Communicative Relations in the Educational Environment: Exploration of Parents’ Views on Communicative Relations with the School Principal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study delves into the issue of parent – teacher communication and the relations formed in the educational environment with emphasis on the parents’ views about the relation between parents and educational leadership. The thorough literature review provides both theoretical and research dimensions which form the frame of our research process in the specific field. In this respect, our study utilizes the semi-structured interview as a methodological tool. The case study focuses on Crete, a Greek island in the south of the country. The interview results document and analyze the views of 18 parents, 5 of which are members of the Parents and Guardians Association. Their views are classified in terms of: 1) the reasons, ways and frequency of their communication with the school principal, 2) the quality of communication and possible factors of negative impact on their communication and 3) the school principal’s communicative profile along with their features that promote or hinder their communication with parents.
 Our research data showed that: 1) the communication with the school principal is rare, non-systematic, unscheduled while the main reasons for communication are problem management and solving, 2) there is positive communication in the frame of a conventional, neutral or weak relation with the principal. The main factors of negative impact on communication are: a) parents’ previous negative experiences, their disappointment due to insufficient information provision from the Principal, c) their comparisons and subjective perceptions about principal effectiveness, d) their goal for more frequent and systematic communication with the classroom teacher. Finally, 3) it was found that the majority of parents have positive views about the principal’s communicative profile meaning that the principal’s skills and personality features outweigh any other factors regarding the promotion of communication between the two sides.
 
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".