The concept of family engagement in education: What are the implications for school‐based rehabilitation service providers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.038 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".