View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

'Parents Don't Need to Come to School to Be Engaged:' Teachers Use of Social Media for Family Engagement

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: 'Parents Don't Need to Come to School to Be Engaged:' Teachers Use of Social Media for Family Engagement
Language: English
Authors: Baxter, Gillian (ORCID 0000-0002-9300-0610), Toe, Dianne
Source: Educational Action Research. 2023 31(2):306-328.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 23
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Family Involvement, Social Media, Foreign Countries, Elementary School Teachers, Action Research, Parent Participation, Critical Theory, Principals, Teacher Administrator Relationship, Participatory Research, Catholic Schools
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2021.1930087
ISSN: 0965-0792
1747-5074
Abstract: This paper presents a small-scale Critical Participatory Action Research (CPAR) study, investigating school leaders' efforts to enhance families' engagement in their children's learning, through classroom teachers' use of social media. The study occurred within three Australian primary schools, situated within a culturally and linguistically diverse community. Throughout two action research cycles the participating school leaders and classroom teachers critically reflected on family survey data and a sample of social media posts depicting student learning, so as to identify opportunities for enhanced family engagement. A practice lens was used to examine the sayings (words and language), doings (activities and resources) and relatings (relationships and power dynamics) featured within social media posts, to facilitate the participating leaders' critical self-reflection of current practice. Data were collected through surveys, semi-structured interviews, transcripts of reflective practice meetings and reflective practice tools utilised throughout the CPAR process. Analysis of practice architectures identified systemic features utilised by school leaders to support classroom teachers' practice change. Furthermore, this study highlights the significant role that school leaders have in facilitating classroom teachers' use of social media for family engagement.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1386681
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEGzw3aeeeLWOuaPRLf8wZSAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDE17LYshzgc-7lmmjwIBEICBmp6QcWmnU2yj8V4iOcYX6zGIFMUDl1zrEvzeaoolbLF6l9w75cuGW-eIXPatR4ONu9e2_zylcufZsfAJTg4ft3U2dJJ6Cg-1v8p5vBV7rAdWLhSewh_WQ3vkwzP-YKqAmMvLgW4wBZiBRg5gfj3QxXhl4dii4Wx26XjAxmH4zxTeKlD2PIrquBOIF0vBkfuEIz8gW4Uae81CH54=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0162874010;gp001apr.23;2023Apr05.05:37;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0162874010-1">'Parents don't need to come to school to be engaged:' teachers use of social media for family engagement </title> <p>This paper presents a small-scale Critical Participatory Action Research (CPAR) study, investigating school leaders' efforts to enhance families' engagement in their children's learning, through classroom teachers' use of social media. The study occurred within three Australian primary schools, situated within a culturally and linguistically diverse community. Throughout two action research cycles the participating school leaders and classroom teachers critically reflected on family survey data and a sample of social media posts depicting student learning, so as to identify opportunities for enhanced family engagement. A practice lens was used to examine the sayings (words and language), doings (activities and resources) and relatings (relationships and power dynamics) featured within social media posts, to facilitate the participating leaders' critical self-reflection of current practice. Data were collected through surveys, semi-structured interviews, transcripts of reflective practice meetings and reflective practice tools utilised throughout the CPAR process. Analysis of practice architectures identified systemic features utilised by school leaders to support classroom teachers' practice change. Furthermore, this study highlights the significant role that school leaders have in facilitating classroom teachers' use of social media for family engagement.</p> <p>Keywords: Family engagement; parent involvement; social media; critical participatory action research</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Associations between family engagement in children's learning and enhanced student learning and wellbeing outcomes are widely documented (Desforges and Abouchaar 2003; Fan and Chen [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref1">12</reflink>]; Henderson and Mapp 2002; Jeynes [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref2">21</reflink>]; Sheridan et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref3">37</reflink>]). While the benefits of family engagement are relevant to all students, research identifies that socio-demographic characteristics can influence how accessible family engagement is for families throughout a child's schooling (Daniel [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref4">7</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref5">8</reflink>]; Mapp and Hong [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref6">28</reflink>]; Walker and Berthelsen [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref7">39</reflink>]; Wei et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref8">40</reflink>]). Analysis of data from <emph>Growing up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children</emph> (Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>]), undertaken by Daniel ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref10">7</reflink>]), demonstrates that family participation in both school-based and home-based parent involvement activities lessens over time within culturally and linguistically diverse and low socio-economic communities. Factors which both enhance or undermine families' engagement in their children's learning are complex and multi-dimensional (Boethel [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref11">5</reflink>]; Fan, Li, and Sandoval [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref12">11</reflink>]; Mapp and Hong [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref13">28</reflink>]). Research has identified, however that schools' poor communication with families, (Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>]) can inhibit families' ability to engage in their children's learning (Mapp and Hong [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref15">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, a key factor found to support families' engagement in their children's learning, is teachers' intentional outreach to families (Daniel [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref16">8</reflink>]; Patrikakou and Weissberg [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref17">32</reflink>]). Teacher outreach strategies (which can include conversations, messaging and digital information sharing), have become a focus for many schools seeking to strengthen family engagement in children's learning (Blau and Hameiri [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>]; Kraft and Rogers [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref19">26</reflink>]; Kraft and Doughtery [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref20">25</reflink>]; Lewin and Luckin [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref21">27</reflink>]). Research also supports the idea that home-based family engagement, such as parents talking with their children about their learning, has greater impact on children's learning outcomes than does parents' involvement in school activities (such as classroom volunteering) (Borgonovi and Montt [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref22">6</reflink>]; Pomerantz, Moorman, and Litwack [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref23">33</reflink>]; Harris, Andrew-Power and Goodall 2009). Accordingly, frameworks such as Goodall and Montgomery's ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref24">14</reflink>]) 'parental involvement to engagement continuum' assist schools in distinguishing approaches which focus on school-activities (involvement) and those which facilitate families' connection to their children's learning (engagement).</p> <p>The ongoing development of innovative social media platforms offers schools new opportunities to enhance communication with families, through use of technology (Greenhalgh-Spencer [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref25">17</reflink>]; Kimmons and Belikov [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref26">24</reflink>]). Digital platforms enable the uploading of student learning (such as photos, video and audio footage and annotated work samples) which students, families and teachers can interact with, when and where they choose to (SeeSaw Learning, Inc [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref27">36</reflink>]). The use of digital technologies within schools and the potential that such technology has to enhance family engagement, has recently been discussed (Beecher and Buzhardt [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref28">3</reflink>]; Blau and Hameiri [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref29">4</reflink>]; Grant [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref30">16</reflink>]; Hutchinson, Paatsch, and Cloonan [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref31">20</reflink>]; Lewin and Luckin [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref32">27</reflink>]; Olmstead [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref33">31</reflink>]; Exley, Willis, and McCosker [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref34">10</reflink>]; Willis and Exley [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref35">42</reflink>]). While school-based social media offers scope for empowering families to partner in their children's learning, the effectiveness and authenticity of school-home communication has not been clearly established (Goodall [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref36">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Social media posts have the potential to confuse and mislead parents through use of educational jargon and concepts that perpetuate school-centric ideals (Goodall [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref37">15</reflink>]), overwhelm families through teachers' ambiguous expectations (Hutchinson, Paatsch, and Cloonan [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref38">20</reflink>]), or further isolate families without access to technology (Hollingsworth et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref39">19</reflink>]). Observations have also been made that schools tend to implement family engagement through 'random acts' (Weiss, Lopez, and Rosenberg [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref40">41</reflink>]), where parents are sporadically invited to connect with their child's learning at times determined by the school. Advocates for effective family engagement perceive that partnering with families must be an embedded and sustained practice occurring throughout the entire school year (Pushor and Amendt [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref41">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>This study explores the experiences of seven school leaders, from three diverse primary schools in Melbourne, Australia, who collaborated as Critical Participatory Action Researchers (CPAR) to reflect on how they support classroom teachers in their use of school-based social media. CPAR was chosen for this study due to its focus on critically examining the local practices occurring at a site, through a valuing of participatory perspectives and experiences. A practice theory framework of sayings (words and language), doings (activities, resources and physical space) and relatings (relationships and power dynamics) (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref42">23</reflink>]) underpinned the school leaders' examination of their use of social media to engage families.</p> <p>The following research questions guided the study:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How do school leaders support classroom teachers to engage families in their children's learning via social media?</item> <p></p> <item> How do school leadership structures influence classroom teachers' capacity to engage families in their children's learning via social media?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0162874010-3">Materials and methods: research design and analysis</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162874010-4">Critical participatory action research (CPAR)</hd> <p>The conceptual framework for this study is informed by Critical Participatory Action Research (CPAR) (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref43">23</reflink>]), which recognises the importance of localised context when examining social practices and provides a structure for people to examine the complex interconnections extant within their practice (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref44">23</reflink>]). This study applied a practice framework which recognised 'sayings' to be the words and language teachers used to discuss family engagement. 'Doings' were examined as the activities, resources and physical space used to enact family engagement. Additionally, 'relatings' were observed as the relationships and ways that teachers, students and parents relate to each other within practices of family engagement and family school partnerships (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref45">23</reflink>]). The theory of practice architectures (Edwards-Groves and Grootenboer [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref46">9</reflink>]; Salamon and Harrison [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref47">35</reflink>]), an important aspect of CPAR, was utilised to critically consider the impact of local conditions occurring within the participating school sites. Three interconnected strands define the ways in which practice architectures were understood within this study. Cultural-discursive arrangements provide meaning and comprehensibility to the language used to discuss family engagement. Material-economic arrangements surmise the productivity achieved through actions and work for family engagement. Furthermore, social-political arrangements provide value in establishing solidarity among the people involved in and affected by family engagement practice (Edwards-Groves and Grootenboer [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref48">9</reflink>]; Salamon and Harrison [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref49">35</reflink>]). A more extensive explanation of the processes involved within the CPAR cycles of this study are shared within the forthcoming <emph>Method</emph> discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-5">Participants</hd> <p>The three schools participating within this study were Catholic primary schools located in a culturally and linguistically diverse suburb of a major Australian city. Pseudonyms have been allocated to each school, based on their choice of social media application (app): Seesaw Primary School, FlexiBuzz Primary School and Twitter Primary School.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-6">Technological tools</hd> <p>The Seesaw app has an education focus, whereby students, teachers and families collaboratively interact about student learning within a private online platform. Seesaw is designed to be student-led, with teachers scaffolding their students to identify and describe their ongoing learning within posts. Families are able to respond to their own children's individual posts by liking or writing comments. Families access Seesaw via a password.</p> <p>The Flexibuzz app is a message platform designed to share information within private groups. At Flexibuzz Primary School, families access a password protected class Flexibuzz account which shares the learning of all students, rather than for individual children. Families, however are unable to interact with the Flexibuzz platform (for example: families cannot write a comment or 'like' a post).</p> <p>Twitter is a public platform that enables participants to follow the insights, opinions and experiences shared by individuals and groups as well as contributing their own perspectives. Children's learning is shared on Twitter as a class level, not specific for individual children.</p> <p>The schools participating within this study selected their social media platform independently of each other, with their use pre-dating the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-7">Insider action research</hd> <p>This study is classed as Insider Action Research (Holian and Coghlan [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref50">18</reflink>]) due to the research sites initiating a collaboration with an academic institution (Deakin University, Australia), in order to explore their own social media practices with academic rigour. The authors undertook this study on the premise that 'preunderstanding' (Holian and Coghlan [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref51">18</reflink>], 401) can act as a benefit of insider inquiry, whereby researchers' prior knowledge, insights and experiences of the research site (including organisational culture) can help facilitate research inquires and processes (Holian and Coghlan [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref52">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>This study being led from the ground-up and the autonomy of research participants (Nolen and Vander Putten [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref53">30</reflink>]) was carefully considered. Strategies to minimise possible coercion of research participants included having the school principals emphasise that participation in the study was not an employment requirement. Additionally, the democratic underpinnings of CPAR were made explicit to all participants, encouraging a culture of equality, honesty and respect between researchers and participants (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref54">23</reflink>]b; Nolen and Vander Putten [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref55">30</reflink>], 405). Informant Bias (Mercer [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref56">29</reflink>], 7) describes the potential influence which either an insider or outsider researcher may have upon research participants' contributions to a study. The concept of informant bias was explicitly discussed with the research participants within Advisory Group meetings, with opportunities provided to collaboratively develop practical strategies to mediate this issue.</p> <p>The confidentiality of research participants (Nolen and Vander Putten [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref57">30</reflink>]) was a consideration due to the pre-existing relationships between the research participants. To mediate the risk of confidentiality breaches, each of the research sites and individual research participants used pseudonyms within written and spoken contexts. Informal risk assessments of confidentiality concerns were undertaken throughout the research process.</p> <p>Role duality (Holian and Coghlan [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref58">18</reflink>], 401) was also considered due to Author 1's employment within the research sites and key role in leading the research processes. Author 2 closely supervised and collaborated in the research processes in order to manage identified risks. An external research assistant undertook the processes involved in gaining participant consent, in order to protect the confidentiality of research participants (Nolen and Vander Putten [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref59">30</reflink>]). The research assistant explained the plain language statement, consent forms and the parameters of the study to the participating school leaders and teachers. This provided additional separation between the Insider Researcher and the participants to mitigate any possibility of coercion and to provide participants with an opportunity to freely participate. Ethics approval was granted from the Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Group and Catholic Education Melbourne.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-8">Advisory group members</hd> <p>As this study was led from the ground-up as Insider Action Research (Holian and Coghlan [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref60">18</reflink>]) the primary research participants, members of a 'Family School Partnership Advisory Group' were aware of the research plans from its inception. The Advisory Group focuses on enhancing their knowledge, practice and accountability for family engagement in children's learning. The Advisory Group met formally on six occasions throughout the research period (three quarters of a school year). The Advisory Group is comprised of a variety of school leaders, as shown in Figure 1.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Family school partnership advisory group.</p> <p>Within the context of this study, the Family Engagement in Learning Leader is responsible for the day-to-day planning and implementation of family engagement strategies at a school level. The Learning and Teaching Leaders within the research sites meet regularly with classroom teachers to develop contemporary pedagogical approaches for student learning. The Wellbeing Leader involved in this study holds responsibility for the social-emotional components of the school curriculum; meeting with classroom teachers during relevant forums in order to support effective family engagement practices. The Cluster Engagement in Learning Leader (CELL) is responsible for overseeing a Family School Partnerships Strategic Plan which connects the work occurring across the three research sites. The CELL meets regularly with the Advisory Group participants. Additionally, the Advisory Group also benefits from a Critical Friend attending regular meetings in order to offer independent feedback on working strategically as a cluster. Table 1 further outlines the Advisory Group participants.</p> <p>Table 1. Advisory group participant demographic data.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Name</td><td>School</td><td>Leadership Role (most relevant)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Louise</td><td>Seesaw Primary School</td><td>Family Engagement in Learning Leader</td></tr><tr><td>Rosie</td><td>Seesaw Primary School</td><td>Wellbeing Leader</td></tr><tr><td>Kate</td><td>Flexibuzz Primary School</td><td>Family Engagement in Learning Leader</td></tr><tr><td>Bridget</td><td>Flexibuzz Primary School</td><td>Learning and Teaching Leader</td></tr><tr><td>Thelma</td><td>Twitter Primary School</td><td>Family Engagement in Learning Leader</td></tr><tr><td>Daisy</td><td>Twitter Primary School</td><td>Learning and Teaching Leader</td></tr><tr><td>Abby</td><td>Critical Friend</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Amelia</td><td>Cluster Engagement in Learning Leader</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0162874010-9">Classroom teachers</hd> <p>The Principal at each of the research sites selected one single year level to be the focus for this study. Critical Participatory Action Research (CPAR) as a methodology does not require large-scale representative data samples (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref61">23</reflink>]), therefore a single year level involving between 2–6 teachers at each school site is considered purposeful. The Principals selected the year level based on practical and logistical grounds.</p> <p>Classroom teachers (see Table 2) were invited to participate in the study via a letter, provided to them by an external research assistant. The research process, risks and benefits were also explained by the external research assistant.</p> <p>Table 2. Classroom teacher participant demographic data.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Name</td><td>School</td><td>Classroom Level</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Jane</td><td>Flexibuzz Primary School</td><td>Prep/Foundation</td></tr><tr><td>Clare</td><td>Flexibuzz Primary School</td><td>Prep/Foundation</td></tr><tr><td>Dominic</td><td>Twitter Primary School</td><td>Grade 5 and 6</td></tr><tr><td>Arial</td><td>Twitter Primary School</td><td>Grade 5 and 6</td></tr><tr><td>Andrea</td><td>Seesaw Primary School</td><td>Grade 3 and 4</td></tr><tr><td>Sally</td><td>Seesaw Primary School</td><td>Grade 3 and 4</td></tr><tr><td>Rachel</td><td>Seesaw Primary School</td><td>Grade 3 and 4</td></tr><tr><td>Mary</td><td>Seesaw Primary School</td><td>Grade 3 and 4</td></tr><tr><td>Moriah</td><td>Seesaw Primary School</td><td>Grade 3 and 4</td></tr><tr><td>Lilly</td><td>Seesaw Primary School</td><td>Grade 3 and 4</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0162874010-10">Families</hd> <p>To further understand and contextualise how schools use social media posts that are intended to engage families in their children's learning, families from the chosen year level were invited to complete a short survey. The purpose of the survey was to gain an historical representation of the frequency and focus of how families interacted with the social media apps. Completion of the family survey was voluntary and answered anonymously. Survey data was used to support the Advisory Group to critically reflect on their own social media practices. Families were invited to complete the same survey before the Advisory Group participants began their practice change; and then a second time throughout the intervention. Families of students in the participating year were provided participant information sheets and consent forms clearly outlining the research process, risks and benefits.</p> <p>Families were sent a letter inviting them to provide consent for social media posts, relating to their child, to be observed by the researchers and research participants. Separate protocols were followed depending on whether the school's social media app was private or publicly visible, and whether individual children were the subject of social media posts or an entire classroom community.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-11">Students</hd> <p>Primary school age students (aged five – thirteen) indirectly contributed to the data collection process, as their work samples, images of them participating in school activities and related discussions were observed within the data collection and analysis processes. Students, however, did not directly participate in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-12">Method</hd> <p>This study involved two cycles of a five step Critical Participatory Action Research (CPAR) process (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref62">23</reflink>]) (see Figure 2). Each step is explained within the proceeding sub-headings.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Critical participatory action research cycle.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-13">Step one (cycle one): gathering the history</hd> <p>This step focussed on gathering historical evidence of how social media platforms were being utilised at the research sites. Within the <bold>first</bold> Reflective Practice Meeting (RPM) the school leaders were introduced to the concepts of practice theory and CPAR processes. Thereafter, the school leaders responded to open-ended questions designed to help them to reflect on and articulate their schools' experiences of using social media for family engagement.</p> <p>Students' parents from the year level participating in the research study, completed an anonymous online survey about their experiences of being engaged in their children's learning and their use of the schools' social media account. A two-week sample of social media posts was also collected from each of the three school sites. The exact time period during which the sample of posts was collected, was not known to the school leaders or classroom teacher participants in order to capture a normative representation of the participating teachers' social media practice.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-14">Step two (cycle one): sharing the history</hd> <p>Within the <bold>second</bold> Reflective Practice Meeting the school leaders were presented with the Parent Survey data and the two-week sample of social media posts. The reflective practice process encouraged the school leaders to critically consider social media practices occurring within their individual school site and thereafter, to consider shared practices occurring within the cluster.</p> <p>The principles of the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref63">23</reflink>]) were used to prompt the school leaders to critically reflect on the language, activities and relationships evident within both the parent survey data and the social media posts using a reflective practice template (RPT) (see Table 3) to document their observations of the practice elements (sayings, doing and relatings) within social media posts.</p> <p>Table 3. Worked example of the reflective practice template.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody><tr><td><graphic href="reac_a_1930087_ilg0001.jpg" content-type="Graph" /></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>When reading the parent survey responses, the participants highlighted text which represented parents' sayings (for example: green highlighter for words and language), doings and relatings. The school leaders' insights of social media posts and parent survey responses from their schools, were analysed to identify shared language, activities and relationships common across each of the research sites. This data identified shared practices and was presented to the Advisory Group participants within the third meeting, as a conversation stimulus.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-15">Step three (cycle one): considering the practice</hd> <p>In the <bold>third</bold> Reflective Practice Meeting, the Advisory Group participants were invited to respond to an additional RPT (see Table 4) that summarised their earlier observations of parent survey data and social media post observations. This RPT is based on the theory of practice architectures which explores interconnections between the sayings, doings and relatings of a practice and ways in which local factors enable and hinder its sustainability (Kemmis and Grootenbooer [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref64">22</reflink>]; Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref65">23</reflink>]). The Advisory Group participants were encouraged to critically reflect on the template as a stimulus for discussion, not to view it as a factual representation. The purpose was for the Advisory Group participants to recognise ways in which social media posts may inadvertently undermine families' engagement in their children's learning. Aligned with Kemmis & colleagues' ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref66">23</reflink>]) objective for critical action research to emancipate people and groups, the RPT inquired into whether social media posts were rational (did posts make sense to families?), just (were posts accessible to all families?) and sustainable (was the frequency and format of posts beneficial to families?). The dialogue which resulted from the participants' critical reflection helped the Advisory Group to identify areas of 'shared felt concern' (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref67">23</reflink>], 41); aspects of social media practices which were considered to be problematic, unsustainable or unethical.</p> <p>Table 4. Worked example of the advisory group's considerations of practice architectures.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody><tr><td><italic>What does family engagement via social media <bold>sound</bold> like?</italic> The <bold>words</bold> and <bold>language</bold> used to discuss family engagement in children's learning via social media</td><td><italic>What does family engagement via social media <bold>look</bold> like?</italic> The <bold>activities, resources</bold> and <bold>physical space</bold> used to enact family engagement via social media</td><td><italic>What does family engagement via social media <bold>feel</bold> like?</italic> The <bold>relationships and ways</bold> that teachers, students and families relate to each other within practices of family engagement and family school partnership via social media</td></tr><tr><td><bold><italic>Wonderings</italic></bold>: <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>What processes do teachers follow in preparing a post (e.g. who is the target audience? what is the purpose of the post)</p></list-item><list-item><p>What support is given to families to access social media posts in different languages?</p></list-item></list></td><td><bold><italic>Wonderings</italic></bold>: <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Parents' survey responses frequently included the language of 'seeing' and 'watching' their children's learning. This suggests that the visual material within posts is highly utilised. What do teachers think about when they prepare an image to post? What aspects of images would highlight learning best?</p></list-item></list></td><td><bold><italic>Wonderings</italic></bold>: <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>How may app features enable and limit relationships between student – parent, teacher – parent?</p></list-item><list-item><p>What opportunities are there for families to connect with their individual children's learning?</p></list-item><list-item><p>What implications are created by posts being teacher directed?</p></list-item><list-item><p>How are families encouraged to interact with the app and/or provide feedback?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Could parent knowledge be incorporated into posts?</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><italic>Enable</italic></td><td><italic>Hinder</italic></td><td><italic>Enable</italic></td><td><italic>Hinder</italic></td><td><italic>Enable</italic></td><td><italic>Hinder</italic></td></tr><tr><td>School curriculum language is shared with families Questions are sometimes posed to encourage and facilitate family engagement e.g. 'ask your child ... ' Language is sometimes used to connect with the parent audience</td><td>Is there assumed knowledge? How accessible is curriculum language to families if an explanation isn't provided? e.g. 'splitting strategies', 'trusting the count' Some examples of photos within posts not directly relating to the text Some parents cite language difficulties</td><td>Varied examples of school activities, resources and physical space being shared with families. Parents acknowledge that it is this connection with school learning that helps them start conversations at home Photos or video footage of learning activities in different stages of completion (rather than just the finished product) support the written explanation and assist overall understanding of the post</td><td>Posts clearly help parents start conversations, but what about deeper learning connections? Some posts mention or describe an activity but don't necessarily explain what learning is taking place and why A lack of regular posts was identified by some parents. Also, some feedback about children's work being fuzzy and audio unclear</td><td>A number of parents are very appreciative of the social media posts and access them regularly Parents identified a number of ways that they talk with their children about learning, with school apps being a key enabler</td><td>How do teachers engage with families who aren't accessing social media? Is it known why some families aren't connected? Is support offered? Some parents acknowledged that their children aren't keen to talk about school learning or may not understand their learning enough to explain it. What roles can students play in promoting family engagement via social media? Are students involved in planning or producing posts to share their learning with families?</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Thereafter, the Cluster Engagement in Learning Leader (Author 1) met individually with the school leaders, in order to discuss how they wanted to address the group's 'shared felt concern' (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref68">23</reflink>], 41) within their own school setting. The school leaders completed an Action Research Planner, for their own school, in order to identify the purpose and processes involved in their research inquiry.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-16">Step four (cycle one): acting to transform the practice</hd> <p>During the period between the <bold>third</bold> and <bold>fourth</bold> Reflective Practice Meetings the research participants began to enact their collective plans of action. The Cluster Engagement in Learning Leader and CPAR facilitator, supported the research participants to establish methods of evidence gathering and analysis in order to consider whether they had been effective in changing their social media practice. Additionally, the CPAR facilitator met intermittently with the school leaders in order to offer practical support and encouragement.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-17">Step five (cycle one): document and monitor</hd> <p>Within the <bold>fourth</bold> Reflective Practice Meeting, the school leaders undertook a mid-point review of their research. The review comprised of the school leaders actively sharing their activities, observations and insights gained thus far from the CPAR process. Specifically, the Advisory Group participants each summarised their experiences and anticipated next steps, highlighting opportunities and challenges that they had encountered. Each school articulated the changes that they hoped to see from their research inquiry, and defined how they planned to measure their success. At this point, the second full cycle of CPAR began.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-18">Step one (cycle two): gathering the history</hd> <p>In addition to the Advisory Group participants undertaking their own research inquiry within their school communities, the CPAR facilitator collected a second two-week sample of social media posts, in order to explore evidence of changes to the sayings, doings and relatings. Families were invited to complete an anonymous survey (for a second time) about their experiences of family engagement and their school's use of social media.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-19">Step two (cycle two): sharing the history</hd> <p>Within the <bold>fifth</bold> Reflective Practice Meeting, the Advisory Group participants were presented with the parent survey data (for the second time) alongside the second social media post sample. The earlier reflective practice process was repeated.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-20">Step three (cycle two): considering the practice</hd> <p>Again, the school leaders critically reflected on the parent survey and social media post data. The school leaders were looking for evidence of changed practice that may have occurred. Using a RPT (such as shown in Table 3) the leaders recorded the language, activities and relationships evident within their data and discussed observations of change.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-21">Step four (cycle two): acting to transform the practice</hd> <p>As the CPAR processes featured within this study occurred within a context of ongoing family engagement practice, the school leaders did not pause or cease their work dependent on the research parameters. In this regard, the social media practices occurring within each of the school sites (documented within the Action Research Planners) continued outside of research meetings and related processes. Additionally, the CPAR steps are dynamic and not always chronologically sequential. For example, the school leaders considered their social media practices throughout the entirety of the CPAR process, not limited to only those times recognised as occurring within Step Three.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-22">Step 5 (cycle two): document and monitor</hd> <p>The <bold>Sixth</bold> Reflective Practice Meeting involved the school leaders being individually interviewed, by an external research assistant, about their research experiences. Thereafter, all collected evidence (research participants' observations and reflections, social media posts and parent surveys, meeting transcripts and interview data) was gathered for analysis. The school leaders member-checked the findings.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-23">Analysis</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162874010-24">Categorising and coding</hd> <p>Transcript data from reflective practice meetings, school-based meetings and school leaders' interviews was analysed using a thematic approach (Stringer [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref69">38</reflink>]) of categorising transcripts for codes relating to practice theory elements. Data produced from the parent surveys and social media posts, described within the preceding Method section, however, were not analysed as part of the research findings. The purpose of collecting the parent survey data and samples of social media posts was to present the Advisory Group participants with a stimulus for critical reflection of the social media practices for family engagement occurring within their school settings. The parent survey data supported the school leaders to gain insight into how families perceived, valued and utilised social media posts. Family perspectives helped to identify why and how posts could be adapted to make them more practical and purposeful for family engagement. Samples of social media posts were integral for the school leaders to consider the sayings, doings and relatings depicted within posts. These data, however do not relate directly to the research questions and therefore were excluded from data analysis contributing to the findings discussed within this paper.</p> <p>The first research question, <emph>how do school leaders support classroom teachers to engage families in their children's learning via social media?</emph> was considered through a practice framework. Data analysis was guided by the proceeding coding definitions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Sayings</emph>: participants' words and language used to describe use of social media for family engagement in children's learning</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Doings</emph>: participants' activities, resources and physical space utilised within the practice of social media for family engagement in children's learning</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Relatings</emph>: participants' acknowledgement of relationships and interactions between teachers, students and families within social media for family engagement in children's learning</item> </ulist> <p>Author 1 analysed the data, utilising NVivo. Throughout initial coding a number of categories were established. Thereafter, focussed coding was achieved by using a reflective practice template to review, refine and cross-reference analysis observations, centred on the practice elements of sayings, doings and relatings (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref70">23</reflink>]). Data was initially reviewed from the perspective of individual schools, before later being considered collectively. This process informed the presentation of research findings as three vignettes which combine as a case study. Author 1 and Author 2 conferred on this coding process and the resulting vignettes. The construction of the case emerged as a logical way to present the findings of this CPAR study. Vignettes were organised through the sequence of CPAR processes: Gathering the History, Sharing the History, Considering the Practice and Acting to Transform the Practice.</p> <p>The second research question, <emph>how do school leadership structures influence classroom teachers' capacity to engage families in their children's learning via social media?</emph> was considered utilising a practice architectures framework (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref71">23</reflink>]). This framework explored the local features which enabled and hindered the participants' critical exploration of social media practices. The proceeding coding definitions guided data analysis:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Cultural Discursive Arrangements</emph>: how did words and language hinder and enable the participants' use of social media for family engagement in children's learning?</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Material Economic Arrangements</emph>: how did activities, resources and physical space hinder and enable the participants' practice of social media for family engagement in children's learning?</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Social-Political Arrangements</emph>: how did ways in which the participants acknowledged relationships and interactions between teachers, students and families hinder and enable their use of social media for family engagement in children's learning?</item> </ulist> <p>The aforementioned data analysis process was repeated, whereby initial coding established a number of categories. Thereafter, focussed coding was undertaken using a reflective practice template, centred on practice architectures elements of cultural discursive, material economic and social-political arrangements (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref72">23</reflink>]). Additionally, analysis of key experiences (Stringer [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref73">38</reflink>], 103) was also undertaken to identify circumstances which impacted the research participants and their practice. Analysis considered ways in which the research participants' language, activities and relationships demonstrated <emph>how</emph> school leadership structures influenced classroom teachers' capacity to engage families in their children's learning via social media. The resulting analysis established themes which informed observations of practice architectures within family engagement leaders' practice (presented in Table 5).</p> <p>Table 5. Practice architectures.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Cultural-Discursive expressed as semantic</td><td>Material-economic expressed as activity</td><td>Social-political expressed as solidarity</td></tr><tr><td>Leaders of family engagement</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Articulate the strengths within teachers' current work to engage families, whilst identifying opportunities to enhance practice</td><td>Strategically embed family engagement strategies into current school practice Explicitly model family engagement practices in order to build student, family and teacher capacity for family school partnerships Act as resource brokers, responding to teachers' requests for materials that support family engagement</td><td>Facilitate opportunities for critical reflection of family engagement practices as part of continuous improvement</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Coding decisions, observations and insights were recorded by Author 1. Author 2 supervised the analysis process through online and in-person meetings and communication. The research participants member checked all meeting and interview transcripts which they had participated in. Additionally, the Advisory Group participants reviewed and gave feedback on initial thematic analysis observations and the final case studies presented within this paper.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-25">Results and discussion</hd> <p>The findings of this study will be shared as three vignettes that form one case study, highlighting the unique ways in which each school experienced the Critical Participatory Action Research (CPAR) process. The first research question, <emph>how do school leaders support classroom teachers to engage families in their children's learning via social media?</emph> will be considered through this case study discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-26">Case studies</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162874010-27">Flexibuzz primary school</hd> <p>Whilst <emph>sharing the history</emph> (Step 2, Cycle 1), the school leaders articulated that their families were often unable to attend school learning events, due to employment and carer commitments. Flexibuzz therefore was chosen as a social media platform in order to share learning practices with families. School Leader, Bridget explained:</p> <p>Within our schools' diverse community families value education, they certainly have strong and high aspirations for their children, but sometimes they don't know how we teach their children. Social media is an opportunity to engage, communicate, educate and inform families in contemporary practices, so that they can continue conversations at home regarding the learning and the teaching that occurs at school.</p> <p> <emph>CPAR Experience: Posing questions to families through Flexibuzz</emph>. Throughout the research inquiry the Family Engagement in Learning Leader (FELL), Kate, and Learning and Teaching Leader, Bridget, partnered with two Prep/Foundation classroom teachers, Clare and Jane. Parent feedback gained whilst <emph>gathering the history</emph> (Step 1, Cycle 1), positively acknowledged that Flexibuzz posts were providing an insight into what children were learning at school. The leaders wondered, however, whether families could be better supported to be part of their children's learning. Whilst <emph>sharing the history</emph> (Step 2, Cycle 1), Kate and Bridget analysed the practice elements (for example the language, resources and relationships) shown within the social media post sample. The leaders observed that whilst the posts were rich recounts of student learning, they realised that assumptions were being made about what families would do with this information. Kate and Bridget's key focus in talking with Clare and Jane, was consideration of how social media posts could be adapted to shift from informing families about children's learning (parent involvement), to facilitating family conversations about learning (family engagement).</p> <p>Kate, Bridget, Clare and Jane established an action research focus (Step 3, Cycle 1) of incorporating questions, resources and conversations prompts within their Flexibuzz posts to families. In <emph>acting to transform the practice</emph> (Step 4, Cycle 1), the leaders and teachers aspired to afford families a greater role within their children's learning by contributing their own knowledge and experiences. After reviewing the second round of parent survey responses (Step 2, Cycle 2), Kate and Bridget observed that families' comments mirrored language that students were learning within the classroom. Kate and Bridget determined that seeing school language replicated within families' feedback, was an indicator that the social media posts were helping families connect with their children's school learning. Bridget explained:</p> <p>the parent data reveals that our pedagogical practice is coming back through the parents' survey feedback. Parents wrote that their children can self-manage, they can communicate and research, which is great because they're using those curriculum terms themselves.</p> <p>Parent survey responses also included examples of parents talking with their children about their school learning. Kate reported to her Advisory Group colleagues:</p> <p>When we looked at the first cycle of parent data, the parents reported, 'We know what is happening at school.' Within the second cycle of data though, parents were saying, 'We know what is happening at school and we talk about it with our children.'</p> <p>Kate and Bridget believed that parents' acknowledgement of conversations with their children, in response to social media posts, was evidence that their changed practice had encouraged family conversations.</p> <p>In order to support the participating teachers to sustain their new approach to Flexibuzz posts (Step 5: <emph>Document and Monitor</emph>), Kate developed an extensive list of conversation prompts which aligned to a broad range of curriculum concepts. This resource was subsequently shared with all teachers at Flexibuzz primary school. Additionally, Bridget embedded the practice of providing teachers with time to critically reflect on the purpose and focus of their social media posts, within curriculum planning meetings.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-28">Twitter primary school</hd> <p>Whilst <emph>sharing the history</emph> (Step 2, Cycle 1), the school leaders at Twitter Primary School explained that they are conscious that some students' families are not literate in English and therefore may not be able to read the text featured within social media posts. Leader Daisy believed that 'everyone can connect to a photo,' therefore a primary focus was placed upon the visual element of Twitter posts (for example: photos and videos). Thelma and Daisy also sought to foster a shared language of learning between students, families and teachers.</p> <p> <emph>CPAR Experience: using Twitter interactively</emph>. Thelma (Family Engagement in Learning Leader) and Daisy (Learning and Teaching Leader) partnered with the Grade 5 and 6 teachers, Arial and Dominic at Twitter Primary School. When using the practice theory framework to reflect on the social media post sample (Step 2, Cycle 1), Thelma and Daisy explained that they contemplated 'what do posts look and sound like from a family's perspective?' As Thelma and Daisy critically reflected on their data, they noticed that some posts contained teacher language which may not be accessible to families. When <emph>considering the practice</emph> (Step 3, Cycle 1), the leaders also observed that some families acknowledged Twitter posts by clicking the 'like' button, however families rarely contributed comments to posts. Daisy recognised that the lack of family voice within posts 'limits how we reflect,' thus contributing to a school-centric focus. In <emph>acting to transform the practice</emph> (Step 4), Thelma, Daisy, Arial and Dominic sought to stimulate greater online interaction between teachers and families so as to highlight connections between student's classroom learning and family and community contexts. Thelma articulated:</p> <p>[whilst] our tweets always relate to learning ... we wonder if using questions would encourage parents to respond, or share their own experiences, or talk about what they know.</p> <p>The leaders' analysis of the parent survey feedback (Steps 2 and 3, Cycle 1) further identified that families were very interested in their children's learning, but were not necessarily using Twitter. Daisy, Thelma, Arial and Dominic therefore expanded their CPAR inquiry focus to enhance the accessibility of Twitter posts for families. To <emph>transform their practice</emph> (Step 4, Cycle 1), the schools' Twitter feed was embedded into students' own computers, which were regularly taken home from school. This enabled families to view and interact with the Twitter posts, without personally needing to have a Twitter account. Arial and Dominic also developed an activity. The 'Tuesday Twitter Task,' saw families sent a Twitter post that provided questions and prompts to encourage family learning conversations.</p> <p>Thelma and Daisy observed a snowball effect of families engaging with the Tuesday Twitter Tasks; as they saw other families posting their comments, they joined in too. The leaders encouraged families' interactions by acknowledging their Twitter comments online and within face-to-face interactions. Additionally, Twitter posts were also discussed within classroom time. Students and families without their own Twitter account were able to contribute hand written comments onto a Twitter Wall classroom display.</p> <p>Whilst analysing the Twitter posts and parent feedback (Steps 2 and 3, Cycle 2), Daisy and Thelma found that many families were now writing responses to posts. Parents' comments referenced conversations that they were having with their children, at home. The leaders also observed that some of the language used by families connected to the curriculum concepts mentioned in the Tuesday Twitter Tasks. The leaders recognised such as evidence of a shared dialogue between families and school; representing a shift from parent involvement to family engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-29">Seesaw primary school</hd> <p>When <emph>sharing the history</emph> (Step 2, Cycle 1) of their social media practice, leaders from Seesaw Primary School articulated their intention to share student learning with families in real-time. As an example, Louise explained that 'when teaching something like addition, the students can be filmed whilst working, so that families actually see what mathematics learning looks like.' Previously families had received a hard-copy portfolio of student learning, which predominantly showed examples of students' completed work. The school, however wanted to share the processes of learning with families, depicting how children's learning develops over time.</p> <p> <emph>CPAR Experience: exploring the features of a quality Seesaw post</emph>. Within their initial analysis of Seesaw posts and parent feedback (Steps 2 and 3, Cycle 1), Louise (Family Engagement in Learning Leader) and Rosie (Wellbeing Leader) acknowledged that Seesaw had introduced new processes for teachers as a student-led practice. Family feedback was overwhelmingly positive, with many parents commenting that Seesaw posts provided specific insights into their child's daily learning. The interactive nature of SeeSaw posts enabled students, families and teachers to each contribute to posts, however inconsistent practices were observed to be occurring. Families reported that the frequency and overall quality of posts (for example: poor sound in video footage and unclear photos) was sometimes problematic. Rosie contextualised this issue:</p> <p>... because Seesaw's very student driven the teachers were questioning 'where do we step in? Do we let students post whatever they want?'</p> <p>Leaders, Louise and Rosie met with the Grade 3 and 4 classroom teachers in order to <emph>consider the practice</emph> (Step 3, Cycle 1). Discussion contemplated the purpose of Seesaw posts, teachers' roles in facilitating posts and the affordances and challenges involved in students developing their own posts. The teachers articulated caution in imposing specific parameters on how students developed posts. They worried that tight rules governing social media posts might diminish the students' agency in sharing their learning with their families and reduce the spontaneity of posts. The teachers recognised that the students were pivotal in planning and creating posts that depicted their learning. The teachers also acknowledged that 'every child's success will be different.' Rosie and Louise purposefully designed their CPAR inquiry to be open-ended, in order to allow the classroom teachers to explore with their students how Seesaw posts could be enhanced. Rosie and Louise regularly liaised with the teachers, in order to identify their insights and experiences throughout their trial-and-error exploration of enhancing social media posts.</p> <p>Whilst acting to <emph>transform the practice</emph> (Step 4, Cycle 1), the participating teachers established with their students their own parameters for a quality Seesaw post. Teachers and students focussed on ways to enhance the audio-visual quality of posts and children's annotation (written, spoken, photographed or filmed) of their work samples to highlight their learning. Some of the teachers reflected that students' posts which showed mistakes (for example, mathematical errors) were used as learning opportunities. As the teachers helped the students to understand how and why mistakes had been made, this subsequently provided opportunities for students to discuss their learning progression with their families. Teacher, Mary, shared an observation with her colleagues: 'I've had a few parents say "it's great to see my child understanding what went wrong, we will now practice this at home." ' Mary believed that posts which showed mistakes reflected more authentic learning than shared previously, as they helped students to share new understandings with their family. All of the teachers concurred that for a post to be deemed of quality, students must be able to explain their learning to their families.</p> <p>Whilst later s<emph>haring the history</emph> (Step 2, Cycle 2), the leaders found that the second sample of social media posts showed students more frequently writing captions to explain their learning, alongside enhanced audio-visual material and conversations prompts. When <emph>considering the practice</emph> (Step 3, Cycle 2), Louise and Rosie supported the classroom teachers' to critically reflect on their experiences and talk with each other about what they had observed. The teachers shared discoveries about practical processes for creating Seesaw posts and used curriculum planning meetings to identify and discuss Seesaw posts. The classroom teachers regularly shared their own insights:</p> <p>in the beginning of the research I thought that posts needed to have finesse, to be perfect, and then I learnt that it's better to let the children independently develop a post that they're proud of (Andrea).</p> <p>The teachers concluded that inflexible parameters for Seesaw were unworkable as they stifled some students and created impractical time and resource expectations. Within their final documentation (Step 5, Cycle 2), the leaders reported that practice change was most visible within posts which demonstrated more explicit links to children's learning which enhanced opportunities for family conversations.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-30">Leadership structures examined as practice architectures</hd> <p>Underpinning Critical Participatory Action Research's (CPAR) focus on achieving sustainable practice change is consideration of practice architectures; interconnected contextual factors that influence the ways in which practice occurs (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref74">23</reflink>]). In addressing the second research question: <emph>how do school leadership structures influence classroom teachers' capacity to engage families in their children's learning via social media?</emph>, this study observed systemic features embedded within the ways in which the participating leaders approached practice change. These features are considered within Table 5, through the practice architectures lens of cultural-discursive (meaning and comprehensibility), material economic (actions and work) and social-political (solidarity) arrangements (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref75">23</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-31">Cultural discursive arrangements</hd> <p>The school leaders collaborated with the participating teachers to identify existing practice strengths within social media posts; and to adapt posts to become more accessible and interactive for families. The school leaders identified that their use of strength-based language and appraisal of current practice, supported the teachers' practice change. Leader Kate, explained:</p> <p>We worked with the teachers to highlight what was working well. We had conversations about how we could tweak posts to improve family engagement.</p> <p>By incorporating the CPAR processes within the existing leadership structures of the Advisory Group, the leaders used every-day opportunities with teachers (for example curriculum team planning meetings) to reflect upon and enhance family engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-32">Material-economic arrangements</hd> <p>Throughout the CPAR cycles the school leaders frequently referenced a strategic intent for practice change to be incorporated into current school structures. The school leaders described this desire to embed practice change into current ways of working, as an 'add-in,' rather than if practice change became an 'add-on' of extra work. Thematic analysis of the participating leaders' sayings, doings and relatings identified a shared viewpoint that modelling family engagement practices to school staff, was a key part of their leadership role. Bridget surmised that 'the role of the school leader is obviously to promote, encourage and value family engagement.' Additionally, Kate explained:</p> <p>I think it's important to walk the talk. I really try to model using social media as much as I can so that I can say to teachers, It's manageable. Here's how I do it.</p> <p>The leaders were observed to apply the same professional rigour for family engagement as they did for implementing other aspects of school curriculum. Practice examples include the leaders designing social media posts with teachers, monitoring teachers' posts, following up on expectations for the frequency and quality of posts and responding to parent feedback. The leaders also acted as resource brokers for the teachers by sourcing needed materials (for example technology support) and scaffolding new practices. Thelma stated that 'as a leader there are times that you have got to be very explicit in supporting teachers, and through my role I'm explicitly teaching about family school partnerships.'</p> <p>The leaders' concept of capacity building extended to families and students. Kate emphasised that family engagement is 'all about reinforcing parents' capacity to have learning conversations with their children.' Accordingly, supporting teachers to engage families in their children's learning 'is just as important as their learning about maths curriculum (Kate).' Each of the leaders shared the belief that student learning will improve through teachers' implementation of effective family engagement practices. Through this sentiment, the leaders are seeking to achieve dual capacity building (Mapp and Kuttner 2013), whereby schools' efforts to make learning accessible to families, simultaneously enhances the capacity of students, families and schools to partner together in children's learning.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-33">Social political arrangement</hd> <p>The leaders organised for the classroom teachers to participate in reflective practice meetings outside of classroom teaching time, in order for critical reflection and collaboration to occur. Within these meetings, the classroom teachers could provide feedback about whether the CPAR inquiry was manageable, achievable and sustainable. The leaders acknowledged that the collaborative and relational aspects of the CPAR process developed their own family engagement practices as they 'explored practice together.'</p> <p>Critical friend Abbey, remarked that the research process quickly merged into normal ways of working because it was adopted as a reflective tool which informed the leaders practice. The CPAR experience was described by Abbey as 'practice in motion,' which integrated professional learning and teaching practice, alongside a research methodology.</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-34">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study illustrates three schools' efforts to outreach to families via social media, in order to enhance family engagement in children's learning. Through a practice lens (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref76">23</reflink>]), the participating school sites reflected on the language, activities and relationships depicted within their social media posts to families. The leaders subsequently identified that social media posts to families were primarily descriptions and images of children's classroom learning. Due to positioning learning solely within classroom contexts, these posts represented a practice of parent involvement in schooling. The leaders identified this limitation, and sought to rectify this by collaborating with classroom teachers and students to highlight learning connections across home and community contexts. At Flexibuzz and Twitter primary schools, the leaders and teachers adapted social media posts to better support families to talk with their children about learning, contributing their own parent knowledge and experiences (Pushor and Amendt [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref77">34</reflink>]). At SeeSaw primary school, the leaders and teachers focussed on enhancing the students' agency in developing posts, so that they could more effectively discuss their learning with their families. By centring students as the developers of social media posts, the school became a peripheral support for learning, rather than being depicted as a primary source of learning. Whilst utilising different approaches, each school sought to re-contextualise children's learning from being school-centric to occurring across home, community and school contexts. The schools' actions to modify social media posts, depicts their practice change from involvement in schooling, to engagement in learning (Goodall and Montgomery [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref78">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>In examining the conditions necessary to sustain such practice change, this study identified practice architectures (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref79">23</reflink>]) which supported the schools' implementation of new ways of working. The findings highlighted interconnected system features which supported the school leaders and teachers' CPAR inquiries (as shown in Table 5). Whilst the CPAR structure provided necessary resources for critical self-reflection, the findings demonstrate the pivotal role of school leaders in transmuting critical reflection into practical intervention. Accordingly, this study frames investment in developing school leaders' capacity for family engagement in children's learning as essential (Pushor and Amendt [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref80">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0162874010-35">Acknowledgments</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162874010-36">Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0162874010-37"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref9" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS). 2012. " Growing up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children." <ulink href="http://www.growingupinaustralia.gov.au/index.html">http://www.growingupinaustralia.gov.au/index.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref14" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY). 2016. Researching Parent Engagement: A Qualitative Field Study. Canberra : ARACY. https://<ulink href="http://www.aracy.org.au/publications-resources/command/download%5ffile/id/312/filename/ARACY-Researching-parent-engagement-a-qualitative-study.pdf">www.aracy.org.au/publications-resources/command/download%5ffile/id/312/filename/ARACY-Researching-parent-engagement-a-qualitative-study.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref28" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Beecher, C., and J. Buzhardt. 2016. " Mobile Technology to Increase Parent Engagement." Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal 28 (49–68). doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-783-2-21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref18" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Blau, I., and M. Hameiri. 2017. " Ubiquitous Mobile Educational Data Management by Teachers, Students and Parents: Does Technology Change School-Family Communication and Parental Involvement? " Education and Information Technologies 22 (3): 1231 – 1247. doi: 10.1007/s10639-016-9487-8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref11" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Boethel, M. 2003. Diversity: School, Family and Community Connections. Austin, TX : Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. <ulink href="http://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/diversity-synthesis.pdf">http://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/diversity-synthesis.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref22" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Borgonovi, F., and G. Montt 2012. " Parental Involvement in Selected PISA Countries." In OECD Education Working Papers. Paris : Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 10.1787/5k990rk0jsjj-en.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref4" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Daniel, G.R. 2015a. " Patterns of Involvement: A Longitudinal Analysis of Family-School Partnerships in the Early Years of Schooling in Australia." Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 40 (1): 119 – 128. doi: 10.1177/183693911504000115.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref5" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Daniel, G.R. 2015b. " Parents' Experiences of Teacher Outreach in the Early Years of Schooling." Asia Pacific Journal of Education 39 (2): 165 – 176. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2015.1005051.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref46" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Edwards-Groves, C., and P. Grootenboer. 2015. " Praxis and the Theory of Practice Architectures: Resources for Re-Envisioning English Education"." Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 38 (3): 150 – 161.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Exley, B.E., L.-D. Willis, and M. McCosker. 2017. " Children as Advocates: The Potential of Using Social Media in the Early and Primary Years." Practical Literacy: The Early and Primary Years 22 (2): 9 – 12. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/107926/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fan, W., N. Li, and J.R. Sandoval. 2018. " A Reformulated Model of Barriers to Parental Involvement in Education: Comment on Hornby and Lafaele." 2011 Educational Review 70 (1): 120 – 127. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2018.1388614.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fan, X., and M. Chen. 2001. " Parental Involvement and Students' Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis." Educational Psychology Review 13 (1): 1 – 22. doi: 10.1023/A:1009048817385.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodall, J. 2018. " Parental Engagement in Children's Learning: Moving on from Mass Superstition." Creative Education 9 (11): 1611 – 1621. doi: 10.4236/ce.2018.911116.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodall, J., and C. Montgomery. 2014. " Parental Involvement to Parental Engagement: A Continuum." Educational Review 66 (4): 399 – 410. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2013.781576.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodall, J.S. 2016. " Technology and School-Home Communication." International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 11 (2): 118 – 131. doi: 10.1080/22040552.2016.1227252.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grant, L. 2011. " 'I'm a Completely Different Person at Home:' Using Digital Technologies to Connect Learning between Home and School." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27 (4): 292 – 302. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00433.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenhalgh-Spencer, H. 2018. " Social Media, Digital Technology, and Education: Personalized Learning and Questions of Autonomy, Authority and Public/Community." In International Handbook of Philosophy of Education, edited by P. Smeyers, 1307 – 1320. Singapore : Springer e-books. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-72761-5_90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holian, R., and D. Coghlan. 2013. " Ethical Issues and Role Duality in Insider Action Research: Challenges for Action Research Degree Programmes." Systemic Practice and Action Research 26 (5): 399 – 415. doi: 10.1007/s11213-012-9256-6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hollingsworth, S., A. Mansaray, K. Allen, and A. Rose. 2011. " Parents' Perspectives on Technology and Children's Learning in the Home: Social Class and the Role of the Habitus." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 23 : 347 – 360. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00431.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hutchinson, K., L. Paatsch, and A. Cloonan. 2020. " Reshaping Home-School Connections in the Digital Age: Challenges for Teachers and Parents." E-Learning and Digital Media 17 (2): 167 – 182. doi: 10.1177/2042753019899527.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jeynes, W.H. 2007. " The Relationship between Parental Involvement and Urban Secondary School Student Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis." Urban Education 42 (1): 82 – 110. doi: 10.1177/0042085906293818.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kemmis, S., and P. Grootenbooer. 2008. " Situating Praxis in Practice: Practice Architectures and the Cultural, Social and Material Conditions for Practice. Chap. 3." In S. Kemmis & T. Smith (eds.), Enabling Praxis: Challenges for Education, 37 – 62. Rotterdam : Sense Publishers. doi: 10.1163/9789087903275_004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kemmis, S., R. McTaggart, and R. Nixon. 2014. The Action Research Planner: Doing Critical Participatory Action Research. Singapore : Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2_1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kimmons, R., and O. Belikov. 2018. " Cultural and Social Issues in Using Social Media to Supporting Learning." In Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, edited by R. Christensen, G. Knezek, K. Lai, and J. Voogt, 181 – 197. Singapore : Springer e-books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraft, M.A., and S.M. Doughtery. 2013. " The Effect of Teacher-Family Communication on Student Engagement: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment." Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 6 (3): 199 – 222. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2012.743636.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraft, M.A., and T. Rogers. 2015. " The Underutilized Potential of Teacher-to-Parent Communication: Evidence from a Field Experiment." Economics of Education Review 47 (August): 49 – 63. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.04.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewin, C., and R. Luckin. 2010. " Technology to Support Parental Engagement in Elementary Education: Lessons Learned from the UK." Computers & Education 54 (3): 749 – 758. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mapp, K.L., and S. Hong. 2010. " Debunking the Myth of the Hard-to-Reach Parent." In Handbook of School-Family Partnerships, edited by S.L. Christenson and A.L. Reschly, 345 – 361. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mercer, J. 2007. " The Challenges of Insider Research in Educational Institutions: Wielding a Double-edged Sword and Resolving Delicate Dilemmas." Oxford Review of Education 33 (1): 1 – 17. doi: 10.1080/03054980601094651.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nolen, A., and J. Vander Putten. 2007. " Action Research in Education: Addressing Gaps in Ethical Principles and Practices." Educational Researcher 36 (7): 401 – 407. doi: 10.3102/0013189X07309629.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olmstead, C. 2013. " Using Technology to Increase Parent Involvement in Schools." Tech Trends 57 (6): 28 – 37. doi: 10.1007/s11528-013-0699-0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patrikakou, E.N., and R.P. Weissberg. 2000. " Parents' Perceptions of Teacher Outreach and Parent Involvement in Children's Education." Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community 20 (1–2): 103 – 119. doi: 10.1300/J005v20n01_08.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pomerantz, E., E. Moorman, and S. Litwack. 2007. " The How, Whom, and Why of Parents' Involvement in Children's Academic Lives: More Is Not Always Better." Review of Educational Research AERA 77 (3): 373 – 410. doi: 10.3102/003465430305567.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pushor, D., and T. Amendt. 2018. " Leading an Examination of Beliefs and Assumptions about Parents." School Leadership and Management 38 (2): 202 – 221. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2018.1439466.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salamon, A., and L. Harrison. 2015. " Early Childhood Educators' Conceptions of Infants' Capabilities: The Nexus between Beliefs and Practice." Early Years 35 (3): 273 – 288. doi: 10.1080/09575146.2015.1042961.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> SeeSaw Learning, Inc. 2019. " What Is SeeSaw? " https://help.seesaw.me/hc/en-us/articles/115003713306-What-is-Seesaw-</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheridan, S.M., T.E. Smith, E. Moorman Kim, S.N. Beretvas, and S. Park. 2019. " A Meta-Analysis of Family-School Interventions and Children's Social-Emotional Functioning: Moderators and Components of Efficacy." Review of Educational Research 89 (2): 296 – 332. doi: 10.3102/0034654318825437.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stringer, E.T. 2007. Action Research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles : Sage Publications. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy-f.deakin.edu.au/lib/deakin/detail.action?docID=3032281.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker, S., and D. Berthelsen. 2010. " Social Inequalities and Parent Involvement in Children's Education in the Early Years of School." In Delving into Diversity an International Exploration of Issues of Diversity in Education, edited by V. Green and S. Cherrington, 139 – 149. Hauppage, NY : Nova Science Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wei, J., E.M. Pomerantz, F. Ng, Y. Yu, M. Wang, and Q. Wang. 2019. " Why Does Parents' Involvement in Youth's Learning Vary across Elementary, Middle, and High School? " Contemporary Educational Psychology 56 : 262 – 274. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.12.007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiss, H.B., M.E. Lopez, and H. Rosenberg 2010. " Beyond Random Acts: Family, School, and Community Engagement as an Integral Part of Education Reform." National Policy Forum for Family, School, and Community Engagement: Harvard Family Research Project.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willis, L.D., and B. Exley. 2018. " Using an Online Social Media Space to Engage Parents in Student Learning in the Early-Years: Enablers and Impediments." Digital Education Review 33 : 87 – 104. doi: 10.1344/der.2018.33.87-104.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Gillian Baxter and Dianne Toe</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref69"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1386681
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: 'Parents Don't Need to Come to School to Be Engaged:' Teachers Use of Social Media for Family Engagement
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Baxter%2C+Gillian%22">Baxter, Gillian</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9300-0610">0000-0002-9300-0610</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Toe%2C+Dianne%22">Toe, Dianne</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Action+Research%22"><i>Educational Action Research</i></searchLink>. 2023 31(2):306-328.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 23
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Involvement%22">Family Involvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Media%22">Social Media</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Action+Research%22">Action Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Participation%22">Parent Participation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Critical+Theory%22">Critical Theory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Principals%22">Principals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Administrator+Relationship%22">Teacher Administrator Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Participatory+Research%22">Participatory Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Catholic+Schools%22">Catholic Schools</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/09650792.2021.1930087
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0965-0792<br />1747-5074
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This paper presents a small-scale Critical Participatory Action Research (CPAR) study, investigating school leaders' efforts to enhance families' engagement in their children's learning, through classroom teachers' use of social media. The study occurred within three Australian primary schools, situated within a culturally and linguistically diverse community. Throughout two action research cycles the participating school leaders and classroom teachers critically reflected on family survey data and a sample of social media posts depicting student learning, so as to identify opportunities for enhanced family engagement. A practice lens was used to examine the sayings (words and language), doings (activities and resources) and relatings (relationships and power dynamics) featured within social media posts, to facilitate the participating leaders' critical self-reflection of current practice. Data were collected through surveys, semi-structured interviews, transcripts of reflective practice meetings and reflective practice tools utilised throughout the CPAR process. Analysis of practice architectures identified systemic features utilised by school leaders to support classroom teachers' practice change. Furthermore, this study highlights the significant role that school leaders have in facilitating classroom teachers' use of social media for family engagement.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1386681
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1386681
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/09650792.2021.1930087
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
        StartPage: 306
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Family Involvement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Media
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Action Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Participation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Critical Theory
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Principals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Administrator Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Participatory Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Catholic Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: 'Parents Don't Need to Come to School to Be Engaged:' Teachers Use of Social Media for Family Engagement
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Baxter, Gillian
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Toe, Dianne
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0965-0792
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1747-5074
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 31
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Action Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1