Motivational Beliefs of Parents Involved in Ottawaâs Healthy Active Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine parents’ motivational beliefs for involvement in a Comprehensive School Health approach (locally called Healthy Active Schools, or HAS) at their child’s school. Literature suggests that parents’ role construction and parents’ self-efficacy are the most salient influences on parents’ decision to become involved at their child’s school. Twelve parents involved at two urban public elementary schools were interviewed. Questions were based on Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model of parental involvement (1995, 1997, 2005c). Qualitative multiple case study analysis additionally utilized Penner’s (2002) model of sustained volunteerism and Bandura’s collective efficacy theory (1997, 2000; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2004) to clarify findings. Results suggest most parents’ strong active role construction and negative valence grounded their parent-focused role orientation. School case study analysis revealed that the principal’s leadership, the structure of the HAS committee and the school’s climate uniquely influenced parents’ beliefs. Individual parent case analysis revealed four distinct patterns of parents’ motivational beliefs for HAS involvement. Future research is warranted to further examine the decisive impact of parents’ health and prosocial values on their decision to become involved specific to a CSH approach type of involvement. Additional case studies in local schools, school districts and provinces are recommended to illuminate unique contextual influences and the potential for the emergence of collective efficacy; including consideration for parents’ belief construct general invitations from the school would contribute to gaining a deeper understanding within this domain. Finally, the link between parents’ motivational beliefs of empowerment and their sustained motivation for involvement needs to be explored further.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".