The concept of family engagement in education: What are the implications for school‐based rehabilitation service providers?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract The concept of family engagement within the rehabilitation literature focuses on clinic‐based therapy sessions and is not particularly relevant to therapists working in school settings. In this study, we explored the concept of family engagement as represented in the education literature to provide school‐based therapists with a better understanding of this concept in the school context. We applied scoping review methods for the literature search and screening process, and utilised concept evaluation methodology for our analysis of included articles. Specifically, we examined concept evaluation components, including definition, characteristics, boundaries, preconditions, and outcomes. The search strategy yielded 7112 documents, of which 17 met inclusion criteria. We did not find a clear definition of family engagement in the extant literature; however, there were some common characteristics. Our analysis of boundaries indicated family engagement and parent involvement are not synonymous but are closely linked. We also identified several preconditions for family engagement in education, including: an inviting and inclusive school culture; a broad understanding of engagement; positive educator‐family relationships; and families’ confidence, beliefs and supportive life contexts. Associated outcomes included academic achievement, high school completion and child social‐emotional functioning. We proposed a broad definition based on our analysis of the included articles. Adopting a broad definition of family engagement is important for educators and school‐based therapists to ensure families feel their efforts are meaningful. Educators and school‐based therapists should consider their actions in supporting the individual needs of families, and the identified preconditions that support family engagement. Context and implications Rationale for this study There is confusion around the term ‘family engagement’ in education. This impacts educators and school‐based rehabilitation service providers who have a difficult time engaging with families in the school setting. Why the new findings matter The findings are essential groundwork for the development of conceptually sound family engagement interventions in both education and school‐based rehabilitation services. Implications for Practice This study highlights many implications for practice. To ensure successful partnerships and engagement from all stakeholders, it is imperative that school administrators and educators establish a welcoming, culturally sensitive environment for all families. Additionally, therapists and educators need to be able to support families with diverse backgrounds around navigating the education and healthcare systems. Further training is required to provide culturally sensitive and responsive services to all families. Lastly, the findings demonstrate a need for a broad understanding of family engagement that allows families who engage in non‐traditional ways to feel welcomed and respected in the school space.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,038 | 0,079 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,013 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,021 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».