What Do Teacher-Education College Students Know about Parental Involvement: A Comparative Study between the U.S. and Israel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given that the professional literature provides ample evidence of the importance of parental involvement and its effect on learners’ academic outcomes and positive social/emotional states, the aim of this quantitative study was to understand and compare the perceptions of preservice teachers regarding parental involvement and family engagement in Israel and the U.S. Fisher’s Perception of Parental Involvement Scale (PPIS; Fisher, 2011) was used to survey 469 education-college students: 269 American students and 200 Israeli students. Analysis indicated that the model was a better fit for Israeli students and an acceptable fit for U.S. students. However, in general, Israeli and US students in teaching colleges agreed on many of the components of parental involvement. Some results differed by gender, age, level of education, and prior teaching experience. These results may suggest that the fundamental concepts that constitute the family engagement are not culturally bound, but rather may be common among different cultures and nations. Further research is required to confirm this. Notwithstanding, gaining a general understanding of pre- and in-service teachers’ perceptions regarding parental involvement and family engagement could prompt the colleges to expand their teacher-education programs to better address this important issue.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".