MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156396786 · doi:10.53967/cje-rce.v44i1.4509

The Differentiated Parent Support Model: Enhancing the Involvement of Parents Who Do Not Speak the School Language

2021· article· en· W3156396786 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mary MacPhee

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrenchAutonomyPsychologyHome languageComprehensionDevelopmental psychologyPopulationPedagogySociologyPolitical scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite 40 years of research indicating that parent involvement is important for student achievement, schools have done little to engage parents across Canada. This study and model recommend strategies to enhance the probability of educational involvement for parents who do not speak the school language. The mixed methods research with surveys (N = 86) and interviews (N = 38) identified the successes and challenges of non-francophone parents with children in French minority-language schools. Parents wanted to help but struggled with French schoolwork and school-community involvement. Parents’ low French proficiency and low school effort to facilitate parent communication and comprehension were some of the barriers that led to a decreased sense of parent autonomy and competency. Policy and practices by educators and parent-groups can encourage involvement and support parents in a French minority-language population as they overcome language and insecurity barriers at home or school. The findings can be generalized to support parent involvement in other multilingual contexts. Keywords: parent involvement, minority-language education, French minority language, differentiated parent support model, enhancing parent engagement

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducationSame topicParental Involvement in EducationFrench-language works237,207