Revisiting the Challenges Linked to Parenting and Home–School Relationships at the High School Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article revisits data from a 2005 study on the parental involvement process. The purpose of this study was to analyze parents’ written statements regarding two processes: parenting and home–school relationships associated with school success at the high school level. The objectives are mainly to describe parents’ understanding of their role in adolescent education and schooling, to document their perception of adolescents’ and teachers’ invitations to become involved, and to identify contradictions within their relationships with adolescents and teachers. Using the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), we analyzed qualitative data obtained from 409 parents’ statements. Main findings indicate contradictions in the rules and division of labour poles of the activity systems. Divergent points of view were noted between parents and adolescents and between parents and school/teachers in regard to their responsibilities. The same observations were made with respect to home–school relationships. Other contradictions were also identified when the parents addressed the recurrent tensions to improve either their relationships with their adolescents or with the teachers. As a promising avenue for intervention and developmental research, the authors suggest to apply the Change Laboratory (CL) methodology to give adolescents a better voice and the ability to act as mediators in both activity systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".