Abstract
In this chapter, we take a critical stance about the way that authors generally define the concept of parental engagement, looking at its conceptual, theoretical and epistemological foundations. We situate, in particular, this concept with respect to the self, in an ecosystemic and developmental logic. Epistemologically, the investigation of ecosystemic foundations lead us to highlight the reductionist logic on which typologies that mark out parental engagement are based and, more generally, we demonstrate the non-developmental character—in the broadest sense, a developmental perspective stems from the emergence of structures and implies a processual dimension—of this concept as designed. Looking at the limits identified, we define parental engagement with respect to a psychosocial, dialogical and developmental perspective.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Hobbs (1966) appears to be the first to use an ecosystemic approach in this field.
- 2.
- 3.
Italics represent our emphasis.
- 4.
Italics represent our emphasis.
- 5.
Idem.
- 6.
Note that we are not necessarily referring to actions (viewed in the broad sense of the word, according to Valsiner’s definition, 1987). The models (typologies), in particular those referring to process variables, identify a group of factors corresponding to the action—on a static basis—its antecedents (“determinants”) and its effects (academic success).
- 7.
Other systems can be represented, such as a community which is often reduced to the dimension of socio-economic disadvantage. Thanks to Jaan Valsiner for drawing our attention to this.
- 8.
While they are sometimes presented as interacting polarities (see Epstein, 1987), systems are implicitly designed according to such a reductionist perspective (Boulanger et al., 2011). They are closed systems (Price Mitchell, 2009) that have no interaction with the environment, but also sometimes open systems (that do interact with the environment) designed from a homeostatic perspective focussed on balance (see Christenson, Abery, & Weinberg, 1986). Theoretically, using a homeostatic system that is open (centred on balance) fuels this pitfall (Tateo & Marsico, 2014).
- 9.
Zittoun et al. (2014) define genotype and phenotype: “The genotype is the genetic set up of an organism, that is, the same DNA assembly (=genome) that can be found in all the cells of an individual organism. The phenotype was considered to be the necessarily result of the expression of the particular genotype, that is, the whole living organism, with all the characteristics that have emanated from the genotype” (p. 14).
- 10.
In the sense of the second cybernetics in the field of systemy.
- 11.
The stakeholder wants to inject the school factor in one of the parents’ mental portions (e.g. beliefs).
- 12.
- 13.
See, among others, Lawson and Lawson (2013) on children’s engagement, however, we believe this perspective is static.
- 14.
What is immediate is what makes sense to the individual, and which is familiar or becomes familiar (Bateson, 1972); which does not mean that individuals only expose themselves to what is known. On the contrary, transforming what is unknown into what is known is a central psychosociological dimension (Moscovici, 1961) that places the individual at the border of the known and unknown. It would be reductionist to distinguish, in a limited way, between what is close and what is far from the individual, and to exclude by implication the furthest point of the individual’s psychosociological space. In the introduction of a book, Cartwright says about Lewin’s (1951) work that “[m]any of Lewin’s contributions to the understanding of human behaviour consisted of showing that a wider and wider realm of determinants must be treated as part of a single, interdependent field and that phenomena traditionally parceled out to separate ‘disciplines’ must be treated in a single coherent system of constructs” (p. xii).
- 15.
Cole (1992) defines the context metaphorically: “These intuitive uses of the term context in terms of the metaphor of a cord/rope/thread are faithful, in an interesting way, to the Latin root for the term, contexere, which means ‘to weave together’” (p. 16). To be practical, we will use context and situation as synonyms, according to this meaning, even if we have pointed out the need to differentiate them, for which we do not have the space to develop herein.
- 16.
Niit (1983) speaks of general engagement.
- 17.
In this regard, Valsiner (2002) notes that: “[d]ialogicality is the basis for Hermans’ notion of dialogical self (see this issue and Hermans, 1996a, 1996b, 1999; Hermans & Kepmen, 1993). The perspective of dialogical self entails the basic feature of field theories. The different parts of the system that regroup themselves do so within space—a field—that is defined by the boundaries of the dialogical self. The relations between the parts of the field are the ‘field forces’ that maintain the dialogical self in both its stability and change” (p. 252).
- 18.
It is found between two positions, at the border with space.
- 19.
Cunha and Gonçalves (2009) show the coherent articulation between phenomenology (the meaning associated with the psychological dimension) and dialogism.
- 20.
The possibilities exploited by a person are “contained” as seeds in his or her ecosystem; this is why invisible zones are located there in Fig. 3, rather than only being relegated to the external field (environment). It is then possible to think that these invisible zones are accessible.
- 21.
The reader may refer to the resources that we have just cited.
- 22.
Italics represent our emphasis.
- 23.
The concept of school mode, or more specifically of school form, highlights the fact that school contaminates family and community and therefore shows up before school begins. The boundaries are blurred between what comes before and after school.
- 24.
La prise en compte de ces rapports permettrait d’intégrer, aux figures des articles de Iannaccone et ses collègues, la construction du soi éducationnel du parent en réaction (dialogique) aux discours des enseignants, réaction en partie considérée dans les analyses effectuées par ces auteurs. Taking these relationships into consideration would make it possible to integrate into the figures of Iannaccone and colleagues’ articles the construction of the parent’s educational self in reaction (dialogical) to the teachers’ discourses—a reaction partly taken into consideration in the analyses carried out by these authors.
References
Auerbach, S. (2007). From moral supporters to struggling advocates: Reconceptualizing parent roles in education through the experience of working-class families of color. Urban Education, 42(3), 250–283.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1929/1970). Problème de la poétique de Dostoïevsk (2nd ed.). Paris: Édition du Seuil.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bergson, H. (1888). Essai sur les données immédiates de la conscience. Paris: Felix Alcan.
Boulanger, D. (2014). L’écosystémie sous l’angle des discours: mise en perspective de l’approche de Bronfenbrenner. Nouvelle Pratiques Sociales, 27(1), 189–210.
Boulanger, D. & Doucet, F. (2014a). Researcher’s monologue: Narration ‘about’ parent-teacher relation, Part 1. Paper presented at the International Conference on Dialogical Self, Hague, Holland (August).
Boulanger, D. & Doucet, F. (2014b). Researcher’s monologue: Narration ‘about’ parent-teacher relation, Part 2. Paper presented at the International Conference on Dialogical Self, Hague, Holland (August).
Boulanger, D., Larose, F., Grenier, N., Doucet, F., Coppet, M., & Couturier, Y. (2014). Les discours véhiculés dans le champ du partenariat école-famille-communauté: analyse de la documentation scientifique. Revue Service Social, 60(1), 119–139.
Boulanger, D., Larose, F., Larivée, S., Couturier, Y., Merini, C., Blain, F., et al. (2011). Critique des fondements et usages de l’écosystémie dans le domaine du partenariat école-famille-communauté: application d’une perspective contextuelle et socioculturelle dans le cadre du programme Famille, école, communauté, réussir ensemble. Revue Service Social, 56(3), 77–95.
Brown, A. (1993). Participation, dialogue and the reproduction of social inequalities. In R. Merttens & J. Vass (Eds.), Partnerships in maths: Parents and schools: The impact project (pp. 190–213). London: Falmer.
Bruner, J. (1996). L’éducation, entrée dans la culture: les problèmes de l’école à la lumière de la psychologie culturelle (Yves Bonin, Trans.).
César, M. (2013). Collaborative work, dialogical self and inter-/intra empowerment mechanism: (Re)constructing life trajectories of participation. In M. B. Ligorio & M. César (Eds.), Interplays between dialogical learning and dialogical self (pp. 151–192). Charlotte, NC: InfoAge.
Christenson, S. L. (2004). The family-school partnership: An opportunity to promote the learning competence of all students. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(4), 454–482.
Christenson, S., Abery, B., & Weinberg, R. A. (1986). An alternative model for the delivery of psychological services in the school community. In S. N. Elliott & J. C. Witt (Eds.), The delivery of psychological services in schools. Concepts, processes, and issues (pp. 349–393). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Cole, M. (1992). Context, modularity, and the cultural constitution. In L. T. Winegard & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Children’s development within social context. research and methodology (Vol. 2, pp. 5–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
Comer, J. P., & Haynes, N. M. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological approach. Elementary School Journal, 91, 271–277.
Cunha, C., & Gonçalves, M. M. (2009). Commentary: Accessing the experience of a dialogical self: Some needs and concerns. Culture and Psychology, 15(1), 120–133.
Dornbusch, S. M., & Glasgow, K. L. (1996). The structural context of family-school relations. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 35–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Duncan, O. D. (1973). From social system to ecosystem. In M. Micklin (Ed.), Population, environment and social organization (pp. 107–117). Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press.
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139–186). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1993). Parent-school involvement during the early adolescent years. Teacher’s College Record, 94, 568–587.
Epstein, J. K. (1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement. In K. Hurrelmann, F. Kaufmann, & F. Losel (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints (pp. 121–136). New York, NY: De Gruyter.
Fleer, M. (2006). The cultural construction of child development: creating institutional and cultural intersubjectivity. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(2), 127–140.
Graue, M. E. (1998). Representing relationship between parents and schools: Making visible the force of theory. Paper presented at the Reconceptualizing Early Chidhood Conference. Honolulu, HI.
Graue, M. E. (2005). Theorizing and describing preservice teachers’ images of families and schooling. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 157–185.
Graue, M. E., Kroeger, J., & Prager, D. (2001). A Bakhtinian analysis of particular homes-school relations. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 467–498.
Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school achievement: Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 508–517.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.
Heidmets, M. (1984). Environment as the mediators of human relationships: Historical and ontological aspects. In T. Gärling & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Children within environments: Towards a psychology of accident prevention (pp. 217–227). New York, NY: Plenum.
Heidmets, M. (1994). The phenomenon of personalization of the environment: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology. A Journal of Translations, 32(3), 41–84.
Hermans, H. J. M. (1996). Voicing the self: From information processing to dialogical interchange. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 31–50.
Hermans, H. J. M., & Gieser, T. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of dialogical self theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hermans, H. J. M., & Hermans-Konopka, A. (2010). Dialogical self theory: Positioning and counter-positioning in globalizing society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H. J. G. (1993). The dialogical self: Meaning as movement. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hobbs, N. (1966). Helping disturbed children: Psychological and ecological strategies. American Psychologist, 21(12), 1105–1115.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310–331.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42.
Iannaccone, A., Marsico, G., & Tateo, L. (2012). Educational self. A fruitful idea? In M. B. Ligorio & M. César (Eds.), Interplays between dialogical learning and dialogical self (pp. 219–252). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Keyes, C. R. (2002). A way of thinking about parent/teacher partnerships for teachers. International Journal of Early Years Education, 10(3), 177–191.
Lareau, A. (1996). Assessing parent involvement in schooling: A critical analysis. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 57–64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2004). The essential conversation. What parents and teachers can learn from each other. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83, 432–479.
Lewin, K. (1933). Environmental forces. In C. Murchisson (Ed.), A handbook of child psychology (2nd ed., pp. 590–625). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
Lewin, K. (1997). Resolving social conflicts. Field theory in social sciences. In G. W. Lewin (Ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.
Lewin, K., & Cartwright, D. (Eds.). (1951). Field theory in social science. Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
Lightfoot, D. (2004). “Some parents just don’t care”: Decoding the meanings of parental involvement in urban schools. Urban Education, 39(1), 91–107.
Ligorio, M. B. (2013). Introduction: Dialogical learning and dialogical self: Two stories and many interplays. In M. B. Ligorio & M. César (Eds.), Interplays between dialogical learning and dialogical self (pp. xiii–xl). Charlotte, NC: InfoAge.
Magnusson, D. (1985). Implications of an interactional paradigm for research on human development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8, 115–137.
Markovà, I. (2013). Dialogical knowing and believing: Trust and responsibility in the context of learning. In M. B. Ligorio & M. César (Eds.), Interplays between dialogical learning and dialogical self (pp. 3–26). Charlotte, NC: InfoAge.
Marsico, G., Cabell, K. R., Valsiner, J., & Kharlamov, N. A. (2013). Interobjectivity as a border: The fluid dynamics of ‘‘betweenness’’. In G. Sammut, P. Daanen, & F. Moghaddam (Eds.), Understanding self and others: explorations in intersubjectivity and interobjectivity (pp. 51–65). London, England: Routledge.
Marsico, G., & Iannaccone, A. (2012). The work of schooling. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 830–868). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Maulini, O. & Perrenoud, P. (2005). La forme scolaire de l’éducation de base: tensions internes et évolutions. In O. Maulini, & C. Montandon (Eds.), Les formes de l’éducation: variété et variations (pp. 147–168). Paris: De Boeck Supérieur.
Mitchell, J. V. (1969). Education’s challenge to psychology: The prediction of behavior from person-environment interactions. Review of Educational Research, 39, 695–721.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.
Moll, L. C., & Diaz, S. (1989). Change as the goal of educational research. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18(4), 300–311.
Moscovici, S. (1961). La psychanalyse, son image, son public. Paris, France: PUF.
Nakagawa, K. (2000). Unthreading the ties that bind: Questioning the discourse of parent involvement. Educational Policy, 14(4), 443–473.
Niit, T. (1983). Work environment, work content, and human social activity. In H. Liimets, T. Niit, & M. Heidmets (Eds.), Man in sociophysical environment (pp. 23–37). Tallinn, Estonia: Tallinn Pedagogic Institute.
Overton, W. F. (1998). Developmental psychology: Philosophy, concepts, and methodology. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 107–188). Handbook of child psychology. New York, NY: Wiley.
Paranjpe, A. C. (1998). Self and identity in modern psychology and Indian thought. New York: Plenum Press.
Price-Mitchell, M. (2009). Boundary dynamics: Implications for building parent-school partnerships. The School Community Journal, 19(2), 9–26.
Sameroff, A. J. (1983). Systems of development: Contexts and evolution. In W. Kessen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 237–294). New York, NY: Wiley.
Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 19–29.
Smith, E. P., Connell, C., Wright, G., Sizer, M., Norman, J. M., Hurley, A., et al. (1997). An ecological model for understanding home, school, and community partnerships. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 8(4), 339–360.
Stetsenko, A. (2012). Personhood: An activist project of historical becoming through collaborative pursuits of social transformation. New Ideas in Psychology, 30, 144–153.
Stetsenko, A., & Arievitch, I. M. (2004). The self in cultural-historical activity theory. Reclaiming the unity of social and individual dimensions of human development. Theory & Psychology, 14, 475–503.
Valsiner, J. (1984). Two alternative epistemological frameworks in psychology: The typological and variational modes of thinking. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5(4), 449–470.
Valsiner, J. (1986). Where is the individual subject in scientific psychology? In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The individual subject and scientific psychology (pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Plenum.
Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the development of children’s action (1st ed.). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Valsiner, J. (1989). Human development and culture. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath & Co.
Valsiner, J. (1992). Interest: A metatheoretical perspective. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 27–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Valsiner, J. (1997). Culture and the development of children’s action (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Valsiner, J. (2002). Forms of dialogical relations and semiotic autoregulation within the self. Theory & Psychology, 12, 251–265.
Valsiner, J. (2012). A guided science: History of psychology in the mirror of its making. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Valsiner, J. (2014). An invitation to cultural psychology. London, England: Sage.
Valsiner, J., & Winegar, L. T. (1992). Introduction: A cultural-historical context for social “context”. In L. T. Winegar & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Children’s development within social context. Metatheory and theory (Vol. 1, pp. 1–14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wapner, S. & Demick, J. (1998). Developmental analysis: A holistic, developmental, systems-oriented perspective. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 761–805). Handbook of child psychology. New York, NY: Wiley.
Zittoun, T., Valsiner, J., Vedeler, D., Salgado, J., Gonçalves, M., & Ferring, D. (2013). Melodies of living. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Acknowledgements
We give many thanks to Jaan Valsiner, Pina Marsico, Luca Tateo, Sandra Ferraz and François Larose for their comments on a previous version of this article. Our appreciation also goes to Maaris Raudsepp for kindly borrowing and making a copy of a manuscript—which was only available typewritten and therefore very difficult to obtain—from Niit. Finally, we thank Valérie Cusson for her technical help.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Boulanger, D. (2018). Parental Engagement in Light of the Ecosystemic Foundations of the School–Family–Community Partnership: Towards a Psychosocial, Dialogical and Developmental Perspective. In: Marsico, G., Tateo, L. (eds) The Emergence of Self in Educational Contexts. Cultural Psychology of Education, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98602-9_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98602-9_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98601-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98602-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)