explore how the relationships between teachers and afterschool programme staff influence the child’s adjustment to ECEC, while Cheung et al. (2022) trace how parental support of autonomy and home-based learning activities encourages pre-academic skill development and school liking. However, ecological systems theory can also inspire (analogical to the cultural-historical approach) an understanding of PI as a cultural practice. This is demonstrated in the study by Ejuu and Opiyo (2022), who worked with Ubuntu families and describe a kind of “flourishing” built on recognition and acknowledgement of (intergenerational) family cultures as valuable first teachers.
A quite interesting attempt to embrace the parental perspective is represented by authors who did not apply any particular theoretical toolkit, but rather reported on existing knowledge and developed their own categorial network based on empirical data (i.e., voices of families). Such inductive ways of developing key concepts were used in 2021–2022 to embrace the following:
-
(A)
Parental perceptions of building relationships with ECECs (Vuorinen, 2021).
-
(B)
Parental ontologies as a basis for assessing their satisfaction with ECEC services (Harris, 2021).
-
(C)
Im/migrant parents’ beliefs in school readiness (Puccioni et al., 2022; Simons et al., 2022).
-
(D)
Parental understandings of play (Siu & Keung, 2022).
-
(E)
ECEC teachers’ perceptions and management of parental concerns and their connection to the child’s use of digital technology in the ECEC setting (Schriever, 2021).
Unmasking Power Relations
While cultural-historical approaches, the Bronfenbrenner model, or inductive research can be used to challenge the established understandings of PI by exploring, understanding, and valuing diverse culturally based practices, critical approaches trace the power relations and dominating discourses constructing and underpinning the established understandings of PI. For instance, McWyane et al. (2022) unmask the misconceptions and hierarchical power structures that prelude educators from perceiving powerful knowledge about home-based practices and routines (which would enable educational institutions to become more familiar for children of diverse cultural and socio-economic backgrounds). In this vein, Sadownik et al. (2021) use discourse theory to unmask the implied hegemonies of meaning connected to social sustainability in the parts of the ECEC policy documents that regard parental collaboration. By bringing diverse policy discourses to the table, and thus alternative meanings attached to parental collaboration, the authors were able to represent the silent assumptions underlying the relation between ECECs and families. Such approaches also allow for the representation of discursive changes, as in the context of pandemic, where in the context of Portugal, responsibility for the schoolification of children was placed on parents, which again made the children’s education depend on parental resources (Formosinho, 2021). Unmasking such practices and the power relations behind them raises questions of social justice. Fenech and Skattebol (2021) thus employed Nancy Fraser’s theory of social justice to explore diverse approaches to including/involving parents.
Awareness of the role of the discursive arrangement that shapes the social practice (of PI) is also present in the theory of practice architectures. Cooke and Francisco (2021) examined the architecture of risk-taking practices in relation to ECEC’s collaboration with families, which led to the detection of the cultural-discursive, economic-material, and socio-political arrangements constituting these practices. Additionally, this theory allows us to see the ECEC–family collaboration in a kind of ecology with other practices, which can be considered another way to embrace the wider context of PI.
Collaboration and Social Capital
Theories of social capital are intertwined with research on PI in different ways. These range from helping to assess whether social capital influences students’ academic achievement in reading and mathematics (Gamoran et al., 2021; Sengonul, 2022) to measuring the level of social capital in a socio-cultural context (i.e., Finland) with a long tradition of positive parental participation (Purola & Kuusisto, 2021). The relevance of social capital in different kinds of PI (i.e., home- or school-based) is also described, particularly with respect to low-income families (Ansari & Markowitz, 2021). Feelings of trust and safety comprise one of the key dimensions of social capital (Purola & Kuusisto, 2021), which are also explored in another Finnish study showing that trust in educational partnership is constituted by two crucial elements: (1) the child’s well-being in the ECEC setting, and (2) a supportive parent–educator relationship and collaboration (Rautamies et al., 2021). A deeper insight into such collaborations and partnerships is done in the study of Syuraini et al. (2022), who develop indicators of successful collaboration based on a wide range of existing research on communication, collaboration, and participation. This creates their starting point for gathering data in the context of Indonesia. Partnerships between families and ECEC are also supported by the models of Hornby (2000, 2011) and Goodall-Montgomery (2014).
Epstein
Epstein’s (2010, 2011) theoretical model, as previously mentioned, may be employed with different intentions, whether as a matrix showing diverse aspects of PI (Ekinci-Vular & Dogan-Altun, 2021) or as a means of stimulating teachers’ innovations in PI practices (Rech et al., 2021). Combined with Hornby’s model, Epstein’s model is used in one study to explore and promote fathers’ participation in ECEC (Sadeghi & Sadeghi, 2022). Epstein’s model is also employed by researchers who build on critiques and suggestions directed towards it. For instance, McKee et al. (2022) explore teachers’ engagement with parents on the basis of Preston et al.’s (2018) extension of the model with the notion of family vibrancy, which accounts for “the family’s linguistic, cultural, vocational, artistic, social, emotional, spiritual, and ethnic dimensions” as “important, valuable resources, which need to be included in parent involvement discourse” (Preston et al., 2018, p. 549). Such culturally responsive acknowledgements show the openness and potential that Epstein’s conceptualisation still has to offer.
Synthetising Perspectives
The practice of synthetising different theoretical approaches and constructing new scales relevant to a particular cultural context is a very interesting phenomenon. While in some countries, such as Tanzania (Kigobe et al., 2021; Ndijuye & Tandika, 2022) or Peru (Nóblega et al., 2022), the researchers adopt or validate the existing Western scales of PI and academic achievement, researchers from other contexts, like Malaysia (Jayaraj et al., 2022), China (Luo et al., 2022; Pan et al., 2022; Yue et al., 2022), and Hong Kong (Tang et al., 2021), developed their own, locally sensitive measurement tools. Creating other theories, like one constructed for empowerment (De Los Santos Rodriguez et al., 2021), also occurred in this body of literature.
Literacies in/of/by Parental Involvement
Theories of literacy depart from different assumptions about (multi)literacies and are thus used in research with different aims. In recent years, studies have measured children’s literacies as anchored in parental and home numeracy and literacy (Bonifacci et al., 2021; Junge et al., 2021; Kigboe et al., 2021; Silinskas et al., 2021; Sun & Ng, 2021; Wei et al., 2022), through activities like shared reading at home and preschool stimulation of language development (İnce Samur, 2021; Hu et al., 2021), as well as projects that promote the creation of reading cultures in dialogue and collaboration between home and ECEC settings (Hu et al., 2021). The same theories create a departure point for examining parental perceptions of literacy, homework, and learning experiences (Liang et al., 2022) or participation in home literacy programmes (Gillanders & Barak, 2022). Such a view of literacies has, however, also been criticised as reductionist and narrow (Jacobs et al., 2021), with the suggestion being made to form an alternative, reciprocal partnership in which literacies are promoted through the active use of families’ linguistic and cultural resources (Jacobs et al., 2021). Volk (2021) also argues for enhancing literacies by building on the affordances of homes, neighbourhoods, and the broader city, as foregrounding children’s expertise and creating collaborations between schools and community settings are crucial for holistic learning and well-being. Such culturally responsive approaches to literacies come either from critical identity theories (Cummins, 2001) or cultural-historical approaches, as in the article by Kajee and Sibanda (2019).
Back to Froebel
An interesting theoretical alternative is presented by Kambouri et al. (2022), who, by building on the Froebelian approach that emphasises “not only the importance families, but the striving for ‘unity’ in an understanding of how practitioners can work collaboratively with families, in the best interests of children” (p. 644), created sessions for families and professionals intended to empower both parts. Combining Froebel’s work with their existing knowledge, the authors ended up framing their sessions with the following principles:
-
1.
Neutrality of power: The partnership sessions took place outside of school settings.
-
2.
Respecting voices: Participants shared their understandings of partnership and identified their own goals using their experiences and the unique nature of their settings and lifestyles.
-
3.
Reflection: Participants reflected on their preconceptions of partnerships through sharing experiences and taking part in activities to re-examine how they could further develop their collaboration.
-
4.
Praxis: During and after the implementation of the partnership sessions, participants were encouraged to apply their understanding of partnerships in their actual settings.
-
5.
Voice: Participants shared their views and opinions in a safe, non-judgmental environment (pp. 644–655).
Narratives and Discourse
Another theory that emerged in only one chapter is narrative theory, which captures experience as a story embedded within the context of a particular culture, society, and economy and their underlying power relations (Bourdieu, 1990; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Foucault, 1981). Building on this approach, Eliyahu-Levi (2022) explores the experiences of African asylum-seeker families in Israel and identifies a tension between the family’s sense of belonging, the desire to be more involved, and the reality of poverty that turns their days into experiences of working around the clock, which effectively precludes their presence in diverse activities at educational institutions. In their research on family pedagogies/literacies, Jacobs et al. (2021) present families’ lingual and cultural practices as counternarratives that challenge the deficit discourse on migrant and Indigenous families. Challenging an established discourse by presenting an alternative surplus of meaning, as created in another context of culture and power, characterises the research employing discourse theory, as in the paper of Sadownik et al. (2021) where the theory is used to “unfreeze” the meanings connected to PI and social sustainability in different policy documents.
Biesta: The Other Community
The last theory appearing in articles published between 2021 and 2022 is Biesta’s conceptualisation of community, as employed by Anderstaf et al. (2021) when exploring dilemmas encountered by preschool teachers when working in contexts of cultural and value-related diversity. A conceptual toolkit that helps to enter into and embrace the complexity of engaging with dilemmas is Biesta’s (2004, 2006) distinction between rational communities and communities that have nothing in common with them, also called other communities. Building on Biesta, Anderstaf et al. (2021) understand a rational community as constituted by a common, identifiable language and institutional documents, which also narrows down what is considered relevant and legitimate to articulate and focus on, and thus excludes those who are not “fluent in the language” (Anderstaf et al., 2021, p. 299) or who do not share the dominant rationality. The other community occurs in relation to the rational one by interrupting and troubling the “rational” and legitimate articulations. It allows one to embrace PI as not only the cultural reproduction of a particular rationality, but also as creating conditions for the other community to come into existence by creating opportunities for persons to be challenged to confront otherness and ask authentic questions, like “What do you think?”’ and “How will you respond?”(Anderstaf et al., 2021, p. 300). As Anderstaf et al. (2021) conclude, it is in confronting this challenge of meeting the other that one’s unique voice can appear.
Discussion: Aims Facilitated by Theoretical Toolkits
The existing systematisations of theories of PI can be applied when trying to generalise the aims/intentions of the analysed articles. Green (2017) distinguishes between the positivistic, interpretative, and critical epistemologies underlying educational research on partnerships between families and educational institutions. Below, I intend to show how the depicted theories are related to these systematisations and argue in favour of choosing the interpretative and critical ones for the next chapters of the book.
The positivist ambition to provide local and accurate knowledge that allows for certain outcomes to be predicted and controlled reduces PI to measurable causalities and impacts (of what are considered the right activities of the parents) on the academic achievement (of the child). Such an approach shines through the articles mentioned above that take for granted academic achievement as a common goal and operationalise it through the literacies and numeracies desired by schools. In this view, the family’s perspectives and the culturally anchored practices of the supporting literacies are not of interest in themselves, but as activities that can be classified as positive or negative for (the taken-for-granted) future academic achievement. Green (2017) even classifies Epstein’s model as positivistic. The review above shows however that this model can also serve very interpretive and critical aims. In some cases, the simple models can be extended by the empirical data (…),while in other cases the orientation towards academic achievement reduces theories that could serve other goals, such as social capital theory (Coleman, 1988).
As “in the interpretivist epistemology all knowledge and reality are created through social interactions between people and their world, and … within a social context” (Green, 2017, p. 375), the theories I classify into this group are those that support research on the importance of (contextual) understanding. This understanding may be related to the parental perspective (e.g. Ball, 2010; Bipath et al., 2022; Erdemir, 2022; Hewitt & Maloney, 2000; Murphy et al., 2021; Višnjić-Jevtić, 2021, Zhang et al., 2021), teachers’ perspectives (Durmuşoğlu, 2022; Ekinci-Vural & Dogan-Altun, 2021; Grobler, 2022; Murphy et al., 2021), perspective of the child (Yngvesson & Garvis, 2021), the perspectives of other cultures (e.g. Ball, 2010; Indigenous: Armstrong et al., 2022; Gapany et al., 2022, Sianturi et al., 2022; or im/migrant: Sawyer et al., 2022), involvement of elder generation (Guan et al., 2022; Raynal et al., 2022) or acknowledging families as first teachers (Ejuu and Opiyo (2022).
Creating context-enabling dialogues and exchanges of meaning, particularly about the goals of partnerships (Kambouri et al., 2022), is in line with this perspective. Those theories that supported such explorations include the cultural-historical perspective (e.g. Armstrong et al., 2022; Gillanders & Barak, 2022; Grobler, 2022), Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (e.g. Ejuu & Opiyo, 2022; Erdemir, 2022; Wu, 2021; Zhang et al., 2021), quality theory (e.g. Bipath et al., 2022), and narrative theory (e.g. Eliyahu-Levi, 2022; Sanders et al., 2022). Their employment shows the practice of PI to be culturally anchored, value-related, and contextual, which could also explain their widespread application throughout the world.
The primary objective of critical theories is to change the order of things (Green, 2017). However, for this change to take place, they need to identify and understand the phenomena and practices that require it. This is done by exploring the conditions for the appearance of diverse understandings. The critical perspective is not satisfied with identifying the mere diversity of family practices; rather, the socio-economic conditions and power relations that helped establish such diversity are also to be examined (Maranhão & Sarti, 2008). As in the research of Eliyahu-Levi (2022), the stories of asylum seekers are connected to the context of poverty, which strengthens their desire to participate, but also blocks the real possibility of their involvement with the educational settings of their children; or in the research of Sengonul (2022) showing that academic achievement as a benefit from PI relates mainly to middle-class children. With the ambitions of shaking up the unjust, marginalised voices and experiences are presented so that mainstream institutions can become more sensitive to perspectives they exclude and oversee (Ball, 2010). In the work of Jacobs et al. (2021), Indigenous lingual and cultural practices are presented as counternarratives to the narrow, taken-for-granted perspectives of early reading and numeracy affirmed in educational settings. Analogical empowerment of multiliteracies and different ways of knowing established in different home cultures takes place in the article of Taylor et al. (2008). Nagel and Wells (2009) on the other hand open the model of Epstein for ways of engagement with educational institutions that is more responsive to meanings and ways of being anchored in Indigenous cultures.
The critical perspective assumes that there is nothing like a neutral position, and that everything serves one or another agenda, whether it be articulated or silently assumed. It may therefore be more ethical for researchers to be transparent about their own normative standpoints. Such a normative commitment is declared in research employing Fraser’s theory of social justice when arguing for the inclusion of low-income families (Fenech & Skattebol, 2021), or in the writings of researchers inspired by Biesta’s concept of the other community, which strongly encourage authenticity and confrontation of the otherness (Anderstaf et al., 2021). Descriptions resisting and challenging the perspectives of “lack” that have been established in relation to some groups may be also seen as the critical ones (Souto-Manning & Swick, 2006).
Conclusion: Selecting Theories for the Next Chapters of the Book
Theories that have the potential to effectively account for the understanding of more-than-parental involvement presented in Chap. 1 are those of an interpretative and critical character. It seems that there is a desire for a continuously deeper understanding of both the diversity of perspectives that exists, but also the underlying power relations and discourses “freezing” the meanings connected to parental participation. This means that of the theories presented in the above literature review, the following are to be included:
-
1.
The cultural-historical wholeness approach, which presents PI not only as a cultural practice, but also as an institutional and personal one framed by the existing social apparatus (Hedegaard, 2005, 2009; Hedegaard & Fleer, 2008); such an approach embraces diverse more-than-parental relationships and is able to depict important tensions that arise in overcoming the democratic deficit (Van Leare et al., 2018).
-
2.
Ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), which suggests that by recognising the child’s being and becoming in the complex ecology of relationships and social systems, there is the potential to embrace the more-than-parental, intergenerational, and political (democratic) aspects of families collaborating with ECECs.
-
3.
The theory of social capital (Coleman, 1998; Putnam, 2000), which considers relationships and access to new interactions as genuinely resourceful ways to enable deeper understandings of more-than-parental involvement; however, its focus on function and “benefit” may exclude the intrinsic value of being together.
-
4.
Models of parental involvement developed by Epstein (1990, 1992, 2001, 2010, 2011) and Hornby (2000, 2011).
-
5.
Partnership and collaboration theories (Colbry et al., 2014; Keyes, 2002; Keyser, 2006).
-
6.
The social theory of Bourdieu (1990; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).
-
7.
The theory of practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014).
-
8.
Discourse theory (on ECEC quality) and narrative inquiry (Dahlberg et al., 2013).
Additionally, the posthuman theoretical perspective – or agential realism – is going to be included. As a theory that challenges the taken-for-granted perception of PI as a human–human phenomenon, it has the potential to shed new light on the artefacts being used in culturally responsive ways to facilitate ECEC’s engagement with parents. Moreover, as stated by Rosiek et al. (2020), this theory can account for Indigenous ontologies in terms of acknowledging the agency of non-human elements, which can result in extending the “more-than-parental” into the acknowledgement of intergenerational relationships in the family, as well as a radically relational perception of the materiality that constitutes diverse cultures.
Change history
26 October 2023
A correction has been published.
References
Addi-Raccah, A., Dusi, P., & Seeberger Tamir, N. (2021). What can we learn about research on parental involvement in school? Bibliometric and thematic analyses of academic journals. Urban Education (Beverly Hills, Calif.), 4208592110179. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859211017978
Almanza, J., et al. (2009). A village route to early childhood education: An Iowa District partners with its community to improve kindergarten readiness. School Administrator, 66(10), 16–21.
Anderstaf, S., Lecusay, R., & Nilsson, M. (2021). ‘Sometimes we have to clash’: How preschool teachers in Sweden engage with dilemmas arising from cultural diversity and value differences. Intercultural Education (London, England), 32(3), 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2021.1878112
Ansari, A., & Markowitz, A. J. (2021). Can parents do it all? Changes in parent involvement from 1997 to 2009 among Head Start families. Children and Youth Services Review, 120, 105780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105780
Armstrong, E., Maypilama, Ḻ., Fasoli, L., Guyula, A., Yunupiŋu, M., Garrutju, J., Gundjarranbuy, R., Gapany, D., Godwin-Thompson, J., & Lowell, A. (2022). How do Yolŋu recognise and understand their children’s learning? Nhaltjan ŋuli ga Yolŋuy nhäma ga märr-dharaŋan djamarrkuḻiw marŋgithinyawuy? PLoS One, 17(8), –e0272455. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272455
Arndt, J. S., & McGuire-Schwartz, M. E. (2008). Early childhood school success: recognizing families as integral partners. Childhood Education, 84(5), 281–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2008.10523025
Arnold, D. H., Zeljo, A., Doctoroff, G. L., & Ortiz, C. (2008). Parent involvement in preschool: Predictors and the relation of involvement to preliteracy development. School Psychology Review, 37(1), 74–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2008.12087910
Ball, J. (2010). Father involvement in Canada: An emerging movement. Childhood Education, 87(2), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2011.10521455
Barbarin, O. A., McCandies, T., Early, D., Clifford, R. M., Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Howes, C., & Pianta, R. (2006). Quality of prekindergarten: What families are looking for in public sponsored programs. Early Education and Development, 17(4), 619–642. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1704_6
Bateson, G. (1971). A systems approach. International Journal of Psychiatry, 9, 242–244.
Bateson, G. (1978). The pattern which connects. The CoEvolution Quarterly, 18, 4–15.
Bayat, A., & Madyibi, S. (2022). The home environment and parental involvement of preschoolers in Philippi, a low-income area: Do they hinder or support early learning? South African Journal of Childhood Education, 12(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v12i1.1055
Bhering, E. (2002). Teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of parent involvement in Brazilian early years and primary education. International Journal of Early Years Education, 10(3), 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966976022000044762
Biedinger, N. (2010). Early ethnic inequality: The influence of social background and parental involvement on preschool children’s cognitive ability in Germany. Child Indicators Research, 3(1), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-009-9054-6
Biesta, G. (2004). The community of those who have nothing in common: Education and the language of responsibility. Interchange (Toronto, 1984), 35(3), 307–324.
Biesta, G. (2006). Beyond learning: Democratic education for a human future. Paradigm Publishers.
Bipath, K., Muthivhi, A. E., & Bhoola, S. (2022). Parents’ understandings and practices regarding play and learning. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 30(4), 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2022.2070648
Birbili, M. (2022). Sharing pedagogical documentation with others: Exploring issues of addressivity and voice. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 30(2), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2022.2046832
Biswas, R. K., Arusha, A. R., Ananna, N., Kabir, E., & Bhowmik, J. (2023). Carer involvement with children and child-friendly book ownership in Bangladesh. Children & Society, 37(2), 326–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12594
Bodovski, K., & Durham, R. E. (2010). Parental practices and achievement of Mexican and Chinese immigrant children in the USA: Assimilation patterns? Research in Comparative and International Education, 5(2), 156–175.
Bonifacci, P., Compiani, D., Affranti, A., & Peri, B. (2021). Home literacy and numeracy interact and mediate the relationship between socio-economic status and early linguistic and numeracy skills in preschoolers. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662265
Bonifacci, P., Trambagioli, N., Bernabini, L., & Tobia, V. (2022). Home activities and cognitive skills in relation to early literacy and numeracy: Testing a multifactorial model in preschoolers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 37(3), 681–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-021-00528-2
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press.
Bowlby, J. (1997). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment (Vol. 254, pp. XX, 425). Pimlico.
Breitborde, M.-L., & Swiniarski, L. B. (2002). Family education and community power: New structures for new visions in the educational village. Educational Studies, 28(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569022000003744
Breitkreuz, R., Colen, K., & Horne, R. (2021). Producing the patchwork: The hidden work of mothers in organizing child care. Journal of Family Studies, 27(3), 436–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2019.1635038
Bretherton, I., Lambert, J. D., & Golby, B. (2005). Involved fathers of preschool children as seen by themselves and their wives: Accounts of attachment, socialization, and companionship. Attachment & Human Development, 7(3), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730500138341
Bridges, M., Cohen, S. R., Anguiano, R., Fuller, B., Livas-Dlott, A., & Scott, L. (2022). Purposeful parenting by Mexican-heritage mothers: Advancing school readiness through social-emotional competence. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 28(4), 483–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000548
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1975). Reality and research in the ecology of human development. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 119(6), 439–469.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
Brown, J. R., Knoche, L. L., Edwards, C. P., & Sheridan, S. M. (2009). Professional development to support parent engagement: A case study of early childhood practitioners. Early Education and Development, 20(3), 482–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280902783475
Capps, R. C., et al. (2010). Acculturation and father engagement with infants among Chinese and Mexican-origin immigrant fathers. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research & Practice About Men as Fathers, 8(1), 61–92.
Cassibba, R., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & D’Odorico, L. (2000). Attachment and play in child care centres: Reliability and validity of the Attachment Q-sort for mothers and professional caregivers in Italy. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(2), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/016502500383377
Cassidy, J., Garcia, R., Tejeda-Delgado, C., Garrett, S. D., Martinez-Garcia, C., & Hinojosa, R. V. (2004). A learner-centered family literacy project for Latino parents and caregivers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(6), 478–488.
Caughy, M. O., & O’Campo, P. J. (2006). Neighborhood poverty, social capital, and the cognitive development of African American preschoolers. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37(1-2), 111–127.
Çetin, M., & Demircan, H. Ö. (2022). Coparenting and parental involvement in education: The mediating role of motivational beliefs. Journal of Family Studies, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2022.2045210
Cheadle, J. E. (2009). Parent educational investment and children’s general knowledge development. Social Science Research, 38(2), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.12.002
Chen, S., Chen, C., & Wen, P. (2022). Parental anxiety, endorsement of literacy learning, and home literacy practices among Chinese parents of young children. Reading & Writing, 35(4), 825–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10220-y
Cheung, S. K., Cheng, W. Y., Cheung, R. Y. M., Lau, E. Y. H., & Chung, K. K. H. (2022). Home learning activities and parental autonomy support as predictors of pre-academic skills: The mediating role of young children’s school liking. Learning and Individual Differences, 94, 102127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102127
Christian, L. G. (2006). Understanding families: Applying family systems theory to early childhood practice. YC Young Children, 61(1), 12–20.
Colbry, S., Hurwitz, M., & Adair, R. (2014). Collaboration theory. Journal of Leadership Education, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.12806/V13/I4/C8
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 16(6), 32–38.
Coleman, J. S. (1994). Social capital, human capital, and investment in youth. In A. C. Petersen (Ed.), Youth unemployment and society (pp. 34–50). Cambridge University Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1998). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.
Cooke, M., & Francisco, S. (2021). The practice architectures that enable and constrain educators’ risk-taking practices in high quality early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49(6), 1073–1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01112-
Crozier, G. (2001). Excluded parents: The deracialisation of parental involvement [1]. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 4(4), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320120096643
Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society (2nd ed.). California Association for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. (2009). Pedagogies of choice: Challenging coercive relations of power in classrooms and communities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(3), 261–271.
Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (1999). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Postmodem perspectives. Falmer Press.
Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2013). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203371114
De Los Santos Rodríguez, S., et al. (2021). Empowering Latinx families to help children with mathematics. Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12, 114(10), 776–780.
Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., & Weiss, H. B. (2006). Family involvement in school and low-income children’s literacy: Longitudinal associations between and within families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 653–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.653
Dearing, E., Kreider, H., & Weiss, H. B. (2008). Increased family involvement in school predicts improved child-teacher relationships and feelings about school for low-income children. Marriage & Family Review, 43(3–4), 226–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494920802072462
Dereli, F., & Türk-Kurtça, T. (2022). Parent engagement in early childhood education: Pandemic period. Southeast Asia Early Childhood Journal, 11(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.37134/saecj.vol11.1.3.2022
Devjak, T., & Bercnik, S. (2009). Parents’ views on preschool care and education in local community. US-China Education Review, 6(7), 68–78.
Devlieghere, J., Li, Y., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2022). Beyond the veil of parents: Deconstructing the concept of parental involvement in early childhood education and care. Early Years (London, England), 42(4–5), 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2020.1840526
Doucet, F. (2011). Parent involvement as ritualized practice. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 42(4), 404–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1492.2011.01148.x
Downer, J. T., & Mendez, J. L. (2005). African American father involvement and preschool children’s school readiness. Early Education and Development, 16(3), 317–340. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1603_2
Durmuşoğlu, M. C. (2022). Teacher opinions on family involvement and assessment practices of the MoNE 2002, 2006, and 2013 preschool education curricula. Hacettepe Egitim Dergisi, 37(2), 654–668.
Ejuu, G., & Opiyo, R. A. (2022). Nurturing Ubuntu, the African form of human flourishing through inclusive home-based early childhood education. Frontiers in Education (Lausanne), 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.838770
Ekinci-Vural, D., & Dogan-Altun, Z. (2021). Parental involvement in early childhood classrooms: Turkish teachers’ views and practices. African Educational Research Journal, 9(1), 60–68.
Eliyahu-Levi, D. (2022). Kindergarten teachers promote the participation experience of African Asylum-Seeker families. International Migration. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.13037
Epstein, J. (1986). Parent’s reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86, 277–294.
Epstein, J. L. (1990). School and family connections: Theory, research, and implications for integrating sociologies of education and family. In D. G. Unger & M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Families in community settings: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 99–126). Haworth Press.
Epstein, J. (1992). School and family partnerships. In M. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (pp. 1139–1151). Macmillan.
Epstein, J. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Westview Press.
Epstein, J. (2010). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200326
Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Westview Press.
Erdemir, E. (2022). Home-based early education for refugee and local children via mothers: A model of contextually sensitive early intervention. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31(4), 1121–1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-02197-7
Fantuzzo, J., Tighe, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family Involvement Questionnaire: A multivariate assessment of family participation in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 367–376.
Farrell, A., Tayler, C., & Tennent, L. (2004). Building social capital in early childhood education and care: an Australian study. British Educational Research Journal, 30(5), 623–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192042000234610
Farrugia, R. C., & Busuttil, L. (2021). Connections and disconnections between home and kindergarten: A case study of a 4-year old child’s digital practices and experiences in early childhood. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(6), 2178–2191. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13140
Fenech, M., & Skattebol, J. (2021). Supporting the inclusion of low-income families in early childhood education: An exploration of approaches through a social justice lens. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(9), 1042–1060. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1597929
File, N. (2001). Family-professional partnerships: practice that matches philosophy. YC Young Children, 56(4), 70.
Formosinho, J. (2021). From schoolification of children to schoolification of parents? Educational policies in COVID times. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 29(1), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2021.1872677
Foucault, M. (1981). The order of discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), Untying the text: A post-structural reader (pp. 48–78). Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange. Verso.
Froebel, F. (1912). Froebel’s chief writings on education (S. S. F. Fletcher & J. Welton, Trans.). Edward Arnold.
Gamoran, A., Miller, H. K., Fiel, J. E., & Valentine, J. L. (2021). Social capital and student achievement: An intervention-based test of theory. Sociology of Education, 94(4), 294–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380407211040261
Gapany, D., Murukun, M., Goveas, J., Dhurrkay, J., Burarrwanga, V., & Page, J. (2022). Empowering aboriginal families as their children’s first teachers of cultural knowledge, languages and identity at Galiwin’ku FaFT Playgroup. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 47(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/18369391211038978
Gedal Douglass, A., Roche, K. M., Lavin, K., Ghazarian, S. R., & Perry, D. F. (2021). Longitudinal parenting pathways linking Early Head Start and kindergarten readiness. Early Child Development and Care, 191(16), 2570–2589. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1725498
Gillanders, C., & Barak, M. (2022). In their own words: Parents’ voices about a book-provision program. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 146879842211082. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687984221108267
Goodall, J., & Montgomery, C. (2014). Parental involvement to parental engagement: A continuum. Educational Review, 66(4), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.781576
Greco, C., Castillo, K. N., & Ison, M. S. (2022). Parental beliefs about social withdrawal in preschool age. Liberabit Revista de Psicología, 28(2), e574. https://doi.org/10.24265/liberabit.2022.v28n2.574
Green, T. L. (2017). From positivism to critical theory: School-community relations toward community equity literacy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(4), 370–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1253892
Grobler, A. (2022). Teachers’ experiences of parents’ involvement in Foundation Phase learning during COVID-19. Perspectives in Education, 40(2), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v40.i2.3
Gross, D., Bettencourt, A. F., Holmes Finch, W., Plesko, C., Paulson, R., & Singleton, D. L. (2022). Developing an equitable measure of parent engagement in early childhood education for urban schools. Children and Youth Services Review, 141, 106613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106613
Guan, C. Q., Wang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2022). Grandparenting role on math online learning in Chinese multigenerational households. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 14(18), 11551. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811551
Halgunseth, L. (2009). Family engagement, diverse families and early childhood education programs: An integrated review of the literature. YC Young Children, 64(5), 56–58.
Hanson, M. J., Beckman, P. J., Horn, E., Maquart, J., Sandall, S. R., Greig, D., & Brennan, E. (2000). Entering preschool: Family and professional experiences in this transition process. Journal of Early Intervention, 23(4), 279–293.
Harms, T., & Clifford, M. (1980). Early childhood environment rating scale. Teachers College Press.
Harms, T., Clifford, M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early childhood environment rating scale, revised edition (ECERS-R). Teachers College Press.
Harris, H. A. (2021). Parental choice and perceived benefits of Reggio Emilia inspired programs. Early Child Development and Care, 191(1), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2019.1608194
Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse families: Ideal versus reality. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 372–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400306
He, B., & Thompson, C. (2022). Family involvement and English learners’ outcomes: A synthetic analysis. International Review of Education, 68(3), 409–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-022-09958-6
Hedegaard, M. (2009). Children’s development from a cultural-historical approach: Children’s activity in everyday local settings as foundation for their development. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16(1), 64–82.
Hedegaard, M., & Fleer, M. (2008). Studying children: A cultural-historical approach. McGraw-Hil Education.
Hedegaard. (2005). Strategies for dealing with conflicts in value positions between home and school: Influences on ethnic minority students’ development of motives and identity. Culture & Psychology, 11(2), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X05052351
Hewitt, B., & Maloney, C. (2000). Malaysian parents’ ideal and actual perceptions of pre-school education la perception Ideale et la Perception Reelle de l’Enseignement Prescolaire par les Parents Malaisiens Percepciones Ideales y Reales de los Padres Malasios sobre la Educacion Preescolar. International Journal of Early Years Education, 8(1), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/096697600111761
Hill, N. E., & Craft, S. A. (2003). Parent-school involvement and school performance: Mediated pathways among socioeconomically comparable African American and Euro-American families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.74
Hindman, A. H., Skibbe, L. E., Miller, A., & Zimmerman, M. (2010). Ecological contexts and early learning: Contributions of child, family, and classroom factors during Head Start, to literacy and mathematics growth through first grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.11.003
Hornby, G. (2000). Improving parental involvement. Bloomsbury Academic.
Hornby, G. (2011). Parental involvement in childhood education: Building effective school family partnerships. Springer.
Howes, C., Phillips, D. A., & Whitebook, M. (1992). Thresholds of quality: Implications for the social development of children in center-based child care. Child Development, 63, 449–460.
Hu, J., Hao, Y., & Yang, N. (2021). Chinese Australian children’s shared reading experiences at home and in preschools: A case study on parents and educators’ attitudes and practices. SAGE Open, 11(2), 215824402110074. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211007493
Huang, G. H.-C., & Mason, K. L. (2008). Motivations of parental involvement in children’s learning: Voices from urban African American families of preschoolers. Multicultural Education, 15(3), 20–27.
Hughes, J., & Kwok, O.-m. (2007). Influence of student-teacher and parent-teacher relationships on lower achieving readers’ engagement and achievement in the primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.39
İnce Samur, A. Ö. (2021). Creating a reading culture in a preschool in collaboration with children, teachers and parents. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(4), 405–436. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.366.25
Ishii-Kuntz, M., Makino, K., Kato, K., & Tsuchiya, M. (2004). Japanese fathers of preschoolers and their involvement in child care. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(3), 779–791. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00052.x
Jacobs, M. M., Harvey, N., & White, A. (2021). Parents and whānau as experts in their worlds: valuing family pedagogies in early childhood. Kōtuitui, 16(2), 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2021.1918187
Jayaraj, N., Atiqah, N., Vytialingam, N., Kabir, M., Shirin, L., & Irfan, M. (2022). Parental attitudes about play in preschool aged children. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 14(3), 5011–5018.
Jeynes, W. (1999). The effects of religious commitment on the academic achievement of Black and Hispanic children. Urban Education, 34(4), 458–479.
Jeynes, W. (2000). The effects of several of the most common family structures on the academic achievement of eighth graders. Marriage and Family Review, 30(1/2), 73–97.
Jeynes, W. (2002). Divorce, family structure, and the academic success of children. Haworth Press.
Jeynes, W. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education & Urban Society, 35(2), 202–218.
Jeynes, W. (2010). Parental involvement and academic success. Routledge.
Junge, K., Schmerse, D., Lankes, E.-M., Carstensen, C. H., & Steffensky, M. (2021). How the home learning environment contributes to children’s early science knowledge – Associations with parental characteristics and science-related activities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 56, 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.04.004
Kajee, L., & Sibanda, R. (2019). 21Home as a primary space: Exploring out-of-school literacy practices in early childhood education in a township in South Africa. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 9(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v9i1.686
Kambouri, M., Wilson, T., Pieridou, M., Quinn, S. F., & Liu, J. (2022). Making partnerships work: Proposing a model to support parent-practitioner partnerships in the early years. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(4), 639–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01181-6
Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P., & Bristol, L. (2014). Changing practices, changing education (1st ed.). Springer Singapore, Imprint: Springer.
Keyes, C. R. (2002). A way of thinking about parent/teacher partnerships for teachers. International Journal of Early Years Education, 10(3), 177–191.
Keyser, J. (2006). From parents to partners: Building a family-centered early childhood program. Redleaf Press.
Kigobe, J., Van den Noortgate, W., Ligembe, N., Ogondiek, M., Ghesquière, P., & Van Leeuwen, K. (2021). Effects of a parental involvement intervention to promote child literacy in Tanzania: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 14(4), 770–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2021.1931998
Kim, J., Murdock, T., & Choi, D. (2005). Investigation of parents’ beliefs about readiness for kindergarten: An examination of national household education survey. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(2), 3.
Kindervater, T. (2010). Models of parent involvement. The Reading Teacher, 63(7), 610–612. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.7.10
Kocourková, V., Janiś, K., & Woznicová, V. (2021). Nursery school cooperation with the family in the field of media education in children. Acta Educationis Generalis, 11(2), 83–98.
Kohl, G. O., Lengua, L. J., & McMahon, R. J. (2000). Parent involvement in school conceptualizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk factors. Journal of School Psychology, 38(6), 501–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(00)00050-9
Korat, O. (2001). Cultural pedagogy and bridges to literacy: Home and kindergarten. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28(4), 225. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009542809057
Laclau, E. (1995). Emancipation(s). Verso Books.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso.
Lau, E. Y. H., & Li, J.-B. (2021). Hong Kong children’s school readiness in times of COVID-19: The contributions of parent perceived social support, parent competency, and time spent with children. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 779449. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.779449
Lee, G. (2002). The role of Korean parents in the literacy development of their children. International Journal of Early Childhood, 34(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03177318
León-Nabal, B., Zhang-Yu, C., & Lalueza, J. L. (2021). Uses of digital mediation in the school-families relationship during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 687400. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.687400
Levickis, P., Murray, L., Lee-Pang, L., Eadie, P., Page, J., Lee, W. Y., & Hill, G. (2022). Parents’ perspectives of family engagement with early childhood education and care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early Childhood Education Journal, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01376-5
Liang, E., Peters, L. E., Akaba, S., Lomidze, A., & Graves, S. B. (2022). “If they have more work, they learn more”: Parents’ views of their children’s learning experiences and homework in pre-K settings. Early Years, 42(3), 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2020.1728735
Liu, C., & Hoa Chung, K. K. (2022). Effects of fathers’ and mothers’ expectations and home literacy involvement on their children’s cognitive–linguistic skills, vocabulary, and word reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 60, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.12.009
Liu, Y., Simpkins, S. D., & Vandell, D. L. (2022). Teachers, afterschool program staff, and mothers: Relationships with key adults and children’s adjustment in early elementary school. Applied Developmental Science, 26(2), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2020.1826321
Lohndorf, R. T., Vermeer, H. J., Harpe, C. d. l., & Mesman, J. (2021). Socioeconomic status, parental beliefs, and parenting practices as predictors of preschoolers’ school readiness and executive functions in Chile. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 57, 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.05.001
Lubeck, S., & deVries, M. (2000). The social construction of parent involvement in head start. Early Education and Development, 11(5), 633–658. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1105_6
Luo, L., & Gao, M. (2022). Family SES and self-regulated learning in Chinese preschoolers: A mediation analysis of parental educational expectation and home-based involvement. Early Education and Development, 33(3), 452–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2021.1958580
Luo, W., Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. J. (2022). Enhancing preschool-home collaboration: Lessons from virtual home visit experiences during the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Early Years, 42(1), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2021.2008880
Makin, L., & Spedding, S. (2001). Support at Home for Early Language and Literacies (SHELLS): Collaboration and challenge. Early Child Development and Care, 170(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443011700105
Maranhão, D. G., & Sarti, C. A. (2008). Day care center and family: An essential partnership. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 38(133), 171–194.
Marković, M., & Petrović, Z. S. (2021). Co-operation and partner relationships in pre-school education and upbringing – Parental satisfaction. САРАДЊА И ПАРТНЕРСКИ ОДНОСИ У ПРЕДШКОЛСКОМ ВАСПИТАЊУ – ЗАДОВОЉСТВО РОДИТЕЉА, 45(2), 525–543.
McKee, L., Murray-Orr, A., & Throop Robinson, E. (2022). Preservice teachers engage parents in at-home learning: “We are in this together!”. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 16(1), 10.22329/jtl.v16i1.6849.
McWayne, C., Hyun, S., Diez, V., & Mistry, J. (2022). “We feel connected… and like we belong”: A parent-led, staff-supported model of family engagement in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(3), 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01160-x
Melhuish, E. C., Phan, M. B., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2008). Effects of the home learning environment and preschool center experience upon literacy and numeracy development in early primary school. Journal of Social Issues, 64(1), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00550.x
Menand, V., Clément, M.-È., & April, J. (2021). Early childhood educator’s intention to provide support in the context of parental violence: The contribution of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 42(2), 162–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2021.1918295
Mercan, Z., Papadakis, S., Can Gözüm, A. I., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2022). Examination of STEM parent awareness in the transition from preschool to primary school. Sustainability, 14(21), 14030. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114030
Moghni, H., Zailani, S., & Fernando, Y. (2010). Relationship between perceived Montessori characteristics with parents’ satisfaction. European Journal of Social Sciences, 16(3), 388–399.
Morales-Alexander, Y. (2021). “School is the child’s second home”: Family engagement from a Latino sociocultural perspective. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 42(4), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2020.1799118
Morrow, G., & Malin, N. (2004). Parents and professionals working together: Turning the rhetoric into reality. Early Years (London, England), 24(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/0957514032000733019
Moss, P. (1988). Childcare and equality of opportunity: Consolidated report to the European commission. London University.
Murphy, C., Matthews, J., Clayton, O., & Cann, W. (2021). Partnership with families in early childhood education: Exploratory study. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 46(1), 93–106.
Nagel, N. G., & Wells, J. G. (2009). Honoring family and culture: Learning from New Zealand. YC Young Children, 64(5), 40–44.
Ndijuye, L. G., & Tandika, P. B. (2022). Fathers’ involvement on children’s school performance among camped-refugees and local majorities’ communities in Tanzania. International Journal of Early Years Education, 30(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2022.2041405
New, R. S., Mallory, B. L., & Mantovani, S. (2000). Cultural images of children, parents and professionals: Italian interpretations of home-school relationships. Early Education and Development, 11(5), 597–616. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1105_4
Nguyen, N. N., Darling, S., Peralta, C., Mosier, W., & Garnett, W. (2021). A collaborative and supplemental model to enhance early language and reading skills. The Reading Teacher, 74(4), 469–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1984
Nóblega, M., Núñez del Prado, J., Guimet, M., Apolinario, G., Monteiro, L., Diniz, E., & Santos, C. (2022). Validity and reliability of the Parental Involvement Scale: Caregiving and socialization activities in Peruvian parents. Acta Colombiana De Psicologia, 25(2), 142–157.
Obradović, J., Sulik, M. J., & Shaffer, A. (2021). Learning to let go: Parental over-engagement predicts poorer self-regulation in kindergartners. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(8), 1160–1170. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000838
Oropilla, C. T., & Ødegaard, E. E. (2021). Strengthening the call for intentional intergenerational programmes towards sustainable futures for children and families. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 13(10), 5564. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105564
Özgül, P., & Bayındır, D. (2022). The relation between parental involvement and school readiness: The mediating role of preschoolers’ self-regulation skills. Early Child Development and Care, 192(6), 845–860. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1806255
Palm, G., & Fagan, J. (2008). Father involvement in early childhood programs: Review of the literature. Early Child Development and Care, 178(7–8), 745–759. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430802352137
Pan, X., Wang, H., Wu, D., Liu, X., Deng, P., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Influence of family environment on the scientific fitness literacy of preschool and school children in China: A national cross-sectional study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), 8319. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148319
Parrish, S., Lavis, A., Potter, C. M., Ulijaszek, S., Nowicka, P., & Eli, K. (2022). How active can preschoolers be at home? Parents’ and grandparents’ perceptions of children’s day-to-day activity, with implications for physical activity policy. Social Science & Medicine, 1982(292), 114557–114557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114557
Peled, D., Hoter, E., & Tamir, E. (2021). Parents’ involvement inventory: Based on the WhatsApp Application (PIWI). Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 15(3), 45–63.
Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 373–410. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430305567
Powell, D. R., Son, S.-H., File, N., & San Juan, R. R. (2010). Parent–school relationships and children’s academic and social outcomes in public school pre-kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology, 48(4), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.03.002
Preston, J. P., MacPhee, M. M., & Roach O’Keefe, A. (2018). Kindergarten teachers’ notions of parent involvement and perceived challenges. McGill Journal of Education/Revue Des Sciences De l’éducation De McGill, 53(3). https://mje.mcgill.ca/article/view/9592
Puccioni, J., Froiland, J. M., Moeyaert, M., Desir, S., & Galimore, Z. (2022). Associations among African American parents’ beliefs, involvement, and measures of school readiness. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31(5), 1246–1260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-02092-1
Purola, K., & Kuusisto, A. (2021). Parental participation and connectedness through family social capital theory in the early childhood education community. Cogent Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1923361
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
Rabin, J., Vaughn, L., Trott, C., & Jacquez, F. (2022). Exploring parental perceptions of early childhood education among Spanish-speaking Latinx families. Early Childhood Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01414-2
Rautamies, E., Vähäsantanen, K., Poikonen, P.-L., & Laakso, M.-L. (2021). Trust in the educational partnership narrated by parents of a child with challenging behaviour. Early Years, 41(4), 414–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2019.1582475
Raynal, A., Lavigne, H., Goldstein, M., & Gutierrez, J. (2022). Starting with parents: Investigating a multi-generational, media-enhanced approach to support informal science learning for young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(5), 879–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01209-x
Rech, J. P., Snyder, K., Rasmussen, M., Dev, D., & Dinkel, D. (2021). The use of family engagement principles by childcare providers from various childcare settings: A qualitative study. Child Care in Practice: Northern Ireland Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Child Care Practice, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2021.1939656
Rey-Guerra, C., Maldonado-Carreño, C., Ponguta, L. A., Nieto, A. M., & Yoshikawa, H. (2022). Family engagement in early learning opportunities at home and in early childhood education centers in Colombia. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 58, 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.08.002
Rickert, N. P., & Skinner, E. A. (2022). Parent and teacher warm involvement and student’s academic engagement: The mediating role of self-system processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), e12470. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12470
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development (pp. XIII, 434). Oxford University Press.
Rosiek, J. L., Snyder, J., & Pratt, S. L. (2020). The new materialisms and indigenous theories of non-human agency: Making the case for respectful anti-colonial engagement. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(3-4), 331–346.
Sadeghi, P. T. A., & Sadeghi, A. (2022). Promoting fathers’ participation in early learning centres. He Kupu, 7(2), 48–57.
Sadownik, A. R., Bakken, Y., Gabi, J., Višnjić-Jevtić, A., & Koutoulas, J. (2021). Unfreezing the discursive hegemonies underpinning current versions of “social sustainability” in ECE policies in Anglo–Celtic, Nordic and Continental contexts. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 13(9), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094758
Sakellariou, M., & Rentzou, K. (2009). Evaluating provisions for parents and parental involvement in Greek preschool settings. The International Journal of the Humanities: Annual Review, 6(9), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9508/CGP/v06i09/42522
Sanders, C., Frank, T. J., Amyot, T., Cornish, K., Koopmans, E., Usipuik, M., Irving, L., & Pelletier, C. A. (2022). Day-to-day life during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal qualitative study with Canadian parents of young children. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 146394912211154. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491221115475
Sawyer, B. E., Dever, B. V., Kong, P., Sonnenschein, S., Simons, C., Yu, X., Zhang, X., & Cai, Y. (2022). Dominican, Salvadoran, and Chinese immigrant parents’ reasoning about school readiness skills. Child & Youth Care Forum, 51(1), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-021-09623-3
Schock, N., & Jeon, L. (2021). ECE program supports and teacher-perceived support from families: Are they connected? Social Sciences, 10(10), 361. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10100361
Schörghofer-Queiroz, V. (2022). Identity construction of multilingual parents in the context of parental engagement. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2022-0011
Schriever, V. (2021). Early childhood teachers’ perceptions and management of parental concerns about their child’s digital technology use in kindergarten. Journal of Early Childhood Research: ECR, 19(4), 487–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X211030315
Seginer, R. (2006). Parents’ educational involvement: A developmental ecology perspective. Parenting, Science and Practice, 6(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0601_1
Sengonul, T. (2022). A review of the relationship between parental involvement and children’s academic achievement and the role of family socioeconomic status in this relationship. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 12(2), 32–57.
Sheridan, S. M., Knoche, L. L., Edwards, C. P., Bovaird, J. A., & Kupzyk, K. A. (2010). Parent engagement and school readiness: Effects of the getting ready intervention on preschool children’s social-emotional competencies. Early Education and Development, 21(1), 125–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280902783517
Shim, K., & Shin, H. (2022). Describing the ecology of parenting based on preschool mothers’ social relationships in Korea: An ecological theory approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(23), 15864. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192315864
Shinina T.V., Mitina O.V. The scale of early childhood communication signals: Evaluation of child-parent interaction Kul’turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2022. 18, 1, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2022180102.
Sianturi, M., Lee, J., & Cumming, T. M. (2022). A systematic review of Indigenous parents’ educational engagement. Review of Education (Oxford), 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3362
Silinskas, G., Aunola, K., Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Raiziene, S. (2021). Parental teaching of reading and spelling across the transition from kindergarten to grade 1. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 610870. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.610870
Simons, C., Sonnenschein, S., Sawyer, B., Kong, P., & Brock, A. (2022). School readiness beliefs of Dominican and Salvadoran immigrant parents. Early Education and Development, 33(2), 268–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2021.1930747
Sisson, J. H., Shin, A.-M., & Whitington, V. (2022). Re-imagining family engagement as a two-way street. Australian Educational Researcher, 49(1), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-020-00422-8
Siu, A. F. Y., & Keung, C. P. C. (2022). Perceptions among Hong Kong parents on play in early childhood: A qualitative study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 16(1), 77–92.
Soltero-González, L., & Gillanders, C. (2021). Rethinking home-school partnerships: Lessons learned from Latinx parents of young children during the COVID-19 era. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49(5), 965–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01210-4
Soodak, L. C., & Erwin, E. J. (2000). Valued member or tolerated participant: Parents’ experiences in inclusive early childhood settings. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.25.1.29
Souto-Manning, M., & Swick, K. J. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs about parent and family involvement: Rethinking our family involvement paradigm. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(2), 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-006-0063-5
Suizzo, M.-A., Robinson, C., & Pahlke, E. (2008). African American mothers’ socialization beliefs and goals with young children. Journal of Family Issues, 29(3), 287–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07308368
Sun, H., & Ng, E. L. (2021). Home and school factors in early English language development. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 41(4), 657–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1932742
Syuraini, S., Hidayat, H., Arini, F. D., & Jamaris, J. (2022). Exploring factors of the parent-teacher partnership affecting learning outcomes: Empirical study in the early childhood education context. International Journal of Instruction, 15(4), 411–434. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15423a
Tang, E., Cheng, R. W., & Fung, W. (2021). Perceived parental stress in face of kindergarten children’s academic setback: Roles of parents’ goals and education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36(2), 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00477-2
Taylor, L. K., Bernhard, J. K., Garg, S., & Cummins, J. (2008). Affirming plural belonging: building on students’ family-based cultural and linguistic capital through multiliteracies pedagogy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8(3), 269–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798408096481
Tekin, A. K. (2011). Parental involvement revisited: Background, theories, and models. International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 11(1), 1–13.
Thomas, W., & Znaniecki, F. (1996). The Polish Peasant in Europe: A classic work in immigration history. University of Illinois Press.
Tulananda, O. (2001). Mothers’ and fathers’ interaction with preschoolers in the home in Northern Thailand: Relationships to teachers’ assessments of children social skills. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(4), 676–687.
Turney, K., & Kao, G. (2009). Barriers to school involvement: Are immigrant parents disadvantaged? The Journal of Educational Research (Washington, D.C.), 102(4), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.4.257-271
Uysal Bayrak, H., Gözüm, A. I. C., & Özen Altinkaynak, S. (2021). Investigation of the role of preschooler parents as teachers. Bulletin of Education and Research, 43(1), 155–179.
Van Laere, K., Van Houtte, M., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2018). Would it really matter? The democratic and caring deficit in “parental involvement”. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 26(2), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2018.1441999
Višnjić-Jevtić, A. (2021). Parents’ perspective on a children’s learning. Journal of Childhood, Education & Society, 2(2), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.37291/2717638X.20212266
Volk, D. (2021). Constructing literacy spaces in low-income homes and communities: A study of two Latino first graders and their families. Urban Education, 56(1), 61–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916677348
Vuorinen, T. (2021). ‘It’s in my interest to collaborate ... ’ – Parents’ views of the process of interacting and building relationships with preschool practitioners in Sweden. Early Child Development and Care, 191(16), 2532–2544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1722116
Vygotsky, L. S. (1926/1997). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. The history of the development of higher mental functions (Vol. 4., M. J. Hall, Trans.). Editor of English Translation, R. W. Rieber, New York: Kluwer Academic and Plenum Publishers.
Warren, J. M., & Locklear, L. A. (2021). The role of parental involvement, including parenting beliefs and styles, in the academic success of American Indian students. Professional School Counseling, 25(1), 2156759.
Wei, W., Wang, Q.-Y., Luo, Q., & Li, Y. (2022). Cross-lagged relationship between home numeracy practices and early mathematical skills among Chinese young children. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1033065. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1033065
Wright, T., Ochrach, C., Blaydes, M., & Fetter, A. (2021). Pursuing the promise of preschool: An exploratory investigation of the perceptions of parents experiencing homelessness. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49(6), 1021–1030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01109-6
Wu, S. (2021). A co-constructed picture of learning in play by teachers and parents. Journal of Early Childhood Research: ECR, 19(1), 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X20971316
Xu, Z., & Gulosino, C. A. (2006). How does teacher quality matter? The effect of teacher-parent partnership on early childhood performance in public and private schools. Education Economics, 14(3), 345–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645290600777550
Yngvesson, T., & Garvis, S. (2021). Preschool and home partnerships in Sweden, what do the children say? Early Child Development and Care, 191(11), 1729–1743. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2019.1673385
Yue, Y., Zhu, X., Zhang, Y., & Ren, W. (2022). Development and validation of Chinese parental involvement and support scale for preschool children. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 792910. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.792910
Zellman, G. L., & Perlman, M. (2006). Parent involvement in child care settings: Conceptual and measurement issues. Early Child Development and Care, 176(5), 521–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430500147490
Zhang, Y., Leung, S. K. Y., & Li, H. (2021). Parental play beliefs in the developing areas of China: A multiple case study. Education Sciences, 11(10), 625. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100625
Zhang, H., Jiang, L., & Hong, X. (2022). Family process and young children’s social adaptation: conditional process analyses across child-care experiences. Early Child Development and Care, 192(14), 2185–2199. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2021.1990909
Zhou, H., & Salili, F. (2008). Intrinsic reading motivation of Chinese preschoolers and its relationships with home literacy. International Journal of Psychology, 43(5), 912–916. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590701838147
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sadownik, A.R. (2023). Mapping the Theoretical Landscape of More-Than-Parental Involvement. In: Sadownik, A.R., Višnjić Jevtić, A. (eds) (Re)theorising More-than-parental Involvement in Early Childhood Education and Care. International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development, vol 40. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38762-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38762-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-38761-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-38762-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)